CLJ Criminal Law Book1 Atty JMF

CRIMINAL LAW BOOK 1
•ATTY. JAY M. FERRARO

CRIMINAL LAW
•IS THAT BRANCH OF PUBLIC LAW

WHICH DEFINES CRIMES, TREATS OF
THEIR NATURE AND PROVIDES FOR
THEIR PUNISHMENT.
THEORIES IN CRIMINAL LAW
•1. CLASSICAL OR JURISTIC THEORY

•2. POSITIVIST OR REALISTIC THEORY
•3. ECLECTIC OR MIXED THEORY
•4. UTILITARIAN OR PROTECTIVE THEORY
CLASSICAL OR JURISTIC THEORY
• THE BASIS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY IS HUMAN FREE WILL AND THE
PURPOSE OF THE PENALTY IS RETRIBUTION.
• MAN IS ESSENTIALLY A MORAL CREATURE WITH AN ABSOLUTE FREE
WILL TO CHOOSE BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL THEREBY PLACING MORE
STRESS UPON THE EFFECT OR RESULT OF THE FELONIOUS ACT THAN
UPON THE MAN, THE CRIMINAL HIMSELF.
• IT HAS BEEN ENDEAVORED TO ESTABLISH A MECHANICAL AND DIRECT
PROPORTION BETWEEN CRIME AND PENALTY.
• THERE IS SCANT REGARD TO THE HUMAN ELEMENT
POSITIVIST OR REALISTIC THEORY
• MANIS SUBDUED OCCASSIONALLY BY A STRANGE AND
MORBID PHENOMENON WHICH CONSTRAINS HIM TO DO
WRONG, IN SPITE OF OR CONTRARY TO HIS VOLITION
• THECRIME IS ESSENTIALLY A SOCIAL AND NATURAL
PHENOMENON AND AS SUCH, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AND
CHECKED BY APPLYING LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE NOR BY
IMPOSITION OF A PUNISHMENT, FIXED AND DETERMINED A
PRIORI
• THE PURPOSE OF PENALTY IS REFORMATION
ECLECTIC OR MIXED THEORY
•A COMBINATION OF BOTH THE CLASSICAL POSITIVE

THEORIES. RPC IS CONSIDERED ECLECTIC I.E. THE AGE OF
THE OFFENDER IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND
INTOXICATION OF THE OFFENDER IS CONSIDERED A
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE UNLESS IT IS HABITUAL OR
INTENTIONAL
UTILITARIAN OR PROTECTIVE THEORY
•THE PRIMARY FUNCTION OF PUNISHMENT IS
TO PROTECT SOCIETY FROM POTENTIAL AND
ACTUAL WRONGDOERS. THE RETRIBUTIVE
ASPECT OF PENAL LAWS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED AGAINST THEM.
CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL
LAW
•GENERAL
•TERRITORIAL
•PROSPECTIVE
CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL
LAW
• GENERAL- CRIMINAL LAW IS BINDING ON ALL PERSONS WHO LIVE OR
SOJOURN IN THE PHILIPPINES, REGARDLESS OF AGE, SEX OR
NATIONALITY.
• TERRITORIAL- CRIMINAL LAWS ARE APPLICABLE ONLY IF THE CRIME IS
COMMITTED WITHIN PHILIPPINE TERRITORY.
• PROSPECTIVE- CRIMINAL LAW CANNOT MAKE AN ACT PUNISHABLE IN
A MANNER IN WHICH IT WAS NOT PUNISHABLE WHEN COMMITTED.
SEE ART 366. (THE LAW LOOKS FORWARD AND NOT BACKWARDS)
GENERAL
• PENALLAWS AND THOSE OF PUBLIC SECURITY AND
SAFETY SHALL BE OBLIGATORY UPON ALL WHO LIVE AND
SOJOURN IN THE PHILIPPINE TERRITORY, SUBJECT TO THE
PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW AND TO
TREATY STIPULATIONS
EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
1. AS PROVIDED BY TREATY STIPULATIONS

A. THE BASE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY AND BETWEEN
THE RP AND USA ON MARCH 14, 1947, WHICH EXPIRED ON
SEPTEMBER 16, 1991
B. THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE USA AND THE RP
REGARDING THE TREATMENT OF US ARMED FORCES
VISITING THE PHILIPPINES (RP-US VISITING FORCES
ACCORD)
2. AS PROVIDED BY LAWS OF PREFERENTIAL APPLICATIONS- RA
75
GRANTS PROTECTION TO DIPLOMATIC
REPRESENTATIVES, AMBASSADOR OR OTHER
PUBLIC MINISTERS OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND
ITS INHABITANTS OF THE IMMUNITINCLUDING
THEIR DOMESTIC SERVANTS AUTHORIZED AND
RECEIVED BY THE PRESIDENT. THUS, IT PENALIZES
ACTS WHICH WOULD IMPAIR THE PROPER
OBSERVANCE BY THE REPUBLIC IES, RIGHTS, AND
PRIVILEGES OF DULY-ACCREDITED FOREIGN
DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES IN THE
PHILIPPINES.
WHAT RA 75 PROHIBITS?
• SEC. 4. ANY WRIT OR PROCESS ISSUED OUT OR PROSECUTED BY ANY PERSON
IN ANY COURT OF THE RP, OR BY ANY JUDGE OR JUSTICE, WHEREBY THE
PERSON OF ANY AMBASSADOR OR PUBLIC MINISTER OF ANY FOREIGN STATE,
AUTHORIZED AND RECEIVED AS SUCH BY THE PRESIDENT, OR ANY DOMESTIC
SERVANT OF ANY SUCH AMBASSADOR OR MINISTER IS ARRESTED OR
IMPRISONED, OR HIS GOODS OR CHATTELS ARE DISTRAINED, SEIZED, OR
ATTACHED, SHALL BE DEEMED VOID, AND EVERY PERSON BY WHOM THE SAME
IS OBTAINED OR PROSECUTED, WHETHER AS PARTY OR AS ATTORNEY, AND
EVERY OFFICER CONCERNED IN EXECUTING IT, SHALL UPON CONVICTION, BE
PUNISHED BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN THREE YEARS AND A FINE
OF NOT EXCEEDING 200 PESOS IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT.
LAWS WHICH EXEMPT CERTAIN
INDIVIDUALS FROM CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION - EX. PRIVILEGE SPEECH
AND DEBATE
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ARE IMMUNE
FROM BEING PROSECUTED FOR SLANDER
FOR EVERY STATEMENT, SPEECH OR
DEBATE THEY MAKE INSIDE THE HALLS OF
CONGRESS WHILE IN REGULAR OR
SPECIAL SESSION
•3. PERSONS WHO ARE EXEMPT BECAUSE OF
CERTAIN PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL
LAWS:
•SOVEREIGNS AND OTHER HEADS OF STATES
•AMBASSADORS, MINISTER
PLENIPOTENTIARIES, MINISTER RESIDENTS
AND CHARGES D’ AFFAIRES.
GENERAL RULE
•DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES, SUCH AS
AMBASSADORS OR PUBLIC MINISTERS AND THEIR
OFFICIAL RETINUE, POSSESS IMMUNITY FROM THE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF THE COUNTRY OF
THEIR SOJOURN AND CANNOT BE SUED, ARRESTED,
OR PUBLISHED BY THE LAW OF THAT COUNTRY
BASIS FOR GRANTING
IMMUNITY FOR DIPLOMATIC HEADS
•PAR IN PAREM, NON HABET IMPERIUM

•THAT ALL STATES ARE SOVEREIGN
EQUALS AND CANNOT ASSERT
JURISDICTION OVER ONE ANOTHER
DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY FROM SUIT
•UNDER THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW, SOVEREIGNS, HEADS OF
STATES AND OTHER DIPLOMATIC
REPRESENTATIVES ARE IMMUNE FROM THE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF THE COUNTRY
WHERE THEY RESIDE, SOJOURN OR ARE ASSIGNED
EXCEPTION
• Consuls, vice consuls and consular
officials– do not enjoy the immunity
from criminal prosecution under
Philippine laws because they merely
represent their State's commercial,
mercantile or business interest.
EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION
• WHEN THERE IS A TREATY
STIPULATION BETWEEN THE
MOTHER COUNTRY OF THE
CONSUL AND THE HOST COUNTRY
TO GIVE IMMUNITY ON CONSULS
EXTERRITORIALITY
•A TERM OF INTERNATIONAL LAW WHICH
SIGNIFIES THE IMMUNITY OF CERTAIN
PERSONS WHO, ALTHOUGH IN THE STATE,
ARE NOT AMENABLE TO ITS LAWS. (E.G.
AMBASSADORS, MINISTERS
PLENIPOTENTIARY ETC.)
TERRITORIAL
•CRIMINAL LAWS UNDERTAKE TO PUNISH CRIMES
COMMITTED WITHIN THE PHILIPPINE TERRITORY
GENERAL RULE: PENAL LAWS OF THE PHILIPPINES

HAVE FORCE AND EFFECT ONLY WITHIN ITS
TERRITORY
INTRATERRITORIALITY
RPC IS MADE APPLICABLE

WITHIN THE PHILIPPINE
TERRITORY
EXTRATERRITORIALITY
•THE APPLICATION OF THE RPC

OUTSIDE THE PHILIPPINE
TERRITORY
EXCEPTIONS TO THE TERRITORIAL
CHARACTERISTICS
1. ARTICLE 2, RPC
ARTICLE 2, RPC
1. WHEN THE OFFENDER SHALL COMMIT AN OFFENSE ON A PHILIPPINE
SHIP OR AIRSHIP.
2. WHEN THE OFFENDER SHOULD FORGE OR COUNTERFEIT ANY COIN OR
CURRENCY NOTE OF THE PHILIPPINES OR OBLIGATIONS AND
SECURITIES ISSUED BY THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT.
3. WHEN THE OFFENDER SHOULD BE LIABLE FOR THE ACTS CONNECTED
WITH THE INTRODUCTION INTO THE PHILIPPINES OF THE
OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES MENTIONED IN NUMBER TWO.
4. WHEN THE OFFENDER WHO IS A PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE
ABROAD SHALL COMMIT AN OFFENSE IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS
FUNCTIONS.
5. WHEN THE OFFENDER SHOULD COMMIT AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE
NATIONAL SECURITIES AND THE LAWS OF NATIONS.
REQUISITES;
PAR. 1, ARTICLE 2, RPC
A. THE CRIME MUST BE COMMITTED ON BOARD A PRIVATE
OR MERCHANT SHIP;
B. THE SHIP OR AIRSHIP MUST BE REGISTERED IN THE
PHILIPPINES UNDER PHILIPPINE LAWS; AND
C. THE CRIME MUST BE COMMITTED WHILE THE REGISTERED
PHILIPPINE SHIP OR AIRSHIP IS ON INTERNATIONAL WATERS
PHILIPPINE VESSEL OR AIRCRAFT
•ONE WHICH IS REGISTERED WITH THE

MARITIME INDUSTRY AUTHORITY (MARINA) OR
WITH THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD (CAB) IN
ACCORDANCE WITH PHILIPPINE LAWS
RULES ON CRIMES COMMITTED ABOARD FOREIGN
MERCHANT VESSEL WHILE WITHIN PHILIPPINE
WATERS
• ENGLISH RULE- THE CRIME IS PUNISHABLE IN THE
PHILIPPINES, UNLESS THE CRIME MERELY AFFECTS THINGS
WITHIN THE VESSEL.
• FRENCH RULE- THE CRIME IS NOT TRIABLE IN THE COURTS
OF THAT COUNTRY (PHILIPPINES), UNLESS THEIR
COMMISSION UNLESS THEIR COMMISSION HAS EFFECTS
ON THE SAFETY OF THE COASTAL STATE.
PHILIPPINE EMBASSIES ABROAD
THE REVISED PENAL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

WILL APPLY IF THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED
WITHIN PHILIPPINE EMBASSIES ABROAD.
THIS IS SO BECAUSE THEY ARE CONSIDERED
EXTENSIONS OF PHILIPPINE TERRITORY.
FOREIGN WARSHIPS
•WARSHIPS ARE ALWAYS REPUTED TO BE THE
TERRITORY OF THE COUNTRY TO WHICH
THEY BELONG AND CANNOT BE SUBJECTED
TO THE LAWS OF ANOTHER STATE. THUS,
THEIR RESPECTIVE NATIONAL LAWS SHALL
APPLY TO SUCH VESSELS WHEREVER THEY
MAY BE FOUND.
• FORGERY IS COMMITTED BY GIVING TO A TREASURY OR
BANK NOTE OR ANY INSTRUMENT PAYABLE TO A BEARER
OR TO ORDER THE APPEARANCE OF A TRUE GENUINE
DOCUMENT OR BY ERASING, SUBSTITUTING,
COUNTERFEITING OR ALTERING BY ANY MEANS, THE
FIGURES, LETTERS, WORDS OR SIGNS CONTAINED
THEREIN.
•IF FORGERY WAS PERPETRATED
ABROAD, THE OBJECT OF THE CRIME
MUST BE A COIN, CURRENCY NOTE OR
OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES
ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
PHILIPPINES
•THOSE WHO INTRODUCED OR BROUGHT THE
COUNTERFEIT ITEMS IN THE PH ARE
CRIMINALLY LIABLE EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT
THE ONES WHO COUNTERFEITED THE SAME
BECAUSE INTRODUCTION AND
COUNTERFEITING ARE SEPARATELY
ENUMERATED UNDER ART. 2
•E.G. DIRECT BRIBERY, INDIRECT

BRIBERY, MALVERSATION OF
PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY ETC.)
•CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL

SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS
• NOTE: TERRORISM AS DEFINED BY R.A. NO. 9372
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF
2007, IS NOW A CRIME AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND
THE LAW OF NATIONS
• RA 9372 HAS EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION
• REPEALED BY R.A. 11479 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS “THE
ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 2020”
PROSPECTIVE
•ALSO KNOWN AS PROSPECTIVITY
•ALSO KNOWN AS IRRETROSPECTIVITY.
•IT MEANS THE LAW (AS A GENERAL RULE)
DOES NOT HAVE RETROACTIVE EFFECT.
LEX PROSPICIT NON RESPICIT
GENERAL RULE
•CRIMINAL LAW CANNOT PENALIZE AN ACT THAT
WAS NOT PUNISHABLE AT THE TIME OF ITS
COMMISSION
•AS PROVIDED UNDER ART. 366, RPC, CRIMES ARE
PUNISHABLE UNDER THE LAWS IN FORCE AT THE
TIME OF THEIR COMMISSION
EXCEPTION
FAVORABILIA SUNT
AMPLIANDA ADIOSA
RESTRIGENDA
PENAL LAWS FAVORABLE TO THE ACCUSED ARE GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT

CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS
• PENAL LAWS ARE STRICTLY CONSTRUED AGAINST THE

STATE AND LIBERALLY IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED
• IF THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE SPANISH TEXT AND
THE ENGLISH TEXT, THE SPANISH TEXT PREVAILS
REASON: BECAUSE IT WAS APPROVED BY THE
PHILIPPINE LEGISLATURE IN ITS SPANISH TEXT
EXCEPTION TO THE PROSPECTIVE CHARACTERISTICS:
WHEN THE NEW LAW IS FAVORABLE TO THE ACCUSED.
EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION
•WHEN THE OFFENDER IS A HABITUAL
CRIMINAL.
•WHEN THE NEW LAW EXPRESSLY PROVIDES IT
HAS NO APPLICATION OR RETROACTIVE EFFECT
TO PENDING ACTIONS/CASES.
PRO REO DOCTRINE
•WHENEVER A PENAL LAW IS TO BE CONSTRUED

OR APPLIED AND THE LAW ADMITS OF TWO
INTERPRETATIONS - ONE LENIENT TO THE
OFFENDER AND ONE STRICT TO THE OFFENDER -
THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH IS LENIENT OR
FAVORABLE TO THE OFFENDER WILL BE ADOPTED
BASIS
•THE FUNDAMENTAL RULE THAT ALL

DOUBTS SHALL BE CONSTRUED IN FAVOR
OF THE ACCUSED AND PRESUMPTION OF
INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED
LEGAL MAXIMS
• NULLUM CRIMEN NULLA POENA SINE LEGE - THERE IS NO

CRIME WHEN THERE IS NO LAW PUNISHING IT
• ACTUS NON FACIT REUM, NISI MENS SIT REA - THE ACT
CANNOT BE CRIMINAL UNLESS THE MIND IS CRIMINAL
• ACTUS ME INVITO FACTUS NON EST MEUS ACTUS - AN ACT
DONE BY ME AGAINST MY WILL IS NOT MY ACT
•EL QUE ES CAUSA DELA CAUSA ES CAUSA
DEL MAL CAUSADO - HE WHO IS THE
CAUSE OF THE CAUSE IS THE CAUSE OF
THE EVIL CAUSED
•IN DUBIO, PRO REO - WHEN IN DOUBT,
FOR THE ACCUSED
LIMITATIONS ON THE POWERS OF CONGRESS TO
MAKE LAWS
• NO EX POST FACTO LAW SHALL BE ENACTED.- EX
POST FACTO LAW IS A LAW THAT MAKES CRIMINAL
AN ACT DONE BEFORE THE PASSAGE OF THE LAW
AND WHICH WAS INNOCENT WHEN DONE, AND
PUNISHES SUCH AN ACT; IT MAY ALSO BE DEFINED
AS A LAW WHICH AGGRAVATES A CRIME, OR MAKES
IT GREATER THAN IT WAS, WHEN COMMITTED.
• NO BILL OF ATTAINDER SHALL BE PASSED. – A BILL
OF ATTAINDER IS A LAW WHICH INFLICTS
PUNISHMENT WITHOUT TRIAL.
•NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE,
LIBERTY OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW- THE LAW MUST BE FAIR
AND REASONABLE AND THE ACCUSED MUST
BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD
AND BE ACCORDED THE RIGHTS TO WHICH
HE IS ENTITLED.
•EXCESSIVE FINES SHALL NOT BE IMPOSED
NOR CRUEL OR UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT.
WARNING: DATE OF EFFECTIVITY IS DIFFERENT
FROM DATE OF APPROVAL
•ARTICLE 1. TIME WHEN ACT TAKES EFFECT-
JANUARY 1, 1932.
•ARTICLE 367. RPC APPROVED ON
DECEMBER 8, 1930.
FELONY
ART. 3. DEFINITIONS. — ACTS AND OMISSIONS PUNISHABLE
BY LAW ARE FELONIES (DELITOS).
FELONIES ARE COMMITTED NOT ONLY BY MEANS OF DECEIT
(DOLO) BUT ALSO BY MEANS OF FAULT (CULPA).
THERE IS DECEIT WHEN THE ACT IS PERFORMED WITH
DELIBERATE INTENT AND THERE IS FAULT WHEN THE
WRONGFUL ACT RESULTS FROM IMPRUDENCE,
NEGLIGENCE, LACK OF FORESIGHT, OR LACK OF SKILL.
ELEMENTS OF FELONIES IN GENERAL:
•AN ACT OR OMISSION
•ACT OR OMISSION PUNISHABLE BY THE
RPC
•ACT IS PERFORMED OR OMISSION IS
INCURRED BY MEANS OF DOLO OR CULPA.
•ACT- IS ANY BODILY MOVEMENT
TENDING TO PRODUCE SOME EFFECTS IN
THE EXTERNAL WORLD.
•OMISSION- INACTION, THE FAILURE TO
PERFORM AN ACT ONE IS BOUND TO DO.
REQUISITES OF DOLO OR MALICE
(INTENTIONAL FELONIES)
•FREEDOM OF ACTION
•INTELLIGENCE
•INTENT
REQUISITES OF FAULT OR CULPA (CULPABLE FELONIES)
•FREEDOM OF ACTION
•INTELLIGENCE
•IMPRUDENCE NEGLIGENCE, LACK OF FORESIGHT
OR LACK OF SKILL
CRIMINAL INTENT
• INTENT IS THE USE OF A PARTICULAR MEANS TO ACHIEVE A
DESIRED RESULT.
• SINCE INTENT IS A STATE OF MIND, HOW CAN IT BE
DETERMINED? – BY THE MEANS EMPLOYED OR IN THE MERE
ACT OF THE PERSON IN COMMITTING THE CRIME
• EXAMPLE: USE OF A LETHAL WEAPON ALTHOUGH DEATH DID
NOT ARISE
MOTIVE
•THE MOVING POWER WHICH IMPELS

ONE TO ACTION FOR A DEFINITE
RESULT
ILLUSTRATION
•A, WHO IS JEALOUS OF B SHOT THE

LATTER AS A RESULT OF WHICH B DIED.
THE INTENT IS TO KILL; THE MOTIVE IS
JEALOUSY.
MOTIVE: WHEN RELEVANT?
• A. IF THE EVIDENCE IS MERELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL;
• B. WHERE THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE ACCUSED
PROCEEDS FROM AN UNRELIABLE SOURCE AND THE
TESTIMONY IS INCONCLUSIVE AND NOT FREE FROM
DOUBT;
• C. IN ASCERTAINING THE TRUTH BETWEEN 2
ANTAGONISTIC THEORIES OR VERSIONS OF THE KILLING;
• D. WHERE THERE IS NO EYEWITNESS TO THE CRIME, AND
WHERE SUSPICION IS LIKELY TO FALL UPON A NUMBER OF
PERSONS;
• E. WHEN THERE IS DOUBT AS TO THE IDENTITY OF THE
ASSAILANT; AND
• F.WHEN THE ACT IS ALLEGED TO BE COMMITTED IN
DEFENSE OF A STRANGER BUT IT MUST NOT BE INDUCED
BY REVENGE, RESENTMENT OR OTHER EVIL MOTIVE.
IGNORANTIA LEGIS NON EXCUSAT
•IGNORANTIA LEGIS NON EXCUSAT-
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW EXCUSES NO ONE FROM

COMPLIANCE THEREWITH
IGNORANTIA FACTI EXCUSAT
• IGNORANCE OF FACTS EXCUSES
• IGNORANTIA FACTI EXCUSAT IS A LATIN LEGAL MAXIM
THAT MEANS IGNORANCE OF A FACT IS AN EXCUSE. ANY
ACT DONE UNDER A MISTAKEN IMPRESSION OF A
MATERIAL FACT IS EXCUSED (US.LEGAL.COM)
ACTUS ME INVITO FACTUS NON EST
MEUS ACTUS
AN ACT DONE BY ME AGAINST

MY WILL IS NOT MY ACT.
CRIMES MALA IN SE VS. CRIMES
MALA PROHIBITA
CRIMES MALA IN SE CRIMES MALA
PROHIBITA
1. Those which are so 1. These are violations

serious in effects to the of mere rules of
so society so as to call convenience designed
for their unanimous to secure a more orderly
condemnation. affairs of the society.
PROHIBITA
2. Wrongful in nature. 2. Made wrongful only

Since the beginning of by statute.
time
NOTE:LAWS THAT MERELY AMEND THE PROVISIONS OF THE RPC, SUCH
AS P.D. NO. 533 (ANTI-CATTLE RUSTLING LAW OF 1974) WHICH
AMENDED ARTS. 308, 309 AND 310, DO NOT CONVERT THEIR
VIOLATIONS INTO MALA PROHIBITA
PROHIBITA
3. Generally punished 3. Punished by special

by Revised Penal Code. penal laws.
4. Intent is necessary 4. Intent may not be

necessary.
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
ART. 4. CRIMINAL LIABILITY. — CRIMINAL LIABILITY SHALL
BE INCURRED:
1. BY ANY PERSON COMMITTING A FELONY (DELITO)
ALTHOUGH THE WRONGFUL ACT DONE BE DIFFERENT FROM
THAT WHICH HE INTENDED.
2. BY ANY PERSON PERFORMING AN ACT WHICH WOULD BE
AN OFFENSE AGAINST PERSONS OR PROPERTY, WERE IT
NOT FOR THE INHERENT IMPOSSIBILITY OF ITS
ACCOMPLISHMENT OR AN ACCOUNT OF THE EMPLOYMENT
OF INADEQUATE OR INEFFECTUAL MEANS.
ARTICLE 4 (1) MAY REFER TO EITHER:
•ERROR IN PERSONAE- MISTAKE IN IDENTITY
OF VICTIM.
•ABERRATIO ICTUS- MISTAKE IN BLOW.
•PRAETER INTENTIONEM- RESULT DONE IS
GREATER THAN THAT ORIGINALLY INTENDED.
ERROR IN PERSONAE
•THE PENALTY IS THAT PROVIDED

FOR IN ART. 49, RPC, THAT IS, THE
PENALTY THE LESSER CRIME IN ITS
MAXIMUM PERIOD.
ILLUSTRATION:
• A INTENDED TO KILL B. ONE NIGHT, A SHOUTED AT THE
PERSON WHOM HE THOUGHT TO BE B. AN ALTERCATION
ENSUED. IN THE PROCESS, A FIRED HIS GUN AT THE
PERSON WHO DIED AS A CONSEQUENCE. IT TURNED OUT
THAT THE PERSON WHOM HE SHOT AND KILLED WAS NOT
B BUT HIS OWN FATHER. WHAT CRIME IS COMMITTED BY
A?
• IN THIS CASE, A IS LIABLE FOR PARRICIDE, THE CRIME
WHICH WAS ACTUALLY COMMITTED. WHEN HE FIRED HIS
GUN, HE ACTED WITH INTENT. HE IS LIABLE FOR ALL THE
DIRECT, LOGICAL AND NATURAL CONSEQUENCES OF HIS
FELONIOUS ACT, WHETHER FORESEEN, INTENDED, OR
UNINTENDED. THE FACT THAT THE VICTIM IS DIFFERENT
FROM THE ONE A INTENDED TO KILL DOES NOT EXCULPATE
HIM FROM CRIMINAL LIABLITY
•APPLYING ART. 49, RPC, THE PENALTY IMPOSABLE IS
NOT THE PENALTY FOR PARRICIDE WHICH WAS THE
ONE COMMITTED, BUT THE PENALTY OF HOMICIDE
WHICH IS THE CRIME INTENDED TO BE COMMITTED,
THE PENALTY BEING LESSER THAN THE PENALTY FOR
PARRICIDE WHICH WAS ACTUALLY COMMITTED.
BUT THE PENALTY FOR HOMICIDE WHICH IS
RECLUSION TEMPORAL SHALL BE IMPOSED IN ITS
MAXIMUM PERIOD
ABERRATIO ICTUS
•THE PENALTY FOR GRAVER

OFFENSE IN ITS MAXIMUM
PERIOD PURSUANT TO ART. 48,
RPC
•A INTENDED TO SHOOT B BUT BECAUSE
OF LACK OF PRECISION, IT WAS C, A
BYSTANDER, WHO WAS HIT, CAUSING
HIS DEATH. IN THIS CASE, THERE IS A
COMPLEX CRIME OF ATTEMPTED
MURDER AND HOMICIDE
•IF C DID NOT DIE BUT SUSTAINED INJURIES, THERE
IS STILL A COMPLEX CRIME OF ATTEMPTED MURDER
AND SERIOUS OR LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL
INJURIES; HOWEVER, THERE CAN BE NO COMPLEX
CRIME IF C SUSTAINED SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES
AS THE SAME IS ONLY A LIGHT FELONY.
•NOTE: THERE IS INTENT TO KILL INSOFAR AS THE
CASE OF C IS CONCERNED.
PRAETER INTENTIONEM
•MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
ILLUSTRATION
•A BOXED B WITH THE INTENTION OF INFLICTING A

LUMP ON B. AS A RESULT OF THE BLOW, B LOST HIS
BALANCE AND FELL TO THE GROUND WITH HIS
HEAD HITTING THE PAVEMENT CAUSING HIS
DEATH. A IS LIABLE FOR HOMICIDE.
RATIONALE OF PAR. 1
EL QUE ES CAUSA DE LA CAUSA ES CAUSA DEL MAL

CAUSADO.
MEANING: HE WHO IS THE CAUSE OF THE CAUSE IS THE

CAUSE OF THE EVIL CAUSED.
•THERE IS A BUS WHICH WAS TRAVELING EDSA AND
REACHED A CERTAIN PORTION IN QC WHERE 4
PERSONS ALIGHT THE BUS AND ANNOUNCED A HOLD-
UP AT GUNPOINT. ONE PASSENGER, Y, HAPPENED TO
HAVE A PREVIOUS BAD EXPERIENCE WITH HOLD-UPS,
SHE WAS SO AFRAID THAT SHE PANICKED AND
OPENED THE WINDOW AND JUMPED OUT OF THE BUS,
FELL ON HER HEAD AND DIED.
•ARE THE 4 ROBBERS
CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR THE
DEATH OF THE VICTIM Y?
•YES, BECAUSE WHEN THEY ANNOUNCED A HOLD-UP
AT GUNPOINT, THEY WERE PERFORMING A
FELONIOUS ACT. THUS, THEY ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE
FOR THE RESULTING FELONY ALTHOUGH DIFFERENT
FROM THAT WHICH INTENDED. THAT BY REASON OF
THE SAID THREAT OR FEAR, Y JUMPED OUT OF THE
WINDOW AND PERFORMED ACTS OUT OF THE SAID
FELONIOUS ACTS OF THE SAID OFFENDERS. THUS,
THE DIRECT, NATURAL AND
LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE OF THE
FELONIOUS ACT OF ANNOUNCING
A HOLD UP.
•WHAT CRIME IS
COMMITTED?
•IN THE SAME PROBLEM, IF Y FELL IN THE STREET
AND A JEEPNEY INNOCENTLY DRIVEN BY W, WHO
WAS DRIVING CAREFULLY, BUMPED AND KILLED
HER.
•WILL THIS CHANGE YOUR ANSWER?

•IS W CRIMINALLY LIABLE?
•THEY ARE STILL LIABLE FOR HER
DEATH. WHILE W WILL BE EXEMPTED
FOR HE WAS PERFORMING LAWFUL
ACT WITHOUT FAULT OR INTENT ON
HIS PART. (ROBBERY WITH
HOMICIDE)
X WHILE HAVING A NAP ONE AFTERNOON, WAS
AWAKENED BY NOISE OF CHILDREN IN HIS BACKYARD. HE
SAW 4 BOYS HARVESTING HIS MANGO TREE. HE CALLED
ON THE BOYS TO COME DOWN OTHERWISE HE WILL CALL
THE POLICE. ONE BOY FROM THE TOPMOST PORTION OF
THE TREE, IN FEAR, HURRIEDLY WENT DOWN, JUMPED,
HIS HEAD HITS THE FLOOR AND DIED. IS X LIABLE FOR HIS
DEATH?
•NO. X WAS NOT DOING A FELONIOUS ACT . HE
WAS ACTING WITHIN HIS RIGHTS. IT WOULD
BE DIFFERENT IF X WENT OUT OF THE YARD
WITH HIS SHOTGUN SAYING “IF YOU DON’T
COME DOWN I WILL SHOOT YOU” AND SHOT
THE GUN 3 TIMES IN THE AIR. HE WAS NOW
PERFORMING A FELONIOUS ACT AMOUNTING
TO GRAVE THREATS.
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME, DEFINED
IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES- THOSE CRIMES WHICH WOULD HAVE
BEEN COMMITTED AGAINST PERSON OR PROPERTY WERE IT
NOT FOR THE INHERENT IMPOSSIBILITY OF ITS
ACCOMPLISHMENT OR ON ACCOUNT OF THE EMPLOYMENT OF
INADEQUATE OR INEFFECTUAL MEANS. THE PURPOSE OF THE
LAW IN PUNISHING IMPOSSIBLE CRIME IS TO SUPPRESS
CRIMINAL PROPENSITIES OR TENDENCIES. THE PENALTY FOR
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME IS ARRESTO MAYOR OR FINE OF P200-500
(ARTICLE 59).
REQUISITES OF IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
1. THE ACT PERFORMED WOULD HAVE BEEN AN OFFENSE
AGAINST PERSONS OR PROPERTY.
2. THE ACT WAS DONE WITH EVIL INTENT
3. ITS ACCOMPLISHMENT IS INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBLE
BECAUSE IT THE MEANS EITHER INADEQUATE OR
INEFFECTUAL
4. THE ACT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ANOTHER VIOLATION OF
THE RPC.
FELONIES AGAINST PERSONS:
•(MURDER, HOMICIDE, PARRICIDE,

INFANTICIDE, DUEL, RAPE, ABORTION,
PHYSICAL INJURIES)
FELONIES AGAINST PROPERTY:
•(BRIGANDAGE, ROBBERY, USURPATION,

CULPABLE INSOLVENCY, THEFT,
SWINDLING, ARSON, MALICIOUS
MISCHIEF)
•A KIDNAPPED X, THE SON OF Y AND Z. A SENT
A RANSOM NOTE, BUT BEFORE SUCH
REACHED THE PARENTS, THE SAID CHILD
WAS ALREADY RESCUED BY THE NBI. CAN A
BE CHARGED OF AN IMPOSSIBLE CRIME OF
KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM?
LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY
•EX. KILLING A DEAD PERSON

PHYSICAL OR FACTUAL
IMPOSSIBILITY
• A WANTED TO TAKE THE WALLET OF B. HE PLACED HIS
HANDS INSIDE THE POCKET OF B, BUT THE WALLET WAS
NOT THERE. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A CRIME OF THEFT, BUT
BECAUSE OF THE PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY OR THE WALLET
WAS ABSENT UNKNOWN TO A – IMPOSSIBLE CRIME OF
THEFT
•WHEN A PERSON STEALS A CHECK
WHICH WAS LATER DISHONORED
NOTES:
• THERE IS NO ATTEMPTED OR FRUSTRATED IMPOSSIBLE

CRIME. IT IS ALWAYS CONSUMMATED AND APPLIES ONLY
TO GRAVE OR LESS GRAVE FELONIES.
• UNDER ART. 59, RPC, THE PENALTY FOR IMPOSSIBLE CRIME

IS ARRESTO MAYOR OR A FINE RANGING FROM 200-500
PESOS.
CONSUMMATED/FRUSTRATED AND
ATTEMPTED FELONIES
• CONSUMMATED - A FELONY IS CONSUMMATED WHEN ALL THE
ELEMENTS NECESSARY FOR ITS EXECUTION AND
ACCOMPLISHMENT ARE PRESENT.
• FRUSTRATED - A FELONY 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 WILL OF THE PERPETRATOR
•ATTEMPTED - THERE IS AN ATTEMPT WHEN THE
OFFENDER COMMENCES THE COMMISSION OF A
FELONY DIRECTLY BY OVERT ACTS, AND DOES NOT
PERFORM ALL THE ACTS OF EXECUTION WHICH
SHOULD PRODUCE THE FELONY BY REASON OF
SOME CAUSE OR ACCIDENT OTHER THAN HIS OWN
SPONTANEOUS DESISTANCE.
•X THE STEPFATHER OF THE CHILD A WENT TO
THE ROOM OF THE CHILD, UNDRESSED HER,
PLACED HIMSELF ON TOP OF HER, AND TOOK
OFF HIS SHORTS. WHEN HE WAS ABOUT TO
RAPE THE CHILD, HE SAW THE DOOR WAS
OPEN AND HIS SON B WAS PEEPING
THROUGH IT. HE GOT UP AND LEFT. WHAT
CRIME IS COMMITTED?
•ATTEMPTED RAPE. HE DID OVERT ACTS
DIRECTLY RELATED TO RAPE BUT DOES
NOT DO IT BY REASON OF SOME CAUSE
OR ACCIDENT OTHER THAN HIS OWN
SPONTANEOUS DESISTANCE WHICH
WAS THE PRESENCE OF HIS SON AT THE
DOOR PEEPING.
• IN ATTEMPTED RAPE, THERE IS INTENT TO HAVE CARNAL KNOWLEDGE OR
SEXUAL INTERCOURSE. IN ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS, THERE IS NONE.
FORMAL CRIMES VS. MATERIAL
CRIMES
• FORMAL CRIMES- ARE CRIMES CONSUMMATED IN ONE INSTANT. THERE IS

ONLY ONE STAGE AND THAT IS CONSUMMATED STAGE.(ADULTERY, PHYSICAL
INJURIES, SLANDER, FALSE TESTIMONY)
• MATERIAL CRIMES HAVE THREE STAGES OF EXECUTION, ATTEMPTED,
FRUSTRATED AND CONSUMMATED.
.
STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT OF A
CRIME
• 1. INTERNAL ACTS:
• A. SUCH AS MERE THOUGHTS OR IDEAS IN THE MIND OF A PERSON
• B. NOT PUNISHABLE
2. EXTERNAL ACTS
• A. PREPARATORY ACTS
• I. THESE ARE INITIAL ACTS OF A PERSON WHO HAS CONCEIVED THE IDEA OF
COMMITTING A CRIME, BUT WHICH CANNOT BY THEMSELVES LOGICALLY
AND NECESSARILY RIPEN INTO A CONCRETE OFFENSE. THEY ARE NOT EVEN AN
OVERT ACT AND HENCE, THEY DO NOT CONSTITUTE THE ATTEMPTED STAGE
OF THE ACTS OF EXECUTION.
• II. ORDINARILY NOT PUNISHED EXCEPT WHEN CONSIDERED BY LAW AS
INDEPENDENT CRIMES
(E.G. ART. 304, RPC - POSSESSION OF PICKLOCKS AND SIMILAR TOOLS)
B. ACTS OF EXECUTION - PUNISHABLE UNDER THE RPC
STAGES OF EXECUTION DO NOT
APPLY TO THE FF.:
• 1. OFFENSES PUNISHED BY SPECIAL PENAL LAWS;
• 2. FORMAL CRIMES;
• 3. IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES - AS THE CRIMES CANNOT EVEN BE CONSUMMATED;
• 4. CRIMES CONSUMMATED BY MERE ATTEMPT (ATTEMPT TO FLEE TO AN
ENEMY COUNTRY, TREASON, CORRUPTION OF MINORS);
• 5. FELONIES BY OMISSION; AND
• 6. CRIMES COMMITTED BY MERE AGREEMENT (BETTING IN SPORTS,
CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICERS)
INDETERMINATE OFFENSE
• IT IS ONE WHERE THE PURPOSE OF THE OFFENDER IN PERFORMING AN ACT IS

NOT CERTAIN. ITS NATURE IN RELATION TO ITS OBJECTIVE IS AMBIGUOUS.
THE ACCUSED MAY BE CONVICTED OF A FELONY DEFINED BY THE ACTS
PERFORMED BY HIM UP TO THE TIME OF DESISTANCE.
ILLUSTRATION:
• THE ACCUSED WAS CAUGHT OPENING WITH AN IRON BAR A WALL OF A

STORE OF CHEAP GOODS. HE BROKE ONE BOARD AND WAS UNFASTENING
ANOTHER WHEN A PATROLLING POLICE CAUGHT HIM. HE WAS CHARGED
WITH ATTEMPTED ROBBERY.
• WAS HE CHARGED OF A CORRECT FELONY?

NO
• THE CRIME COMMITTED IS ONLY ATTEMPTED TRESPASS TO DWELLING

BASED ON THE ACTS PERFORMED BY HIM BEFORE BEING CAUGHT.
THERE IS SOMETHING YET FOR HIM TO DO TO MAKE HIM LIABLE FOR
THE OFFENSE CHARGED. THE FINAL OBJECTIVE OF THE ACCUSED, ONCE
HE SUCCEEDED IN ENTERING THE STORE, MAYBE TO ROB, TO CAUSE
PHYSICAL INJURY, OR TO COMMIT ANY OTHER OFFENSE. IN SUCH
CASE, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN FINDING THE OFFENDER GUILTY
OF ATTEMPTED ROBBERY BY THE USE OF FORCE UPON THINGS.
CRIMES WHICH DO NOT ADMIT OF
A FRUSTRATED STAGE
• A. RAPE, SINCE THE GRAVAMEN OF THE OFFENSE IS CARNAL KNOWLEDGE,

HENCE, NO MATTER HOW SLIGHT THE PENETRATION, THE FELONY IS
CONSUMMATED;
• B. INDIRECT BRIBERY, BECAUSE 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
CONSUMMATED.
• C. DIRECT BRIBERY;
• D. CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICERS, BECAUSE 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
• E. ADULTERY, BECAUSE THE ESSENCE OF THE CRIME IS SEXUAL CONGRESS
• F. PHYSICAL INJURY, SINCE IT CANNOT BE DETERMINED WHETHER THE
INJURY WILL BE SLIGHT, LESS SERIOUS, OR SERIOUS UNLESS AND UNTIL
CONSUMMATED
• G. THEFT, BECAUSE THE UNLAWFUL TAKING IMMEDIATELY CONSUMMATES
THE OFFENSE AND THE DISPOSITION OF THE THING IS NOT AN ELEMENT
THEREOF.
RAPE
- IT IS CONSUMMATED BY MERE PENETRATION OF THE MALE ORGAN NO MATTER

HOW SLIGHT OR SUPERFICIAL.
- THE MERE INTRODUCTION OF THE PENIS INTO THE LABIA MEJORA OF THE
VICTIM'S GENITALIA ENGENDERS THE CRIME OF RAPE.HENCE, IT IS THE
“TOUCHING” OR “ENTRY” OF THE PENIS INTO THE LABIA MEJORA OR THE LABIA
MINORA OF THE PUDENDUM OF THE VICTIM'S GENITALIA THAT CONSUMMATES
RAPE.
• THERE IS NO CRIME OF FRUSTRATED RAPE. THE CASE OF PEOPLE VS. ERINIA
(G.R. NO. 26298), JANUARY 20, 1927) WAS AN EXCEPTION SINCE THE VICTIM
WAS ONLY 3 YEARS OLD AND 11 MONTHS. (JUSTICE MALCOLM
• DISSENTED; CONSUMMATED)
MHPI
• 1. WITH INTENT TO KILL, BUT NO MORTAL WOUND IS INFLICTED - ATTEMPTED

• 2. WITH INTENT TO KILL, MORTAL WOUND IS INFLICTED BUT VICTIM DOES
NOT DIE - FRUSTRATED
• 3. THE MOMENT THE VICTIM DIES, INTENT TO KILL IS CONCLUSIVELY
PRESUMED - CONSUMMATED
RULES ON CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS (MHPI) AND
STAGES OF EXECUTION
Death Results Intent to Kill Gravity of the Crime committed

Wound
Yes Presumed Mortal MHPI
No Yes Mortal Frustrated MHPI
No Yes Non-mortal Attempted MHPI
No Yes Overt act only - no Attempted MHPI
wound
No No Mortal wound Serious Physical
Injuries
NO No Non-mortal wound Less
serious/slight
physical injuries
ART. 7. WHEN LIGHT FELONIES ARE PUNISHABLE. — LIGHT FELONIES ARE
PUNISHABLE ONLY WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN CONSUMMATED, WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF THOSE COMMITTED AGAINST PERSON OR PROPERTY.
LIGHT FELONIES, DEFINED
LIGHT FELONIES ARE THOSE INFRACTIONS OF LAW FOR THE COMMISSION OF

WHICH A PENALTY OF ARREST MENOR OR A FINE NOT EXCEEDING 200 (NOW
40,000) PESOS OR BOTH; IS PROVIDED. (RA 10951)
LIGHT FELONIES UNDER RPC
• 1. SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES (ART. 266);

• 2. THEFT (ART. 309 PARS. 7 AND 8), WHEN THE VALUE OF THING STOLEN IS LESS THAN
FIVE PESOS AND THEFT IS COMMITTED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES ENUMERATED
UNDER ART. 308, PAR. 3;
• 3. ALTERATION OF BOUNDARY MARKS (ART. 313);
• 4. MALICIOUS MISCHIEF (ART. 328, PAR. 3; ART. 329, PAR. 3, WHEN THE VALUE OF THE
DAMAGE DOES NOT EXCEED 200 PESOS OR CANNOT BE ESTIMATED; AND
• 5. INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR (ART. 364)
NOTE:
• FOR LIGHT FELONIES, THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN BE HELD LIABLE ARE THE
PRINCIPALS AND ACCOMPLICES.
ART. 8. CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT FELONY. —
CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT FELONY ARE
PUNISHABLE ONLY IN THE CASES IN WHICH THE LAW
SPECIALLY PROVIDES A PENALTY THEREFOR.
A CONSPIRACY EXISTS WHEN TWO OR MORE PERSONS
COME TO AN AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE COMMISSION
OF A FELONY AND DECIDE TO COMMIT IT.
THERE IS PROPOSAL WHEN THE PERSON WHO HAS DECIDED
TO COMMIT A FELONY PROPOSES ITS EXECUTION TO SOME
OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS.
GENERAL RULE
• MERE CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT A CRIME IS NOT PUNISHABLE.

• REASON: CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT A FELONY ARE
PUNISHABLE ONLY IN THE CASES IN WHICH THE LAW SPECIFICALLY
PROVIDES A PENALTY THEREFORE.
THE LAW SPECIALLY PROVIDES FOR MERE
CONSPIRACY IN:
1. TREASON (ART.115);
2. REBELLION OR INSURRECTION (ART. 134);
3. COUP D' ETAT (ART. 134-A);
3. SEDITION (ART. 141);
4. MONOPOLIES IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE
(ART. 186)
UNDER SPECIAL PENAL LAWS:
• 1. SELECTED ACTS COMMITTED UNDER THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT (RA NO.
9165);
• 2. ESPIONAGE (CA 616);
• 3. ILLEGAL ASSOCIATION;
• 4. HIGHWAY ROBBERY;
• 5. ARSON; AND
• 6. TERRORISM UNDER THE HUMAN SECURITY ACT (RA NO. 9372) AS REPEALED
BY RA 11479
RULE IN CONSPIRACY
WHEN THERE IS CONSPIRACY BETWEEN OR AMONG THOSE WHO COMMITTED

THE CRIME THE ACT OF ONE IS THE ACT OF ALL.
• A, B AND C WENT TO THE HOUSE OF X ARMED WITH GUNS. A KNOCKED AT
THE DOOR, X OPENED THE DOOR, B FIRED MULTIPLE SHOTS AT X, C CLOSED
THE DOOR. A, B AND C LEFT. LATER, THEY WERE ARRESTED AND AS
CONSPIRATORS, WERE CHARGED WITH MURDER. A RAISED THE DEFENSE
THAT HIS ONLY PARTICIPATION WAS TO KNOCK AT THE DOOR AND NOT THE
ONE WHO KILLED X; AND C SAID HE ONLY CLOSED THE DOOR, THUS NOT
CONSPIRATORS
PEOPLE V. GARCHITORENA
• YES. THERE IS DIRECT CONSPIRACY

GENERAL RULE:
• ONCE CONSPIRACY IS ESTABLISHED, EACH AND EVERYONE OF THE

CONSPIRATORS IS MADE CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR THE CRIME COMMITTED
BY ANYONE OF THEM.
EXCEPTION:
• UNLESS ONE OR SOME OF THE CONSPIRATORS COMMITTED SOME OTHER

CRIME WHICH IS NOT PART OF THE INTENDED CRIME
PROPOSALS PUNISHED UNDER THE
RPC
1. PROPOSAL TO COMMIT TREASON (ART. 115);

2. PROPOSAL TO COMMIT REBELLION OR
INSURRECTION (ART. 136)
3. PROPOSAL TO COMMIT COUP D’ ETAT
NOTE:
• THERE IS NO CRIME OF PROPOSAL TO COMMIT SEDITION

CLASSIFICATION OF FELONY
ACCORDING TO GRAVITY
ART. 9. GRAVE FELONIES, LESS GRAVE FELONIES AND LIGHT FELONIES. —
GRAVE FELONIES ARE THOSE TO WHICH THE LAW ATTACHES THE
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT OR PENALTIES WHICH IN ANY OF THEIR
PERIODS ARE AFFLICTIVE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ART. 25 OF THIS
CODE.
LESS GRAVE FELONIES ARE THOSE WHICH THE LAW PUNISHES WITH
PENALTIES WHICH IN THEIR MAXIMUM PERIOD ARE CORRECTIONAL,
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABOVE-MENTIONED ART..
LIGHT FELONIES ARE THOSE INFRACTIONS OF LAW FOR THE
COMMISSION OF WHICH A PENALTY OF ARREST MENOR OR A FINE NOT
EXCEEDING 200 PESOS (NOW NOT EXCEEDING 40,000 PESOS) OR
BOTH; IS PROVIDED.
Q: WHAT ARE SOME OF THE PRACTICAL USE OF KNOWING
WHETHER A CERTAIN OFFENSE IS GRAVE, LESS GRAVE OR
LIGHT FELONY?
a. IT WILL GIVE US A CLUE WHETHER THESE CAN BE

COMPLEXED WITH ANOTHER CRIME
b. TO DETERMINE PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME AND PENALTY
c. GIVES US AN IDEA UNTIL WHEN AN ACCUSED MAY BE
LEGALLY DETAINED
d. ALL OF THE ABOVE.
GRAVE FELONIES
• 1. RECLUSION PERPETUA;
• 2. RECLUSION TEMPORAL;
• 3. PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY ABSOLUTE DISQUALIFICATION;
• 4. PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY SPECIAL DISQUALIFICATION;
• 5. PRISION MAYOR; AND
• 6. FINES OF MORE THAN 1.2M PESOS.
LESS GRAVE FELONIES
• 1. PRISION CORRECTIONAL;
• 2. ARRESTO MAYOR;
• 3. SUSPENSION;
• 4. DESTIERRO; AND
• 5. FINES OF 40,000 PESOS TO 1.2M
LIGHT FELONIES
• 1. ARRESTO MENOR; OR
• 2. FINE LESS THAN 40,000 PESOS.
PRINCIPAL PENALTIES
1. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT:
• DEATH
2. AFFLICTIVE PENALTIES
• RECLUSION PERPETUA- 20 YRS.+1 DAY TO 40 YRS.
• RECLUSION TEMPORAL- 12 YRS.+1 DAY-20 YRS
• PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY ABSOLUTE DISQUALIFICATION-6 YRS.+1 DAY TO 12 YRS.
• PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY SPECIAL DISQUALIFICATION- 6 YRS.+1 DAY TO 12 YRS.
• PRISION MAYOR-6 YRS. + 1 DAY TO 12 YEARS
3. CORRECTIONAL PENALTIES
• PRISION CORRECTIONAL- 6 MOS.+ 1 DAY TO 6 YRS.
• ARRESTO MAYOR-1 MONTH + 1 DAY TO 6 MOS.
• SUSPENSION- 6 MOS+1 DAY TO 6 YRS.
• DESTIERRO- 6 MOS. +1 DAY TO 6 YEARS
4. LIGHT PENALTIES
• ARRESTO MENOR- 1 DAY TO 30 DAYS
• PUBLIC CENSURE
ACCESORY PENALTIES
• PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY ABSOLUTE DISQUALIFICATION

• PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY SPECIAL DISQUALIFICATION
• SUSPENSION FROM PUBLIC OFFICE, THE RIGHT TO VOTE AND BE VOTED FOR
• CIVIL INTERDICTION
• INDEMNIFICATION
• FORFEITURE OR CONFISCATION OF INSTRUMENT SAND PROCEEDS OF THE
OFFENSE
• PAYMENT OF COST
DIVISIBLE AND INDIVISIBLE
PENALTIES
1. Divisible penalties – those that have fixed

duration and divisible into three periods,
minimum, medium and maximum periods.
2. Indivisible penalties – Those that have no
fixed duration, and have no minimum,
medium and maximum periods.
PERPETUAL ABSOLUTE DISQUALIFICATION DISTINGUISH FROM TEMPORARY
ABSOLUTE DISQUALIFICATION
PERPETUAL ABSOLUTE DISQUALIFICATION – EFFECTIVE DURING

THE LIFETIME OF THE CONVICT AND EVEN AFTER SERVICE OF
SENTENCE. IT STAYS WITH HIM FOREVER.
TEMPORARY ABSOLUTE DISQUALIFICATION – LASTS ONLY DURING

THE TERM OF THE SENTENCE. ITS GONE AFTER THE SERVICE OF
SENTENCE.
ART. 10. OFFENSES NOT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE. —
OFFENSES WHICH ARE OR IN THE FUTURE MAY BE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SPECIAL LAWS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE. THIS
CODE SHALL BE SUPPLEMENTARY TO SUCH LAWS, UNLESS THE LATTER
SHOULD SPECIALLY PROVIDE THE CONTRARY.
GENERAL RULE:
• RPC PROVISIONS ARE SUPPLEMENTARY TO SPECIAL PENAL LAWS.

EXCEPTIONS:
• 1. WHERE THE SPECIAL PENAL LAW PROVIDES OTHERWISE; AND

• 2. WHEN THE PROVISIONS OF THE RPC ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO APPLY, EITHER BY
EXPRESS PROVISION OR BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION
• THUS, WHEN THE SPECIAL PENAL LAW ADOPTS THE NOMENCLATURE OF
PENALTIES IMPOSED IN THE RPC, SUCH AS RP, RT, ETC., THE PROVISIONS OF
THE RPC AND THE RULES AND APPLICATION OF THE ATTENDANCE OF
MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES MAY BE APPLIED.
SPECIAL PENAL LAW, DEFINED
SPECIAL PENAL LAW- A LAW WHICH DEFINES AND PUNISHES ACT NOT FOUND
IN THE RPC
CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
1. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
2. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
3. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
4. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
5. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES OR FACTORS WHICH
AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY
• 1. ABSOLUTORY CAUSE - THE EFFECT IS TO ABSOLVE THE OFFENDER FROM

CRIMINAL LIABILITY, ALTHOUGH NOT FROM CIVIL LIABILITY.
EXAMPLES OF ABSOLUTORY
CAUSES
• 1. SPONTANEOUS DESISTANCE;
• 2. SLIGHT OR LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED UNDER
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES;
• 3. ATTEMPTED OR FRUSTRATED LIGHT FELONIES;
• 4. INSTIGATION;
• 5. MARRIAGE OF THE OFFENDER AND THE OFFENDED PARTY IN CASES OF
SEDUCTION, ABDUCTION,S OF LASCIVIOUSNESS AND RAPE;
• 6. ACCESSORIES WHO ARE EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY BY REASON
OF RELATIONSHIP AND IN LIGHT FELONIES;
• 7.ADULTERY AND CONCUBINAGE IF THE OFFENDED PARTY SHALL HAVE
CONSENTED OR PARDONED THE OFFENDERS;
• 8. PERSONS EXEMPT FORM CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR THEFT, SWINDLING AND
MALICIOUS MISCHIEF; AND
• 9. TRESPASS TO DWELLING WHEN THE PURPOSE OF ENTERING ANOTHER'S
DWELLING AGAINST THE LATTER'S WILL IS TO PREVENT SOME SERIOUS
HARM TO HIMSELF, THE OCCUPANTS OF THE DWELLING OR A THIRD PERSON,
OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF RENDERING SOME SERVICE TO HUMANITY OR
JUSTICE, OR WHEN ENTERING CAFES, TAVERNS, INNS AND OTHER PUBLIC
PLACES, WHILE THE SAME ARE OPEN.
• ENTRAPMENT IS NOT AN ABSOLUTORY CAUSE. A BUY BUST OPERATION
CONDUCTED IN CONNECTION WITH ILLEGAL DRUG-RELATED OFFENSES IS A
FORM OF ENTRAPMENT.
• INSTIGATION IS CONSIDERED AN ABSOLUTORY CAUSE.
• IF THE ONE WHO MADE THE INSTIGATION IS A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, NOT
PERFORMING PUBLIC FUNCTION, BOTH HE AND THE ONE INDUCED ARE
CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR THE CRIME COMMITTED; THE FORMER AS, AS
PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION.
• 2. EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES - THE EFFECT IS TO MITIGATE THE
CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF THE OFFENDER AND HAS THE SAME EFFECT AS
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES (I.E. CONCEALMENT OF DISHONOR IN THE
CRIME OF INFANTICIDE INSOFAR AS THE MOTHER AND MATERNAL
GRANDPARENTS ARE CONCERNED, THE PENALTY IS LOWERED BY 2 DEGREES;
THE CRIME OF ADULTERY COMMITTED BY A MARRIED WOMAN ABANDONED
BY HER HUSBAND)
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES, DEFINED
THOSE WHERE THE ACT OF A PERSON IS SAID TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH

THE LAW, SO THAT HE IN THE EYES OF THE LAW IS CONSIDERED NOT TO HAVE
VIOLATED THE LAW AND IS THEREFORE FREE FROM CRIMINAL AND CIVIL
LIABILITIES.
QUICK ENUMERATION OF JUSTIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCES
1. SELF DEFENSE
2. DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
3. DEFENSE OF STRANGERS
4. AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL
5. FULFILLMENT OF DUTY
6. OBEDIENCE TO ORDER OF SUPERIOR.
IMPOSITION OF CIVIL LIABILITY
• GENERAL RULE: THERE IS NO CIVIL LIABILITY WHEN THE ACT OR OMISSION IS

CONSIDERED JUSTIFIED.
EXCEPTION:
• PAR. 4 OF ARTICLE 11 (AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL OR INJURY) WHERE THE

CIVIL LIABILITY IS BORNE BY THE PERSONS BENEFITED BY THE ACT.
1. Anyone who acts in defense of SELF DEFENSE
his person or rights, provided that
the following circumstances
concur:
First. Unlawful aggression.
Second. Reasonable necessity of
the means employed to prevent or
repel it.
Third. Lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the
person defending himself.
THREE REQUISITES OF SELF DEFENSE
1. UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION.
2. REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO PREVENT OR
REPEL IT.
3. LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION ON THE PART OF THE PERSON
DEFENDING HIMSELF.
SUBJECTS OF SELF-DEFENSE
• 1. DEFENSE OF PERSON;
• 2. DEFENSE OF RIGHTS;
• 3. DEFENSE OF PROPERTY; AND
• 4. DEFENSE OF HONOR.
• IN CASE OF THREAT, THE SAME MUST BE OFFENSIVE AND POSITIVELY
STRONG, SHOWING THE WRONGFUL INTENT TO CAUSE AN INJURY.
• A MERE THREATENING OR INTIMIDATING ATTITUDE; NOT PRECEDED BY AN
OUTWARD AND MATERIAL AGGRESSION, IS NOT UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION.
• SLAPPING OF A FACE CONSTITUTES AN UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION BECAUSE
THE FACE REPRESENTS A PERSON AND HIS DIGNITY AND IS CONSIDERED AS
A SERIOUS PERSONAL ATTACK. IT IS A PHYSICAL ASSAULT COUPLED WITH A
WILLFUL DISREGARD OR A DEFIANCE OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S PERSONALITY.
• A SAW ENEMY B, PULLED OUT HIS GUN AND SHOT B. B EVADED THE BLOW. A
AGAIN SHOT B AND AGAIN HE EVADED THE BLOW. FOR THE 3RD TIME A WAS
ABOUT TO SHOOT B WHEN B IMMEDIATELY TOOK OUT HIS BALISONG AND HIT
A. A WAS SERIOUSLY WOUNDED AND WAS BROUGHT TO THE HOSPITAL AND
SURVIVED. B WAS PROSECUTED FOR FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE. B INVOKED
SELF DEFENSE.
• IS THERE UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION ON THE PART OF A?
• YES
• IS THERE REASONABLE NECESSITY OF MEANS EMPLOYED?
• YES
• IS THERE PROVOCATION BASED ON THE FACTS GIVEN ON THE PART OF B?
• NO
• THUS, B ACTED IN SELF DEFENSE

• SO FREE FROM CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LIABILITY
ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR
CHILDREN ACT OF 2004 (R.A. NO. 9262)
• VICTIM-SURVIVORS WHO ARE FOUND BY THE COURTS TO BE SUFFERING

FROM BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME DO NOT INCUR ANY CRIMINAL OR
CIVIL LIABILTY NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABSENCE OF ANY OF THE ELEMENTS
FOR JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES OF SELF-DEFENSE UNDER THE RPC.
• THE LAW PROVIDES FOR AN ADDITIONAL JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE.
BATTERY
• IT IS ANY ACT OF INFLICTING PHYSICAL HARM

UPON THE WOMAN OR HER
CHILD RESULTING TO PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL OR EMOTIONAL
DISTRESS.
BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME
• IT IS A SCIENTIFICALLY DEFINED PATTERN OF PSYCHOLOGICAL AND

BEHAVIORAL SYMPTOMS FOUND IN WOMEN LIVING IN BATTERING
RELATIONSHIPS AS A RESULT OF CUMULATIVE ABUSE.
CYCLE OF VIOLENCE HAS 3 PHASES:
• 1. THE TENSION BUILDING PHASE;

• 2. THE ACUTE BATTERING INCIDENT; AND
• 3. THE TRANQUIL, LOVING (OR AT LEAST NON-VIOLENT) PHASE
• NOTE: THE DEFENSE SHOULD PROVE ALL 3 PHASES OF THE CYCLE OF
VIOLENCE CHARACTERIZING THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES.
2. Any one who acts in defense of DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
the person or rights of his spouse,
ascendants, descendants, or
legitimate, natural or adopted
brothers or sisters, or his relatives
by affinity in the same degrees and
those consanguinity within the
fourth civil degree, provided that
the first and second requisites
prescribed in the next preceding
circumstance are present, and the
further requisite, in case the
revocation was given by the
person attacked, that the one
making defense had no part
therein.
REQUISITES OF DEFENSE OF
RELATIVES
2. REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO PREVENT OR REPEL
IT.
3. IN CASE THE PROVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE PERSON ATTACKED, THAT
THE ONE MAKING DEFENSE HAD NO PART THEREIN.
RELATIVES WHO CAN BE DEFENDED:
• 1. SPOUSE;
• 2. ASCENDANTS;
• 3. DESCENDANTS;
• 4. LEGITIMATE, NATURAL OR ADOPTED BROTHERS AND SISTERS, OR
RELATIVES BY AFFINITY IN THE SAME DEGREES; AND
• 5. RELATIVES BY CONSANGUINITY WITHIN THE 4TH CIVIL DEGREE.
Anyone who acts in defense DEFENSE OF
of the person or rights of a STRANGERS
stranger, provided that the
first and second requisites
mentioned in the first
circumstance of this article
are present and that the
person defending be not
induced by revenge,
resentment, or other evil
motive.
REQUISITES OF DEFENSE OF
STRANGERS
2. REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO PREVENT OR REPEL IT.
3. THE PERSON DEFENDING BE NOT INDUCED BY REVENGE, RESENTMENT, OR
OTHER EVIL MOTIVE.
STRANGER
• ANY PERSON NOT INCLUDED IN THE ENUMERATION OF RELATIVES UNDER PAR.

2 OF ART. 11, RPC.
• A PERSON DEFENDING HIS COMMON-LAW SPOUSE OR ADOPTED CHILD FALLS
UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH.
• MOTIVE IS RELEVANT ONLY IN THIS KIND OF DEFENSE.
• IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE ONE DEFENDING THE STRANGER MUST NOT ONLY
BE MOTIVATED BY THE DISINTERESTED MOTIVE OF TRYING TO HELP A
STRANGER AND NOT INDUCED BY REVENGE, RESENTMENT OR EVIL MOTIVE.
• WHEN THE AGGRESSOR FLEES, THERE IS NO MORE UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION;
ALSO WHEN THE AGGRESSOR MANIFESTED HIS HONEST DESIRE TO STOP THE
FIGHT.
• WHEN THE AGGRESSOR HAS BEEN DISARMED, THERE COULD BE NO MORE
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
• THERE IS NO UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION WHEN THERE IS AN AGREEMENT TO A
FIGHT.
• RIGHTS INVOLVED IN SELF DEFENSE INCLUDE DEFENSE OF HONOR AND
PROPERTY.
• THE BELIEF OF THE ACCUSED IS CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING THE
EXISTENCE OF UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION.
• BUT A MERE THREATENING ATTITUDE IS NOT UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION.
Any person who, in order to avoid AVOIDANCE OF
an evil or injury, does an act which
causes damage to another, GREATER EVIL/STATE
provided that the following OF NECESSITY
requisites are present:
First: That the evil sought to be

avoided actually exists;
Second: That the injury feared be
greater than that done to avoid it;
Third: That there be no other
practical and less harmful means
of preventing it.
REQUISITES OF AVOIDANCE OF
GREATER EVIL
1. THAT THE EVIL SOUGHT TO BE AVOIDED ACTUALLY EXISTS;

2. THAT THE INJURY FEARED BE GREATER THAN THAT DONE TO AVOID IT;
3. THAT THERE BE NO OTHER PRACTICAL AND LESS HARMFUL MEANS OF
PREVENTING IT.
• TAXI DRIVER IN COLLISION WITH A TRUCK WITHOUT EARLY WARNING
DEVICE, IN FEAR OF HIS LIFE AND HIS PASSENGERS, HE INSTEAD HITS THE
TAXI TO A STORE. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCE, THE DRIVER AND THOSE
WHO BENEFITED MUST BEAR THE CIVIL LIABILITY FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE
STORE
• TAXI DRIVER ENTERED A ONE WAY STREET. WHEN INSIDE, HE SAW AHEAD
THAT THERE IS A CLIFF. IF HE SWERVES TO THE LEFT, HE WILL HIT
CONSTRUCTION WORKERS. IF TO THE RIGHT HE WILL HIT A NIPA HUT. HE
SWERVED TO THE LEFT AND INJURED THE WORKERS. HE INVOKED STATE OF
NECESSITY.
• (NO. HE WAS THE AUTHOR OF SUCH STATE OF NECESSITY)
• THERE WAS AN ACCIDENT AND THERE WAS A PREGNANT WOMAN AND WAS
BROUGHT TO THE HOSPITAL. THE DOCTOR CAN ONLY SAVE 1 LIFE, EITHER THE
MOTHER OR THE FETUS. SINCE THE FAMILY WAS NOT THERE AND TIME IS OF
THE ESSENCE, THE DOCTOR OPTED TO SAVE THE MOTHER, THE FETUS DIED.
CAN THE DOCTOR BE HELD CRIMINALLY LIABLE?
• EVIL SOUGHT TO BE AVOIDED ACTUALLY EXISTS? – YES. THE DEATH OF BOTH
MOTHER AND FETUS
• INJURY FEARED BE GREATER THAN THAT DONE TO AVOID IT? – YES. FEAR OF
DEATH OF BOTH IS GREATER THAN DEATH OF FETUS
• NO OTHER PRACTICAL AND LESS HARMFUL MEANS? – YES. ONLY WAY IS TO
SAVE THE MOTHER
• THERE IS A STATE OF NECESSITY, THUS, ACQUITTED
Any person who acts in FULFILLMENT OF DUTY
the fulfillment of a duty
or in the lawful exercise
of a right or office.
REQUISITES OF FULFILMENT OF DUTY
1. THE ACCUSED ACTED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTY OR IN THE LAWFUL

EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE.
2. THE INJURY CAUSED IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE DUE PERFORMANCE OF
DUTY OR THE LAWFUL EXERCISE OF SUCH RIGHT OR OFFICE.
Any person who acts in OBEDIENCE TO AN
obedience to an order ORDER OF A SUPERIOR
issued by a superior for
some lawful purpose.
REQUISITES OF OBEDIENCE TO AN
ORDER OF SUPERIOR
1. There must be an order given by a

superior
2. The order is for some lawful purpose
3. Means employed by subordinate in
carrying out the order must also be lawful
• THERE IS A WARRANT OF ARREST AGAINST A. THE CHIEF POLICE OFFICER
ARMED WITH THE WARRANT FORMED A TEAM HEADED BY POLICE OFFICER X.
THE CHIEF OF POLICE GAVE THE WARRANT TO POLICE OFFICER X WITH THE
INSTRUCTION TO ARREST A AND IN CASE OF RESISTANCE BY A, THEY MAY
IMMOBILIZE THE SAID PERSON. WHEN THE TEAM WENT, THEY SAW A
SWEEPING THE GROUND. UPON SEEING HIM,
• THE HEAD OF THE TEAM IMMEDIATELY FIRED AT A AND THE LATTER DIED, THE
POLICE OFFICER X INVOKED 2 JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
• 1. FULFILLMENT OF DUTY AND
• 2 OBEDIENCE OF ORDER OF SUPERIOR AUTHORITY.
• DECIDE
• THERE IS A WARRANT OF ARREST AGAINST A. THE CHIEF ORDERED HIS MEN
TO SERVE THE WARRANT AND LOOK FOR A, APPREHENDED HIM AND BRING
HIM TO COURT DAYS LATER. THE POLICE SAW A IN THE PUBLIC MARKET.
BEFORE THEY COULD ARREST HIM, A GRABBED THE CHILD AND HELD HIM
HOSTAGE. WHILE HE WAS ABOUT TO STAB THE CHILD, THE POLICE SHOT HIM.
HE DIED. IS HE LIABLE FOR THE DEATH OF A?
RETREAT TO THE WALL VS. STAND GROUND WHEN IN THE
RIGHT
RETREAT TO THE STAND GROUND

WALL WHEN IN THE RIGHT
An ancient common law rule in A rule which states that where the
homicide which made it the duty of a accused is where he has the right
person assailed to retreat as far as he to be, the law does not require him
can before he is justified in meeting
to retreat when his assailant is
force with force advancing upon him with a deadly
weapon.
Not followed in the Followed in the

Philippines Philippines.
TEST OF REASONABLENESS IN DETERMINING
WHETHER THERE IS SELF DEFENSE
1. NATURE OF THE WEAPON USED BY THE AGGRESSOR

2. QUALITY OF HIS WEAPON
3. THE PHYSICAL CONDITIONS OF BOTH PARTIES
4. PLACE OF THE AGGRESSION AND OTHERS .
RELATIVES BY AFFINITY VS. RELATIVES
BY CONSANGUINITY
• RELATIVES BY AFFINITY ARE THOSE CREATED BY MARRIAGE SUCH AS

PARENTS IN LAW, SONS AND DAUGHTERS IN LAW
• RELATIVES BY CONSANGUINITY ARE RELATIVES BY NATURE OR BY BLOOD
RELATIONS. SIBLINGS ARE WITHIN THE 2ND CIVIL DEGREE, WHEREAS UNCLE
AND NIECE OR AUNT AND NEPHEW ARE WITHIN THE 3RD CIVIL DEGREE, FIRST
COUSINS ARE WITHIN THE 4TH CIVIL DEGREE
TABLE OF RELATIVES BY CONSANGUINITY THAT MAY BE DEFENDED
RELATION BROTHER AUNCLE, 1ST

SHIP AND AUNT, COUSIN
SISTER NIECE
AND
NEPHEW
DEGREE 2ND 3RD 4TH
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN SELF DEFENSE, DEFENSE OF
RELATIVES AND DEFENSE OF STRANGERS
SELF DEFENSE DEFENSE OF DEFENSE OF

RELATIVES STRANGERS
1. Unlawful aggression 1. Unlawful aggression 1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity 2. Reasonable necessity 2. Reasonable necessity

of the means employed of the means employed of the means employed
to prevent or repel it to prevent or repel it to prevent or repel it
3. Lack of sufficient 3. In case the 3. The one defending is

provocation on the part provocation was given not induced by hatred
of the person defending by the person attacked revenge or other evil
himself the one making defense
motive.
had no part therein
BOARD: WHICH AMONG THE FOLLOWING IS/ARE COMMON
REQUISITE/S OF SELF DEFENSE, DEFENSE OF RELATIVES, AND
DEFENSE OF STRANGERS?
a. UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
b. REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO
PREVENT OR REPEL IT
c. LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION ON PART OF DEFENDER
d. BOTH A AND B
DOCTRINE OF SELF HELP
DOCTRINE OF SELF HELP- STATES THAT THE OWNER OR THE LAWFUL

POSSESSOR OF A THING HAS THE RIGHT TO EXCLUDE ANY PERSON FROM THE
ENJOYMENT AND DISPOSAL THEREOF. THUS HE MAY USE SUCH FORCE AS MAY
BE REASONABLY NECESSARY TO REPEL OR PREVENT AN ACTUAL OR
THREATENED UNLAWFUL PHYSICAL INVASION OR USURPATION OF HIS
PROPERTY. (ART. 429 CIVIL CODE)
ILLUSTRATIONS:
• A CONSTRUCTED A SMALL HOUSE IN A PIECE OF LAND WHICH HE

BELIEVED TO BE A DISPOSABLE PUBLIC LAND. HE HAD BEEN
OCCUPYING THE LOT FOR OVER A YEAR. ONE DAY, B CAME AND
CLAIMED OWNERSHIP OVER THE LAND. B PROCEEDED IN
DISMANTLING THE HOUSE OF A. THE LATTER PLEADED B TO STOP BUT
HIS PLEA FELL ON DEAF EARS. THEREUPON, A PULLED B TO PREVENT
HIM FROM FURTHER DISMANTLING THE HOUSE. IN THE PROCESS, B
FELL ON THE GROUND AND SUFFERED PHYSICAL INJURIES. IS A LIABLE
FOR THE INJURIES SUSTAINED BY B?
• NO, A IS NOT LIABLE. UNDER THE LAW, HE HAS THE RIGHT TO EMPLOY
REASONABLE FORCE TO PREVENT OR REPEL ACTUAL OR THREATENED
ASSAULT ON HIS PROPERTY. HIS ACT OF PULLING B WAS REASONABLY
NECESSARY TO PROTECT HIS POSSESSORY RIGHTS OVER HIS PROPERTY.
SUMMARY OF LIABILITY
JUSTIFYING CRIMINAL CIVIL LIABILITY
CIRCUMSTANCE LIABILITY
1. SELF DEFENSE NONE NONE
2. DEFENSE OF NONE NONE

RELATIVE
3. DEFENSE OF NONE NONE

STRANGERS
4. AVOIDANCE OF NONE THERE IS CIVL
GREATER EVIL LIABILITY
5. FULFILMENT OF NONE NONE
DUTY
6. OBEDIENCE TO NONE NONE
ORDER OF
SUPERIOR
BOARD: WHAT ARE THE CYCLES OF VIOLENCE IN BWS?
ANSWER:
a. TENSION BUILDING STAGE- WHERE MINOR BATTERING OCCURS
b. TRANQUIL OR LOVING PHASE- THE BATTERER SHOWS LOVING
CARING NURTURE TO THE VICTIM.
c. ACUTE BATTERING INCIDENT- CHARACTERIZED BY BRUTALITY,
DESTRUCTIVENESS AND DEATH.
d. ALL OF THE ABOVE
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES- ARE THOSE GROUNDS FOR EXEMPTION FROM

PUNISHMENT BECAUSE THERE IS WANTING/MISSING IN THE AGENT OF THE
CRIME ANY OF THE CONDITIONS WHICH MAKE THE ACT VOLUNTARY OR
NEGLIGENT.
QUICK ENUMERATION OF EXEMPTING
CIRCUMSTANCES
1. IMBECILITY; INSANITY (UNLESS THE LATTER ACTED DURING A

LUCID INTERVAL)
2. MINORITY;
3. ACCIDENT;
4. IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
5. UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
6. LAWFUL OR INSUPERABLE CAUSE.
1. An imbecile or an insane IMBECILITY OR
person, unless the latter has
acted during a lucid interval. INSANITY
When the imbecile or an
insane person has committed an
act which the law defines as a
felony (delito), the court shall
order his confinement in one of
the hospitals or asylums
established for persons thus
afflicted, which he shall not be
permitted to leave without first
obtaining the permission of the
same court.
IMBECILITY
• IT EXISTS WHEN A PERSON, WHILE OF ADVANCED AGE, HAS A MENTAL

DEVELOPMENT COMPARABLE TO THAT OF CHILDREN BETWEEN 2 AND 7 YEARS
OF AGE.
INSANITY
• IT EXISTS WHEN THERE IS A COMPLETE DEPRIVATION OF INTELLIGENCE OR

FREEDOM OF THE WILL. MERE ABNORMALITY OF MENTAL FACULTIES IS NOT
ENOUGH ESPECIALLY IF THE OFFENDER HAS NOT LOST CONSCIOUSNESS OF
HIS ACTS.
BOARD: WHO HAS THE BURDEN TO PROVE INSANITY?
a. DEFENSE/ACCUSED
b. COMPLAINANT
c. PROSECUTION
d. DOJ
REASON
• THE ACCUSED IS PRESUMED TO BE SANE

TERMS COVERED BY INSANITY
DEFENSE
1. DEMENTIA PREACOX – SCHIZOPHRENIA – IS A FORM OF
PSYCHOSIS WHERE HOMICIDAL ATTACK IS COMMON, BECAUSE
OF DELUSIONS THAT THE PATIENT SUFFERS FROM DELUSION THAT
HE IS SEXUALLY ABUSED, OR THAT HIS PROPERTY IS TAKEN.
2. EPILEPSY- DISEASE CHARACTERIZED BY CONVULSIONS/NERVOUS
DISORDER
3. MALIGNANT MALARIA - IT AFFECTS NERVOUS SYSTEM
(COMPLICATION AS ACUTE MELANCHOLIA AND INSANITY)
• 4. SOMNAMBULISM OR SLEEPWALKING - MUST BE CLEARLY PROVEN TO BE
CONSIDERED AS AN EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE.
• 5. FEEBLEMINDEDNESS NOT IMBECILITY - NOT EXEMPTING BUT CAN BE
CONSIDERED AS MITIGATING.
2 TESTS OF INSANITY
• TEST OF COGNITION - COMPLETE DEPRIVATION OF INTELLIGENCE IN

COMMITTING THE CRIME.
• TEST OF VOLITION - TOTAL DEPRIVATION OF FREEDOM OF THE WILL.
OCCURRENCE OF INSANITY AND ITS
EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Time when accused suffers insanity Effect on criminal liability
At the time of the commission of the Exempt from liability
crime
During trial Proceedings will be suspended and
accused is committed to a hospital
After judgment or while serving Execution of judgment is suspended;
sentence the accused is committed to a hospital.
The period of confinement in the
hospital is counted for the purpose of
the prescription.
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE
ACT
CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW - IT REFERS TO A CHILD WHO IS ALLEGED AS,
ACCUSED OF, OR ADJUDGED AS, HAVING COMMITTED AN OFFENSE UNDER
PHILIPPINE LAWS.
2. A person under nine MINORITY
years of age. (Repealed
by RA 9344 as futher
amended by R.A. No.
10630) now under 15
years of age
3. A person over nine MINORITY
years of age and under
fifteen, unless he has
acted with discernment,
in which case, such
minor shall be
proceeded against in
accordance with the
provisions of Art. 80 of
this Code. (Repealed by
RA 9344) now over 15
but under 18 years of
age.
4. Any person who, ACCIDENT
while performing a lawful
act with due care,
causes an injury by
mere accident without
fault or intention of
causing it.
• X WAS ARRESTED TO BE INVESTIGATED BY THE POLICE.
WHILE BEING ACCOMPANIED TO THE INVESTIGATION
ROOM, HE SUDDENLY GRABBED THE PISTOL OF THE
POLICE OFFICER. THE POLICE OFFICER TRIED TO GET
BACK, STRUGGLED AND THE SAID FIREARM FIRED AND
HIT THE ARRESTED PERSON. THE POLICE OFFICER WAS
PROSECUTED FOR HOMICIDE, HE INVOKED ACCIDENT AS
A DEFENSE AS AN EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE
• WAS HE PERFORMING A LAWFUL ACT? YES
• WAS HE PERFORMING WITH DUE CARE? YES, THE ONLY
WAY TO DO IT WAS TO STRUGGLE FOR POSSESSION FOR
IT WOULD NOT BE READILY GIVEN TO HIM.
• WAS THE INJURY CAUSED WITH FAULT OR INTENTION?
NO, THUS EXEMPT
• POLICEOFFICER SAW SOME YOUNG BOYS FIGHTING
AMONG EACH OTHER, THE OFFICER TRIED TO PACIFY
THEM, BUT TO NO AVAIL THE FIGHTING CONTINUED. HE
TOOK HIS PISTOL AND FIRED SEVERAL SHOTS IN THE AIR.
ONE OF THE BULLETS LANDED ON A CHILD SLEEPING AT A
TERRACE. THE CHILD DIED. PROSECUTED FOR
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE TO HOMICIDE, HE INVOKED
ACCIDENT AS EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE.
• WAS HE PERFORMING A LAWFUL ACT? YES
• WAS HE PERFORMING WITH DUE CARE? NO.
CONSIDERING THAT IT WAS A NEIGHBORHOOD, HE
SHOULD NOT HAVE FIRED SHOTS IN THE AIR FOR HE
KNEW THAT THE BULLETS WOULD HAVE LANDED ON ANY
INNOCENT PERSON. THUS, LIABLE OR A CULPABLE
FELONY.
5. Any person who act IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
under the compulsion of
irresistible force.
6. Any person who UNCONTROLABLE
acts under the impulse FEAR
of an uncontrollable
fear of an equal or
greater injury
• BANK MANAGER WAS FORCED BY THE ROBBERS TO OPEN THE VAULT. HE
REFUSED. THEY KILLED THE TELLER AND TOLD HIM THAT THE NEXT BULLET
WILL BE IN HIS HEAD IF HE DID NOT OPEN THE VAULT. HE OPENED IT. CAN HE
INVOKE UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR OR EQUAL OR GREATER INJURY?
• BANK MANAGER WAS FORCED BY THE ROBBERS TO OPEN THE VAULT. HE
REFUSED. THEY TOLD HIM THAT IF HE WILL NOT OPEN THE VAULT, THEY WILL
GO TO HIS HOUSE, KILL HIS WIFE, RAPE HIS DAUGHTER AND BURN HIS HOUSE
DOWN. HE OPENED. CAN HE INVOKE UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR?
• NO. THE FEAR IS NOT REAL OR IMMINENT. IT IS ONLY A THREAT TO BE DONE IN
THE FUTURE. HE STILL HAD A CHOICE NOT TO DO IT AND THE ROBBER WOULD
STILL SEARCH HIS HOUSE AND FAMILY FOR THE THREAT TO BE ACTUALIZED.
7. Any person who fails LAWFUL OR
to perform an act INSUPERABLE CAUSE
required by law, when
prevented by some
lawful insuperable
cause.
ILLUSTRATION
• A MOTHER, WHO AT THE TIME OF CHILDBIRTH WAS OVERCOME BY SEVERE

DIZZINESS EXTREME DEBILITY, AND LEFT THE CHILD IN A THICKET WHERE
SAID CHILD DIED, IS NOT LIABLE FOR INFANTICIDE BECAUSE IT WAS
PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR HER TO TAKE HOME THE CHILD.
• THE SEVERE DIZZINESS AND EXTREME DEBILITY OF THE WOMAN CONSTITUTE
AN INSUPERABLE CAUSE.
INSANITY AT THE TIME OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME VS.
INSANITY AT THE TIME OF TRIAL
• INSANITY AT TIME OF COMMISSION OF CRIME = EXEMPTED.

• SANE AT TIME OF CRIME BUT BECAME INSANE AT TIME OF TRIAL = LIABLE
STILL BUT TRIAL WIL BE SUSPENDED.
PERIODS OF HUMAN LIVES
AGE OF AGE OF AGE OF AGE OF
ABSOLUTE ABSOLUTE MITIGATED CONDITIONAL
CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL
IRRESPONSIS RESPONSIBILIT RESPONSIBILI RESPONSIBILI
BILITY Y TY TY
Below 15 18 years old •Over 70 15 years old

years old and and above or years old and 1 day to
exactly 15 18 years old •15 years old 17 years old.
years old to 70 years and 1 day to
old 17 years old
who acted
with
discernment
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES, DEFINED
THOSE WHERE THE ACT OF A PERSON IS TECHNICALLY A CRIME, BUT BECAUSE

OF PUBLIC POLICY, THERE IS NO PENALTY IMPOSED.
ENTRAPMENT VS. INSTIGATION
ENTRAPMENT INSTIGATION
1. Ways and means are resorted to for the Here, the police practically induces the
purpose of trapping and capturing the accused into the commission of the offense
lawbreaker in the execution of his plans and he himself becomes a co principal in
the crime.
2. The intent to violate the law originated 2. The intent to violate the law did not
from the accused himself. originate from the accused as he was
induced only by the police to perform a
criminal act.
3. Not an absolutory cause hence does not An absolutory cause that exempts one from
exempt from criminal liability criminal liability
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES-THOSE WHICH IF PRESENT IN THE

COMMISSION OF A CRIME, DO NOT ENTIRELY FREE THE ACTOR FROM
CRIMINAL LIABILITY BUT REDUCES ONLY THE PENALTY.
ENUMERATE THE MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
1. INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING OR EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE

2. UNDER 18 OR OVER 70 YEARS OF AGE
3. NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG (PRAETER INTENTIONEM)
4. SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION OR THREAT
5. VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE
6. PASSION OR OBFUSCATION
7. VOLUNTARY SURRENDER/ VOLUNTARY CONFESSION OF GUILT
8. DEAF, DUMB, BLIND AND OTHER PHYSICAL DEFECTS
9. ILLNESSES WHICH DIMINISH WILL POWER
10. ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCES.
1. Those mentioned in Incomplete Justifying
the preceding chapter, or incomplete
when all the requisites exempting
necessary to justify or circumstances.
to exempt from
criminal liability in the
respective cases are
not attendant.
INCOMPLETE SELF-DEFENSE, DEFENSE OF
RELATIVES AND DEFENSE OF A STRANGER
• UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION IS AN INDISPENSABLE REQUISITE. WHEN 2 OF THE 3

REQUISITES MENTIONED THEREIN ARE PRESENT (I.E. UNALWFUL
AGGRESSION AND ANY ONE OF THE OTHER 2), THE CASE SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED A PRIVILEGED MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE REFERRED TO IN
ART. 69 OF THE RPC.
NOTE:
• IN THE 3 CLASSES OF DEFENSE, UNLAWFUL AGRESSION MUST BE PRESENT, IT

BEING INDISPENSABLE REQUISITE. WHAT IS ABSENT IS EITHER ONE OR BOTH
OF THE LAST 2 REQUISITES.
• UNDERART. 69 OF THE RPC, WHEN ONLY UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION IS
PRESENT, THE ACCUSED IS ENTITLED TO A PENALTY LOWER IN DEGREE. IF
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION AND ANY OF THE REMAINING 2 ELEMENTS ARE
PRESENT, THE ACCUSED IS ENTITLED TO 2 DEGREES.
• BUT IF THERE IS NO UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION, THERE COULD BE NO SELF-
DEFENSE, WHETHER COMPLETE OR INCOMPLETE.
2. That the offender is Minority (under 18 years
under eighteen years of old)
age or over seventy
years. In the case of the Noted: If he/she acted
minor, he shall be with discernment
proceeded against in
accordance with the
provisions of Art. 80.
(Correlate with RA 9344)
3. That the offender had PRAETER
no intention to commit INTENTIONEM
so grave a wrong as that
committed.
4. That sufficient SUFFICIENT
provocation or threat PROVOCATION OR
on the part of the THREAT
offended party
immediately preceded
the act.
• WHEN THE AGGRESSION IS IN RETALIATION FOR AN INSULT, INJURY OR
THREAT, THE OFFENDER CANNOT SUCCESSFULLY CLAIM SELF-DEFENSE, BUT
AT MOST HE CAN BE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE.
• WHILE DRINKING A AND B HAD A CONFRONTATION. B STATED SLANDEROUS
REMARKS AT A. THIS CAUSED A FIST FIGHT TO ENSUE. A WHO WAS THE
SMALLER GUY WAS LOSING UNTIL A LANDED A LUCKY PUNCH AT B WHICH
KNOCKED HIM UNCONSCIOUS. AFTER THE INCIDENT, B FREQUENTLY
COMPLAINED OF PAIN. 11 DAYS AFTER, B DIED. A WAS PROSECUTED FOR
HOMICIDE. HE INVOKES SUFFICIENT
• PROVOCATION AND PRAETER INTENTIONEM. IS HE CORRECT?
• YES. THERE WAS SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION FROM B WHEN HE STATED

SLANDEROUS WORDS AT A, THUS CREATING A CONFRONTATION WHICH
ENDED UP BAD. ALSO, PRAETER INTENTIONEM IS PRESENT BECAUSE WHO
WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT DEATH WOULD RESULT FROM THE MERE FIST
FIGHTING
5. That the act was VINDICATION OF
committed in the GRAVE OFFENSE
immediate vindication of
a grave offense to the
one committing the
felony (delito), his
spouse, ascendants, or
relatives by affinity
within the same
degrees.
• BEING HIT BY A STICK IS NOT A GRAVE OFFENSE.
RELATIONSHIP BY AFFINITY
• IT APPLIES TO GRAVE OFFENSES COMMITTED AGAINST THE SURVIVING

SPOUSE OF THE DECEASED RELATIVE.
6. That of having acted PASSION OR
upon an impulse so OBFUSCATION
powerful as naturally to
have produced
passion or obfuscation.
• PASSIONOR OBFUSCATION IS NOT MITIGATING WHEN THE RELATIONS
BETWEEN THE PARTIES ARE ILLEGITIMATE.
7. That the offender VOLUNTARY
had voluntarily SURRENDER OR
surrendered himself to VOLUNTARY
a person in authority or CONFESSION OF
his agents, or that he GUILT
had voluntarily
confessed his guilt
before the court prior
to the presentation of
the evidence for the
prosecution;
• VOLUNTARY SURRENDER MUST BE MADE TO A PERSON IN AUTHORITY OR HIS
AGENTS
• A SURRENDER IS VOLUNTARY WHEN IT IS SPONTANEOUS IN SUCH A MANNER
THAT IT SHOWS THE INTEREST OF THE ACCUSED TO SURRENDER
VOLUNTARILY TO THE AUTHORITIES EITHER BECAUSE HE ACKNOWLEDGES
HIS GUILT OR WISHES TO SAVE THE AUTHORITIES THE EXPENSES INCURRED
IN HIS SEARCH.
VOLUNTARY CONFESSION OF GUILT/PLEA OF GUILTY
REQUISITES
• 1. IT MUST BE MADE IN OPEN COURT

• 2. IT MUST BE MADE PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE OF THE
PROSECUTION
CASE NOT CONSTITUTING
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
• THEACCUSED SURRENDERED ONLY AFTER WARRANT OF ARREST WAS

SERVED UPON HIM;
• PLEA OF GUILTY IS NOT MITIGATING IN CULPABLE FELONIES AND CRIMES
PUNISHED BY SPECIAL PENAL LAWS.
• AN EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION IS NOT MITIGATING BECAUSE IT IS NOT
MADE IN OPEN COURT.
8. That the offender is PHYSICAL HANDICAP
deaf and dumb, blind OR DEFECTS
or otherwise suffering
some physical defect
which thus restricts his
means of action,
defense, or
communications with
his fellow beings.
• IT IS NECESSARY THAT THERE MUST BE A RELATION BETWEEN THE PHYSICAL
DEFECT AND THE CRIME COMMITTED BY THE OFFENDER
• E.G. BLINDNESS DOES NOT MITIGATE ESTAFA
• X IS A DEAF AND MUTE. HE SAW A WOMAN WITHDRAWING FROM THE ATM
AND SAW THE MONEY PLACED INSIDE HER BAG. X SNATCHED THE BAG.
PROSECUTED FOR THEFT , CAN HIS PHYSICAL DEFECT MITIGATE HIS
LIABILITY?
• NO, IT IS NOT CONNECTED TO THE CRIME HE HAS DONE.
9. Such illness of the ILLNESS THAT
offender as would DIMINISHED WILL
diminish the exercise POWER
of the will-power of the
offender without
however depriving him
of the consciousness
of his acts.
• ILLNESS MUST ONLY DIMINISH AND NOT DEPRIVE THE OFFENDER OF THE
CONSCIOUSNESS OF HIS ACTS OR HE WILL BE EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL
LIABILITY.
• INCLUDES CLEPTOMANIA, FEEBLEMINDEDNESS
• IF SUCH ILLNESS ALSO DEPRIVES HIM OF CONSCIOUSNESS TO ACT, THEN
SUCH CIRCUMSTANCE IS EXEMPTING NOT ONLY MITIGATING.
• EXAMPLE – CLEPTOMANIAC; HE KNEW AND WAS AWARE OF HIS ACTS BUT
HIS ILLNESS DIMINISH HIS WILL POWER.
10. And, finally, any ANALOGOUS
other circumstances of a CIRCUMSTANCES
similar nature and
analogous to those
above mentioned.
EXAMPLES:
• 1. IMPULSE OF JEALOUSY, SIMILAR TO PASSION AND OBFUSCATION;

• 2. VOLUNTARY RETURN OF FUNDS MALVERSED BY THE ACCUSED AS
EQUIVALENT TO VOLUNTARY SURRENDER;
• 3. TESTIFYING FOR THE PROSECUTION WITHOUT BEING DISCHARGED FROM
THE INFORMATION,BEING LIKE A PLEA OF GUILTY.
EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES
• EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE THE EFFECT OF REDUCING CRIMINAL

LIABILITY. ALMOST SIMILAR TO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, FOUND IN
BOOK TWO OF THE RPC.
• EXAMPLES: CONCEALMENT OF DISHONOR BY MOTHER IN INFANTICIDE AND
ABORTION, ABANDONMENT BY HUSBAND IN ADULTERY.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES- ARE THOSE WHICH IF ATTENDANT IN THE

COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE, WOULD SERVE TO INCREASE THE PENALTY.
• AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES MUST BE ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION,
WHATEVER BE ITS KIND. IF NOT, EVEN IF IT IS PROVEN IN TRIAL, IT CANNOT
BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT.
KINDS OF AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
• A. GENERIC AC - IT INCREASES THE PENALTY OF THE OFFENSE TO ITS
MAXIMUM PERIOD BUT IT CANNOT BE TO THE NEXT HIGHER DEGREE. IT CAN
BE OFFSET BY AN ORDINARY MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE.
• IT INCLUDES THOSE THAT CAN GENERALLY APPLY TO ALL CRIMES FOUND
UNDER SUBPARAGRAPHS 1, 2, 3 (DWELLING), 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 18, 19, 20
EXCEPT BY MEANS OF MOTOR VEHICLE:
• A. CONTEMPT OR INSULT OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY;
• B. TAKING ADVANTAGE OF PUBLIC POSITION;
• C. RECIDIVISM;
• D. NIGHTTIME, UNINHABITED PLACE OR BAND;
• E. ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE OR OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS;
• F. PLACE AND TIME OF COMMISSION OF OFFENSE;
• G. CRIME COMMITTED IN THE DWELLING OF THE OFFENDED PARTY;
• H. BREAKING OF PARTS OF THE HOUSE;
• I. UNLAWFUL ENTRY;
• J. HABITUALITY;
• K. USE OF PERSONS UNDER 15 YEARS OF AGE; AND
• L. CRAFT, FRAUD OR DISGUISE
• B. SPECIFIC AC
• THOSE WHICH APPLY ONLY TO CERTAIN AND SPECIFIED CRIMES, SUCH AS
IGNOMINY IN CRIMES AGAINST AGAINST CHASTITY AND CRUELTY AND
TREACHERY WHICH ARE APPLICABLE ONLY CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
FOUND UNDER SUBPARAGRAPHS 3 (EXCEPT DWELLING), 15, 16, 17 AND 21:
• 1. DISREGARD OF RANK, AGE OR SEX DUE THE OFFENDED PARTY IN CRIMES
AGAINST PERSONS AND HONOR;
• 2. ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH OR MEANS BE EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN THE
DEFENSE CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS;
• 3. TREACHERY IN CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS;
• 4. IGNOMINY IN CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY; AND
• 5. CRUELTY IN CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS.
• C. INHERENT AC
• THOSE WHICH ARE NECESSARILY INCLUDED IN THE COMMISSION OF A
CRIME. CONSIDERED AS ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS IN THE COMMISSION OF A
CRIME, OR ABSORBED THERETO, THUS, WOULD NOT MEAN IMPOSITION OF A
HIGHER PENALTY, SUCH AS:
• 1.EVIDENT PREMIDITATION IN CONCUBINAGE, ROBBERY, ADULTERY, THEFT,
ESTAFA;
• 2. ABUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE IN BRIBERY;
• 3,. BREAKING OF A WALL OR UNLAWFUL ENTRY INTO A HOUSE IN ROBBERY WITH
THE USE OF FORCE UPON THINGS;
• 4. FRAUD IN ESTAFA;
• 5. DECEIT IN SIMPLE SEDUCTION; AND
• 6. IGNOMINY IN RAPE.
• SPECIALAC - THOSE WHICH ARISE UNDER SPECIAL CONDITIONS TO
INCREASE THE PENALTY OF THE OFFENSE AND CANNOT BE OFFSET BY
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH AS:
• 1. COMPLEX CRIMES;
• 2. USE OF UNLICENSED FIREARM IN HOMICIDE OR MURDER;
• 3. TAKING ADVANTAGE OF PUBLIC POSITION AND MEMBERSHIP IN AN
ORGANIZED/SYNDICATED CRIME GROUP;
• 4. ERROR IN PERSONAE; AND
• 5. QUASI-RECIDIVISM
• QUALIFYING AC
• THOSE WHICH EITHER CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE CRIME TO BRING ABOUT
A MORE SERIOUS CRIME WITH A GREATER PENALTY OR EVEN WITHOUT
CHANGING THE NATURE OF THE CRIME, IT WILL BRING ABOUT THE
IMPOSITION OF A HIGHER PENALTY
• EX. ART. 248 – THESE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT QUALIFY THE CRIME FROM
HOMICIDE TO MURDER; AND
• ALEVOSIA (TREACHERY) OR EVIDENT PREMIDITATION QUALIFIES THE KILLING
OF A PERSON TO MURDER
THE 21 AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSATNCES
1. ADVANTAGE OF PUBLIC POSITION
2. IN CONTEMPT OR WITH INSULT TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
3. DISRESPECT ON THE RANK, AGE OR SEX OF THE OFFENDED PARTY; THE CRIME IS COMMITTED IN THE DWELLING OF OFFENDED PARTY
4. ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE OR OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS
5. PALACE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, OR IN HIS PRESENCE, OR PLACE WHERE AUTHORITIES DISCHARGE THEIR DUTIES, OR PLACE OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP
6. NIGHTIME, UNINHABITED PLACE, BAND
7. ON OCCASION OF CONFLAGRATION, SHIPWRECK ETC.
8. AID OF ARMED MEN
9. RECIDIVIST
10. REITERATION
11. PRICE, REWARD OR PROMISE
12. INUNDATION, FIRE, POISON, ETC
13. EVIDENT PREMIDITATION
14. CRAFT, FRAUD OR DISGUISE
15. SUPERIOR STRENGTH OR MEANS TO WEAKEN DEFENSE
16 TREACHERY
17. IGNOMINY
18. UNLAWFUL ENTRY
19. WALL, ROOF, FLOOR BE BROKEN
20. AID OF PERSONS UNDER 15, MOTOR VEHICLE
21. CRUELTY
1. That advantage be Taking advantage of
taken by the offender public position
of his public position
• THERE WAS A RAID ALONG THE SIDEWALKS OF RECTO. POLICE OFFICERS IN
IMPLEMENTING AN ORDINANCE TO CLEAN SIDEWALKS OF VENDORS, TOOK
ALL THE WARES OF THESE PEOPLE, ARRESTED THEM AND BROUGHT TO THE
STATION. ONE OFFICER TOOK NOTICE OF ONE LADY VENDOR AND TOLD HER TO
BOARD HIS OWN CAR. THE LADY WAS BROUGHT TO ANOTHER PLACE AND
WAS RAPED.
• A POLICEMAN ON GUARD DUTY WHO HAS MALTREATED A PRISONER. HE
COULD NOT HAVE DONE THE SAME WHERE IT NOT FOR HIS POSITION AS A
GUARD ON DUTY.
2. That the crime be Contempt of
committed in contempt authorities
or with insult to the
public authorities.
• B WHILE DRIVING, OVERTAKES A. A CUT B AND WENT DOWN THE CAR AND
BOTH HAD A CONFRONTATION. C, AN MMDA TRAFFIC ENFORCER
APPROACHED THE 2 AND TOLD THEM TO JUST PEACEABLY DEAL THE
SITUATION. A SUDDENLY TOOK HIS BALISONG AND STABBED B IN THE
PRESENCE OF MMDA TRAFFIC ENFORCER C.IS THERE AN AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE?
• IF IN THE SAME PROBLEM, A BARANGAY CHAIRMAN D APPROACHED THEM
AND SAID THAT HE IS THE KAPITAN OF THE BARANGAY AND ADVISED THEM
TO SETTLE AMICABLY AND THE SCENARIO ENSUED. WILL YOUR ANSWER BE
THE SAME?
• ART. 14, PAR. 2 DOES NOT APPLY WHEN CRIME IS COMMITTED IN THE
PRESENCE OF AN AGENT OF A PERSON IN AUTHORITY ONLY.
• A STABBED B TO DEATH IN FRONT OF THE GOVERNOR AND MAYOR DURING A
PUBLIC PEACE RALLY IF THE CRIME COMMITTED IS AGAINST THE PUBLIC
AUTHORITY HIMSELF WHILE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTY, THE
OFFENDER COMMITS DIRECT ASSAULT WHICH SHOULD NOT APPRECIATE
THIS AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE.
3. That the act be Disregard of rank, age,
committed with insult sex and dwelling of
or in disregard of the victim
respect due the
offended party on
account of his rank,
age, or sex, or that is
be committed in the
dwelling of the
offended party, if the
latter has not given
provocation.
• THE 4 CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH CAN BE CONSIDERED
SINGLE OR ALTOGETHER. IF ALL OF THEM ARE PRESENT, THEY HAVE THE
WEIGHT OF 1 AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE ONLY.
• X WAS WAITING FOR HER FATHER IN THE STAIRCASE OF THEIR HOUSE
OUTSIDE. WHILE WAITING, Y APPROACHED X AND KNOCKED HER
UNCONSCIOUS AND BROUGHT HER TO HIS HOUSE ACROSS THE STREET AND
THERE RAPED HER. PROSECUTED FOR RAPE, CAN DWELLING BE CONSIDERED
AN AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE?
• YES. IT SUFFICES THAT THE ACCUSED STARTED HIS AGGRESSION IN THE
DWELLING OF THE VICTIM EVEN THOUGH FULLY CONSUMMATED THE CRIME
IN A NEARBY PLACE.
• THE DISREGARD AS TO AGE, RANK AND SEX CANNOT BE APPRECIATED IN
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY. THESE CAN ONLY APPLY TO CRIMES AGAINST
PERSONS AND CHASTITY
• DWELLING IS AN AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE. IT WILL ONLY BE INHERENT
IN ROBBERY WITH FORCE UPON THINGS . IT IS NOT INHERENT IN ROBBERY
WITH VIOLENCE AGAINST PERSON
MEANING OF PROVOCATION IN THE
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF DWELLING
• THE PROVOCATION MUST BE:

• 1. GIVEN BY THE OWNER OF THE DWELLING;
• 2. SUFFICIENT; AND
• 3. IMMEDIATE TO THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME.
• IF ALL THESE CONDITIONS ARE PRESENT, IT IS NOT AN AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE.
4. That the act be Abuse of confidence or
committed with abuse obvious ungratefulness
of confidence or
obvious
ungratefulness.
• A AND B ARE COUPLE LIVING IN MANILA. X, THEIR FORMER NEIGHBOR
REQUESTED TO LIVE WITH THEM WHILE HE IS LOOKING OR A JOB. THEY
ALLOWED X. WHEN A AND B WERE OUT, THEIR 12 YEAR OLD CHILD WAS LEFT
IN THE HOUSE. X RAPED THE CHILD.
OTHER EXAMPLES
• WHERE A SECURITY GUARD KILLED A BANK OFFICER AND ROBBED A BANK.

• WHEN A VISITOR COMMITS ROBBERY OR THEFT IN THE HOUSE OF HIS HOST.
ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE IS
INHERENT IN:
• 1. QUALIFIED SEDUCTION;
• 2. QUALIFIED THEFT;
• 3. ESTAFA MY COVERSION OR MISAPPROPRIATION; AND
• 4. MALVERSATION.
5. That the crime be Palace of President,
committed in the palace public places or those
of the Chief Executive or dedicated to worship
in his presence, or
where public authorities
are engaged in the
discharge of their duties,
or in a place dedicated
to religious worship.
• THE PLACE OF THE COMMISISION OF THE FELONY, IF IT IS MALACAÑANG OR A
CHURCH, IS AGGRAVATING REGARDLESS OF WHETHER STATE OFFICIAL OR
RELIGIOUS FUNCTIONS ARE BEING HELD.
• THE PRESIDENT NEED NOT BE IN MALACAÑANG PALACE. HIS PRESENCE ALONE
IN ANY PLACE WHERE THE CRIME IS COMMITTED IS ENOUGH TO CONSTITUTE
THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE.
• BUT AS REGARDS THE PLACE WHERE THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES ARE
ENGAGED IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR DUTIES, THERE MUST BE SOME
PERFORMANCE OF PUBLIC FUNCTIONS.
• AN ELECTORAL PRECINCT DURING ELECTION DAY IS A PLACE WHERE PUBLIC
AUTHORITIES ARE ENGAGED IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR DUTIES.
• CEMETERIES ARE NOT CONSIDERED AS PLACE DEDICATED TO THE WORSHIP
OF GOD
• MUST BE DEDICATED TO PUBLIC RELIGIOUS WORSHIP; PRIVATE CHAPELS
NOT INCLUDED.
6. That the crime be Night time, uninhabited
committed in the night place and band
time, or in an
uninhabited place, or
by a band, whenever
such circumstances
may facilitate the
commission of the
offense.
• THERE ARE 3 AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS PARAGRAPH. WHEN
PRESENT IN THE SAME CASE AND THEIR ELEMENTS ARE DISTINCTLY
PALPABLE AND CAN SUBSIST INDEPENDENTLY, THEY SHALL BE CONSIDERED
SEPARATELY.
WHEN NIGHTTIME, UNINHABITED
PLACE OR BAND AGGRAVATING:
• 1. WHEN IT FACILITATED THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME;

• 2. WHEN ESPECIALLY SOUGHT FOR BY THE OFFENDER TO INSURE THE
COMMISSION OF THE CRIME OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPUNITY; OR
• 3. WHEN THE OFFENDER TOOK ADVANTAGE THEREOF FOR THE PURPOSE OF
IMPUNITY.
NIGHTTIME (OBSCURIDAD)
• THAT PERIOD OF DARKNESS BEGINNING AT END OF DUSK AND ENDING AT

DAWN. NIGHTS ARE FROM SUNSET TO SUNRISE.
• IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME BEGAN AND WAS
COMPLETED AT NIGHTTIME.
• WHEN THE PLACE OF THE CRIME IS ILLUMINATED BY LIGHT, NIGHTTIME IS
NOT AGGRAVATING.
GENERAL RULE:
• NIGHTTIME IS ABSORBED IN TREACHERY.

• A, ARRIVED AT THE HOUSE OF THE VICTIMS AT 7:20PM BUT PURPOSELY
WAITED UNTIL 4:00AM WHEN HIS INTENDED VICTIMS ARE ALREADY ASLEEP
IN ORDER TO COMMIT THE CRIMES. THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF NIGHTTIME
WILL AGGRAVATE THE CRIMES COMMITTED.
UNINHABITED PLACE
(DESPOBLADO)
• ONE WHERE THERE ARE NO HOUSES AT ALL; A PLACE AT A CONSIDERABLE

DISTANCE FROM TOWN, OR WHERE THE HOUSES ARE SCATTERED AT A GREAT
DISTANCE FROM EACH OTHER.
• THIS SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED WHEN THE PLACE WHERE THE CRIME
WAS COMMITTED COULD BE SEEN AND THE VOICE OF THE DECEASED COULD
BE HEARD FROM A NEARBY HOUSE.
ILLUSTRATION:
• KILLING WAS DONE DURING NIGHTTIME, IN A SUGARCANE PLANTATION

ABOUT A HUNDRED METERS FROM THE NEAREST HOUSE, AND THE
SUGARCANE IN THE FIELD WAS TALL ENOUGH TO OBSTRUCT THE VIEW OF
NEIGHBORS AND PASSERSBY.
BAND (EN CUADRILLA)
• BAND- WHENEVER MORE THAN THREE ARMED MALEFACTORS SHALL HAVE

ACTED TOGETHER IN THE COMMISSION OF AN OFFENSE, IT SHALL BE DEEMED
TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY A BAND.
• NOT APPLICABLE IN CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, BUT IS CONSIDERED IN
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY, CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS, ILLEGAL
DETENTION AND TREASON.
• THIS AGGRAVATINGRCUMSTANCE IS INHERENT IN BRIGANDAGE.
7. That the crime be Taking advantage of
committed on the calamity, disaster.
occasion of a
conflagration, shipwreck,
earthquake, epidemic or
other calamity or
misfortune.
• KILLING A PERSON ON THE OCCASSION OF ANY OF THE CALAMITIES
QUALIFIES IT TO MURDER.
8. That the crime be Aid of armed men
committed with the aid
of armed men or
persons who insure or
afford impunity.
ARMED MEN
• PERSONS EQUIPPED WITH A WEAPON

• INCLUDES ARMED WOMEN
• PERSONS WHO INSURE OR AFFORD IMPUNITY MUST HAVE OR BE IN A
POSITION TO AFFORD IMPUNITY.
• E.G. A JUDGE
• Q: ROBBER X AND ROBBER Y ROBBED A CERTAIN VILLAGE UPON THE
ASSURANCE OF THE BARANGAY TANOD THAT THEY WOULD NOT PATROL THE
VILLAGE ON THAT NIGHT. WHAT AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSATNCE IS PRESENT?
• A: AID OF PERSONS WHO INSURE IMPUNITY
9. That the accused is Recidivism
a recidivist.
• RECIDIVIST- 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.
RECIDIVISM; REQUISITES
• 1. THAT THE OFFENDER IS ON TRIAL FOR AN OFFENSE;

• 2. THAT HE WAS PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED BY FINAL JUDGMENT OF ANOTHER
CRIME;
• 3. THAT THE OFFENDER IS CONVICTED OF THE NEW OFFENSE; AND
• 4. THAT BOTH THE FIRST AND THE SECOND OFFENSES ARE EMBRACED IN THE
SAME TITLE OF THE CODE.
NOTE:
•A RECIDIVIST IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF THE INDETERMINATE

SENTENCE LAW (ACT NO. 4103, AS AMENDED BY ACT NO. 4225) BUT IS
DISQUALIFIED FROM AVAILING CREDIT OF HIS PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT.
• RECIDIVISM MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT NO MATTER HOW MANY YEARS
HAVE INTERVENED BETWEEN THE FIRST AND SECOND FELONIES.
• EVEN IF THE ACCUSED WAS GRANTED A PARDON FOR THE FIRST OFFENSE,
BUT HE COMMITS ANOTHER FELONY EMBRACED IN THE SAME TITLE OF THE
CODE, THE FIRST CONVICTION IS STILL COUNTED TO MAKE HIM A
RECIDIVIST SINCE PARDON DOES NOT OBLITERATE TACT OF HIS PRIOR
CONVICTION.
• THE RULE IS DIFFERENT IN THE CASE OF AMNESTY WHICH THEORETICALLY
CONSIDERS THE PREVIOUS TRANSGRESSIONS AS NOT PUNISHABLE.
• A CONVICTED FOR SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES BY FINAL JUDGMENT AND
SERVED HIS SENTENCE. AFTER GETTING OUT OF JAIL, 25 YEARS THEREAFTER,
HE GOT INTO A FIGHT, KILLED HIS OPPONENT. JUDGE FOUND HIM GUILTY OF
HOMICIDE
10. That the offender Reiteracion or habituality
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.
REITERACION OR
HABITUALITY;REQUISITES:
• 1. THAT THE ACCUSED IS ON TRIAL FOR AN OFFENSE;

• 2. THAT HE HAS PREVIOUSLY SERVED SENTENCE FOR ANOTHER
OFFENSE (FIRST OFFENSE) TO WHICH THE LAW ATTACHES
• A. EQUAL OR GREATER PENALTY, OR
• B. FOR 2 OR MORE CRIMES TO WHICH IT ATTACHES A LIGHTER
PENALTY THAN FOR THE NEW OFFENSE; AND
• 3. THAT HE IS CONVICTED OF THE NEW OFFENSE.
3 SITUATIONS CONTEMPLATED:
• 1. AT THE TIME OF HIS TRIAL FOR A CRIME, THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN
PREVIOUSLY PUNISHED FOR AN OFFENSE TO WHICH THE LAW ATTACHES AN
EQUAL PENALTY;
• 2. AT THE TIME OF HIS TRIAL FOR A CRIME, THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN
PREVIOUSLY PUNISHED FOR AN OFFENSE TO WHICH THE LAW ATTACHES A
GREATER PENALTY; OR
• 3. AT THE TIME OF HIS TRIAL FOR
A CRIME, THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN
PREVIOUSLY PUNISHED FOR 2 OR MORE CRIMES TO WHICH THE LAW
ATTACHES A LIGHTER PENALTY.
11. That the crime be Price, reward, promise
committed in
consideration of a price,
reward, or promise.
• A AGREED TO KILL B IN CONSIDERATION OF 50,000 PESOS REWARD FROM C.
IN THIS CASE, A IS THE PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION WHILE C IS
THE PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT.
12. That the crime be Fire, poison, and other
committed by means of great wastes and ruins.
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.
INUNDATION
IT REFERS TO THE USE OF WATER OR CAUSING THE WATER TO FLOOD IN THE

COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE.
13. That the act be Evident premeditation
committed with
evidence
premeditation.
• THERE MUST BE SUFFICIENT TIME BETWEEN THE OUTWARD ACTS AND THE
ACTUAL COMMISSION OF THE CRIME.
• A SLAPPED B IN FRONT OF MANY PEOPLE. IN HUMILIATION HE TOLD A “I WILL
KILL YOU” AND THEN WENT HOME. HE BOUGHT A GUN PLACED UNDER HIS
PILLOW. AFTER 2 WEEKS, HE SAW A. UPON SEEING A, HE WENT TO THE HOUSE,
TOOK THE GUN AND KILLED A.
• THERE IS EVIDENT PREMEDITATION HERE.

• IF E.P. IS USED IN KILLING SOMEONE
• IT IS A QUALIFYING AC TO MURDER
• THE LATEST RULING IS THAT PREMEDITATION IS NOT AGGRAVATING WHEN
THE VICTIM IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT INTENDED (ERROR IN
PERSONAE/ABERRATIO ICTUS)
• HOWEVER, IF IT IS SHOWN THAT THE CONSPIRATORS WERE DETERMINED TO
KILL NOT ONLY THE INTENDED VICTIM BUT ALSO ANYONE WHO MAY HELP PUT
A VIOLENT RESISTANCE, THEN EVIDENT PREMEDITATION WILL BE
APPRECIATED.
• EVIDENT PREMIDITATION, WHILE INHERENT IN ROBBERY, MAY BE
AGGRAVATING IN ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE IF THE PREMIDITATION
INCLUDED THE KILLING OF THE VICTIM.
14. That the craft, fraud Craft, fraud, disguise
or disguise be
employed.
CRAFT; DEFINED
• CRAFT- IS A CIRCUMSTANCE CHARACTERIZED BY TRICKERY OR CUNNING

RESORTED TO BY THE ACCUSED, TO CARRY OUT HIS DESIGN. IT IS THE USE OF
INTELLECTUAL TRICKERY AND CUNNING ON THE PART OF THE ACCUSED.
• EX. OFFENDER PRETENDED THAT HE IS THE RELATIVE OF THE OWNER OF THE
HOUSE TO GAIN ENTRY
CRAFT
• A ASKED PERMISSION FROM HIS EMPLOYER B TO GO HOME TO PANGASINAN

AT 4:00PM ON THE DAY THE FELONY WAS COMMITTED BUT WENT BACK AT
10:00PM PRETENDING THAT HE HAS FAILED TO TAKE A RIDE TO PANGASINAN.
THE UNSUSPECTING EMPLOYER OPENED THE DOOR AND THEREAFTER, A AND
HIS COHORTS PERPETRATED ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE.
FRAUD
• A TOOK HIS STEPDAUGHTER AWAY AND TOLD HER THAT SHE WAS TO BE
TAKEN TO THE HOUSE OF HER GRANDMOTHER BUT INSTEAD SHE WAS TAKEN
TO ANOTHER HOUSE WHERE SHE WAS RAPED.
DISGUISE
• A USED A MASK IN ORDER TO CONCEAL HIS IDENTITY WHEN HE

PERPETRATED THE ROBBERY.
15. That advantage be Advantage of superior
taken of superior strength, weakening of
strength, or means be defense.
employed to weaken
the defense.
• FOR ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH, THE TEST IS THE RELATIVE STRENGTH
OF THE OFFENDER AND HIS VICTIM, WHETHER OR NOT HE TOOK ADVANTAGE
OF HIS GREATER STRENGTH.
• IT IS INHERENT IN THE CRIME OF PARRICIDE WHERE THE HUSBAND KILLS
THE WIFE.
MEANS EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN THE
DEFENSE; EXAMPLES:
• One who, while fighting with another,

suddenly casts sand or dirt upon the latter
eyes and then wounds or kills kim.
• Offender made the victim intoxicated in
order to kill him.
16. That the act be Treachery or alevosia
committed with
treachery (alevosia).
TREACHERY OR ALEVOSIA
• THERE IS TREACHERY WHEN THE OFFENDER COMMITS ANY OF THE CRIMES

AGAINST THE PERSON, EMPLOYING MEANS, METHODS OR FORMS IN THE
EXECUTION THEREOF WHICH TEND DIRECTLY AND SPECIALLY TO INSURE ITS
EXECUTION, WITHOUT RISK TO HIMSELF ARISING FROM THE DEFENSE WHICH
THE OFFENDED PARTY MIGHT MAKE.
• TREACHERY ABSORBS
• 1. SUPERIOR STRENGTH
• 2. AID OF ARMED MEN
• 3. BAND
REQUISITES OF TREACHERY
• 1. THAT AT THE TIME OF THE ATTACK, THE VICTIM WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO
DEFEND HIMSELF; AND
• 2. THAT THE OFFENDER CONSCIOUSLY ADOPTED THE PARTICULAR MEANS,
METHOD OR FORM OF ATTACK EMPLOYED BY HIM.
RULES ON TREACHERY
• 1. APPLICABLE ONLY TO CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS;

• 2. THE MODE OF ATTACK MUST BE CONSCIOUSLY ADOPTED.
17. That means be Ignominy
employed or
circumstances brought
about which add
ignominy to the natural
effects of the act.
GENERAL RULE
• IF THE ATTACK IS FRONTAL, THERE IS NO TREACHERY

EXCEPTION:
• EVEN A FRONTAL ATTACK COULD BE TREACHEROUS WHEN UNEXPECTED AND

ON UNARMED VICTIM WHOU WOULD BE IN NO POSITION TO REPEL THE
ATTACK OR AVOID IT.
IGNOMINY
• MORAL CIRCUMSTANCE THAT ADDS PAIN OR INSULT TO THE INJURY CAUSE

TO THE OFFENDED PARTY
• THE ACCUSED EXAMINED THE GENITALIA OF THE VICTIM IN FRONT OF HER
FATHER AND THEREAFTER RAPED HER. THE ACT OF EXAMINING THE GENITALIA
IN FRONT OF HER FATHER WAS NOT ESSENTIAL IN THE CRIME OF RAPE. IT
ONLY ADDED MORAL PAIN THUS IGNOMINY IS PRESENT
• RAPE VICTIM’S GENITALIA WAS COVERED WITH MUD – THIS ADDED MORAL
PAIN WHICH WAS NOT NECESSARY IN THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE OF
RAPE. THUS, IGNOMINY IS PRESENT
18. That the crime be Unlawful entry
committed after an
unlawful entry.
• ENTERING THROUGH A WINDOW.
• UNLAWFUL ENTRY IS INHERENT IN:
• 1. ROBBERY WITH THE USE OF FORCE UPON THINGS;
• 2. TRESPASS TO DWELLING;
• 3. VIOLATION OF DOMICILE;
• 4. EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE, IF SUCH EVASION OR ESCAPE SHALL
HAVE TAKEN PLACE BY MEANS OF UNLAWFUL ENTRY.
19. That as a means to Broken wall, roof, floor,
the commission of the or window.
crime a wall, roof, floor,
door, or window be
broken
• NO. THE CRIME IS ROBBERY WITH FORCE UPON THINGS, BREAKING OF THE
WINDOW IS AN INHERENT ELEMENT OF THE CRIME.
That the crime be Help of person under
committed with the aid age, motor vehicle
of persons under
fifteen years of age or
by means of motor
vehicles, motorized
watercraft, airships, or
other similar means.
• IF USED TO KILL SOMEONE, IT BECOMES QUALIFYING AC TO MURDER
• THE KILLING MUST BE BY USING THE VEHICLE ITSELF TO KILL NOT ONLY AS A
MEANS OF TRANSPORT TO GET THE SITE OF KILLING.
• EX. RAN OVER – AC
• RODE IT AND THREW A BOB – NOT AC
. That the wrong done Cruelty
in the commission of
the crime be
deliberately
augmented by causing
other wrong not
necessary for its
commissions
• CRUELTY REFERS TO PHYSICAL SUFFERING.
10 STARS
• TAKE NOTE!!!!
4 REPETITIOUS OFFENDERS
RECIDIVIST REITERACION HABITUAL QUASI
OR DELINQUENT RECIDIVIST/
HABITUALITY MULTI
RECIDIVIST
one who at the time He is an offender who Within ten years A PERSON
of his trial for one HAS BEEEN
PREVIOUSLY
THE ACUSED IS AFTER
crime, shall have CONVICTED OF HAVING BEEN
PUNISHED FOR:
been previously
ROBO, HURTO, CONVICTED
convicted by final
judgment of another An offense to which the ESTAFA, SHALL
law attaches an equal FALSIFICATION, COMMIT
crime embraced in or greater penalty or
the same title of the PHYSICAL ANOTHER
For two or more crimes
Revised Penal to which it attaches a INJURY FOR FELONY
Code. lighter penalty THE THIRD WHILE
TIME. SERVING HIS
SENTENCE
OTHER AGGRAVATING UNDER SPECIAL
LAWS
• UNDER RA 8294 6 JULY 1997, THE USE OF UNLICENSED

FIREARM MERELY BECOMES AN AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE IF MURDER OR HOMICIDE WAS
COMMITTED WITH THE USE THEREOF. BUT IF THE
UNLICENSED FIREARM IS USED IN THE COMMISSION OF
ANY CRIME THERE CAN BE NO SEPARATE OFFENSE OF
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARM.
• RA 10591, COMPREHENSIVE FIREARMS AND
AMMUNITIONS REGULATIONS ACT
• SEE ALSO RA 9165.
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
ART. 15. THEIR CONCEPT (DEFINED). — 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.
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
THEY ARE THE:
1. RELATIONSHIP
2. INTOXICATION AND THE
3. DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION OF THE OFFENDER.
THE ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE OF RELATIONSHIP SHALL BE TAKEN INTO
CONSIDERATION WHEN THE OFFENDED PARTY IN THE SPOUSE, ASCENDANT,
DESCENDANT, LEGITIMATE, NATURAL, OR ADOPTED BROTHER OR SISTER, OR
RELATIVE BY AFFINITY IN THE SAME DEGREES OF THE OFFENDER.
INTOXICATION, WHEN MITIGATING
THE INTOXICATION OF THE OFFENDER SHALL BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION

AS A MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THE OFFENDER HAS COMMITTED
A FELONY IN A STATE OF INTOXICATION, IF THE SAME IS NOT HABITUAL OR
SUBSEQUENT TO THE PLAN TO COMMIT SAID.
• MITIGATING – IF NOT HABITUAL AND NOT SUBSEQUENT TO PLAN
INTOXICATION, WHEN AGGRAVATING
INTOXICATION IS AGGRAVATING WHEN THE INTOXICATION IS HABITUAL OR

INTENTIONAL, IT SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS AN AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE
• AGGRAVATING – IF DELIBERATELY SOUGHT LIQUOR
• PROHIBITED DEFENSE IN RA 9262
RELATIONSHIP
• GR: Mitigating – in crimes against property

– If the offender is of higher degree (older) it
can be mitigating in the crimes of Less serious
or slight physical injuries
EXCEPTION
• EXEMPTING – THEFT, ESTAFA/SWINDLING, MALICIOUS MISCHIEF (ART. 233,

RPC)
• INHERENT – IN THE CRIME OF PARRICIDE

DEGREE OF
INSTRUCTION/EDUCATION
• LOW DEGREE OF EDUCATION
• GR: MITIGATING
• EXCEPTION: CRIME INHERENTLY EVIL OR WRONG – RAPE, MURDER
• HIGH DEGREE OF EDUCATION
• AGGRAVATING – IF TOOK ADVANTAGE OF EDUCATION AND USED TO
FACILITATE THE CRIME
• EX. LAWYER MAKES USE OF EDUCATION TO COMMIT ESTAFA TO FALSIFY DEED

OF SALE
SEC. 25, RA 9165
• POSITIVE FINDING FOR THE USE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS SHALL BE A

QUALIFYING AC
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES
ART. 16. WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE. — THE FOLLOWING ARE CRIMINALLY
LIABLE FOR GRAVE AND LESS GRAVE FELONIES:
1. PRINCIPALS.
2. ACCOMPLICES.
3. ACCESSORIES.
THE FOLLOWING ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR LIGHT FELONIES:
1. PRINCIPALS
2. ACCOMPLICES.
ART. 17. PRINCIPALS. — THE FOLLOWING ARE CONSIDERED PRINCIPALS:
1. THOSE WHO TAKE A DIRECT PART IN THE EXECUTION OF THE ACT;
2. THOSE WHO DIRECTLY FORCE OR INDUCE OTHERS TO COMMIT IT;
3. THOSE WHO COOPERATE IN THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE BY ANOTHER
ACT WITHOUT WHICH IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED.
THREE CLASSIFICATIONS OF
PRINCIPALS
• THOSE WHO TAKE A DIRECT PART IN THE EXECUTION OF

THE ACT. (PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION)
• THOSE WHO DIRECTLY FORCED OR INDUCED OTHERS TO
COMMIT IT. (PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT OR INDUCTION)
• THOSE WHO COOPERATE IN THE COMMISSION OF THE
OFFENSE BY ANOTHER ACT WITHOUT WHICH IT WOULD
NOT HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED (PRINCIPAL BY
INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION)
ACCOMPLICES
ART. 18. ACCOMPLICES. — ACCOMPLICES ARE THOSE PERSONS WHO, NOT

BEING INCLUDED IN ART. 17, COOPERATE IN THE EXECUTION OF THE OFFENSE
BY PREVIOUS OR SIMULTANEOUS ACTS
• A, B, C DECIDED TO ROB A BANK. SUDDENLY, THEY REALIZED THEY HAD NO
VEHICLE. THEY GOT A TAXI AND INFORMED THE TAXI DRIVER AND OFFERED
HIM 10%. TAXI DRIVER AGREED. THEY SEARCHED FOR A LOOK OUT AND SAW
THE BALUT VENDOR, WHO ALSO AGREED. WHAT ARE THEIR CRIMINAL
LIABILITIES?
• A, B, C – PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION
• TAXI DRIVER AND BALUT VENDOR – ACCOMPLICES
• THE CRIMINAL DESIGN WAS ALREADY AGREED BY A, B, C. THE ACCOMPLICES
MERELY CONCURRED.
• A,B, C, D AND E DECIDED TO ROB A BANK. A, B, C WERE TO BE THE ONE TO
ENTER. D IS THE LOOK OUT, E IS THE DRIVER OR OWNER OF THE VEHICLE.
WHAT ARE THEIR CRIMINAL LIABILITIES?
• ALL ARE PRINCIPALS BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION
• NO MATTER HOW MINOR IS THE PARTICIPATION BUT HE IS ALSO AN AUTHOR
OF THE CRIMINAL DESIGN – CONSIDERED PRINCIPAL
ACCESSORIES, DEFINED
ART. 19. ACCESSORIES. — ACCESSORIES ARE THOSE WHO, HAVING

KNOWLEDGE OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME, AND WITHOUT HAVING
PARTICIPATED THEREIN, EITHER AS PRINCIPALS OR ACCOMPLICES, TAKE
PART SUBSEQUENT TO ITS COMMISSION IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING
MANNERS:
1. BY PROFITING THEMSELVES OR ASSISTING THE OFFENDER TO PROFIT BY
THE EFFECTS OF THE CRIME.
• A BY DECEIT TOOK A DIAMOND RING OF HIS FRIEND B. AFTERWARDS SHE
WENT TO C WHO HAS A PAWNSHOP. SHE INFORMED C THAT IT WAS
SWINDLED AND OFFERED IT AT A VERY LOW PRICE. C DISPLAYED IT IN THE
STORE. WHAT CRIME IS COMMITTED BY A? IS C AN ACCESSORY?
• ESTAFA
• YES, C HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESTAFA COMMITTED BY A. SHE PROFITED
HERSELF AND HELPED A PROFIT FROM THE EFFECTS OF THE CRIME.
• 2. BY CONCEALING OR DESTROYING THE BODY OF THE CRIME, OR THE
EFFECTS OR INSTRUMENTS THEREOF, IN ORDER TO PREVENT ITS DISCOVERY.
• 3. (FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS ONLY ) BY HARBORING, CONCEALING, OR
ASSISTING IN THE ESCAPE OF THE PRINCIPALS OF THE CRIME, PROVIDED THE
ACCESSORY ACTS WITH ABUSE OF HIS PUBLIC FUNCTIONS
• (FOR PRIVATE PERSONS ALSO) 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.
• ALL OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT FALL OUTSIDE OF THESE, THE ONE WHO
HARBORS, CONCEALS OR ASSISTS IN THE ESCAPE OF THE PRINCIPAL SHALL
BE PROSECUTED UNDER PD 1829 – OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
ACCESSORIES BUT EXEMPTED FROM
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
ART. 20. ACCESSORIES WHO ARE EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL
LIABILITY. — THE PENALTIES PRESCRIBED FOR
ACCESSORIES SHALL NOT BE IMPOSED UPON THOSE WHO
ARE SUCH WITH RESPECT TO THEIR SPOUSES,
ASCENDANTS, DESCENDANTS, LEGITIMATE, NATURAL, AND
ADOPTED BROTHERS AND SISTERS, OR RELATIVES BY
AFFINITY WITHIN THE SAME DEGREES, WITH THE SINGLE
EXCEPTION OF ACCESSORIES FALLING WITHIN THE
PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH 1 OF THE NEXT PRECEDING
ARTICLE.
WHO ARE THE ACCESSORIES WHO ARE EXEMPT
FROM CRIMINAL LIABILTY?
THE SPOUSE, ASCENDANTS, DESCENDANTS, BROTHERS AND SISTERS OR

RELATIVES BY AFFINITY WITHIN THE SAME DEGREE. (NOTE: EXCEPT
PARAGRAPH ONE)
• A AND B ARE BROTHERS, A KILLED THEIR FATHER. LATER, B ARRIVED AND
SAW THE BODY OF THEIR FATHER. BOTH A AND B PLACED IT IN THE TRUNK OF
THE CAR TO DISPOSE OF THE BODY. THEY GOT CAUGHT.
• A IS LIABLE FOR PARRICIDE
• B IS EXEMPT
PD 1829
COMMITTED BY ANY PERSON WHO KNOWINGLY OR WILLFULLY OBSTRUCTS, IMPEDES, FRUSTRATES OR DELAYS THE
APPREHENSION OF SUSPECTS AND THE INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL CASES BY COMMITTING ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING ACTS:
(A) PREVENTING WITNESSES FROM TESTIFYING IN ANY CRIMINAL PROCEEDING OR FROM REPORTING THE COMMISSION OF ANY
OFFENSE OR THE IDENTITY OF ANY OFFENDER/S BY MEANS OF BRIBERY, MISREPRESENTATION, DECEIT, INTIMIDATION, FORCE OR
THREATS;
(B) ALTERING, DESTROYING, SUPPRESSING OR CONCEALING ANY PAPER, RECORD, DOCUMENT, OR OBJECT, WITH INTENT TO
IMPAIR ITS VERITY, AUTHENTICITY, LEGIBILITY, AVAILABILITY, OR ADMISSIBILITY AS EVIDENCE IN ANY INVESTIGATION OF OR
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN, CRIMINAL CASES, OR TO BE USED IN THE INVESTIGATION OF, OR OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN,
CRIMINAL CASES;
(C) HARBORING OR CONCEALING, OR FACILITATING THE ESCAPE OF, ANY PERSON HE KNOWS, OR HAS REASONABLE GROUND TO
BELIEVE OR SUSPECT, HAS COMMITTED ANY OFFENSE UNDER EXISTING PENAL LAWS IN ORDER TO PREVENT HIS ARREST
PROSECUTION AND CONVICTION;
(D) PUBLICLY USING A FICTITIOUS NAME FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONCEALING A CRIME, EVADING PROSECUTION OR THE
EXECUTION OF A JUDGMENT, OR CONCEALING HIS TRUE NAME AND OTHER PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE SAME PURPOSE
OR PURPOSES;
(E) DELAYING THE PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL CASES BY OBSTRUCTING THE SERVICE OF PROCESS OR COURT ORDERS OR
DISTURBING PROCEEDINGS IN THE FISCAL'S OFFICES, IN TANODBAYAN, OR IN THE COURTS;
(F) MAKING, PRESENTING OR USING ANY RECORD, DOCUMENT, PAPER OR OBJECT WITH KNOWLEDGE OF ITS FALSITY AND WITH
INTENT TO AFFECT THE COURSE OR OUTCOME OF THE INVESTIGATION OF, OR OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN, CRIMINAL CASES;
(G) SOLICITING, ACCEPTING, OR AGREEING TO ACCEPT ANY BENEFIT IN
CONSIDERATION OF ABSTAINING FROM, DISCOUNTING, OR IMPEDING THE
PROSECUTION OF A CRIMINAL OFFENDER;
(H) THREATENING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ANOTHER WITH THE INFLICTION OF ANY
WRONG UPON HIS PERSON, HONOR OR PROPERTY OR THAT OF ANY IMMEDIATE
MEMBER OR MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY IN ORDER TO PREVENT SUCH PERSON
FROM APPEARING IN THE INVESTIGATION OF, OR OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN,
CRIMINAL CASES, OR IMPOSING A CONDITION, WHETHER LAWFUL OR
UNLAWFUL, IN ORDER TO PREVENT A PERSON FROM APPEARING IN THE
INVESTIGATION OF OR IN OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN, CRIMINAL CASES;
(I) GIVING OF FALSE OR FABRICATED INFORMATION TO MISLEAD OR PREVENT THE
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES FROM APPREHENDING THE OFFENDER OR FROM
PROTECTING THE LIFE OR PROPERTY OF THE VICTIM; OR FABRICATING
INFORMATION FROM THE DATA GATHERED IN CONFIDENCE BY INVESTIGATING
AUTHORITIES FOR PURPOSES OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND NOT FOR
PUBLICATION AND PUBLISHING OR DISSEMINATING THE SAME TO MISLEAD THE
INVESTIGATOR OR TO THE COURT.
PENALTY, DEFINED
• PENALTY- IS THE SUFFERING INFLICTED BY THE STATE FOR THE

TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW.
JURIDICAL CONDITIONS OF PENALTY
• MUST BE COMMENSURATE WITH THE OFFENSE- DIFFERENT

CRIMES HAVE DIFFERENT PENALTIES UNDER THE LAW.
• MUST BE PERSONAL- A PERSON SHOULD BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS OWN ACTIONS. NO PERSON SHOULD BE
PUNISHED FOR THE CRIME OF ANOTHER
• CERTAIN- NO PERSON MUST ESCAPE THE PENALTY.
• LEGAL- THE PENALTY MUST BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE IMPOSITION
OF PENALTY
• EXEMPLARITY- TO SERVE AS AN EXAMPLE TO OTHERS AND DETER

THEM FROM EMULATING THE CRIMINAL.
• JUSTICE- CRIMINAL IS PUNISHED AS AN ACT OF RETRIBUTIVE
JUSTICE.
• PREVENTION- TO SUPPRESS OR PREVENT THE DANGER TO THE STATE
OF THE ACTS OF THE CRIMINAL.
• REFORMATION- UNDER THE MODERN CONCEPT OF CORRECTION THE
CRIMINAL IS PUNISHED IN ORDER TO REHABILITATE OR REFORM HIM.
• SELF DEFENSE- TO PROTECT THE SOCIETY AGAINST THE THREATS AND
ACTIONS OF THE CRIMINALS.
LIFE IMPRISONMENT VS. RECLUSION
PERPETUA
LIFE IMPRISONMENT RECLUSION
PERPETUA
1. does not have 1. Has a specific
specific duration. duration
2. Imposed for violations 2. Imposable generally
of special laws for violations of the
Revised Penal Code.
3. Does not have 3. Has accessory
accessory penalties. penalties.
Q: WHAT PENALTY MAY BE IMPOSED BY THE STATE? (PROSPECTIVE
CHARACTER)
A: NO FELONY SHALL BE PUNISHABLE BY ANY PENALTY NOT PRESCRIBED BY
LAW PRIOR TO ITS COMMISSION (ART.21)
Q: WHEN MAY PENAL LAWS HAVE RETROACTIVE EFFECTS?
A: PENAL LAWS SHALL HAVE RETROACTIVE EFFECT IN SO FAR AS THEY FAVOR
THE PERSON GUILTY OF A FELONY, WHO IS NOT A HABITUAL CRIMINAL (ART.
22)
Q: WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF PARDON BY THE OFFENDED PARTY?
A: A PARDON BY THE OFFENDED PARTY DOES NOT EXTINGUISH CRIMINAL
ACTION EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN ARTICLE 344. BUT CIVIL LIABILITY WITH
REGARD TO THE INTEREST OF THE INJURED PARTY IS EXTINGUISHED BY HIS
EXPRESS WAIVER (ART.23)
MEASURES OF PREVENTION OR SAFETY WHICH ARE NOR CONSIDERED PENALTIES
THE FOLLOWING SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS PENALTIES:

1. THE ARREST AND TEMPORARY DETENTION OF ACCUSED PERSONS, AS WELL AS THEIR DETENTION BY
REASON OF INSANITY OR IMBECILITY, OR ILLNESS REQUIRING THEIR CONFINEMENT IN A HOSPITAL.
2. THE COMMITMENT OF A MINOR TO ANY OF THE INSTITUTIONS MENTIONED IN ARTICLE 80 AND FOR
THE PURPOSES SPECIFIED THEREIN.
3. SUSPENSION FROM THE EMPLOYMENT OF PUBLIC OFFICE DURING THE TRIAL OR IN ORDER TO
INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS.
4. FINES AND OTHER CORRECTIVE MEASURES WHICH, IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE
DISCIPLINARY POWERS, SUPERIOR OFFICIALS MAY IMPOSE UPON THEIR SUBORDINATES.
5. DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS AND THE REPARATIONS WHICH THE CIVIL LAWS MAY ESTABLISH IN PENAL
FORM.
-AN
WHEN IS THE ACCUSED PLACED UNDER PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT?
ACCUSED UNDERGOES PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT WHEN
THE OFFENSE CHARGED IS NON BAILABLE OR EVEN IF
BAILABLE HE CANNOT FURNISH THE REQUIRED BAIL. NOW
IF AN ACCUSED DOES NOT AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE SAME
DISCIPLINARY RULES IMPOSED UPON CONVICTED
PRISONERS, HE SHALL BE CREDITED IN THE SERVICE OF HIS
SENTENCE WITH 4/5 OF THE TIME DURING WHICH HE HAS
UNDERGONE PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT.
RA 10592 (MAY 2013)
"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.
RA 10592
"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.
RA 10592
"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 DESTIERRO, HE SHALL BE RELEASED AFTER THIRTY
(30) DAYS OF PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT."
CIVIL INTERDICTION
Q: WHAT IS CIVIL INTERDICTION?

A: IT IS AN ACCESSORY PENALTY WHICH HAS THE EFFECTS OF
DEPRIVING THE OFFENDER DURING THE TIME OF HIS SENTENCE
OF THE RIGHTS OF PARENTAL AUTHORITY, OR GUARDIANSHIP,
EITHER AS TO THE PERSON OR PROPERTY OF ANY WARD, OF
MARITAL AUTHORITY, OF THE RIGHT TO MANAGE HIS PROPERTY,
AND OF THE RIGHT TO DISPOSE OF SUCH PROPERTY BY ANY ACT
OR ANY CONVEYANCE INTER VIVOS.
CIVIL INTEDICTION IS IMPOSED
WHEN THE PENALTY IS:
• 1. DEATH WHICH IS NOT CARRIED OUT;

• 2. RECLUSION PERPETUA; OR
• 3. RECLUSION TEMPORAL
EFFECT OF PRESIDENTIAL PARDON
Q: WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF PARDON (BY THE PRESIDENT)?

A: A PARDON SHALL NOT WORK THE RESTORATION OF THE RIGHT TO HOLD
PUBLIC OFFICE, OR THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE, UNLESS SUCH RIGHTS BE
EXPRESSLY RESTORED BY THE TERMS OF THE PARDON. IT SHALL ALSO NOT
EXEMPT THE CULPRIT FROM THE PAYMENT OF THE CIVIL LIABILITY IMPOSED
UPON HIM BY THE SENTENCE.
PARDON, DEFINED
• PARDON- IS AN ACT OF GRACE PROCEEDING FROM THE POWER ENTRUSTED

WITH THE EXECUTION OF THE LAWS WHICH EXEMPTS THE INDIVIDUAL ON
WHOM IT IS BESTOWED FROM THE PUNISHMENT THE LAW INFLICTS FOR THE
CRIME HE HAS COMMITTED. A PARDON MAY EITHER BE A CONDITIONAL OR
ABSOLUTE.
LIMITATIONS ON THE PARDONING POWER OF THE
PRESIDENT
• PARDON CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY AFTER CONVICTION;

• THIS POWER CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO CASES OF IMPEACHMENT
• NO PARDON INVOLVING VIOLATIONS OF ELECTIONS LAWS, SHALL BE
GRANTED WITHOUT THE FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMELEC.
PARDON OF THE PRESIDENT VS. PARDON BY THE PRIVATE
OFFENDED PARTY
PARDON BY PARDON BY VICTIM

PRESIDENT
1. Extinguishes criminal liability 1. Does not extinguish criminal
liability
2. Does not extinguish civil liability 2. Extinguishes civil liability
3. Must be given after conviction 3. In cases where pardon is

by final judgment allowed it must be given prior to
the institution of criminal action
against the accused.
PECUNIARY LIABILITY
ENUMERATE THE PROPER ORDER OF PAYMENT OF THE PECUNIARY LIABILITIES

OF THE OFFENDER:
• REPARATION OF THE DAMAGE CAUSED
• INDEMNIFICATION OF CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
• THE FINE
• COST OF THE PROCEEDINGS (ART.38)
RULES TO BE OBSERVED IN
SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT
• WHEN THE PRINCIPAL PENALTY IS HIGHER THAN PRISION CORRECTIONAL NO

SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT SHALL BE IMPOSED.
• IFFINE,
THE PRINCIPAL PENALTY BE PRISON CORRECTIONAL OR ARRESTO AND
HIS SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED 1/3 OF THE TERM
OF THE SENTENCE, AND IN NO CASE SHALL IT CONTINUE FOR MORE THAN ONE
YEAR
• WHEN THE PRINCIPAL PENALTY IS ONLY FINE, SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT
SHALL NOT EXCEED SIX MONTHS, IF THE OFFENDER IS PROSECUTED FOR
GRAVE OR LESS GRAVE FELONIES, AND SHALL NOT EXCEED 15 DAYS IF FOR A
LIGHT FELONY.
• THE SUBSIDIARY PENALTY WHICH HE MAY HAVE SUFFERED SHALL NOT
RELIEVE HIM FROM THE FINE IN CASE HIS FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
SHOULD IMPROVE. (ART.39)
RA 10159
ART. 39. SUBSIDIARY PENALTY. – IF THE CONVICT HAS NO PROPERTY WITH

WHICH TO MEET THE FINE MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE NEXT
PRECEDING ARTICLE, HE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO A SUBSIDIARY PERSONAL
LIABILITY 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
COMPLEX CRIME, DEFINED
Q: WHAT IS A COMPLEX CRIME?

A: THERE IS A COMPLEX CRIME 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. (IN WHICH CASE THE
PENALTY FOR THE MOST SERIOUS CRIME SHALL BE IMPOSED IN ITS
MAXIMUM PERIOD-ART 48)
TWO KINDS OF COMPLEX CRIMES
1. When a single act constitutes two or more

grave or less grave felonies- (compound
crime or delito compuesto)
Ex. Bomb producing different effects
crime charged – double or multiple murder
• 2. WHEN AN OFFENSE IS A NECESSARY MEANS OF COMMITTING THE OTHER-
(COMPLEX CRIME PROPER OR DELITO COMPLEJO)
EXAMPLE
• B WITH LEWD DESIGN , FORCIBLY ABDUCTED A, FORCED A INTO THE HOUSE

AND RAPED HER. WHAT CRIME IS COMMITTED?
• FORCIBLE ABDUCTION WITH RAPE OR
• RAPE THROUGH FORCIBLE ABDUCTION
• FORCIBLE ABDUCTION IS A NECESSARY MEANS IN ORDER TO COMMIT THE

CRIME OF RAPE
OTHER EXAMPLES COMPOUND
CRIME
1. COMPLEX CRIME OF RAPE WITH LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES (BUT
NOT RAPE WITH SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES).
2. COMPLEX CRIME OF DIRECT ASSAULT WITH SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES.
3. COMPLEX CRIME OF DOUBLE MURDER
OTHER
EXAMPLES COMPLEX CRIME PROPER
1. MALVERSATION THROUGH FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT

2. KIDNAPPING WITH MURDER
3. SIMPLE SEDUCTION THROUGH USURPATION OF OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS.
COMPOSITE CRIMES/SPECIAL
COMPLEX CRIMES
WHERE THE LAW PROVIDES A SINGLE PENALTY FOR TWO OR
MORE COMPONENT OFFENSES, THE RESULTING CRIME IS CALLED
A SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME. SOME OF THE SPECIAL COMPLEX
CRIMES UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE ARE:
(1) ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE,
(2) ROBBERY WITH RAPE,
(3) KIDNAPPING WITH SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES,
(4) KIDNAPPING WITHOMICIDE, AND
(5) RAPE WITH HOMICIDE
Q: WHAT IS A CONTINUOUS CRIME?
A: IT IS A SINGLE CRIME, CONSISTING OF A SERIES OF ACTS ALL ARISING
FROM ONE CRIMINAL RESOLUTION. IT IS A CONTINUOUS, UNLAWFUL ACT OR
SERIES OF ACT SET ON FOOT BY A SINGLE IMPULSE AND OPERATED BY AN
UNINTERMITTENT FORCE, HOWEVER LONG TIME IT MAY OCCUPY.
• A, B, C, D, E LIVING IN THE SAME COMPOUND HAS A ROOSTER IN THEIR
HOUSES. ONE NIGHT, X TOOK ONE ROOSTER FROM A, B, C, D, AND E. HOW
MANY CHARGE OF THEFT WILL YOU CHARGE X?
• ONLY ONE CHARGE OF THEFT BEING A CONTINUED CRIME
CONTINUING CRIME/TRANSITORY
OFFENSE
• EX.
• BP 22
• ESTAFA UNDER ART. 315 PAR. 2 (D)
• REBELLION
• KIDNAPPING
DEGREE AND PERIOD
WHAT IS A DEGREE? – A DEGREE IS ONE ENTIRE PENALTY AS ENUMERATED IN

ARTICLE 71.
WHAT IS PERIOD – A PERIOD IS ONE OF THE THREE EQUAL PORTIONS OF A

DIVISIBLE PENALTY, SUCH AS MINIMUM, MEDIUM AND MAXIMUM PERIODS.
COMPUTATION OF Consum
PENALTIES BYFrustrate
GRADUATIONAttempte
OF DEGREE
mated d d
Principa 0 1 2
l
Accomp 1 2 3
lice
Access 2 3 4
ory
ARTICLE 71 RPC. GRADUATED SCALE
SCALE NO. 1
• DEATH
• RECLUSION PERPETUA
• RECLUSION TEMPORAL
• PRISION MAYOR
• PRISION CORRECTIONAL
• ARRESTO MAYOR
• DESTIERRO
• ARRESTO MENOR
• PUBLIC CENSURE
• FINE
SCALE NO.2
• PERPETUAL ABSOLUTE DISQUALIFICATION

• TEMPORARY ABSOLUTE DISQUALIFICATION
• SUSPENSION FROM PUBLIC OFFICE, THE RIGHT TO VOTE AND BE VOTED FOR,
AND THE RIGHT TO FOLLOW A PROFESSION OR CALLING
• PUBLIC CENSURE
• FINE
RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF PENALTIES WHICH HAVE
THREE PERIOD
1. NO MITIGATING AND NO AGGRAVATING – MEDIUM PERIOD.

2. ONLY MITIGATING IS PRESENT – MINIMUM PERIOD
3. ONLY AGGRAVATING IS PRESENT – MAXIMUM PERIOD.
4. BOTH MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING ARE PRESENT – RULE ON
OFFSETTING (ARTICLE 64).
BOARD
SYNDICATED ESTAFA, DEFINED - ANY PERSON OR PERSONS WHO SHALL

COMMIT ESTAFA OR OTHER FORMS OF SWINDLING AS DEFINED IN ARTICLE
315 AND 316 OF THE RPC WHICH IS COMMITTED BY A SYNDICATE
CONSISTING OF FIVE OR MORE PERSONS FORMED WITH THE INTENTION OF
CARRYING OUT THE UNLAWFUL OR ILLEGAL ACT, TRANSACTION, ENTERPRISE
OR SCHEME, AND THE DEFRAUDATION RESULTS IN THE MISAPPROPRIATION
OF MONEY CONTRIBUTED BY STOCKHOLDERS, OR MEMBERS OF RURAL
BANKS, COOPERATIVE, "SAMAHANG NAYON(S)", OR FARMERS ASSOCIATION,
OR OF FUNDS SOLICITED BY CORPORATIONS/ASSOCIATIONS FROM THE
GENERAL PUBLIC (PD 1689).
HABITUAL DELINQUENT
Q: WHO/WHAT IS A HABITUAL DELINQUENT?

A: A PERSON SHALL BE DEEMED A HABITUAL DELINQUENT IF WITHIN A PERIOD
OF TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF HIS RELEASE OR LAST CONVICTION OF THE
CRIMES OF SERIOUS OR LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES, ROBO, HURTO,
ESTAFA, OR FALSIFICATION, HE IS FOUND GUILTY OF ANY OF SAID CRIMES A
THIRD TIME OR OFTENER.
ORDER OF SEVERITY OF PENALTY
Q: ENUMERATE THE PROPER ORDER OF SEVERITY OF PENALTY FROM THE HIGHEST TO THE LOWEST.
A: 1. DEATH
2. RECLUSION PERPETUA
3. RECLUSION TEMPORAL
4. PRISION MAYOR
5. PRISION CORRECTIONAL
6. ARRESTO MAYOR
7. ARRESTO MENOR
8. DESTIERRO
9. PERPETUAL ABSOLUTE DISQUALIFICATION
10. TEMPORARY ABSOLUTE DISQUALIFICATION
11. SUSPENSION FROM PUBLIC OFFICE, THE RIGHT TO VOTE AND BE VOTED FOR, PROFESSION
12. PUBLIC CENSURE
3 FOLD RULE IN SERVICE OF SENTENCE
Q: WHAT IS THE THREE FOLD RULE IN THE SERVICE OF SENTENCE?

A: ACCORDING TO THIS RULE, THE MAXIMUM DURATION OF THE
CONVICT’S SENTENCE SHALL NOT BE MORE THAN THREEFOLD
THE LENGTH OF TIME CORRESPONDING TO THE MOST SEVERE OF
THE PENALTIES IMPOSED UPON HIM. NO OTHER PENALTY TO
WHICH HE MAY BE HELD LIABLE SHALL BE INFLICTED AFTER THE
SUM OF THOSE IMPOSED EQUALS THE SAID MAXIMUM PERIOD.
SUCH MAXIMUM PERIOD SHALL IN NO CASE EXCEED FORTY
YEARS.
• 5 COUNTS OF RAPE – RECLUSION PERPETUA (20 YEARS AND 1 DAY TO 40
YEARS
• 5 X 40 YEARS = 200 YEARS
• 3 FOLD RULE MUST NOT EXCEED 3X THE MAX. PENALTY – 40 YEARS X 3 = 120
YEARS
• PROVIDED IT MUST NOT EXCEED 40 YEARS
• 20 COUNTS OF ESTAFA – ARRESTO MAYOR PLUS 200 PESOS ON EACH COUNT
• AM 6 MONTHS X 20 = 120 MONTHS (10 YEARS)
• 200 PESOS X 20 = 4,000 PESOS
• SUPPOSED SENTENCE: 10 YEARS PLUS FINE OF 4,000 PESOS
• APPLYING 3 FOLD RULE – MAXIMUM 6 MONTHS X 3 = 18 MONTHS OR 1 YEAR
AND 6 MONTHS
COMPLEX PENALTY
Q: WHAT IS A COMPLEX PENALTY?

A: IT IS A PENALTY PRESCRIBED BY LAW COMPOSED OF THREE DISTINCT
PENALTIES, EACH FORMING A PERIOD, THE LIGHTEST OF THEM SHALL BE THE
MINIMUM, THE NEXT THE MEDIUM, AND THE MOST SEVERE THE MAXIMUM
PERIOD.( EX. RECLUSION TEMPORAL TO DEATH)
HEINOUS CRIMES, DEFINED
THOSE CRIMES WHICH ARE GRIEVOUS, ODIOUS AND HATEFUL OFFENSES AND
WHICH, BY REASON OF THEIR INHERENT OR MANIFEST WICKEDNESS,
VICIOUSNESS, ATROCITY AND PERVERSITY ARE REPUGNANT AND
OUTRAGEOUS TO THE COMMON STANDARDS AND NORMS OF DECENCY AND
MORALITY IN A JUST, CIVILIZED AND ORDERED SOCIETY (RA 7659).
LETHAL INJECTION TIMELINE
LEO ECHEGARAY WHO WAS

FOUND GUILTY OF RAPING HER
DAUGHTER. HE WAS EXECUTED
FEBRUARY 5, 1999.
TIMELINE
PABLITO ANDAN - WAS ALSO

EXECUTED LATER IN THAT YEAR. HE
WAS FOUND GUILTY OF RAPE WITH
HOMICIDE. HE WAS EXECUTED MAY
28, 1999.
TIMELINE
EDUARDO AGBAYANI (CONVICTED OF RAPING HIS OWN DAUGHTER)

COULD BE THE UNLUCKIEST AMONG ALL DEATH CONVICTS. RUMORS
HAD IT THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD CHANGED HIS MIND AND ACCEDED
TO A POSTPONEMENT ON EXECUTION. IT WAS REPORTED THAT HE
WAS CALLING THE EXECUTION ROOM TO HALT THE EXECUTION BUT
THE LINE WAS BUSY. HE WAS ONLY ABLE TO CONNECT WITH IT ABOUT
ONE OR TWO MINUTES AFTER AGBAYANI WAS DECLARED DEAD. THE
EXECUTION TOOK PLACE JUNE 25, 1999.
TIMELINE
DANTE PIANDIONG, JESUS MORALLOS AND ARCHIE

BULAN WERE EXECUTED ONE AFTER ANOTHER BY
LETHAL INJECTION FOR THE CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH
HOMICIDE. THEY WERE EXECUTED ON THE SAME DAY,
EERILY JUST MINUTES APART FROM EACH OTHER, ON
JULY 8, 1999.
THE THREE DRUG RULE
DRUGS USED IN THE THREE DRUG-RULE:
1. SODIUM THIPENTOTAL- INDUCES SLEEP.

2. PANCURIUM BROMIDE- PARALYZES THE MUSCLES
3. POTASSIUM CHLORIDE- STOPS THE HEART BEAT
THERE WERE 84 TOTAL NUMBER OF EXECUTIONS VIA ELECTRIC CHAIR IN THE
PHILIPPINES. MARCELO SAN JOSE WAS THE LAST ON OCTOBER 21, 1976.
Q: WHY DO SOME JUDGES HAD THE HABIT OF CEREMONIOUSLY BREAKING
THEIR PENCILS AFTER PUBLICLY PROMULGATING A DEATH SENTENCE?
A: IT WAS A COMMON SIGHT TO WITNESS THE PRACTICE OR CEREMONY OF
JUDGES BREAKING THE PENCILS THEY USED IN CASES WHICH RESULTS IN
DEATH SENTENCE AS A SYMBOLIC GESTURE THAT SHOWS HOPE OF NEVER
HAVING TO GIVE A DEATH SENTENCE EVER AGAIN.
Q: GIVE THE CONCEPT OF THE PENALTY OF DESTIERRO.
A: ANY PERSON SENTENCED TO DESTIERRO SHALL NOT BE
PERMITTED TO ENTER THE PLACES DESIGNATED IN THE
SENTENCE, NOR WITHIN THE RADIUS THEREIN SPECIFIED,
WHICH SHALL NOT BE MORE THAN 250 AND NOT LESS THAN 25
KILOMETERS FROM THE PLACE DESIGNATED. IF HE DOES HE MAY
BE HELD LIABLE FOR EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE UNDER
ARTICLE 157 RPC.
DESTIERRO IS IMPOSED IN THE FOLLOWING:
• DEATH OR SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED UNDER EXCEPTIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES
• WHEN A PERSON FAILS TO GIVE A BOND FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR (ART. 284)
(GRAVE THREATS/LIGHT THREATS)
• PENALTY FOR CONCUBINE IN CONCUBINAGE ( ART. 334)
ART. 88. ARRESTO MENOR. — THE PENALTY OF ARRESTO MENOR SHALL
BE SERVED IN THE MUNICIPAL JAIL, OR IN THE HOUSE OF THE
DEFENDANT HIMSELF UNDER THE SURVEILLANCE OF AN OFFICER OF
THE LAW, WHEN THE COURT SO PROVIDES IN ITS DECISION, TAKING
INTO CONSIDERATION THE HEALTH OF THE OFFENDER AND OTHER
REASONS WHICH MAY SEEM SATISFACTORY TO IT.
MODES OF TOTAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
(ART. 89)
• BY THE DEATH OF THE CONVICT, AS TO THE PERSONAL PENALTIES; AS TO PECUNIARY

LIABILITIES, IT IS EXTINGUISHED ONLY WHEN THE DEATH OF THE OFFENDER OCCURS
BEFORE FINAL JUDGMENT.
• BY SERVICE OF SENTENCE;
• BY AMNESTY-AN ACT OF THE SOVEREIGN POWER GRANTING OBLIVION OR A GENERAL
PARDON FOR PAST OFFENSE, AND IS RARELY EXERCISED IN FAVOR OF A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL,
AND IS USUALLY EXERTED IN BEHALF OF CERTAIN CLASSES OF PERSONS WHO ARE
SUBJECT TO TRAIL BUT NOT YET CONVICTED.
• BY ABSOLUTE PARDON
• PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME- THE FORFEITURE OR THE LOSS OF THE RIGHT OF THE STATE TO
PROSECUTE THE OFFENDER AFTER THE LAPSE OF A CERTAIN TIME.
• PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTY- THE LOSS OR FORFEITURE OF THE RIGHT OF THE GOVERNMENT
TO EXECUTE THE FINAL SENTENCE AFTER THE LAPSE OF A CERTAIN TIME.
• MARRIAGE OF THE OFFENDED PARTY UNDER ARTICLE 344 RPC
AMNESTY VS. PARDON
AMNESTY PARDON
1. Granted by the President with the Granted by the President alone

concurrence of Congress
2.May be given before or after conviction or Given only after conviction by final
during trial. judgment
3. Usually given to political offnders and a 3. Usually given to common crimes and
group of people single person
4. Looks backwards and erases everything 4. Looks forward

TABLE OF PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES
PENALTIES INVOLVED PERIOD OF
PRESCRIPTION
Death, Reclusion perpetua, and 20 years
Reclusion temporal
Other afflicitve penalties, ex. 15 years

Prision mayor and
Disqualifications.
Punishable by correctional 10 years

penalties, ex. Prision correctional,
arresto mayor, destierro
TABLE OF PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES
Arresto Mayor 5 years
Libel 1 year
Oral defamation and 6 months

slander by deed
Other light offenses 2 months
ART. 91. COMPUTATION OF
PRESCRIPTION OF OFFENSES.
• FROM
THE PERIOD OF PRESCRIPTION SHALL COMMENCE TO RUN
THE DAY ON WHICH THE CRIME IS DISCOVERED BY
THE OFFENDED PARTY, THE AUTHORITIES, OR THEIR
AGENTS, AND SHALL BE INTERRUPTED BY THE FILING OF
THE COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION, AND SHALL COMMENCE
TO RUN AGAIN WHEN SUCH PROCEEDINGS TERMINATE
WITHOUT THE ACCUSED BEING CONVICTED OR
ACQUITTED, OR ARE UNJUSTIFIABLY STOPPED FOR ANY
REASON NOT IMPUTABLE TO HIM.
• THE TERM OF PRESCRIPTION SHALL NOT RUN WHEN THE
OFFENDER IS ABSENT FROM THE PHILIPPINE
ARCHIPELAGO.
NOTE:
The period of prescription shall commence to run from the day

on which the crime is discovered by the:
1. offended party,
2. the authorities, or
3. their agents, and
shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or
information, and shall commence to run again when such
proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted
or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not
imputable to him. It shall not run when the offender is absent
from the Philippines (Art.91)
TABLE OF PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES
PENALTY EVADED PRESCRIBES IN
Death and Reclusion 20 years

Perpetua
Other afflictive penalties 15 years
Correctional penalties 10 years

Arresto Mayor 5 years
Light penalties 1 year

MODES OF PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
• BY CONDITIONAL PARDON- A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT

AND THE CONVICT THE FORMER WILL RELEASE THE LATTER UPON
COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
• BY COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE- IT IS THE REDUCTION OF THE
PERIOD OF IMPRISONMENT OF THE OFFENDER OR THE AMOUNT OF THE
FINE.
• FOR GOOD CONDUCT TIME ALLOWANCE- ARE DEDUCTIONS FROM THE
TERM OF THE SENTENCE FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR OF THE CONVICTED
PRISONER.
• PAROLE- CONSISTS OF THE SUSPENSION OF THE SENTENCE OF A
CONVICT AFTER SERVING THE MINIMUM TERM OF THE
INDETERMINATE PENALTY
PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES
• 1. PERIOD OF PRESCRIPTION COMMENCES TO RUN FROM THE DATE WHEN THE

CULPRIT EVADED THE SERVICE OF HIS SENTENCE.
• 2. IT IS INTERRUPTED IF THE CONVICT:
• A. GIVES HIMSELF UP;
• B. BE CAPTURED;
• C. GOES TO A FOREIGN COUNTRY WITH WHICH WE HAVE NO EXTRADITION
TREATY; OR
• D. COMMITS ANOTHER CRIME BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD OF
PRESCRIPTION.
RA 10592 (MAY 2013)
"ART. 94. PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY. –

CRIMINAL LIABILITY IS EXTINGUISHED PARTIALLY:
"1. BY CONDITIONAL PARDON;
"2. BY COMMUTATION OF THE SENTENCE; AND
"3. FOR GOOD CONDUCT ALLOWANCES WHICH THE
CULPRIT MAY EARN WHILE HE IS UNDERGOING PREVENTIVE
IMPRISONMENT OR SERVING HIS SENTENCE."
WHO MAY FILE A PETITION FOR
CONDITIONAL PARDON? A PRISONER
WHO HAS SERVED AT LEAST ONE-HALF
(1/2) OF THE MAXIMUM OF THE ORIGINAL
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE.
RA 10592 (MAY 2013)
"ART. 99. WHO GRANTS TIME ALLOWANCES. – WHENEVER

LAWFULLY JUSTIFIED, THE:
1. DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS.
2. CHIEF OF THE BUREAU OF JAIL MANAGEMENT AND PENOLOGY.
3. WARDEN OF A PROVINCIAL, DISTRICT, MUNICIPAL OR CITY
JAIL SHALL GRANT ALLOWANCES FOR GOOD CONDUCT.
SUCH ALLOWANCES ONCE GRANTED SHALL NOT BE REVOKED."
RA 10592 (MAY 2013)
1- 2 YEARS 20 DAYS FOR EACH MONTH OF GOOD
BEHAVIOR
3-5 YEARS 23 DAYS FOR EACH MONTH OF GOOD

BEHAVIOR
6-10 YEARS 25 DAYS FOR EACH MONTH OF GOOD

BEHAVIOR
11- SUCCEDING YEARS 30 DAYS FOR EACH MONTH OF GOOD

BEHAVIOR
AT ANY TIME 15 DAYS FOR EACH MONTH OF

STUDY,TEACHING OR MENTORING SERVICE
TIME RENDERED
SPECIAL TIME ALLOWANCE FOR
LOYALTY
Q: WHAT IS THE SPECIAL ALLOWANCE FOR LOYALTY?

A: IT IS A DEDUCTION OF 1/5 OF THE PERIOD OF SENTENCE TO
ANY PRISONER WHO, HAVING EVADED THE SERVICE OF HIS
SENTENCE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN ART. 158 RPC,
GIVES HIMSELF UP TO THE AUTHORITY WITHIN 48 HOURS
FOLLOWING THE ISSUANCE OF A PROCLAMATION
ANNOUNCING THE PASSING AWAY OF THE CALAMITY.
RA 10152 (MAY 2013)
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."
Q: WHAT IS ARTICLE 100 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE?
A: IT SAYS” EVERY PERSON CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR A FELONY IS ALSO CIVILLY
LIABLE.
THAT’S ALL FOR BOOK 1
ARTICLE 111. OBLIGATION TO MAKE RESTITUTION IN CERTAIN CASES. - ANY
PERSON WHO HAS PARTICIPATED GRATUITOUSLY IN THE PROCEEDS OF A
FELONY SHALL BE BOUND TO MAKE RESTITUTION IN AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT
TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH PARTICIPATION.
MODES OF EXTINCTION OF CIVIL
LIABILITY
CIVIL LIABILITY IS EXTINGUISHED IN THE SAME MANNER AS OTHER

OBLIGATIONS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CIVIL
CODE NAMELY:
1. PAYMENT OR PERFORMANCE
2. LOSS OF THE THING DUE
3. CONDONATION OR REMISSION OF THE DEBT
4. CONFUSION OR MERGER OF THE RIGHTS OF CREDITOR AND DEBTOR
5. COMPENSATION
6. NOVATION AND OTHERS (SEE ART. 1231 CIVIL CODE).
THANK YOU!

CLJ Criminal Law Book1 Atty JMF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLJ Criminal Law Book1 Atty JMF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLJ Criminal Law Book1 Atty JMF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMINAL LAW BOOK 1

•ATTY. JAY M. FERRARO

•IS THAT BRANCH OF PUBLIC LAW

•1. CLASSICAL OR JURISTIC THEORY

•A COMBINATION OF BOTH THE CLASSICAL POSITIVE

1. AS PROVIDED BY TREATY STIPULATIONS

•PAR IN PAREM, NON HABET IMPERIUM

GENERAL RULE: PENAL LAWS OF THE PHILIPPINES

RPC IS MADE APPLICABLE

•THE APPLICATION OF THE RPC

•ONE WHICH IS REGISTERED WITH THE

THE REVISED PENAL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

•E.G. DIRECT BRIBERY, INDIRECT

•CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL

PENAL LAWS FAVORABLE TO THE ACCUSED ARE GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT

• PENAL LAWS ARE STRICTLY CONSTRUED AGAINST THE

•WHENEVER A PENAL LAW IS TO BE CONSTRUED

•THE FUNDAMENTAL RULE THAT ALL

• NULLUM CRIMEN NULLA POENA SINE LEGE - THERE IS NO

•THE MOVING POWER WHICH IMPELS

•A, WHO IS JEALOUS OF B SHOT THE

•IGNORANTIA LEGIS NON EXCUSAT-

IGNORANCE OF THE LAW EXCUSES NO ONE FROM

AN ACT DONE BY ME AGAINST

1. Those which are so 1. These are violations

2. Wrongful in nature. 2. Made wrongful only

3. Generally punished 3. Punished by special

4. Intent is necessary 4. Intent may not be

•THE PENALTY IS THAT PROVIDED

•THE PENALTY FOR GRAVER

•A BOXED B WITH THE INTENTION OF INFLICTING A

EL QUE ES CAUSA DE LA CAUSA ES CAUSA DEL MAL

MEANING: HE WHO IS THE CAUSE OF THE CAUSE IS THE

•WILL THIS CHANGE YOUR ANSWER?

•(MURDER, HOMICIDE, PARRICIDE,

•(BRIGANDAGE, ROBBERY, USURPATION,

•EX. KILLING A DEAD PERSON

• THERE IS NO ATTEMPTED OR FRUSTRATED IMPOSSIBLE

• UNDER ART. 59, RPC, THE PENALTY FOR IMPOSSIBLE CRIME

• FORMAL CRIMES- ARE CRIMES CONSUMMATED IN ONE INSTANT. THERE IS

• IT IS ONE WHERE THE PURPOSE OF THE OFFENDER IN PERFORMING AN ACT IS

• THE ACCUSED WAS CAUGHT OPENING WITH AN IRON BAR A WALL OF A

• WAS HE CHARGED OF A CORRECT FELONY?

• THE CRIME COMMITTED IS ONLY ATTEMPTED TRESPASS TO DWELLING

• A. RAPE, SINCE THE GRAVAMEN OF THE OFFENSE IS CARNAL KNOWLEDGE,

- IT IS CONSUMMATED BY MERE PENETRATION OF THE MALE ORGAN NO MATTER

• 1. WITH INTENT TO KILL, BUT NO MORTAL WOUND IS INFLICTED - ATTEMPTED

Death Results Intent to Kill Gravity of the Crime committed

LIGHT FELONIES ARE THOSE INFRACTIONS OF LAW FOR THE COMMISSION OF

• 1. SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES (ART. 266);

• MERE CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT A CRIME IS NOT PUNISHABLE.

WHEN THERE IS CONSPIRACY BETWEEN OR AMONG THOSE WHO COMMITTED

• YES. THERE IS DIRECT CONSPIRACY

• ONCE CONSPIRACY IS ESTABLISHED, EACH AND EVERYONE OF THE

• UNLESS ONE OR SOME OF THE CONSPIRATORS COMMITTED SOME OTHER

1. PROPOSAL TO COMMIT TREASON (ART. 115);

• THERE IS NO CRIME OF PROPOSAL TO COMMIT SEDITION

a. IT WILL GIVE US A CLUE WHETHER THESE CAN BE