CRIM1 | LJM

INTRODUCTION TO
CRIMINAL LAW
A REVIEWER
Leisha Jane Medollar

BS LEGAL MANAGEMENT
Sources: The Revised Penal Code, Book One, by Reyes (2017); The Revised Penal Code, Criminal Law Book One, by Campanilla (2021); Lecture Notes
Right of prosecution and punishment for a crime
CRIMINAL LAW IN GENERAL
● One of the attributes that by a natural law belongs to
the sovereign power instinctively charged by the
common will of the members of the society to look
Criminal Law – branch or division of law which defines crimes,
after, guard and defend the interests of the
treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment.
community, the individual and social rights and the
Crime – an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law liberties of every citizen and the guaranty of the
forbidding or commanding it. exercise of his rights.
Constitutional limitations to the power of Congress to

Crime General term enact penal laws
1) Penal law must be general in application; otherwise,
Felony Used in the RPC it would be violative of the equal protection clause.
2) Must not partake the nature of an ex post facto law–
Offense Used in special penal laws
it should not be given a retroactive effect.
Infractions Used in city ordinances 3) Not a bill of attainder, meaning it cannot provide
punishment without judicial proceedings.
4) Cannot impose cruel or excessive penalties or
Sources of Philippine Criminal Law
punishments.
1) The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) and its
amendments – the general governing penal law.
Rights of the accused
a) Constitutional Rights
2) Special Penal Laws passed by the Philippine
Commission, Philippine Assembly, Philippine
ARTICLE III
Legislature, National Assembly, the Congress of the
Philippines, and the Batasang Pambansa. SECTION 16 All persons shall have the right to a speedy
disposition of their cases before all judicial,
quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
3) Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial
Law. SECTION 14 (1) No person shall be held to answer for a
criminal offense without due process of law.
The following are NOT sources of Criminal Law (2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
1) Common law crimes – body of principles, usage and shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by
rules of action, which do not rest for their authority himself and counsel, to be informed of the
upon any express and positive declaration of the will nature and cause of the accusation against him,
to have speedy, impartial, and public trial, to
of the legislature. meet the witnesses face to face, and to have
● Not recognized in the Philippines, unless compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witnesses and the production of evidence in his
there be a particular provision in the penal behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may
code or special penal law that defines and proceed notwithstanding the absence of the
accused provided that he has been duly notified
punishes the act, even if it be socially or and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
morally wrong, no criminal liability is
SECTION 13 All persons except those charged with offenses
incurred by its commission.
punishable by reclusion perpetua when
evidence of guilt is strong, shall before
2) Court decisions – not sources of criminal law conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or
be released on recognizance as may be provided
because they merely explain the meaning of, and
by law.
apply, the law as enacted by the legislative.
The right to bail shall not be impaired even when
Supplemental effect of the RPC to Special Laws the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended.
- The RPC only has supplemental application to
offenses punished under special penal laws, as Excessive bail shall not be required.
special laws are controlling with regard to offenses
SECTION 17 No person shall be compelled to be a witness
therein specifically punished.
against himself.
- Principle of lex specialis derogat generali, or more
specific rules will prevail over more general rules. SECTION 12 (1) Any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right to
be informed of his right to remain silent and to
Power to Legislate Criminal Law
have competent and independent counsel
- The State has the authority, under its police power, preferably of his own choice. If the person
to define and punish crimes and to lay down the cannot afford the services of counsel, he must
be provided with one. These rights cannot be
rules of criminal procedure.
waived, except in writing and in the presence of
- States have a large measure of discretion in creating counsel.
and defining criminal offenses.
CRIM1 – Reviewer 1 2ALM-LJMEDOLLAR

No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation,
deals with the situs of the act or the place where the
or any other means which vitiate the free will penal law is applicable.
shall be used against him. Secret detention ● As a general rule, the jurisdiction of civil courts is not
places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar
forms of detention are prohibited.
affected by the military character of the accused.
● Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with general
Any confession or admission obtained in courts-martial over soldiers of the Armed Forces of
violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him.
the Philippines.
SECTION 19 (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor ARTICLE 14, NCC. Criminal law is binding on all persons who live or
sojourn in Philippine territory.
cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment
inflicted.
Generality in aliens and military
SECTION 21 No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of ● The foreign characteristic of an offender does not
punishment for the same offense. If an act is exclude him from the operation of penal laws.
punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction
or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to
● As a general rule, jurisdiction of civil courts is not
another prosecution for the same act. affected by the military character of the accused.
● Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with general
SECTION 11 Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial
courts-martial over soldiers of the Armed Forces of
bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not
be denied to any person by reason of poverty. the Philippines.
● Service-connected crimes shall be tried by
court-martial as mandated by R.A. No. 7055.
b) Statutory Rights
Case example: People v. Galagac

SECTION 1, RULE 115, of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure - The accused contended that being an American
provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be
citizen, he cannot be prosecuted for, much less
entitled:
1) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved convicted of, the crime of illegal possession of
beyond reasonable doubt. firearms, because it is a constitutional right of the
2) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
citizens of the USA to keep and bear arms without
against him.
3) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at any need of applying and securing a government
every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to license therefor.
promulgation of the judgment. x x x
- The CA held that “the Philippines is a sovereign state
4) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to
cross-examination on matters covered by direct with the obligation and the right of every
examination. His silence shall not in any manner government to uphold its laws and maintain order
prejudice him.
within its domain, and with the general jurisdiction to
5) To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness
against himself. punish persons for offenses committed within its
6) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against territory, regardless of the nationality of the
him at the trial. x x x
offender.
7) To have compulsory process issued to secure the
attendance of witnesses and production of other - No foreigner enjoys in this country extra-territorial
evidence in his behalf. right to be exempted from its laws and jurisdiction,
8) To have speedy, impartial, and public trial.
with the exception of heads of states and diplomatic
9) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner
prescribed by law. representatives who, by virtue of the customary law
of nations, are not subject to the Philippine territorial
jurisdiction.
Q: Can the rights of the accused be waived?
A: Rights which may be waived are personal, such as the right Case example: US v. Sweet
of the accused to confrontation and cross-examination. - Sweet, an employee of the U.S. Army in the
Rights which may not be waived involve public interest which Philippines, assaulted a prisoner of war for which he
may be affected, such as the right of the accused to be was charged with the crime of physical injuries. He
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against interposed that the court does not have jurisdiction
him. over him, as he was an employee of the U.S. military
authorities.
Characteristics of Philippine Criminal Law - The case is open to the application of the general
1) Generality principle that the jurisdiction of the civil tribunals is
2) Territoriality unaffected by the military or other special character
3) Prospectivity of the person brought before them for trial.
General – Penal laws are binding on all persons who live or Q: What law applies to military courts that take cognizance
sojourn in Philippine territory. (Art. 14, NCC). of a case?
● As distinguished from the territoriality principle, this A: The Articles of War will apply, and not the Revised Penal
refers to the persons covered, whereas the former Code nor other penal laws.

Exceptions to the General Application of Criminal Law Territorial – Criminal laws undertake to punish crimes
committed within Philippine territory. Penal laws of the
ARTICLE 14, NCC. Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be
obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory, subject to the
Philippines are enforceable only within its territory.
principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations.
Extent of Philippine territory for purposes of Criminal Law

- Opening sentence of Article 2 of the RPC says that
a) Article 2 of the RPC – provides that its provisions
the provision of this Code shall be enforced within
shall be enforced within the Philippine Archipelago,
the Philippine archipelago, “except as provided in the
including its atmosphere, its interior waters and
treaties and laws of preferential application.”
maritime zone (Intra-territorial application).
b) Article I of the 1987 Constitution.
a) Treaties or treaty stipulations considered as
exceptions to the principle of generality: Visiting
Exceptions to the Territorial Application of Criminal Law
Forces Agreement between the Philippines and
the U.S.A., and some of its stipulations are:
ARTICLE 2, RPC. Application of Its Provisions. Except as provided in
● U.S. military authorities shall the the right the treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions of this
to exercise within the Philippines all Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago,
including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but
criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction
also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:
conferred on them by the military law of 1) Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or
the U.S. over U.S. personnel in the airship;
2) Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of
Philippines
the Philippines or obligations and securities issued by
the Government of the Philippines;
b) Principles of international law – diplomatic 3) Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction
into the Philippines of the obligations and securities
representatives are immune from criminal suits
mentioned in the preceding number;
charged only in the exercise of their function. 4) While being public officers or employees, should commit
an offense in the exercise of their functions; or
5) Should commit any of the crimes against national
c) Law of preferential application as an exception: R.A.
security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of
No. 75, which covers diplomatic immunity, where Book Two of this Code.
any ambassador or public minister of any foreign
State, authorized and received as such by the ● Public officers and employees as exceptions to the
President, or any domestic or domestic servant of general rule on territoriality pertains to crimes
any such ambassador or minister are exempt from related to the exercise of their office. Within such
arrest and imprisonment, and whose properties intimate relation between the office and the crime
are exempt from distraint, seizure, and attachment. committed, the officers are acting in their private
capacity, hence, bound by the law of the host
Law of preferential application – class legislation; it country.
is a law which grants criminal immunity or some sort
of privilege in regards to the operation of criminal law Extraterritorial application – outside the five exceptions
to a class of preferred people. stipulated therein, Philippine courts cannot take jurisdiction
over a crime committed outside the country.
Persons exempt from the operation of Philippine Criminal
Laws by virtue of the Principles of International Law Prospective – a penal law cannot make an act punishable in a
- Sovereign and other chiefs of state manner in which it was not punishable when committed.
- Diplomatic representatives, such as ambassadors, Crimes are punished under the laws in force at the time of
ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident, and their commission (Art. 366, RPC).
charged d’affaires.
Exceptions to the prospective application of criminal law
Consular immunity as not included ● When a new statute establishes conditions more
● Consuls represent their respective states in
lenient or favorable to the accused, it can be given a
concerns of commerce and navigation and perform
retroactive effect. This cannot be applied:
certain administrative and notarial duties, such as
a) Where the new law is expressly made
the issuance of passports and visas, authentication
inapplicable to pending actions or existing
of documents, and administration of oaths.
causes of action.
● Consuls are not charged with the duty of
b) Where the offender is a habitual criminal
representing their states in political matters, hence
under Rule 5, Article 62 of the RPC.
not accorded with the same immunity that diplomats
enjoy. ARTICLE 21. Penalties that may be imposed. – No felony shall be
● They are only entitled to functional consular punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its
Commission.
immunity under treaty stipulation since it merely
covers acts performed in the exercise of consular ARTICLE 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. – Penal Laws shall
have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a
function.
felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of
Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such

laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving - The accused was charged with selling opium in
the same.
violation of Act No. 1461. During the pendency of the
Repeal or Amendment of Penal Laws case, Act. No. 1761 repealed the aforementioned act,
still penalizing the same offense.
1) Absolute, Total, or Express Repeal – the act or - Such repeal does not have the effect of depriving
omission is decriminalized. the courts to try, convict, and sentence offenders
a) Case is Pending – it shall be dismissed charged with violations of the old law prior to its
regardless of whether the accused is a repeal. The penalty prescribed by the new law is not
habitual delinquent or not because there more favorable to the accused than that prescribed
is no more crime for which he should be in the old law.
tried.
b) Accused is already convicted by final Case example: People v. Sindiong and Pastor
judgment – he shall be released, except: - Principle: When the repealing law fails to penalize
i) If he is not a habitual delinquent; the offense under the old law, the accused cannot
ii) The law provided that detention be convicted under the new law.
is to continue. - The accused was prosecuted for neglecting to make

a return of the sales of newspapers and magazines,
2) Partial, Relative, or Implied Repeal or Repeal by in compliance with the Revised Administrative Code.
Enactment – assuming the second law is favorable Said section was repealed by the National Internal
to the accused: Revenue Code, which does not require the making of
a) No retroactive effect (first law will govern) return of sales.
– if the accused is a habitual delinquent or - The court then loses jurisdiction where the repealing
if the favorable second law prohibits law wholly fails to penalize the act defined and
retroactivity. penalized as an offense in the old law.
b) There is retroactive effect (second law will

Case example: People v. Baesa
govern) – if favorable to the offender who
- Principle: A person erroneously accused and
is not a habitual delinquent and the law is
convicted under a repealed statute may be
silent as to its retroactivity.
punished under the repealing statute
- The accused was charged with having failed to pay
Different effects of repeal on penal law
the salary of Cabasares, whom he employed as
master fisherman in his motor launch. He was
Effect of the repeal to penalty Effect of the new law convicted under C.A. No. 303, which was then
repealed by R.A. No. 602. The subject matter of C.A.
Lighter penalty New law shall be applied,
No. 303 is entirely covered by R.A. No. 602, with
except for the
aforementioned exceptions which its provisions are inconsistent.
- The fact that the offender was erroneously accused
Heavier penalty The law in force at the time and convicted under a statute which had already
of the commission of the been repealed and therefore no longer existed at the
offense shall be applied time the act complained of was committed does not
prevent conviction under the repealing statute,
No longer punishable; absolute Crime is obliterated; offense
which punishes the same act, provided the accused
repeal ceases to be criminal
had an opportunity to defend himself against the
charge brought against him
Case example: People v. Tamayo
- Principle: When the repeal is absolute, the offense Case example: People v. Almuete
ceases to be criminal - Principle: A new law which omits anything
- The accused was prosecuted and convicted of a contained in the old law dealing on the same
violation of an ordinance. While the case was subject, operates as a repeal of anything not so
pending appeal, the ordinance was repealed by included in the amendatory act
eliminating the section for which the accused was - The Agricultural Land Reform Code replaced the
being prosecuted. Agricultural Tenancy Law (except as qualified in
- The repeal is absolute, where the offense ceases to Sections 4 and 35 of the Code). It instituted the
be criminal. leasehold system and abolished share tenancy
subject to certain conditions indicated in Section 4
Case example: US v. Cuna thereof
- Principle: When the new law and the old law
- Section 39 is not reproduced in the Agricultural Land
penalize the same offense, the offender can be
Reform Code whose Section 172 repeals “all laws or
tried under the old law.
part of any law inconsistent with” its provisions.

- Under the leasehold system, the prohibition against ambiguous criminal statute that sets out multiple or
pre-threshing has no more raison d' etre (reason for inconsistent punishments, should resolve the
being) because the lessee is obligated to pay a fixed ambiguity in favor of the more lenient punishment
rental as prescribed in Section 34 of the new law, as
redesignated in RA No. 6389. 5. Equipoise Rule – when evidence of the prosecution
- The legal maxim, cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa and the defense are so evenly balanced, the
lex— the reason for the law ceasing, the law itself appreciation of such evidence calls for tilting of the
also ceases.) scales in favor of the accused. Thus, the evidence
for the prosecution must be heavier to overcome the
Case example: People v. Jacinto presumption of innocence of the accused.
- Principle: Self-repealing law - The constitutional basis of the rule is the Bill of
- The anomalous act attributed to Pedro de los Reyes Rights which finds expressions in Sec. 1, par. (a),
is a violation of RA No. 650 being a “material Rule 115 of the 1986 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as
misrepresentation in any document required” by said amended
Act “or the rules and regulations issued thereunder”
and was committed while said Act was in force.
DATE OF EFFECTIVENESS
- It was punishable under Section 18 of said Act with
fine or imprisonment, or both, and with forfeiture of
the goods or commodities imported in violation
thereof. ARTICLE 1. Time when Act takes effect. — This Code shall take effect on the
first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-two.
- Since RA No. 650 expired by its own limitation on
June 30, 1953, the forfeiture therein could no longer
be subsequently enforced. The Revised Penal Code – the goal to revise the old Penal
- The falsification or misrepresentation allegedly Code, taking into consideration the existing conditions, the
committed on the import license could no longer be special penal laws, and the rulings laid down by the Supreme
a basis for the penalty of forfeiture at the time of the Court.
release of goods. ● Based mainly on principles of the classical school. It
- When an act expires by its own limitation, the effect continues (like the old Penal Code) to be based on
is the same as though it had been repealed at the the principles of the old or classical school, although
time of the expiration. some provisions of eminently positivistic tendencies
- It is a recognized rule in this jurisdiction that the (those having reference to the punishment of
repeal of a law carries with it the deprivation of impossible crimes, juvenile delinquency, etc.) were
courts of jurisdiction to try, convict, and sentence incorporated in the present Code.
persons charged with violation of the old law prior to
the repeal.
Book 1 Book 2
Interpretation in case of Doubt Basic principles affecting Definition of felonies with

criminal liability, provisions the corresponding
Rules in the Construction of Penal Laws on penalties including penalties, classified and
1. Penal laws are strictly construed against the criminal and civil liability grouped under 14 different
Government, and liberally in favor of the accused titles
- Such rule may be invoked only where the

law is ambiguous and there is doubt as to Two Theories in Criminal Law
its interpretation
- Where the law is clear and unambiguous, Characteristics
there is no room for the application of the
rule Classical or Juristic 1. Basis of criminal liability is human
free will and the purpose of the
Theory penalty is retribution.
2. In the construction or interpretation of the 2. Man is essentially a moral creature
with an absolutely free will to choose
provisions of the RPC, the Spanish text is between good and evil thereby
placing more stress upon the effect
controlling, because it was approved by the
or result of the felonious act than
Philippine Legislature in its Spanish text upon the man, the criminal himself.
3. Has been endeavored to establish a
mechanical and direct proportion
3. Pro Reo – “In dubio pro reo,” which means “when in between crime and penalty.
4. There is a scant regard* to the
doubt, rule for the accused,” which means that a human element.
defendant may not be convicted by the court when
doubts about his guilt still remain Positivist or Realistic 1. Man is subdued occasionally by a
strange and morbid phenomenon
Theory which constrains him to do wrong, in
spite of or contrary to his volition.
4. Lenity Rule – intimately related to the pro reo
2. That crime is essentially a social
doctrine, wherein a court, in construing an

natural phenomenon, and as such, it
● When the Philippine vessel or aircraft is in the
cannot be treated and checked by territory of a foreign country, the crime committed
the application of abstract principles
of law and jurisprudence nor by the
on said vessel or aircraft is subject to the laws of
imposition of a punishment, fixed that foreign country
and determined a priori; but rather
through the enforcement of
individual measures in each Flag state – state where the vessel or airplane is registered.
particular case after a thorough,
personal and individual investigation
conducted by a competent body of Identification of a Philippine ship or airship
psychiatrists and social scientists.
● A Philippine vessel or aircraft is that which is
registered in the Philippine Bureau of Customs.
*Scant regard – If you regard someone or something as being a particular thing or
as having a particular quality, you believe that they are that thing or have that ● It is the registration of the vessel or aircraft in
quality.
accordance with the laws of the Philippines, not the
citizenship of its owner, which makes it a Philippine
APPLICATION OF THE RPC PROVISIONS ship or airship.
● An unregistered or unlicensed vessel or airship does
not come within the purview of paragraph No. 1 of
ARTICLE 2. Application of its provisions. — Except as provided in treaties and Article 2.
laws of preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced ● Thus, if a crime is committed 10 miles from the
not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior
shores of the Philippines on board a vessel
waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those
who: belonging to a Filipino, but the same is not registered
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship; or licensed in accordance with the laws of the
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the
Philippines, paragraph No. 1 of Article 2 is not
Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the
Government of the Philippine Islands; applicable.
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into
these Islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the
Example: An American citizen killed a German citizen on high
preceding number
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an seas while on board a vessel registered in the Philippines but
offense in the exercise of their functions; or owned by a Canadian citizen.
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the
- Applying the flag state rule, the provision of the RPC
law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.
on murder shall be enforced
Scope of the Application of the RPC Provisions Example: An American citizen killed a German citizen within the
● The provisions shall be enforced not only within the territory of Japan while on board an airplane of Philippine
Philippine Archipelago, but also outside of its Airline
jurisdiction in certain cases. - Applying the flag state rule, the provision of the RPC
● The five paragraphs of Article 2 treat of the on murder shall be enforced against the American
application of the RPC to acts committed in the air, citizen
at sea, and even in a foreign country when such acts - Applying the territoriality principle, the law of Japan
affect the political or economic life of the nation. on murder shall be enforced against the American
citizen
Four rules of Article 2: - Philippine court and Japanese court have concurrent
a) Territoriality principle
jurisdiction over the crime of murder
b) Extraterritoriality principle
c) Treaties Case example: US v. Fowler
d) Laws of preferential application - The Philippine court has no jurisdiction over the
crime of theft committed on the high seas on board
Provision breakdown: a vessel not registered or licensed in the Philippines.
“Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or
airship.”
“Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of
● Under the Flag State principle, where provisions of
the Philippines or obligations and securities issued by the
the RPC shall be enforced outside of its jurisdiction Government.”
against those who commit an offensive while on a ● Any person who makes false or counterfeit coins or
Philippine ship or airship forges treasury or bank notes or other obligations
● Philippine vessel or aircraft is a part of the national and securities in a foreign country may be
territory, although beyond three miles from the prosecuted before our courts for violation of Article
seashore 163 or Article 166 of the RPC.
● Any person who committed a crime on board a ● Under the protective principle, criminal laws are
Philippine ship/airship while the same is outside the ever-reaching to offenders who forge or counterfeit
Philippine territory can be tried before our civil Philippine coins or currency notes (money), or
courts for violation of the Penal Code obligations and securities (Treasury bills), or who

should introduce (import) a forged currency note or - The provisions of the RPC on corruption of public
securities and obligations in the Philippines. officer and falsification of public document shall not
● The word “provisions” contemplated in paragraphs 2 be enforced against the private individual.
and 3 refer to Articles 162-168 on forgery of
Philippines pesos, coins, treasury bill, and other “Should commit any of the crimes against the national
obligation and securities of the Philippines, including security and the law of nations.”
importation of forged Philippine money or coin. ● Under the protective principle (national security)
● While forgery of US dollars constitutes a crime in the and universality principle (law of nations).
Philippines, the provisions of the RPC on forgery
shall not be enforced against those who committed Crimes against the national security and law of nations:
(a) Treason
forgery of foreign currency outside the territory of
(b) Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason
the Philippines.
(c) Espionage
● The extraterritorial principle will only apply if the
(d) Inciting to war and giving motives for reprisals
subject of forgery is Philippine pesos.
(e) Violation of neutrality
(f) Correspondence with hostile country
Protective principle – the State has jurisdiction over acts
(g) Flight to enemy’s country
committed abroad by nationals or foreigners*, which are
(h) Piracy and mutiny on the high seas
prejudicial to its national security or vital interest.
*Forgery of US dollars committed inside the territory of the Philippines can be Piracy – crime against all humanity, and may be punished in
prosecuted in the Philippines because of the principle of territoriality.
the competent tribunal of any country where the offender may
be found or into which he may be carried. Pirates are in law
“Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction
hostes humani generis.
into the Philippines of the obligations and securities
mentioned in the preceding number.”
Underlying reasons behind extraterritoriality rules
● Introduction of forged or counterfeit obligations and
1) Under the Flag State rule, a vessel registered in the
securities into the Philippines is as dangerous as the
Philippines is considered an extension of the
forging or counterfeiting of the same, to the
Philippines
economic interest of the country.
2) The protective interest principle involving forgery
and crimes against national security seeks to
“While being a public officer or employee, should commit
an offense in the exercise of his functions.” protect the financial stability and existence of the
● When any of the felonies enumerated below is State
committed abroad by any of our public officers or 3) Extraterritoriality principle involving a
employees while in the exercise of his functions, he function-related crime committed by a public officer
can be prosecuted here. is designed to implement the constitutional
mandate on public accountability
Crimes that may be committed in the exercise of public 4) Universality principle involving piracy and mutiny
functions: protects vessels while traveling on high seas, which
(a) Direct/indirect bribery is essential in world trade and commerce
(b) Frauds against the public treasury
(c) Possession of prohibited interest Regional Trial Court – has original jurisdiction over all
(d) Malversation of public funds or property crimes and offenses committed on the high seas or beyond
(e) Failure of accountable officer to render accounts the jurisdiction of any country on board a registered or
(f) Illegal use of public funds or property licensed Philippine ship or warcraft of any kind in accordance
(g) Failure to make delivery of public funds or property with laws. Crimes committed outside of the Philippines but
(h) Falsification by a public officer or employee punishable therein under Article 2 shall be cognizable by the
committed with abuse of his official position RTC in which the charge of first filed.
Example: A private individual bribed a Philippine consul “Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential
stationed in America to falsify a visa. The private individual application.” — while the general rule is that the provisions of
committed corruption of public officer and falsification of the RPC shall be enforced against any person who violates any
public document as principal by inducement, while the public of its provisions while living or sojourning in the Philippines,
officer is liable for direct bribery and falsification of public the exceptions may be provided by the treaties and laws of
document as principal by direct participation preferential applications.
- The provisions of the RPC on direct bribery and
falsification of public document shall be enforced “Its atmosphere.” — the sovereignty of the subjacent State,
against the public officer, who committed and therefore, its penal laws extend to all the air space which
function-related crimes. covers its territory, subject to the right of way or easement in
favor of foreign aircrafts.

“Interior waters.” — includes creeks, rivers, lakes, and bays,
English Rule (Coastal Such crimes are triable in
gulfs, straits, coves, inlets, and roadsteads lying wholly within
State Principle) that country, unless they
the three-mile limit. merely affect things within
the vessel or they refer to
“Maritime zone.” the internal management
● Includes those bays, gulfs, adjacent parts of the sea thereof.
or recesses in the coastline whose width at their
entrance is not more than 12 miles measured in a Convention of the Law of The flag state of a foreign
the Sea merchant vessel passing
straight line from headland to headland, and all
through the territorial sea
straits of less than six miles wide.
of the Philippines (coastal
● For straits having more than that width, the space in state) has jurisdiction over
the center outside of the marine league is crimes committed therein.
considered open sea. However, the Philippines
can exercise jurisdiction to
Crimes committed on board a foreign merchant ship or arrest any person or to
airship conduct any investigation
in connection with any
● Foreign merchant ship is considered an extension of
crime committed on board
the territory of the country to which it belongs.
the ship during its passage
● An offense committed on the high seas on board a in the following cases:
foreign merchant vessel is not triable by our courts, (1) If the consequences extend to
the Philippines
(2) If the crime is of a kind to
Case example: US v. Bull disturb the peace of the
- A continuing crime committed on board a Norwegian Philippines or the good order of
the territorial sea
merchant vessel sailing from Formosa to the
(3) If the assistance of the local
Philippines, by failing to provide stalls for animals in authorities has been requested by
transit in violation of Act No. 55 is triable in the the master of the ship or by a
diplomatic agent of the flag state
Philippines. (4) If such measures are
- The offense of failing to provide suitable means for necessary for the suppression of
illicit traffic in narcotic drugs or
securing animals while transporting them on a psychotropic substances (Sec. 2.,
foreign ship from a foreign port to a port of the Art. 27, Convention of the Law of
the Sea)
Philippines is within the jurisdiction of the courts of
the Philippines when the forbidden conditions
existed during the time the ship was within territorial More on French Rule or Theory
waters, regardless of the fact the same conditions - Manners happening on board a merchant ship which
existed when the ship sailed from the foreign port do not concern the tranquility of the port or persons
foreign to the crew, are justiciable only by the courts
and while it was on the high seas.
of the country to which the vessel belongs.
- French courts therefore claim exclusive jurisdiction
Jurisdiction of the Philippine Court over offenses over crimes committed on board a French merchant
committed on board a foreign merchant vessel vessels in foreign ports by one member of the crew
● Traditionally, the Philippine territory extends to three against another.
miles from the headlands. This was already repealed
by the UNCLOS, setting 12 nautical miles from the Controlling principle in the Philippines
coastline as part of the Philippines’ maritime - The English rule is not controlling anymore because:
a) The circumstance that the Philippines was
territory.
a territory of the United States, on which
● When a foreign merchant vessel enters the 12-mile
the adoption of the English Rule is based,
limit, the ship’s officers and crew become subject to is not anymore obtaining. The Philippines
the jurisdiction of our courts. is not a territory of the United States
anymore
Rules as to Jurisdiction over Crimes Committed aboard b) The Philippines, as a signatory to the
Foreign Merchant Vessels [while in the territorial waters of UNCLOS, has the obligation to follow the
flag state rule under the Convention
another country]
Case example: U.S. v Fowler
- The Philippines has no jurisdiction over a murder
French Rule (Flag State Such crimes are not triable
committed in a vessel registered in Panama while on
Principle) in the courts of that
the high seas, although a Filipino owns the ship
country, unless their
- Panama, for being the flag state [as it is where the
commission affects the
vessel is registered], has jurisdiction over this
peace and security of the
murder
territory or the safety of the
state is endangered.
Crime in the Spratlys, Regime of Islands, and EEZ

pernicious effects within our territory.
Spratly No jurisdiction over crimes
Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over offenses
KIG Has jurisdiction over crimes because of the
committed on board foreign warships in territorial waters
Baseline Law (R.A. No. 9522)
● In case vessels are in the ports or territorial waters of
a foreign country, a distinction must be made
EEZ Limited jurisdiction over crimes committed
between merchant ships and warships; the former
within the EEZ such as those involving fiscal,
are more or less subjected to the territorial laws.
custom, immigration, health, and safety, and
● Warships are always refuted to be the territory of the
violation of the coastal state’s right under
country to which they belong and cannot be
the convention
subjected to the laws of another state (e.g., US Army
transport is a warship).
Q: Do Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the crime of Territoriality over the embassy
homicide committed on board a foreign merchant vessel by ● The ground occupied by the U.S. Embassy in Ermita,
a member of the crew against another? Manila, is the territory of the Philippines, and not of
A: All must concede that felonious homicide is a subject for the United States of America
the local jurisdiction, and that if the proper authorities are ● A person who committed a crime within the premises
proceeding with the case in the regular way, the consul has no
of an embassy shall be prosecuted under the law of
right to interfere to prevent it.
the Philippines because of the principle of
Disorders which disturb only the peace of the ship or those on territoriality
board are to be dealt with exclusively by the sovereignty of the ● However, the jurisdiction of the Philippines over the
home of the ship, but those which disturb the public peace embassy is limited or restricted by the principles of
may be suppressed, and if need be, the offenders punished by inviolability of diplomatic premises, which is a
the proper authorities of the local jurisdiction. Much will generally accepted principle of International Law; a
undoubtedly depend on the attending circumstances of the
warrant of arrest cannot be served inside the U.S.
particular case.
embassy without a waiver from the U.S. government
Jurisdiction of courts over crimes not involving a breach of of its right under the principle of inviolability
public order aboard a foreign merchant vessel
● Crimes not involving a breach of public order Example: A U.S. Consul killed a security guard inside the
committed on board a foreign merchant vessel in
American embassy located at Roxas Boulevard, Manila,
transit not triable by our courts.
Philippines.
Case example: US v. Look Chaw - The RTC of Manila can take cognizance of the case
- Mere possession of opium aboard a foreign of murder because the land on which the American
merchant vessel in transit is not triable in Philippine embassy is located in Philippine territory.
courts because the fact alone does not constitute a
- However, a warrant of arrest cannot be issued yet
breach of public order.
because a waiver from the U.S. government is still
- Mere possession of opium on such a ship, without
being used in our territory, does not bring about in needed under the principle of inviolability.
this country those disastrous effects that our law
contemplates avoiding. Special laws – territoriality and extraterritorial principles are
- But said courts acquire jurisdiction when the tins of applicable even if the crime is punishable under special laws.
opium are landed from the vessel on Philippine soil. ● While Article 2 may apply on violence against women
- Landing or using opium is an open violation of the
(R.A No. 9262) or plunder (R.A. 7080), it does not
Philippine laws.
apply to trafficking in persons, crimes involving
terrorism, and conspiracy to commit financing of
Case example: US v. Ah Sing terrorism and cybercrimes because the laws that
- When the foreign merchant vessel is not in transit punish them have specific provisions for the
because the Philippines is its terminal port, the
extraterritorial rule.
person in possession of opium on board that vessel
is liable, because he may be held guilty of illegal
importation of opium. FELONIES
Case example: People v. Wong Cheng
- Smoking opium constitutes breach of public order.
Smoking opium aboard an English vessel while ARTICLE 3. Definition. — Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies
(delitos).
anchored 2 ½ miles in Manila Bay constitutes a
breach of public order because the primary object of Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of
the law in punishing the use of opium is to protect fault (culpa).
the inhabitants of the country against the

There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and there is
disastrous effects entailed by the use of such drug. fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of
- It is a breach of public order to smoke opium within foresight, or lack of skill.
our territorial limits, even aboard a foreign merchant

ship because it causes such drug to produce its

Felonies – acts and omissions punishable by the RPC. co-defendant’s threat without raising a protest, and
did not give the alarm when the latter set the house
Elements of felonies on fire.
1) There must be an act or omission. - Mere passive presence at the scene of another’s
2) Act or omission must be punishable by the RPC. crime, mere silence, and failure to give alarm, without
3) The act is performed or the omission incurred by evidence of agreement or conspiracym is not
means of dolo or culpa. punishable. Therefore, Silvestre was acquitted.
Act – any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in “Punishable by law” – the other element of felony; based
the external world, it being unnecessary that the same be upon the maxim, “nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege,” i.e.,
actually produced, as the possibility of its production is there is no crime when there is no law punishing it.
sufficient. ● Should be understood to mean “punished by the
● The act must be one which is defined by the RPC as RPC” and not by a special law. That is to say, felony
constituting a felony; or at least, an overt act of must be distinguished from crime and offense.
that felony, i.e., an external act which has direct
connection with the felony intended to be
Felony Crime; Offense
committed.
Acts and omissions Applied to infractions of the
Only External Act is punished— the act must be external, as punished in the RPC. law punished by special
internal acts are beyond the sphere of penal law. A mere statutes.
intention or a criminal thought will NEVER constitute a felony.
Classification of Felonies
Example: A took the watch of B with intent to gain and without
the consent of the latter. The act of taking the watch of B, with
1. According to the manner or mode of execution
intent to gain, constitutes the crime of theft. If A entertains
a. Intentional Felonies
the idea of killing B, as long as he does not commence the
b. Culpable Felonies
commission of the crime directly by overt act, A is not
2. According to the stage of execution
criminally liable.
a. Consummated
b. Frustrated
Omission – inaction; the failure to perform a positive duty
c. Attempted
which one is bound to do. There must be a law requiring the
3. According to gravity
doing or performance of an act.
a. Grave Felonies
b. Less grave Felonies
Examples of Felony by omission:
1) Anyone who fails to render assistance to any person c. Light Felonies
whom he finds in an uninhabited place wounded or in

danger of dying, is liable for abandonment of Manner or Mode of Execution
persons in danger (Art. 275, par. 1).
2) An officer entrusted with collection of taxes who Classification of felonies according to manner or mode of
voluntarily fails to issue a receipt as provided by law, execution:
is guilty of illegal exaction (Art. 213, par. 2[b]). 1) Intentional felonies
3) Every person owing allegiance to the Philippines, 2) Culpable felonies
without being a foreigner, and having knowledge of

Difference between Intentional and Culpable Felony
any conspiracy against the government, who does
not disclose and make known the same to the proper
authority, is liable for misprision of treason (Art. Intentional Felony Culpable Felony
116).
Act or omission of the Act or omission of the
Example of an omission which is NOT felony: A person who offender is malicious. offender is not malicious.
does not report to the authorities the commission of a crime

The act is performed with The injury caused by the
he witnessed is not punishable by law; hence, the omission to
deliberate intent (with offender to another person
do so is not a felony. malice). is unintentional, it being
simply the incident of
Case example: People v. Silvestre and Atienza another act performed
- Atienza was convicted as principal by direct without malice.
participation and Silverstre as accomplice of the
crime of arson. While Atienza [armed with a pistol] The offender, in performing The wrongful act results
the act or in incurring the from imprudence,
told Spouses Nicolas and Antonia de la Cruz that he
omission, has the intention negligence, lack of
was gonna set the spouses’ house on fire as his
to cause injury to another. foresight, or lack of skill.
revenge, Romana Silvestre listened to her

- A left his truck in the middle of a street to buy
Q: How much of the provisions in the RPC penalize dolo and cigarettes from 7-eleven at the wee hour of the
culpa? night. Since the place was unlit, B, who was driving
A: Most of the felonies defined and penalized in Book II of the his car, bumped the truck.
RPC are committed with malice, and only a few are committed
by means of fault (e.g., malversation through negligence, Case example: People v. Castillo
evasion through negligence). - Accused does not dispute the fact that he had
indeed run over his father with the pick-up truck he
Crimes that cannot be committed through imprudence or was driving.
negligence: murder; treason; robbery; malicious mischief. - He claimed that there was no intention on his part to
a) Murder kill his father and that he had accidentally stepped
b) Treason on the gas pedal forcefully, causing the vehicle to
c) Robbery travel at a fast speed.
d) Malicious mischief - However, evidence showed that instead of alighting
from the vehicle to render aid to the victim after
Intentional felonies – when the offender, in performing an act hitting him, the accused backed-up, thereby running
or in incurring an omission, has the intention to do an injury to over the victim again.
the person, property, or right of another, such offender acts - The claim of the accused was rejected, and he is
with malice. He is liable for intentional felony if the act or liable for parricide and not merely reckless
omission is punished by the RPC. imprudence resulting in parricide.
Deceit – not the proper translation of the word ‘dolo.’ Dolus is Q: Why acts of negligence (culpa) are punished?
equivalent to malice, which is the intent to do an injury to A: A man must use common sense, and exercise due reflection
another. in all his acts. It is his duty to be cautious, careful, and prudent,
if not from instinct, then through fear of incurring punishment.
Elements of Intentional Felony He is responsible for such results as anyone might foresee and
for his acts which no one would have performed except
through culpable abandon. Otherwise, his own person, rights,
Criminal Act Criminal Intent
and property, and those of his fellow beings, would ever be
Otherwise known as actus To consummate a crime, the exposed to all manner of danger and injury.
reus; required to be criminal act must be
committed to consummate accompanied with the Case example: US v. Divino
a felony. required criminal intent. - The defendant, who was not a medical practitioner,
tied a girl, wrapped her feet with rags saturated with
Basic rule: An act is not criminal unless the mind of the
petroleum and set them on fire, causing injuries.
actor is criminal.
- His defense was that he was only rendering medical
assistance in good faith and to the best of his ability
Culpable felonies – an act performed without malice, but at to cure her of ulcer.
the same time punishable, though in a lesser degree and with - While there was no intention to cause an evil but to
an equal result, which is an intermediate act that the Penal provide a remedy, the defendant was liable for
Code qualifies as imprudence or negligence. physical injuries through imprudence.
Imprudence Negligence Voluntary acts or omissions — the omission of the word

‘voluntary’ does not mean that an involuntary act may
Deficiency of action Deficiency of perception constitute a felony.
● An intentional felony is committed when the act is
A person fails to avoid A person fails to pay proper performed with deliberate intent, which must
injury to person or damage attention and to use due
necessarily be voluntary, and the same goes for a
to property. diligence in foreseeing the
culpable felony.
injury or damage impending
to be caused. ● A criminal act is presumed to be voluntary. Fact
prevails over assumption, and in the absence of
Involves lack of skill. Involves lack of foresight. indubitable explanation, the act must be declared
voluntary and punishable.
Example: Imprudence or Lack of skill

Cases justifying how culpable felonies are voluntary:
- A, who was driving a car at 120km/hr in violation of
1) People v. Ramirez – a hunter who seemed to have
traffic law, ran over B. As a consequence, B died. This
seen with his lantern something like the eyes of a
is imprudence or lack of skill.
deer shot towards the ‘deer’ but instead ended up
killing his companion. He performed a voluntary act
Example: Negligence or Lack of foresight
in discharging his gun, resulting in a homicide

without malice. He is guilty of homicide through 3) Intent – He must have intent while doing the act or
reckless imprudence omitting to do the act.
2) US v. Reodique – Reodique picked up an airgun he ● Being purely a mental process, the intent
believed was unloaded. He discharged the gun to commit the act with malice is presumed
towards the direction of his victim, which ended up and the presumption arises from the proof
killing the latter as the gun was actually loaded. of the commission of an unlawful act.
Reodique was convicted of the crime of causing
death by gross or reckless imprudence, as he Q: Are the requisites of dolo interdependent of each other?
deliberately pulled the trigger of the airgun, A: One who acts without freedom necessarily has no intent to
voluntarily and intentionally causing its discharge, do an injury to another. One who acts without intelligence has
with the result that injury was produced. no such intent. But, a person who caused an injury by mere
accident and had freedom and intelligence is not criminally
Reasons why act/omission in felonies must be voluntary liable.
● The RPC continues to be based on the Classical
Theory, according to which the basis of criminal Intent – a mental state, the existence of which is shown by the
liability is human free will. overt acts of a person.
● Acts or omissions punished by law are always ● Criminal intent is presumed from the commission of
deemed voluntary, since man is a rational being. an unlawful act; can be rebutted by proof of lack of
One must prove that his case falls under Article 12 to such intent.
show that his act or omission is not voluntary.
● In felonies by dolo, the act is performed with Case example: Soriano v. People
deliberate intent which must necessarily be - The defendant carried away articles belonging to
voluntary; and in felonies by culpa, the imprudence another and concealed them from the owner and
consists in voluntarily but without malice, doing or from the police authorities. He denied having them in
failing to do an act from which material injury results. his possession.
- In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, it may
The intent or malice in intentional felonies is replaced by imprudence, negligence, be inferred that he acted with intent of gain. Thus,
lack of foresight or lack of skill in culpable felonies.
there can be no felony by dolo if there is no intent.
Requisites of voluntariness in intentional felony

1) Freedom – He must have freedom while doing an act
Case example: People v. Sia Teb Ban
- The accused took a watch without the owner’s
or omitting to do an act.
consent, and when prosecuted for theft, claimed
● There is freedom of action when the
that the prosecution failed to prove the intent to
offender performs the act on his own free
gain on his part, an element of the crime of theft.
will, without force, duress, or
- From the felonious act of the accused, freely and
uncontrollable fear
deliberately executed, the moral and legal
● A person who acts under the compulsion
presumption of a criminal and injurious intent arises,
of an irresistible force is exempt from
in the absence to the contrary.
criminal liability (Art. 12, par. 5)
- Criminal intent and the will to commit a crime are
● A person who acts under the impulse of an
always presumed to exist on the part of the person
uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater
who executed an act which the law punishes, unless
injury is exempt from criminal liability (Art.
the contrary shall appear. Such criminal intent does
12, par. 6)
not arise from the proof of the commission of an act
which is not unlawful.
2) Intelligence – He must have intelligence while doing
the act or omitting to do the act.
Case example: People v. Taneo
● Intelligence is the mental capacity of a
- A person who got up in his sleep, left the room with a
person to know wrong from right and to
bolo in his hand, and upon meeting his wife who tried
appreciate the consequences of one’s act.
to stop him, wonder her in the abdomen and
● No crime can exist without intelligence as
attacked others, is not criminally liable because his
this is necessary to determine the morality
acts were not voluntary, for having acted in a dream;
of human acts.
he had no criminal intent.
● The imbecile and the insane, and the infant
under nine years of age, as well as the
Mens rea – guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful purpose or criminal
minor over nine but less than 15 years old
intent, and essential for criminal liability.
and acting without discernment, have no
criminal liability, because they act without Significance of criminal intent in intentional felony
intelligence (Art. 12, pars. 1, 2, 3). ● Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea – the act
itself does not make a man guilty, unless his
intention were so.

● Actus me invito factus non est meus actus – an of military operation does not negate the
act done by me against my will is not my act. consummation of the crime
Kinds of intent Example: Intent to kill in attempted, frustrated, or

1) Specific Criminal Intent – an ingredient of the consummated homicide
commission of the crime, hence it must be proven by - A and B were fighting, but as the former was losing, A
the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. shot B on the arm. B filed a case against A for
a) Express – expressly stated in Book II, attempted homicide, to which the former lost to as
where it is identified by following the word the prosecution cannot prove the intent to kill on the
“purpose” (e.g., the purpose of a coup part of A. For homicide, intent to kill must be proven
d’etat is to ‘seize or diminish state power,’ - A and B were fighting, but as the former was losing, A
hence is it also the purpose) shot B on the heart. Thereafter, B died, and his heirs
b) Implied – can be inferred from the criminal filed a case for homicide against A. A’s defense was
acts described in Book II; if the Code does that he had no intention to kill as he only intended to
not expressly reveal the specific criminal threaten B.
intent required, the criminal act and the - A’s defense will not stand because the victim died;
criminal intent pertain to the same act hence the intent to kill becomes a general criminal
(e.g., there is no specific intent for intent presumed by law. Prosecution need not prove
homicide; since killing is the actus reus, intent to kill in homicide, parricide, murder, or
intent to kill shall be considered its specific infanticide where the victim already died. It is only in
intent). its attempted and frustrated stages that it can be

considered an element; and not in its consummated
2) General Criminal Intent – dolo is the general intent stage because the best evidence to prove intent to
kill is the death of the victim.
of every intentional felony; in culpable felony, dolo is
not an element. The prosecution does not have the
Difference between intent and motive
burden to prove it.
Consummation of crime Intent Motive

- What is important is the commission of the criminal
act (by means of the required mode, e.g., violence) Purpose to use a particular Moving power which impels
with the general and specific criminal intent. means to effect such result one to action for a definite
result
- The accomplishment of the criminal objective may
not be necessary to consummate the crime.
Renders an act of felony, Not an essential element of
and is the general element a crime, hence, need not be
Instances that do not require the accomplishment of the of all intentional felonies proved for purposes of
criminal objective but nevertheless constitutes a crime conviction. It only becomes
a) Theft - the criminal act is the taking of personal necessary when there is
property without consent of the owner, while the doubt about the culprit’s
criminal intent is to gain identity, or when the
evidence is circumstantial
- Taking personal property with intent to gain
or inconclusive
consummates the crime; actual gain is not a
requisite to complete the crime
- Taking a check with intent to gain consummates the Relevance of motive
crime of theft. Not being able to encash the check ● The culprit’s identity, which is an essential requisite
does not negate the consummation or completion of to convict him, is usually established through the
this crime testimony of the witness, who would positively point
at him as the criminal.
b) Kidnapping - seizing a person for purpose of ● However, if there is doubt about the culprit’s identity,
demanding ransom consummates the crime of showing the motive of the accused of committing
kidnapping for ransom the crime will help establish his direct link to the
- Failure to actually receive ransom because of the commission thereof.
timely apprehension of the accused does not ● The lack or absence of motive does not preclude
negate the consummation of this crime conviction where there are reliable witnesses who
fully and satisfactorily identified the accused as the
c) Rebellion - public and armed uprising for purpose of perpetrator of a felony.

● Such absence of motive simply means that it is not
removing Marawi City from the allegiance to the
known, for we cannot probe into the depths of one’s
central government and its law consummates the
conscience where it may be found, hidden away, and
crime of rebellion
inaccessible to our observation.
- Failure to actually remove the City from the
allegiance to the government and its laws because

When motive becomes relevant: - The SC concluded that the defendant acted while in
a) There is doubt as to the Identity of the accused a dream and his acts, with which he was charged,
b) Antagonistic theories were not voluntary in the sense of entailing criminal
c) No eyewitnesses liability, when he tried to kill his own wife, his father,
d) Circumstantial evidence (proof of motive need not and his guests whom he himself invited.
be established where guilt is established by - Under the special circumstances of the case, the
sufficient evidence) Court finds not only the lack of motive for the
e) Necessity to determine the proper crime attributed defendant to voluntarily commit the acts
to the offender in case of various crimes.* complained of, but also motive for not committing
said acts.
*If the accused committed various crimes, identifying the motive is essential to
determine the crime for which the accused can be held liable. If a person burned a
building and consequently, the owner thereof died, his motive will determine Case example: People v. Padirayon
whether the crime committed is murder or arson with resulting death. - Lack of motive to kill the deceased has been held as
Proof of motive is not required when: further basis for acquitting the accused, where the
a) The accused has been positively identified as the lone testimony of the prosecution witness is
assailant contrary to common experience, and, therefore,
b) The participation of the accused is shown incredible.
c) The criminal act did not give rise to various crimes
d) The accused is charged with a culpable crime, or Mistake of Fact – a misapprehension of fact on the part of the
malum prohibitum person who caused injury to another. However, he is not
criminally liable because he did not act with criminal intent.
How to prove motive ● While ignorance of the law excuses no one from
● Through testimony of witnesses on the acts or compliance therewith (ignorantia legis excusat),
statements of the accused before or immediately ignorance or mistake of fact relieves the accused
after the commission of the offense. from criminal liability (ignorantia facti excusat).
● Motive alone, however strong, will never bring about ● Honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of
conviction. But motive and circumstantial evidence, criminal intent which arises upon the commission of
or motive and supporting evidence is necessary for a felonious act.
conviction.
Requisites of mistake of fact as a defense
Disclosure of the Motive – an aid in completing the proof of 1) Act done would have been lawful had the facts
the commission of crime. been as the accused believed them to be.
Case example: US v. Go Foo Suy Case example: US v Peñalosa

- The fact that the accused had been losing in their - A minor who married without parental consent, in
business operations indicated the motive and violation of Art. 475 of the old Penal Code, was not
therefore the intent to commit arson for the purpose liable criminally because she proved that she acted
of collecting the insurance on their stock of without malice. She testified that she believed she
merchandise. was already of age; had she been given facts, there
would not be any felony committed. But even if they
Proof of motive alone insufficient to support a conviction – were not the real facts, since the accused acted in
existence of a motive, though perhaps an important good faith, they acted without intent. Hence, their
consideration, is not sufficient proof of guilt. acts were involuntary.
● Mere proof of motive, no matter how strong, is not
Case example: US v, Ah Chong
sufficient to support a conviction if there is no
- Ah Chong, being afraid of bad elements, locked
reliable evidence from which it may be reasonably
himself in his room by placing a chair against the
deduced that the accused was the malefactor.
door. He was awakened by someone trying to open
● Even a strong motive to commit the crime cannot
the door. He called out twice but received no answer.
take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt,
Fearing that the intruder was a robber, he leaped
sufficient to overthrow the presumption of
from his bed and called out again, but at that
innocence.
moment, he was struck by the chair. Believing that
he was being attacked, he seized a kitchen knife and
Proof beyond reasonable doubt – the mainstay of our
fatally wounded the intruder who turned out to be
accusatorial system of criminal justice.
his roommate.
- Ah Chong must be acquitted because of mistake of
Lack of Motive – may be an aid in showing the innocence of
fact. Under Article 11 of the RPC, there is nothing
the accused.
unlawful in the intention as well as in the act of the
Case example: People v. Taneo person making the defense.

Case example: People v. Oanis consider, as it is replaced by imprudence,
- Oanis and Galanta were given instructions to negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
capture Balagtas, a notorious criminal and escaped
convict, and if overpowered, to get him dead or alive. Reckless imprudence and mistake of fact
They went into a room and shot a man sleeping with ● A deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is
his back towards the door, without first making any essentially inconsistent with the idea of reckless
reasonable inquiry as to his identity. The victim imprudence.
turned out to be an innocent man.
- Both are guilty of murder and cannot relieve Requisites of culpa or fault
themselves of mistake of fact because the accused a) Freedom
would not be justified in killing a sleeping b) Intelligence
defenseless person, even if it were a notorious c) Imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of
criminal. The law does not permit the captor to kill skill.
criminals; it is only when the fugitive is determined
to fight the officers of the law Culpable Felony is Unintentional – the injury caused to
- Therefore, the mistake of fact must be without fault another is unintentional, it being simply the incident of
or carelessness on the part of the accused. another act performed without malice.
2) Intention of the accused in performing the act Effect of damage or injury to another without malice— when
should be lawful. there is neither malice nor negligence on the part of the
● Lack of intent to kill the deceased, because his person causing damage/injury to another, he is not criminally
intention was to kill another, does not relieve him liable under the RPC.
from criminal responsibility. ● He is exempt from criminal liability because he
causes an injury by mere accident, without fault or
Error in personae – mistake in the identity of the victim, the intention of causing it (Art. 12, par. 4).
principle of mistake of fact does not apply.
Mala in se & Mala prohibita

Example: A wanted to kill B by shooting him with a pistol. A
mistakenly shot and killed C [brother of A], thinking that the
person walking in the dark alley was B. A had no intention to kill Mala in se Mala prohibita
C.
Wrongful from their nature Wrong merely because
- Since the act and intention of A in firing his pistol are
(e.g., theft, rape, homicide) prohibited by statute (e.g.,
unlawful, A cannot properly invoke the principle of
illegal possession of
mistake of fact in his defense. firearms)
Case example: People v. Gona Those so serious in their Violations of mere rules of
- The accused made a mistake in killing one man effects on society as to call convenience designed to
instead of another. It does not relieve him from for almost unanimous secure a more orderly
criminal responsibility, he having acted maliciously condemnation of its regulation of the affairs of
members. society.
and wilfully
Intent governs Only inquiry is– “has the law

No crime of resistance when there is a mistake of fact been violated?”
Case example: US v. Bautista Refers to felonies defined Refers generally to acts

- One who resists arrest, believing that the peace and penalized by the RPC. made criminal by special
officer is a bandit, but who submits to the arrest laws
immediately upon being informed by the peace When acts are inherently
immoral, they are mala in se,
officer that he is a policeman, is not guilty of the
even if punished by special
crime of resistance because of mistake of fact.
laws.
3) Mistake must be without fault or carelessness on

the part of the accused. Mala in se – crimes which are inherently wrong or immoral.
● Intentional felonies are mala in se since they are
Negligence and mistake of fact committed by means of malice (dolo) or criminal
● When the accused is negligent, mistake of fact is not intent.
a defense. Such defense is untenable when the ● The element of malice or dolo makes an intentional
accused is charged with culpable felony. felony malum in se.
● What is involved in the mistake of fact is lack of
Wrongful acts of this kind covered by the RPC include—
intent on the part of the accused. In felonies
murder, homicide, robbery, theft, perjury, estafa, arson,
committed through negligence, there is no intent to

falsification, rape, kidnapping, threat, coercion, trespass to Second view – one of the developments in criminal law is the
dwelling. enactment of several special laws which punish inherently
wrong crimes.
Mala prohibita – acts, which are not inherently immoral, but ● There are now in our statutes so many offenses
become so because their commission are expressly forbidden punished under special laws, but wherein criminal
by positive law. intent is required as an element, and which offenses
● An act may not be considered by society as are accordingly mala in se, although they are not
inherently wrong (hence, not malum in se), but felonies provided for in the RPC.
because of the harm that it inflicts on the
community, it can be outlawed and criminally Examples of offenses under special laws which are mala in se
punished as malum prohibitum (e.g., State in its a) Election offense, such as dagdag-bawas
exercise of police power). b) Highway robbery
c) Carnapping
Case example: Garcia v. CA and People d) Plunder
- Petitioner was found guilty of a crime defined under
the Electoral Reform Law of 1987 in relation to the Incurrence of Criminal Liability
Omnibus Election Code for decreasing the votes of a
senator. On appeal, petitioner contended that there
ARTICLE 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be incurred:
was no motive on her part. 1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful
- Section 27(b) of RA. 6646 provides that any member act done be different from that which he intended.
of the board of election inspectors or board of 2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense
against persons or property, were it not for the inherent
canvassers who tampers, increases, or decreases impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the
the votes shall be guilty of an election offense. employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
- Clearly, the acts prohibited in Section 27(b) are mala
in se, i.e., intentionally increasing or decreasing the
Application of the provision – criminal liability is incurred by
number of votes received by a candidate, is
any person in the two cases mentioned above; no reference to
inherently immoral, since it is done with malice and
the manner criminal liability incurred, as it is already stated
intent to injure another.
under Article 3 of the RPC.
Purpose of classifying crimes

Paragraph 1 of Article 4 – applicable only if the accused
● Malum in se is being penalized because it is
committed an intentional felony.
inherently immoral. Hence, the offender to be held
liable for this crime must commit the act with an
“Committing a felony” – the felony committed by the offender
immoral or evil mind
should be one committed by means of dolo (i.e., with malice)
● Malum prohibitum is being penalized because of the
because Article 4 (1) speaks of wrongful act done “different
offender’s defiance of the law, which prohibits the
from that which he intended.”
commission thereof
● If the wrongful act results from the imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill of the
Two views as to the classification of the offense under
special law if it is inherently immoral offender, his liability should be determined under
Article 365, which defines and penalizes criminal
First view – purpose of codification is to place all inherently negligence.
wrong crimes or mala in se under one law, and that is, the
Revised Penal Code “Wrongful act done be different from that which he
● The intention is to provide uniform rules on intended.” — cases where the consequences of the felonious
measuring the degree of the evil mind of the act of the offender are not intended by him.
offender and on the basis thereof, penalty shall be ● One who commits an intentional felony is
imposed. responsible for all the consequences which may
● Classical theory, which the RPC is based, sought to naturally and logically result therefrom, whether
impose penalties the degrees of which are in foreseen or intended or not.
proportion to the extent of the criminal mind of the ● Grounded in the doctrine “el que es causa de la
accused. causa es causa del mal causado,” which translates

● Crimes which are not inherently wrong shall be to he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of
punished under special laws. the evil caused.
● Because of this legal set-up, a basic rule was

Causes that produce a result different from that of
previously established, which is if the intentional
intended:
crime is punishable under the RPC, it will be
classified as mala in se; if under special law, mala
a) Error in personae – mistake in the identity of the
prohibita.
victim.

Example: Pedro shot and killed a person believed to be Juan. - The accused without intent to kill, struck the victim
However, it turned out the victim was Raul. with his fist on the back part of the head from
- Pedro is liable for the wrongful act done (killing Raul) behind, causing the victim to fall down with his head
although it is different from the wrongful act hitting the asphalt pavement and resulting in the
intended (killing Juan). fracture of his head.
- It was held that the accused was liable for the death
Case example: People v. Gona of the victim, although he had no intent to kill him.
- Defendant went out of the house with the intention
of assaulting Dunca, but in the darkness of the Requisites of Paragraph 1— in order that a person may be held
evening, defendant mistook Mapudul for Dunca and liable for a felony different from that which he intended to
inflicted upon him a mortal wound with a bolo. commit, the following must be present:
Hence, the defendant is criminally liable for the
death of Mapudul. 1) An intentional felony has been committed.
Difference between Mistake of fact and Error in Personae No felony is committed when:
● Act or omission is not punishable by the RPC;
● Act is covered by any of the justifying circumstances
Mistake of Fact Error in Personae
in Article 11.
A defense since it negates Not a defense, because of
dolo, the general element of Article 4, which makes one Instances when no felony has been committed:
an intentional felony. liable for the consequence a) An act which is not punishable by the RPC is
of committing felony. attempting to commit suicide; thus, a woman who
jumped from a building dropped on an old woman
Intention of the accused is Intention of the accused is
who died as a consequence is not liable for
to commit a lawful act. to commit an intentional
intentional homicide because was not committing a
felony.
felony when she attempted suicide.
Mistake pertains to facts, Mistake pertains to the b) B, who was being fired at with a gun by C to kill him,
which constitutes the identity of the victim and it fired his pistol at the latter in self-dense, but missed
requisites of justifying or has nothing to do with him and instead hit and killed D, a bystander. B is not
exempting circumstance, or justifying or exempting criminally liable for the death of D, as one acting in
absolutory cause. circumstance, or absolutory
self-defense is not committing a felony as being
cause.
under Article 11 of the RPC.
c) A policeman fired his service pistol at an armed
b) Aberratio ictus – mistake in the blow. fugitive, but hit and injured a passer-by. The
policeman is not criminally liable because being in
Example: Pedro shot and killed Juan. However, because of the fulfillment of a duty, he was not committing a
mistake of blow, Raul was also hit by the bullet and died as a felony.
consequence.
- Pedro is liable for the wrongful act done (killing Juan Liable for Resulting Injuries – any person who creates in
and killing Raul) although it is different from the another’s mind an immediate sense of danger, which causes
wrongful act intended (killing Juan). the latter to do something resulting in the latter’s injuries.
Case example: People v. Mabugat Case example: People v. Page (citing People v. Toling)
- The accused, having discharged his firearm at Juana - During a robbery inside a passenger jeepney, one of
Buralo but because of lack of precision, hit and the accused told the women passengers to bring out
seriously wounded Perfecta Buralo. It was held that their money and not to shout “or else there will be
the accused was liable for the injury caused to the shots.” The victim jumped out of the jeepney
latter. because she was in a mortal dread that the accused
might shoot her; as a result, her head struck the
c) Praeter intentionem – the injurious result is greater pavement. A hemorrhage ensued and she died
than that intended. before medical assistance before assistance could
be extended to her.
Example: Pedro boxed Juan. However, Juan suffered a heart - The culprit is also liable for her death because when
attack and died as a consequence. Pedro is liable for the he demanded money threatening to shoot, a felony
wrongful act done (killing Juan) although it differs from the was being committed (i.e., at that stage of
wrongful act intended (inflicting injury on Juan). Pedro is liable execution, attempted robbery with intimidation).
for the direct, natural and logical consequence of his - The accused is responsible for robbery with
intentional and felonious act of boxing Juan. homicide in case of death when his victim, impelled
by the instinct of self-preservation, does something
Case example: People v. Cagoco

to escape in response to the danger or great bodily - The blow was proximate cause of death,
harm. as when the deceased who was suffering
from a heart disease, got stabbed with a
2) The wrong done to the aggrieved party is the knife, which hit a bone, producing a shock.
direct, natural, and logical consequence of the The stabbing was the proximate cause of
felony committed by the offender. the death of the deceased.
● A person is criminally responsible for acts e) The offended party refused to submit to surgical
committed by him in violation of the law operation— the victim is not obliged to submit to a
and for all the natural and logical surgical operation to relieve the accused from the
consequences resulting therefrom. natural and ordinary results of his crime.
f) The resulting injury was aggravated by infection.
Natural and Logical Consequence of Felony
Efficient Cause – the working cause; the cause that produces
the death of the victim.
Natural Consequence Logical Consequence
● Offender is liable for the death of the victim if his
felonious act is the efficient cause of such death.
Occurrence in the ordinary There is a rational
course of human life or connection between the
act of the accused and the Case example: People v. Rabao
events.
resulting injury of the - The husband quarreled with his wife, where the
damage. husband punched the wife in the abdomen.
Thereafter, the victim died.
Cases where the wrong done is the direct, natural, and logical - It was found that the spleen of the victim had been
consequence of the felony committed: enlarged due to acute and chronic malaria and that
her death was caused by the rapture of the spleen
a) The victim who was threatened or chased with a as a consequence of an external blow on the
knife jumped into the water and died because of the abdomen which might have been delivered by the
strong current and did not know how to swim. accused.
b) The victim removed the drainage from the wound - The accused is then liable for parricide.
which resulted in the development of peritonitis, Hypothetically, the proximate cause of death is
which in turn caused his death, it appearing that the malaria infection, but the efficient cause of death is
wound caused by the accused produced extreme the punching on her abdomen, thereby holding the
pain and restlessness, which made the victim accused liable.
remove it.
c) Other causes cooperated in producing the fatal Proximate Cause – cause, which, in natural and continuous
result, as long as the wound inflicted is dangerous, consequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause,
i.e., calculated to destroy or endanger life. produces the injury, and without which the result would not
- But where it clearly appears that the injury have occurred.
would not have caused death, but would ● That acting first and producing the injury, either
have healed in so many days, and where it immediately, or by setting other events in motion, all
is shown that the death was due to the constituting a natural and continuous chain of
malicious or careless acts of the inquired events, each having a close causal connection with
person or a third person, the accused is its immediate predecessor.
not liable for homicide.
- One is accountable only for his own acts Conditions of proximate cause:
and their natural or logical consequences, ● There must be the relation of “cause and effect,”
and not those which bear no relation to the cause being the felonious act of the offender,
the initial cause. and the effect being the resultant injuries and/or
d) The victim was suffering from internal disease or death of the victim.
ailment, then the following circumstances would ● The cause-and-effect relationship is not altered or
make him liable: changed because of the pre-existing conditions,
- The blow was efficient cause of death, as such as the pathological condition of the victim; or
when the victim had tuberculosis and had concomitant or concurrent conditions; or conditions
a delicate constitution, and suffered fist supervening the felonies (e.g., tetanus, pulmonary
blows in her abdomen, producing internal infection, or gangrene).
hemorrhage, resulting in death;
- The blow accelerated death, as when the Case example: People v. Song
accused gave fist blows, producing - Two accused entered the dance hall, and when 10
inflammation of the spleen and peritonitis, minutes passed, one of them held the victim while
causing death; the other approached the victim slowly and stabbed

him with a machete on the left side of his back. Then the victim is not logical, direct, and natural consequence of his
the two ran away. wrongful act.
- After five days, the victim developed high fever and
hypertension, and died because of acute peritonitis Requisites of efficient intervening cause
secondary to the stab wound which injured his 1) It must be an active force– it must have something
intestines. The accused was convicted of murder. to do with the death of the victim.
- It was held that the acute peritonitis was the direct 2) It must be a foreign cause.
and natural consequence of the three-inch deep
stab wound which perforated the victim’s intestines. Case example: People v. Mananquil
a) Active force — The victim (husband) burned clothing
The felony committed is NOT the proximate cause of the of the accused (wife). He was maintaining a mistress
resulting injury when— and had been taking all the food from their house.
a) There is an active force that intervened between the - By reason thereof, the accused poured gasoline on
felony committed and the resulting injury, and the the face of her husband and set his polo shirt
active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely aflame. The victim died due to pneumonia, after 4
foreign from the felonious act of the accused; or days.
b) The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of - The accused argued that the victim died because he
the victim. drank liquor while confined, but an expert witness
testified that taking alcohol could not cause
Case example: Quinto v. Andres pneumonia, which is the immediate cause of death.
- If a person fatally inflicts a wound with a deadly - Drinking alcohol is not an active force that breaks
weapon and death follows as a consequence, it does the connection between the act of burning the
not alter its nature or diminish its criminality to prove victim and his death. The accused was convicted of
that other causes cooperated in producing the parricide.
factual result.
- The offender is criminally liable for the death of the b) Efficient force — The cause of death is pneumonia,
victim if his delictual act caused, accelerated, or which was the mere complication of the burns
contributed to the death of the victim. sustained by the victim, which was about 62% of the
- A different doctrine would tend to give immunity to victim’s entire body.
crime and take away from human life a salutary and - While pneumonia was the immediate cause of death,
essential safeguard. this could not have resulted had not the victim
suffered from second-degree burns. Hence, she is
Acceleration of death liable for direct, natural, and logical consequence of
her criminal act.
Case example: US V. Rodriguez - Pneumonia is an active force since it is the
- The accused punched victim on the left side toward
immediate cause. However, it is not a distinct fact
the stomach and the other on the back, which
absolutely foreign to the felonious act of burning the
knocked him down. With the aid of two persons, he
victim.
endeavored to return home but he did not reach, as
he again fell to the ground and died. The accused
c) In sum, the proximate cause of the death is the act
was convicted of homicide.
of burning the victim.
- The Court held that “a blown with the fist or a kick,
though causing no external wound, may very well Instances that are not the efficient intervening cause:
produce inflammation of the spleen and peritonitis a) The weak or diseased physical condition of the
and cause death; and although the assaulted party victim, as when one is suffering from tuberculosis or
was previously affected by some internal malady, if, heart disease
because a blow given with the hand or the foot, his b) The nervousness or temperament of the victim, as
death was hastened, beyond peradventure he is when a person dies in consequence of an internal
responsible therefor who produced the cause for hemorrhage brought on by moving about against the
such acceleration as the result of a voluntary and doctor’s orders, because of his nervous condition
unlawfully inflicted injury. due to the wound inflicted by the accused
c) Causes which are inherent in the victim, such as (a)
Efficient Intervening Cause – a new and independent force the victim not knowing how to swim, (b) victim being
which breaks the causal connection between the felony and addicted to tuba drinking
the death. It is a force that intervenes after the commission of d) Neglect of the victim or third person, such as the
the felony, which efficiently causes the death of the victim. refusal by the injured party of medical attendance or
surgical operation, or the failure of the doctor to give
Effect of efficient intervening cause – the accused is not anti-tetanus injection to the injured person
liable for the death of the victim. In such a case, the death of e) Erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment,
as when the assault took place in an outlying barrio

where proper modern surgical services was not
Assailant was criminally Assailant is not criminally
available
liable liable
f) Delay in the medical treatment of the victim
Principle was that there was There was an active force-
Case example: People v. Piamonte no active force that the horse which produced
- The victim was stabbed on October 28, 1951, but intervened between the the result
survived the blow. He died after two months because cause and effect
he contracted mucous colitis, which developed
because of his weak condition. Cases where the injury is not the direct, logical, and necessary
- The accused is still liable for the latter’s death consequence:
because the doctors who attended the injured party a) If slight physical injuries be inflicted by A on B, and
agreed that his weakened condition which caused the latter deliberately immerses his body in a
disturbance in the functions of his intestines made it contaminated cesspool, thereby causing his injuries
possible for him to contract mucous colitis, which to become infected and serious.
shows that while the wounds inflicted were not the b) The accused struck a boy on the mouth with the
immediate cause, they were however the proximate back of his hand. Later, the boy died. Death might
cause of death. have been caused by fever prevalent in the locality,
not the blow on the mouth.
Death is presumed to be the natural consequence of c) The accused struck a child, who was seriously ill with
physical injury when the following facts are established: fever for three weeks, upon the thighs with a slipper,
a) The victim, at the time the physical injuries were pushed and dragged him, throwing him heavily on
inflicted, was in normal health; the mat spread on the floor, causing the child to die
b) Death may be expected from the physical injuries; two days later. The true cause of the child’s death
c) Death ensued within a reasonable time. was not proved, the accused was convicted of
physical injuries only.
Case example: People v Tammang d) Medical findings lead to a distinct possibility that the
- Jundam was in good health on the morning of the infection of the wound by tetanus was an efficient
incident. He was whipped, spanked, and thrown intervening cause later or between the time the
against the post by his teacher, his breast hitting it. deceased was wounded to the time of his death.
He complained to his mother about the pain, crying,
and massaging his breast all the time; he had huge Other instances
bruises, and vomited blood until he died three days a) The accused is still responsible for the result if there
afterward. There being no proof of any intervening is a neglect of the wound or there is an improper
cause, the liability of the teacher for homicide treatment of the wound.
necessarily follows from the premises stated. - The general rule is that he who inflicts the
However, had it been proved, as claimed by the injury is not relieved of responsibility of the
defense, that the boy died of hydrophobia, that wound inflicted is dangerous, that is,
would have constituted an intervening cause, and calculated to destroy or endanger life,
the accused would have been acquitted. even though the immediate cause of death
was erroneous or unskillful medical
When it is not direct, natural, and logical consequence of treatment.
the felony committed.
- Unskillful and improper treatment may be
● If the consequences produced have resulted from a
an active force, but it is not a distinct act
distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the
or fact absolutely foreign from the criminal
criminal act, the offender is not responsible for such
act.
consequences.
● A person is not liable criminally for all possible
b) The accused is not liable for consequences which
consequences that may immediately follow his
originate through the fault or carelessness of the
felonious act, but only for such as are proximate.
injured person.
- Persons who are responsible for felonies
Difference between Cagoco case and Rockwell case
are also liable for its natural
consequences, other than those due to
Cagoco Case Rockwell Case
incidents entirely foreign to the act, or
which originate through the fault or
The victim died after being The victim died after being
hit by the assailant on the hit by the assailant, carelessness of the injured person, which
back of his head, causing knocking him down and are exceptions to the rule not arising in the
him to fall down and hit his being jumped on a horse present case.
head on the asphalt near them, killing him - It would break the relation of the felony
pavement committed and the resulting injury, which

must have its origin from his malicious act
or omission. Example: A, who wanted to kill B, looked for him. When he saw
B, he found out that B was already dead. To satisfy his grudge,
Impossible Crime – commission of such is indicative of A stabbed B in his breast with a knife.
criminal propensity or criminal tendency on the part of the - This is not an impossible crime because A already
actor. knew that B was dead. There was no evil intent
● Provision on impossible crime follows the positive because he knew that he could not cause an injury
theory, where the criminal liability is based on the to B.
dangerous state of the criminal.
● Even if the result of the act is not felonious because Case example: US v. Aquino
of the impossibility of accomplishment (or - Aquino gave birth to a lifeless child, then she
inadequate or ineffectual means), the criminal is wrapped the dead child with a dress and instructed
liable so long as his mind has criminal tendency. Casipit to bury the body.
- On account of the darkness of the night, Casipit
Requisites of impossible crime instead of digging a grave to bury it, deposited the
a) Act performed would be an offense against persons dead child in a one-meter deep hole, which is partly
or property; filled with water.
b) Act was done with evil intent; - The accused cannot be held liable for the impossible
c) Its accomplishment is inherently impossible or that crime of infanticide since they are aware that when it
the means accomplished is either inadequate or was left in a pit with water, considering that they
ineffectual; have no criminal intent to kill since they are aware
d) Act performed should not constitute a violation of that they cannot kill a dead person.
another provision of the RPC.
“Were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
Purpose of penalizing impossible crimes: to suppress accomplishment or on account of the employment of
criminality and lawlessness. inadequacy or ineffectual means”— the offender cannot
- Though physically impossible to kill a dead person or produce an offense because:
steal what is already yours, the intent is evil and a) The commission of the offense (against person or
criminal and were it not for the impossibility to property) is inherently impossible of
commit a crime, you would have done it nonetheless. accomplishment.
b) Means employed is inadequate or ineffectual.
Penalty for Impossible Crime: arresto mayor or a fine from
PhP 200 to PhP 500 (Article 59, RPC). Inherent impossibility – act intended by the offender is by its
nature one of impossible accomplishment; must be either (1)
“Performing an act which would be an offense against legal impossibility or (2) physical impossibility.
persons or property” — offender intends to commit a felony
against persons or a felony against property, but a felony Legal impossibility – when the intended acts, even if
against person or property should not actually be committed; completed, would not amount to a crime.
otherwise, he would be liable for that felony.
Example: A, with intent to gain, took a watch from the pocket
Felonies against persons and property of B. When A had the watch in his possession, he found out
that it was the watch which he had lost a week before; hence
the watch belonged to A.
Against persons Against property
- The act performed would have been theft had the
Parricide Roberry watch been the property of B.
Murder Brigandage - But there is a legal impossibility of accomplishing it
Homicide Theft because, in theft, the personal property taken must
Infanticide Usurpation belong to another.
Abortion Culpable insolvency
Duel Swindling and other deceits
Case example: People v. Gumimba; People v. Callao
Physical injuries (estafa)
- The accused asserted that the victim may have
Rape Chattel mortgage
already been dead after his co-accused had hacked
Arson and other crimes
involving destruction her first; hence he claims being liable only for
Malicious mischief impossible since the victim had already expired
when he hacked her.
*If the act performed would be an offense other than a felony against - However, the Court rejected the argument for being
persons or property, there is no impossible crime. speculative as to the cause of death of the victim.
- The accused is liable for murder and not impossible
Act done with ‘Evil Intent’ – it must be shown that the actor crime because of the collective responsibility rule.
had the intent to do an injury to another.

- The liability of the accused for murder is not based Example: A, with intent to kill B, aimed his revolver at the back
on the act of stabbing the dead body, but based on of the latter. Not knowing that it was empty, when A pressed
the act of his co-conspirator in having and killing the the trigger it did not fire.
victim, which by fiction of the law shall be treated as
the act of both of them. In impossible crime, the act performed should not
constitute a violation of ‘another provision’ of the Code.
Physical (or Factual) Impossibility – when extraneous
circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control Example: The offender unlawfully entered the house and took
prevent the consummation of the intended crime. a watch that turned out to be his own. He is liable for trespass
to dwelling, and not impossible crime.
Example: A fired at B who was lying in bed, not knowing that B - The intention of the offender in taking the watch is
was dead hours before. In crime against persons, as would robbery, but it is legally impossible since the
have been in this case, it is necessary that the victim could be property belongs to him.
injured or killed. - However, the act of the offender, which shows
- Had B been alive when he was shot, and as a criminal tendency to commit robbery, constitutes
consequence he died, the crime would have been another crime, i.e., trespassing.
murder; but there is physical and legal impossibility
because a dead person cannot be injured or killed. Example: If the accused administered abortive drugs upon his
girlfriend whom he believed to be pregnant, which turned out
Example: A man who puts his hand in the pocket of the victim’s not to be true, but the woman became ill for more than 30
coat but finds the pocket empty. Taking personal property of days, the accused will be liable for serious physical injuries and
another with intent to gain and without consent of the latter is not impossible crime of abortion.
theft. However, one cannot possibly take something that is not
there. Duty of Court when Penalty is Excessive
Case example: Intod v. CA

ARTICLE 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be
- Accused conspired to kill the complainant, so they repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in cases of excessive
went to the house of complainant. They fired at the penalties. — Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem
bedroom of the complainant. proper to repress and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper
decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of
- However, the victim was not in the room, but was in Justice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be
another city; hence, it is factually impossible for the made the subject of penal legislation.
accused in firing his gun at the room to hit him.
In the same way the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the
Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without
Other examples of impossible crimes punishable under the suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the
RPC: provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive
- One tries to kill another by putting a substance in a penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury by the
offense.
soup which he believes to be arsenic, when it is in
fact salt
- Killing a dead person [an offense against person] Paragraph 1, Article 5. “In connection with acts which should
- Stealing what is yours [an offense against property] be repressed but which are not covered by law.” –
- An employee who opens a safe just to find it empty contemplates a trial of a criminal case, which requires the
following:
Inadequate means – not using sufficient means to 1) The act committed by the accused appears not
consummate a crime; but is not synonymous to attempted nor punishable by any law;
frustrated felony. 2) But the court deems it proper to repress such act;
3) The court must render the proper decision by
Example: A used a small quantity of arsenic, believing that the dismissing the case and acquitting the accused;
quantity employed is sufficient. B did not die because it was a 4) The judge must then make a report to the Chief
tad too small to kill a person. Executive, through the Secretary of Justice, stating
- However, if the means employed is adequate and the the reasons which induce him to believe that the
result is not produced— such that the supposed said act should be made the subject of penal
victim developed string resistance to arsenic, it is legislation.
not an impossible crime but a frustrated felony.
Basis of paragraph 1 – the legal maxim, “nullum crimen, nulla
Ineffectual means – showing criminal tendency; but still poena sine lege,” that is, there is no crime if there is no law
proceeding with the ineffectual act anyway. that punishes it.
Example: A tried to kill B by putting in his soup a substance Obligation to report to the President
which he thought was arsenic when in fact it was sugar. ● The court is obliged to report to the President,
through DOJ the reasons, which induce the court to

believe that said act should be made subject of b) With regard to the fine of PhP 5,000.00 imposed by
penal legislation. the court for selling a can of powdered Klim milk for
● If the President finds also the acts as repressible, he PhP 2.20 when the selling price for it was PhP I.80, it
may recommend to Congress the passing of law to should be considered that Congress thought it
criminalize the act. necessary to repress profiteering with a heavy fine
so that dealers would not take advantage ofthe
Paragraph 2, Article 5. “In cases of excessive penalties.” – critical condition to make unusual profits.
requires that:
1) The court after trial finds the accused guilty; Duty of courts to apply the penalty provided by law
2) The penalty provided by law and which the court ● If the accused committed an act, which it may deem
imposes for the crime committed appears to be proper to repress and which is not punishable by law,
clearly excessive, because: the court must render a judgment of acquittal.
a) The accused acted with lesser degree of ● The court must impose penalty in accordance with
malice; and/or law even if the same appears to be excessive taking
b) There is no injury or the injury caused is of into consideration the degree of malice and the
lesser gravity. injury caused by the offense.
3) The court should not suspend the execution of ● However, the court also has the duty to report the
sentence. matter to the President for further actions:
4) The judge should submit a statement to the a) For recommendation of a penal legislation
Executive, through the Secretary of Justice, (when an act is not punishable but is
recommending executive clemency. deemed proper to repress)
b) For possible exercise of executive
Case example: People v. Monleon clemency (in case of an excessive penalty)
- The accused maltreated his wife in his inebriated
(drunk/intoxicated) stage, because she prevented Case example: People v. Limaco
him from whipping their negligent son, and the - A trial judge expressed in his decision his view
maltreatment inflicted was the proximate cause of against the wisdom of the death penalty and
her death. refused to impose it.
- The Supreme Court applied Article 5 of the RPC, - It is held that it is the duty of judicial officers to
considering that the accused had no intent to kill his respect and apply the law, regardless of their
wife and that her death might have been hastened private opinions.
by lack of appropriate medical attendance or her - It is a well-settled rule that the courts are not
weak constitution. concerned with the wisdom, efficacy or morality of
- Hence, with a lesser degree of malice, a penalty of laws. That question falls exclusively within the
reclusion perpetua appears to be excessive. province of the Legislature which enacts them and
the Chief Executive who approves or vetoes them.
Case example: People v Acbangin - The only function of the judiciary is to interpret the
- The four-year-old victim was brought by the laws and, if not in disharmony with the Constitution,
accused to the house of Juanita Niu. The accused to apply them.
initially denied knowing where the victim was but the
next day, told the victim’s grandmother that the Judge has the duty to apply the law as interpreted by the
victim was at Niu’s house. The accused accompanied Supreme Court
the victim’s father and police officers to Niu’s house,
and found the victim well-dressed and smiling. The Case example: People v. Santos
- If a Judge of a lower court feels, in the fulfillment of
accused was convicted of kidnapping and serious
his mission of deciding cases, that the application of
illegal detention, sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
a doctrine promulgated by the Supreme Court is
- The Court recommended that the accused be
against his way of reasoning, or against his
referred to the Chief Executive for the possible
conscience, he may state his opinion on the matter,
exercise of his pardoning power because of lesser
but rather than disposing of the case in accordance
gravity– either a commutation of sentence to an
with his personal view, he must first think that it is
indeterminate penalty of prision correccional to
his duty to apply the law as interpreted by the
prision mayor or executive clemency.
Highest Court of the land.
Penalties NOT excessive when intended for Public Policy - Any deviation from a principle laid down by the latter
a) The rampant lawlessness against property, person, [stare decisis] would unavoidably cause, as a
and even the very security of the Government, sequel, unnecessary inconveniences, delays and
directly traceable in large measure to promiscuous expenses to the litigants.
carrying and use of powerful weapons, justify
imprisonment which in normal circumstances might Case example: People v. Amigo
appear excessive.

- Accused-appellant claims that the penalty of should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his
reclusion perpetua is too cruel and harsh a penalty own spontaneous desistance.
and pleads for sympathy. Courts are not the forum to
plead for sympathy. The duty of courts is to apply the
Classification of felonies according to stage of execution:
law, disregarding their feeling of sympathy or pity for
1) Consummated
an accused.
2) Frustrated
- DURA LEX SED LEX. The remedy is elsewhere —
3) Attempted
clemency from the executive or an amendment of
the law by the legislative, but at this point, the Court
Development of a Crime
can but apply the law.
1) Internal acts – criminal intention or mens rea.
● Mere ideas in the mind of a person, are not
Provision in relation to penalty that the court believes
punishable even if, had they been carried
should be subject to amendment
out, they would constitute a crime.
● The legislature’s perceived failure in amending the
● Example— if A intended to commit treason
penalties cannot be remedied through this Court’s
and joined a body of armed men in the
decisions, as that would be encroaching upon the
belief that they were ‘Makapilis,’ when in
power of another branch of the government [judicial
fact they were ‘Guerrilleros,’ A was not
legislation].
liable for treason, despite his intent.
● However, this does not render the whole situation
without any remedy; it can be presumed that the
2) External acts
framers of the RPC had anticipated this matter by
a) Preparatory acts – acts performed in
including Article 5.
preparation for the commission of a crime,
● Pursuant to Article 5, the Supreme Court ordered
which is generally not punishable, unless
that a copy of the decision be furnished the
the law expressly provides a penalty for it.
President, through the Department of Justice, as
- Proposal and conspiracy to
well as the President of the Senate and the Speaker
commit a felony are not
of the House of Representatives.
punishable except when the law
provided for their punishment in
“When a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code”
certain felonies.
– second paragraph of Article 5 of the RPC has no application
to the offense defined and penalized by a special law.
General rule: Not punishable; even if you
● The reason being that par. 2 of Article 5 specifically
buy poison, carry a weapon with which to
mentions “the provisions of this Code.”
kill the intended victim or inflammable
● Article 5 may not be invoked in cases involving acts
materials to the place where a house is to
mala prohibita, because it applies only to acts mala
be burned.
in se, or crimes committed with malice or criminal
intent, based on the phrase “taking into
Exception: Independent crimes punishable
consideration the degree of malice.”
by law, such as possession of picklocks as
preparatory act to the commission of
Provision as applied to violation of special laws
● Although the petitioner was convicted under a robbery.
special penal law, the Court is not precluded from

giving the RPC suppletory application in light of Example: If A induced B to kill C, but B refused to do
Article 10 [of the Code]. it, A cannot be held liable for attempted homicide.
● Considering the circumstances of a case, the Court Although there was an attempt on the part of A, such
may follow the same process as stated in Article 5 in attempt was not done directly with physical activity;
cases of violations of special laws. it was only a proposal.
b) Acts of execution – acts committed by

Stage of Execution
the offender to or implement his criminal
intention; stages of which are attempted,
ARTICLE 6. Consummated, Frustrated, and Attempted Felonies. — frustrated, and consummated, which are
Consummated felonies, as well as those which are frustrated and attempted,
punishable by law.
are punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and Attempted Felony – when the offender begins the
accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all
commission of a felony directly by overt acts but has not
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 performed all the acts of execution which should produce the
will of the perpetrator. felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance.
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

Elements of Attempted Felony ● Intention of the accused must be viewed from the
a) Offender commences the commission of the felony nature of the acts executed by him, and not from
directly by overt acts; his admission.
b) He does not perform all the acts of execution which ● Intention of the accused must be ascertained from
should produce the felony; the facts; therefore, it is necessary that the mind be
c) The act is not stopped by his own spontaneous able to directly infer from the intention of the
desistance; perpetrator to cause a particular injury.
d) The non-performance of all acts of execution was ● For overt acts to constitute an attempted offense, it
due to cause or accident other than his own is necessary that their objective be known and
spontaneous desistance. established or such that acts be of such nature that
they themselves should obviously disclose the
Provision breakdown [Attempted felony]: criminal objective necessarily intended, said
“Commences the commission of a felony directly by overt
objective, and finality to serve as ground for
acts.” — requires that (1) there be external acts; and (2) such
designation of the offense.
external acts have direct connection with the crime intended
to be committed.
“Directly by overt acts”— only offenders who personally
● External acts must be related to the overt acts of the
execute the commission of a crime can be guilty of attempted
crime the offender intended to commit.
felony.
● The word directly suggests that the offender must
Overt acts – physical activity or deed, indicating the intention
commence the commission of the felony by taking
to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or
direct part in the execution of the act.
preparation, which if carried to its complete termination
following its natural course, without being frustrated by
Example: If A induced B to kill C, but B refused to do it, A
external obstacles nor by the spontaneous desistance of the
cannot be held liable for attempted homicide because such an
perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete
attempt on the part of A was not done directly with physical
offense.
activity. Inducement is in the nature of a proposal, not
● Need not be a physical activity, as there are felonies
ordinarily punished by law.
which do not necessitate bodily movement or
- But if B, pursuant to his agreement with A,
physical activity (e.g., malversation).
commenced the commission of the crime by
● Overt acts must have a direct relation with the
shooting C, with intent to kill, but missed and did not
intended crime.
injure C, both A and B are guilty of attempted felony,
because of conspiracy.
Difference between preparatory act and overt act
- When there is conspiracy, the rule is that the act of
one is the act of all.
Preparatory act Overt act
“Does not perform all the acts of execution.”
No direct connection with a Nature of the act indicates
crime intended to commit; it the intention to commit a
does not necessarily crime
disclose an intention
Example– A bought poison A mixed poison with the

from a drugstore food intended for B
Indeterminate offense – the purpose of the offender in

performing an act is not certain; its nature in relation to its
objective is ambiguous.
● Attempt to commit an indeterminate crime is not an Case example: People v. Lamhang
attempted felony. - For the purpose of entering the dwelling of another,
the accused broke one board and unfastened
Case example: People v. Lamahang another from the wall.
- The final objective of the offender, once he - Before he could start entering through the opening
succeeded in entering the store, may be to rob, to thus created, he was arrested by a policeman, the
cause physical injury to the inmates, or to commit crime committed was only attempted trespass to
another offense. dwelling because there was something yet for him to
- In ruling out the felony, attempted robbery is then do, that is, to commence entering the dwelling
crossed out as there is no justification in finding the through that opening in order to perform all the acts
offender guilty of it [in the absence of force]. of execution.
Objectives subject to Double Interpretation

“By reason of some cause or accident.” — in attempted
Definition provided above. Offender has achieved the
felony, the offender fails to perform all the acts of execution
result of the acts of
which should produce the felony because of some cause or execution.
accident.
If the subjective and objective phases have been passed,
Example of Cause: A picked the pocket of B, but before A could there is a consummated felony.
remove it from the pocket of B, the latter grabbed his hand and
prevented him from taking it. Thus, he failed to perform all the Two Possible Instances
acts of execution because of a cause, that is, the timely 1) If the offender is stopped by any cause outside of his
discovery by B of the overt act of A. own voluntary desistance, the subjective phase has
not been passed and it is an attempt.
Example of Accident: A aimed his pistol at B to kill the latter, 2) If he is not stopped but continues until he performs
but when he pressed the trigger, it jammed and no bullet was the last act, it is frustrated, provided the crime is not
fired from the pistol. produced. The acts of the offender reached the
objective phase of the crime.
“Other than his own spontaneous desistance.” — if the actor
does not perform all the acts of execution by reason of his own Example: If A intent to kill, mixes poison in the soup intended
spontaneous desistance, there is no attempted felony; the law for B, and B begins to take into his mouth a spoonful of it:
does not punish him. a) Only until this point that A can still prevent the
● It is a sort of reward granted to those who, having poisoning of B by voluntarily desisting and telling B
one foot on the verge of crime, heed the call of their to throw away the substance from his mouth;
conscience and return to the path of righteousness. b) From the moment B swallows it, A has no more
● Desistance may be through fear or remorse; and is control over his acts. The poison is now in B’s
not necessary that it be actuated by a good motive. stomach and it will require the intervention of a
● It only requires the discontinuance of the crime from physician to prevent the poisoning of B.
the person who has begun it, and that he stops of c) If because of the intervention of the physician, B did
his own free will. not die, A will be liable for frustrated murder, which
● Such desistance should be made before all the acts has already passed from the subjective phase to the
of execution are performed. objective phase of the crime.
Example: A stole a chicken under the house of B one evening. Frustrated Felony – offender performs all the acts of
Realizing that what he did was wrong, A returned the chicken execution which would produce the felony, but does not
to the place under the house of B. Since the crime of theft was produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the
already consummated, the return of the stolen property does perpetrator.
not relieve A of criminal responsibility.
Elements of Frustrated Felony
● Spontaneous desistance of a malefactor exempts a) The offender performs all the acts of execution;
him from criminal liabiliy for the intended crime but it b) All the acts performed would produce the felony as a
does not exempt him from the crime committed by consequence;
him before (or after) his desistance. c) The felony is not produced;
d) By reason of causes independent of the will of the
Other examples on spontaneous desistance: perpetrator.
a) Spontaneously desisting from raping the victim
before killing her will exempt the accused from Provision breakdown [Frustrated felony]:
attempted rape but not from murder. “Performs all the acts of execution.” — nothing more is left to
b) Spontaneously desisting from inflciting mortal be done by the offender because he has performed the last
wounds on vitim after inflicting non-moral wounds act necessary to produce the crime.
will exempt the accused from attempted homicide
but not from physical injuries. Example: If A, with intent to kill B, fires his gun at B, the
discharge of the gun is only an overt act. If the slug fired from
Subjective Phase of the Offense – portion of the acts the gun misses B or the wound inflicted on B is not mortal, the
constituting the crime, starting from the point where the last act necessary to produce the crime of homicide is not yet
offender begins the commission of the crime to that point performed by A. If the wound inflicted is, i.e., sufficient to
where he has still control over his acts, including their acts’ cause death, A performs the last act. If no medical attendance
natural course. is given, B would surely die. In homicide or murder, the crime is
● In attempted felony, the offender never passes the consummated if the victim dies. If the victim survives, the
subjective phase of the offense. crime is frustrated.
Cases where the stage of execution was held to be frustrated

Subjective Phase Objective Phase as the wound inflicted was mortal:

a) People v. Honrada – the accused stabbed the - In crimes against persons, such as murder, which
offended party in the abdomen, penetrating the liver, require that the victim should die to consummate
and in the chest. It was only the prompt and skillful the felony, it is necessary for the frustration of the
medical treatment which the offended party same that a mortal wound is inflicted.
received that saved his life.
b) People v. Mercado – the accused wounded the Two views as to the belief of the accused that he has
victim in the left abdomen with a sharp-edged performed all the acts of execution:
weapon, causing a wound in the peritoneal cavity,
serious enough to have produced death. First view Second view
c) People v. David – the accused in firing his revolver at
the offended party hit him in the upper side of the Not required that the Belief of the accused a to
body, piercing it from side to side and perforating the accused actually commits wheher he had already
all the acts of execution performed all the acts of
lungs. The victim was saved due to adequate and
necessary to produce execution is immaterial.
timely intervention of medical sience.
death, but that it sufficient
that he believes that he has Accused must have, as a
Cases where the stage of execution was held to be attempted committed all acts of matter of fact (not as a
as there was no wound inflicted or wound was not mortal: execution to make him matter of belief), performed
a) US v. Bien – the accused threw a Chinaman into the liable for frustrated felony. all the acts of execution
deep water, and as the Chinaman did not know how which would produce the
to swim, he made efforts to keep himself afloat and felony as a consequence.
seized the gunwale of the boat. The accused was
prevented from striking the latter by other persons. *The second view is correct, as pursuant to Article 3 of the RPC, the Code
penalizes the act constituting attempted, frustrated or consummated felony, and
Since the accused had the intent to kill the offended not the belief of the accused that he already committed the criminal act.
party, the former actually committed attempted
homicide against the latter. “Do not produce it.” — the acts performed by the offender do
b) People v. Kaldo – the accused fired four successive not produce the felony because, if the felony is produced, it
shots at the offended party while the latter was would be consummated.
fleeing to escape from his assailants and save his
own life. Not having hit the offended party, either “Independent of the will of the perpetrator.” — even if all the
because of his poor aim or because his intended acts of execution have been performed, the crime may not be
victim succeeded in dodging the shots, the accused consummated, because certain causes may prevent its
failed to perform all the acts of execution by reason consummation.
of a cause other than his spontaneous desistance. ● Certain cases may be the intervention of third
c) People v. Domingo – two physicians called to the persons who prevented the consummation or may
witness stand by the prosecution could not agree be due to the perpetrator’s own will.
that the wounds inflicted upon the complainant ● If the crime is not produced because of the timely
would cause death. One of them testified that the intervention of a third person, it is frustrated; if the
wounds were not serious enough to produce death offender himself prevented its consummation, there
even if no medical assistance had been given to the is no frustrated felony, for the 4th element* is not
offended party. present.
d) People v. Somera – the head of the offended party
was merely grazed by the shot which hit him, the *Fourth element – felony is not produced “by reason of causes independent
of the will of the perpetrator.”
wound being far from fatal.
Q: Is there frustration due to inadequate or ineffectual

“Would produce the felony as a consequence.” — all the acts
means?
of execution performed by the offender could have produced
A: Such a frustration is placed on the same footing as an
the felony as a consequence.
impossible attempt.
Example: When A approached B stealthily from behind and

Difference between frustrated and attempted Felony
made a movement with his right hand to strike B on the back
with a deadly knife, but the blow, instead of reaching the spot
intended, landed on the frame of the back of the chair on Frustrated Felony Attempted Felony
which B was sitting and did not cause the slightest physical
Offender performs all the Offender merely commences
injury on B, the stage of execution should have been that of
acts of execution, even the the commission of a felony
attempted murder only as no deadly wound was inflicted upon last act necessary to directly by over acts and does
a vital spot of which B should have died— the crime of murder produce the crime. not perform all the acts of
would not be produced as a consequence. execution.
Case example: People v. Kalalo Offender has reached the Offender has not passed the
objective phase. subjective phase.

crime, but only civil liability. If the element of
In both, the offender has not accomplished his cirminal
damages if not proved, the accused may be found
purpose.
guilty of attempted or frustrated estafa.
d) In the prosecution for robbery with violence against
Case example: People v. Orita
persons, if the element of intent to gain is not
- The essential element which distinguishes
proved, the accused can be found guilty of grave
attempted from frustrated felony is the existence of
coercion.
intervention of a foreign or extraneous cause or
e) In the prosecution for forcible abduction, if the
agency.
element of lewd designs is not proved, the accused
- In frustrated felony, there is no such intervention
may be held liable for kidnapping and serious illegal
between the beginning of the consummation of the
detention– another felony.
crime and the moment when all the acts have been
performed which should result in the consummated
Test to determine whether the crime is attempted,
crime.
frustrated, or consummated:
- In attempted felony, there is such intervention and
1) Nature of the offense;
the offender does not arrive at the point of
2) Elements constituting the felony; and
performing all the acts which should produce the
3) Manner of committing the same.
crime. He is stopped short of that point by some
cause apart from his own voluntary desistance.
Nature of the Crime
Difference of Impossible Crime between Attempted or

Example: Arson (Arts. 320-236) – the consummation of the
Frustrated Felony
crime of arson does not depend upon the extent of the
damage caused.
Impossible Crime Frustrated/Attempted - Consummated arson: not necessary that the
Felony property is totally destroyed by fire. The crime of
arson is consummated even if only a portion of the
Evil intent of the offender Evil intent of the offender is
wall or any other part of the house is burned.
cannot be accomplished. possible of
accomplishment. - Frustrated arson: having set fire to some rags and
jute sacks, soaked in kerosene oil, and placing them
Inherently impossible of What prevented its near the wooden partition of the house, should not
accomplishment or that the accomplishment is the be qualified as consummated arson, inasmuch as no
means employed by the intervention of certain part of the house began to burn.
offender is inadequate or cause or accident in which
- Attempted arson: a person had poured gasoline
ineffectual. the offender had no part.
under the house of another and was about to strike
a match to set the house on fire; the acts performed
Consummated Felony – all the elements necessary for its by him are directly connected with the crime of
execution and accomplishment are present. arson, the offense he intended to commit. The
● Every crime has its own elements which must all be pouring of the gasoline under the house and the
present to constitute a culpable violation of precept striking of the match could not be for any other
of law. All the elements of the felony for which the purpose.
accused is prosecuted must be present in order to
hold him liable therefor in its consummated stage. Elements constituting the Felony
● Theft – consummated when the thief is able to take
When not all the elements of a felony are proved, thus: or get hold of the thing belonging to another, even if
1) The felony is not shown to have been consummated; he is not able to carry it away.
or
2) The felony is not shown to have been committed; or Case example: US v. Adiao
3) Another felony is shown to have been committed. - A Customs inspector abstracted a leather belt from
the baggage of a Japanese and secreted it in the
Examples: drawer of his desk in the Customs House, found by
a) In the prosecution for homicide, where the death of the Customs Employee. He was convicted of
the victim is an element of the offense, if such is consummated theft because all the elements
absent because the victim did not die, the crime is necessary for its execution and accomplishment
not consummated; rather it is either attempted or were present.
frustrated. - Actual taking with intent to gain of personal
b) In taking personal property from another, when the property, belonging to another, without the latter’s
element to gain is lacking on the part of the person consent, is sufficient to constitute consummated
taking it, the crime of theft is not committed. theft. It is not necessary that the offender carries
c) In the prosecution of estafa, if the element of deceit away or appropriates the property taken.
or abuse of confidence is not proved, there is no

● Estafa – consummated when the offended party is
actually damaged or prejudiced. Examples:
(1) In slander, there is either a crime or no
Case example: US V. Dominguez crime at all, depending upon whether or
- Defendant, a salesman of the Philippine Education not defamatory words were spoken
Company, received P7.50 for the sale of books, which publicly.
he should have given to the cashier, he put it in his (2) In the sale of marijuana and other
pocket with intent to misappropriate the amount. prohibited drugs, the mere act of selling or
This is a frustrated estafa. even acting as broker consummates the
- The accused performed all the acts of execution; crime.
however, the crime was not consummated as there
was no damage caused in view of the timely b) Crimes consummated by mere attempt or
discovery of the felonious act. proposal or by overt act
Q: Is there a conflict in the rulings of the Adiao case and the Examples:
Dominguez case? (1) Flight to enemy’s country (Artice 121) – the
A: The difference lies in the elements of the two crimes. In mere attempt to flee to an enemy country
estafa, the offended party must be actually prejudiced or is a consummated felony.
damaged, which element was lacking in the Dominguez case. (2) Corruption of minors (Article 340) – a mere
In theft, mere removal of the personal property belonging to proposal to satisfy the lust of another will
another with intent to gain is sufficient. The act of removing consummate the offense.
personal property constitutes the element of taking in theft. In (3) No attempted crime of treason because
the Adiao case, only the element of taking is in question, and the overt act in itself consummated the
that element is considered present because he abstracted crime.
(removed) the leather belt from the baggage where it was kept
and secrets in the drawer of his desk. The taking was c) Felony by omission – no attempted stage when the
complete. felony is by omission because in this kind, the
offender does not execute acts, but rather “omits to
● Element of intent to kill, when present in inflicting perform” an act which the law requires him to do.
physical injuries.
- If any of the physical injuries described in Example: Killing a child by starving him, however,
Articles 263-266 is inflicted with intent to although apparently by omission, is in fact by
kill on any persons mentioned in Article commission.
246, or with attendance of any of the
circumstances enumerated in Article 248, d) Crimes requiring the intervention of two persons
the crime would either be attempted or to commit them are consummated by mere
frustrated parricide or murder as the agreement.
case may be.
Examples:
Case example: US v. Joven (1) In crimes like betting in sport contests and
- Defendant with a pocket knife inflicted several corruption of public officer (Articles 197
wounds on the victim. The words “until I can kill you” and 212), which require the intervention of
were uttered by the assailant. two persons to commit them, the same are
- This is a case of attempted homicide, not physical consummated by mere agreement. The
injuries because the intention to kill is evident. offer made by one of the parties to the
other constitutes attempted felony, if the
Case example: US v. Maghirang offer is rejected.
- The accused inflicted bolo wounds on the shoulder (2) In view of the abovementioned rule, there
and across the lips of the victim and then withdrew. would be no frustrated bribery (corruption
- This is not a frustrated homicide, but serious of public officer).
physical injuries, as the accused probably knew that (3) However in People v. Diego, the Court held
the injuries were not such as should produce death. that where the defendant fails to corrupt a
Intent to kill was not present. public officer because the latter returned
the money given by the defendant, the
Manner of committing Crime crime committed is frustrated bribery
under Article 212 in relation to Article 6.
a) Formal crimes – consummated in one instant. As a (4) In US v. Te Tong, where the roll of bills
rule, there can be no attempt at a formal crime amounting to PhP 500.00 was accepted by
because between the thought and the deed, there the police officer for the purpose of using
is no chain of acts that can be served in any link. the same as evidence in the prosecution

of the accused for attempted bribery, it only briefs and crouching over her, was
was held that the accused who delivered pulling down her pajamas and panties. She
the money was guilty of attempted bribery. resisted and pulled up her pajamas and
panties, but the appellant pulled them
down to her knees and mashed her breast.
e) Material crimes – crimes such as homicide, rape,
The woman found an opportunity to
etc., are not consummated in one instant or by escape when the accused went towards
single act. There are three stages of execution. the CD Player and failed to restrain her.
- HELD: Attempted rape
(1) Consummated Rape—People v.
Hernandez: (4) Consummated Homicide— People v.
Sazon:
- FACTS: The accused lay on top of a girl
- FACTS: Accused-apellant shot the victim
nine years of age for over 15 minutes. The
in the left forearm. While he and the victim
girl testified that there was partial
were grappling for the gun, his co-accused
penetration of the male organ in her parts
who has remained at large, stabbed the
that she felt intense pain.
victim in the chest, and the latter died. The
- HELD: Entry of the labia or lips of the
cause of death was hemorrhage,
female organ without rupture of the
secondary to stab wound.
hymen or laceration of the vagina is
- HELD: Accused-appellant was found guilty
generally held sufficient to warrant
of homicide there being no qualifying
conviction of the accused for
circumstance to make the killing murder.
consummated crime of rape.
The fact that he did not inflict the mortal
wound is of no moment, since the
(2) Frustrated Rape— there is no crime of
existence of conspiracy was satisfactorily
frustrated rape.
shown by the evidence.
People v. Erina:
- FACTS: The accused endeavored (5) Frustrated murder— People v. Mision:
to have sexual intercourse with a - FACTS: The accused stabbed his 2 victims
girl 3 years and 11 months old, as they were about to close their store in
and there was doubt whether he the evening. One of them died while the
succeeded in penetrating the other recovered.
vagina. - HELD: The assault upon the surviving
- HELD: There being no conclusive victim constituted frustrated murder, her
evidence of penetration of the relatively quick recovery being the result of
genital organ of the child, the prompt medical attention The attack was
accused is entitled to the benefit qualified by treachery (alevosia).
of the doubt and can only be
found guilty of frustrated rape. (6) Attempted homicide— People v.
Ramolete:
- FACTS: The accused intended to kill his
However, in People v. Orita:
- The SC held that for the victim but he was not able to perform all
consummation of rape, perfect the acts of execution necessary to
penetration is not essential. consummate the killing. The wounds
- Any penetration of the female inflicted did not affect vital organs. They
organ by the male organ is were not mortal. He first warned his victim
sufficient. before shooting him.
- Entry of the labia or lips of the - HELD: Attempted homicide.
female organ without rupture of
the hymen or laceration of the No Attempted or Frustrated Impossible Crime– the person
vagina is sufficient to warrant intending to commit an offense has already performed the
conviction. acts for the execution of the same, but nevertheless, the
- Taking into account of the crime is not produced by reason of the fact that the act
nature, elements, and manner of
intended is by its nature one of impossible accomplishment
execution of the crime of rape
or because the means employed are essentially inadequate
and jurisprudence on the matter,
it is hardly conceivable how the or ineffectual to produce the result desired by him.
frustrated stage in rape can be
committed. Gravity
- The SC held that the Erina case
appears to be a “stray” decision
ARTICLE 7. When light felonies are punishable. – Light felonies are
inasmuch as it has not been
punishable only when they have been consummated, with the exception of
reiterated in the Court’s
those committed against person or property.
subsequent decisions.
ARTICLE 9. Grave Felonies, Less Grave Felonies and Light Felonies. — Grave
(3) Attempted Rape— Tibong v. People: felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or
- FACTS: The woman was awakened when penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with article
25 of this Code.
she felt the accused, who was wearing

“With the exception of those committed against persons or
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in property”— exception to the general rule.
their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with the abovementioned
article.
General rule: Light felonies are punishable only when they
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which the have been consummated.
penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding Forty thousand pesos
(P40,000), or both, is provided. (As amended by R.A. No. 10951)
Reason for the general rule: Light felonies are light, such
insignificant moral and material injuries that public conscience
Classification of felonies according to gravity attached to is satisfied with providing a light penalty for their
them: consummation. If they are not consummated, the wrong done
1) Grave is so slight that there is no need of providing a penalty at all.
2) Less grave
3) Light Exception: Light felonies committed against persons or
property, are punishable even if attempted or frustrated.
Article 9 should be read in accordance with Article 25
Reason for the exception: The commission of felonies against

Capital punishment Death
persons or property presupposes in the offender moral
Afflictive penalties Reclusion perpetua depravity.
Reclusion temporal
Perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification Examples of Light Felonies
Perpetual or temporary special
disqualification
Prision mayor
Against persons Against property
Correctional penalties Prision correccional
Arresto mayor Art. 266 – Slight physical injuries and Art. 30, No. 7 – Theft by hunting or
Suspension maltreatment fishing or gathering fruits, cereals, or
Destierro other forest or farm products upon
an inclosed estate or field where
trespass is forbidden and the value of
Light penalties Arresto menor the thing stolen does not exceed PhP
Public censure 500
Penalties common to the three Fine Art. 309, No. 8 – Theft, where the
preceding classes Bond to keep the peace value of the stolen property does not
exceed PhP 500, and the offender
was prompted by hunger, poverty, or
Duration of penalties the difficulty of earning a livelihood
Art. 313 – Alteration of boundary

Reclusion perpetua 20 yrs and 1 day to 40 yrs marks
Reclusion temporal 12 yrs and 1 day to 20 yrs Art. 328, No. 3 – Malicious mischief
where the damage is not more than
Prision mayor 6 yrs and 1 day to 12 yrs PhP 200, or if it cannot be estimated
Prision correccional 6 mos and 1 day to 6 yrs

Grave felonies – those to which the law attaches the capital
Arresto mayor 1 month and 1 day to 6 mos punishment or penalties which any of their periods are
afflictive.
Arresto menor 1 day to 30 days
Less grave felonies – those which the law punishes with

Light felonies – infractions of law for the commission of which penalties which in their maximum period are correctional.
the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding PhP
40,000, or both, is provided. Provision breakdown [Article 9]:
“To which the law attaches the capital punishment.—
Light felonies punished by the RPC: capital punishment is death penalty.
a) Slight physical injuries [one and only light felony
against person] The phrase “capital punishment” and its application in the
b) Theft present day
c) Alteration of boundary marks - Laws imposing death as penalty were repealed by
d) Malicious mischief R.A. No. 9346, as the latter prohibited the imposition
e) Intriguing against honor of penalty of death
- The penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed when
Penalty: Arresto menor (imprisonment from one day to 30 the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of
days), or a fine not exceeding PhP 40,000. the penalties of the RPC
- The penalty of life imprisonment is imposed when
Provision breakdown [Light felony]: the law violated does not make use of the
nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC

penalties must be a correctional penalty.
“Or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive.”
correctional penalty Arresto menor is a light
penalty
Afflictive penalties (Art. 25)
a) Reclusion perpetua If the penalty prescribed is A felony punishable by
b) Reclusion temporal composed of two or more arresto menor in its
c) Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification periods corresponding to maximum period to
d) Perpetual or temporary special disqualification destierro in its minimum
different divisible penalties,
period is a less grave felony,
e) Prision mayor the higher or maximum
because the higher is a
f) A fine not exceeding PhP 1,200,000 period must be that of period of a correctional
correctional penalty penalty
Examples
If the penalty is composed
of two periods of a
Although the word “any” is A felony punishable by
prision correccional to correctional penalty or of
used in the phrase, when
prision mayor is a grave two periods corresponding
the penalty prescribed for
felony, because the higher to different correctional
the offense is composed of
of the two penalties penalties, like destierro and
two or more distinct
prescribed, which is prision arresto mayor, the offense
penalties, the higher or mayor, is an afflictive
for which it is prescribed is a
highest of the penalties penalty
less grave felony
must be an afflictive penalty
If the penalty prescribed is A felony punishable by “Penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200
composed of two or more prision correcional in its pesos, or both, is provided.”
periods corresponding to maximum period to prision
different divisible penalties, mayor in its minimum period
the higher or maximum is a grave felony, because Fine Type of Felony
period must be that of an the higher the period, which
afflictive penalty is the minimum of prision Exactly PhP 40,000 Light felony
mayor, is a period of an
afflictive penalty More than PhP 40,000 Less grave felony [because
a fine not less than PhP
If the penalty is composed A felony punishable by the 40,000 is a correctional
of two periods of an medium and maximum penalty]
afflictive penalty or of two periods of prision mayor or
periods corresponding to by prision mayor in its More than PhP 1,200,000 Grave felony [because a
different afflictive penalties, maximum period to fine exceeding PhP
the offense for which it is reclusion temporal in its 1,200,000 is an afflictive
prescribed is a grave felony minimum period is a grave penalty]
felony, because both prision
mayor and reclusion
temporal are afflictive Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Felony
penalties
ARTICLE 8. Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Felony. — Conspiracy

“Penalties which in their maximum period are correctional.” and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which
the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
Correctional penalties
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
a) Prision correccional
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
b) Arresto mayor
c) Suspension There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony
d) Destierro proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
e) A fine not less than PhP 40,000 but not exceeding

PhP 1,200,000 Provision breakdown:
“Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony.” — two different
acts of felonies contemplated: (1) conspiracy to commit
Examples
felony; (2) proposal to commit a felony.
When the penalty A felony punishable by

arresto menor to destierro “Only in the cases in which the law specially provides a
prescribed for the offense is
is a less grave felony, penalty therefor.” — unless there is a specific provision in the
composed of two or more
because the higher of the RPC providing a penalty for conspiracy or proposal to commit a
distinct penalties, the
two penalties prescribed, felony, mere conspiracy or proposal is not a felony.
higher or highest of the
which is destierro, is a

Conspiracy – exists when two or more persons come to an Conspiracies which are punishable since there are penalties
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide prescribed by special laws:
to commit it. a) Conspiracy to commit arson
● Generally not a crime except when the law b) Conspiracy to commit crime involving trafficking of
specifically provides a penalty therefor, as in the dangerous drug
conspiracies against the law of nations (i.e., c) Conspiracy to commit terrorism
rebellion, treason, and sedition). d) Conspiracy to commit financing of terrorism
● An agreement to commit a crime is a reprehensible e) Conspiracy to commit dealing with property or funds
act from the viewpoint of morality, but as long as the of designated persons
conspirators do not perform overt acts in f) Conspiracy to commit money laundering
furtherance of their malevolent design, the
sovereignty of the State is not outraged and the Conspiracy as a Manner of Incurring Criminal Liability
tranquility of the public remains undisturbed. ● Relates to crime actually committed, that is, when
there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.
● However, when in resolute execution of a common
● Not punishable as a separate offense.
scheme, a felony is committed by two or more
malefactors, the existence of a conspiracy assumes
Example: A and B agreed and decided to rise publicly and take
pivotal importance in the determination of the
arms against the government with the help of their followers.
liability of the perpetrators.
Even if they did not carry out their plan to overthrow the
government, A and B are liable for conspiracy to commit
General rule: Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are
rebellion
not punishable.
- If A and B, along with their followers, rose publicly
and took arms against the government to overthrow
Exception: Punishable only in the cases in which the law
it, thereby committing rebellion, their conspiracy is
specially provides a penalty therefor.
not a felony. They are liable for rebellion, and their
conspiracy is only a manner of incurring criminal
Reason for the rule— Conspiracy and proposal to commit a
liability for rebellion
crime are only preparatory acts, which the law regards as
innocent, or at least permissible except in rare and exceptional
Example: A, B, and C, after having conceived a criminal plan,
cases.
got together, agreed, and decided to kill D. If A, B, and C failed
to carry out the plan for some reason, they are not liable for
Provisions which the RPC Specially Provides a Penalty for
having conspired against D, because the crime they conspired
Conspiracy
to commit is murder, and not treason, rebellion, or sedition.
- If they carried out the plan and personally took part
1) Conspiracy to commit treason (Article 115) –
in its execution, they are all liable for murder, even if
punished by prision mayor and a fine of not
A merely acted as guard outside the house, and B
exceeding PhP 10,000.00.
merely held the arms of D while C stabbed him to
death. Their conspiracy is only a manner of incurring
2) Conspiracy to commit coup d’etat, rebellion or
criminal liability for murder.
insurrection (Article 136).
a) Coup d’etat – punished by prision mayor in
Indications of Conspiracy (People v. Geronimo)
its minimum period and a fine which shall
● There is conspiracy when the defendants by their
not exceed Php 8,000.00.
acts aimed at the same object, one performing one
b) Rebellion or insurrection – punished by
part and the other performing another, with a view to
prision correccional in its maximum period
the attainment of the same object, and with their
and a fine which shall not exceed PhP
acts, although independent, were in fact concerted
5,000.00.
and cooperative, indicating the following factors:
a) Closeness of personal association;
3) Conspiracy to commit sedition (Article 141) –
b) Concerted action and concurrence of
punished by prision mayor in its medium period and a
sentiments.
fine not exceeding PhP 2,000.00.
● Circumstances of a person’s participation showed
unity of purpose and unity in the execution of
Treason, coup d’etat, rebellion or insurrection need not be
unlawful acts.
actually committed — it is sufficient that two or more persons
● For collective responsibility among the accused to
agree and decide to commit such.
be established, it is sufficient that at the time of the
● If they commit, e.g., treason, they will be held liable
aggression, all of them acted in concert, each doing
for treason, and the conspiracy which they had
his part to fulfill their common design to kill their
before committing a crime is only a manner of
victim, and although only one of them may have
incurring liability, not a separate offense.
actually stabbed the victim, the act of that one is
deemed to be the act of all.

Conspiracy to commit a Crime involving
Acts of the defendants must show a common design
Crime Conspiracy
(People v. Hernandez)
● It is fundamental for conspiracy to exist that there
If A and B conspired to If A and B conspired to
must be unity of purpose and unity in the execution
overthrow the government, restrain trade, they are
of the unlawful objective.
they are liable for the crime liable for the crime of
● Even assuming that appellants have joined together of conspiracy to commit. monopoly.
in the killing, such circumstances do not satisfy the
requirement of a conspiracy because the rule is that If they committed rebellion, If they actually restrained
neither joint nor simultaneous action is per se they are liable for the crime trade, they are also liable for
sufficient proof of conspiracy. of rebellion. the crime of monopoly.*
● It must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly

as the commission of the commence itself. *Conspiracy to restrain trade or the act of restraining trade constitutes the crime of
monopoly. There is no such thing as conspiracy to commit the crime of monopoly.
● Obedience to a command does not necessarily show
concert of design, for at any rate, it is the acts of the Article 186 of the RPC punishing Conspiracy
conspirators that show their common design.
● Although the defendants are relatives and had acted ARTICLE 186. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade. — The penalty
of prision correctional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from two hundred to
with some degree of simultaneity in attacking their
six thousand pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon:
victim, nevertheless, this fact alone does not prove 1. Any person who shall enter into any contract or agreement or shall
conspiracy. take part in any conspiracy or combination in the form of a trust or
otherwise, in restraint of trade or commerce or to prevent by artificial
means free competition in the market;
Case example: People v Pugay 2. xxx
- Miranda, a 25-year-old retardate, and the accused 3. Any person who, being a manufacturer, producer, x x x, shall combine,
conspire or agree in any manner with any person x x x for the purpose
Pugay, were friends. The group of Pugay and
of making transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce, or of increasing
Samsong saw Miranda walking nearby, and started the market price in any part of the Philippines, of any such
making fun of him. Pugay took a can of gasoline from merchandise x x x.
under the engine of a ferris wheel and poured its

contents on the body of Miranda. Samson set
Requisites of Conspiracy
1) Two or more persons came to an agreement.
Miranda on fire.
● Agreement presupposes the meeting of
- There is nothing in the records showing that there
the minds of two or more persons.
was previous conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose
● Example: a document is discovered
between Pugay and Samson. The respective criminal
purporting to be a commission appointing
responsibility arising from the different acts is
the defendant against the government
individual and not collective, and each of them is
does not prove conspiracy, because it was
liable only for the act committed by them.
not shown that defendant received or
Difference between Premeditation and Conspiracy accepted that commission.
2) Agreement concerned the commission of a felony.

Premeditation Conspiracy ● It must be an agreement to act, to effect,
to bring about what has already been
A sufficient period of time Arises on the very instant
conceived and determined.
must elapse to afford full the plotters agree,
opportunity for meditation expressly or impliedly, to ● Example: the mere fact that the defendant
and reflection and for the commit the felony and met and aired some complaints, showing
perpetrator to deliberate on forthwith decide to pursue discontent with the government over
the consequences of his it. Once this assent is some real or fancied evils, is not sufficient.
intended deed. established, each and
everyone of the
3) Execution of the felony be decided upon.
conspirators is made
● Conspirators have made up their minds to
criminally liable for the
crime, committed by anyone commit the crime.
of them. ● There must be a determination to commit
the crime of treason, rebellion or sedition.
The period of time to afford
opportunity for meditation
4) There must be a law prescribing a penalty for
and reflection is not
conspiring to commit such crime.
required in conspiracy.
5) The conspirators must not commit crime agreed

‘Conspiracy to commit a Crime’ and ‘Crime involving upon.
Conspiracy’ NOT the same.

Direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy – it may ● If the crime of treason or rebellion was actually
be inferred from the collective acts of the accused before, committed after and because of the proposal, then
during, and after the commission of the crime. the proponent would be liable for treason or
● Conspiracy can be presumed from and proven by rebellion as a principal by inducement, and in such
acts of the accused themselves when the said acts case the proposal is not a felony.
point to a joint purpose and design, concerted
action, and community of interests. Requisites of proposal
● Conspiracy renders all the conspirators as 1) A person has decided to commit a felony;
co-principals regardless of the extent and character 2) He proposes its execution to some other person or
of their participation— the act of one is the act of persons.
all. 3) There must be a law prescribing a penalty for
proposal to commit such crime.
Quantum of proof required to establish conspiracy – the 4) The person making the proposal and those to whom
elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. the proposal was made must not have agreed and
● Evidence of actual cooperation rather than mere decided to commit such crime.
cognizance or approval of an illegal act is required.
● A conspiracy must be established by positive and There is no criminal proposal when:
conclusive evidence. It must be shown to exist as 1) The person who proposes is not determined to
clearly and convincingly as the commission of the commit the felony.
crime itself. ● Example: A desires that the present
● Mere presence of a person at the scene of the crime government be overthrown. But A is afraid
does not make him a conspirator for conspiracy to do it himself with others. A then
transcends companionship. suggests the overthrowing to some
desperate people who will do it at the
Case example: People v. Comrade slightest provocation. A is not liable
- Evidence shows that Comadre and Lozano did not because A has not decided to commit it
have any participation in the commission of the
crime and must therefore be set free. 2) There is no decided, concrete, and formal
- Their mere presence at the scene of the crime and proposal.
their close relationship with Antonio are insufficient ● Merely suggesting, and not setting forth a
to establish conspiracy considering that they decided, concrete, and formal proposal, is
performed no positive act in furtherance of the not the one contemplated in the provision.
crime.
- Neither was it proven that their act of running away 3) It is not the execution of a felony that is proposed.
with Antonio was an act of giving moral assistance to ● Example: A conceived the idea of
his criminal act. overthrowing the present government. A
- The reason that “their presence provided called several of his trusted followers and
encouragement and sense of security to Antonio” is instructed them to go around the country
devoid of any factual basis, for not being supported and secretly to organize groups and to
by the evidence on record and cannot therefore be a convince them of the necessity of having a
valid basis of a finding of conspiracy. new government. What A proposed in this
case is not the execution of the crime, but
Provisions which the RPC Specially Provided a Penalty for the performance of preparatory acts for
Mere Proposal the commission of rebellion.
1) Proposal to commit treason (Article 115) – punished Q: What happens if the proponents of rebellion desist
by prision correccional and a fine not exceeding PhP before the rebellious act is actually performed by the
5,000.00. “would-be material executors”?
2) Proposal to commit coup d’etat, rebellion or A: If the proponents informed the authorities and aided in the
insurrection (Article 136) – arrest of their fellow plotters should be exempt from the
a) Coup d’etat – punished by prision mayor in penalties provided for criminal proposals and conspiracies, for
its minimum period and a fine which shall the law would rather prevent than punish crimes and
not exceed PhP 8,000.00. encouragement should be given to those who hearken to the
b) Rebellion or insurrection – punished by voice of consciousness. But once a proposal to commit
prision correccional in its medium period rebellion is made by the proponent to another person, the
and a fine which shall not exceed PhP crime of proposal to commit rebellion is consummated and the
2,000.00. desistance of the proponent cannot legally exempt him from
criminal liability.
Treason, coup d’etat, rebellion or insurrection need not be
actually committed — this also applies to proposal.

Acceptance of the proposal by the person to whom the 1) The special law is deficient on the rule needed to
proposal is made – not required; what constitutes the felony resolve a particular issue;
of proposal to commit treason or rebellion is the making of the 2) The special law does not specifically prohibit the
proposal. application of the provisions of the Code.
● If it is accepted, it may be conspiracy to commit
treason or rebellion because there would be an Systems to which the penal laws are patterned
agreement and a decision to do it.
Revised Penal Code Special Laws

Proposal as an Overt Act of Corruption of Public Officer
● Example: One who offers money to a public officer to Patterned from the old Contain the American penal
induce him not to perform his duties, but the offer is Spanish Penal Code, system.**
rejected by the public officer, is liable for attempted contains the Spanish penal
bribery. system.*
● While it is true that the act performed by the
offender is in the nature of proposal, and is not *The Spanish penal system is based on the proportionate penal system of the
classical theory, under which the gravity of the penalty must be in proportion to the
punishable because it does not involve treason or gravity of the criminality in the mind of the offender. It designs a mechanism to
rebellion, nevertheless, the proposal in this case is measure the degree of the criminal mind of the offender, and prescribes penalty on
the basis of such degree.
an overt act of the crime of the corruption of public
officer. **The American penal system provides a fixed penalty or a penalty with minimum
limit and maximum limit (e.g., imprisonment for one year, or for one to five years).
Life imprisonment is the equivalent of the Spanish penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Crimes in which Conspiracy and Proposal are Punishable:
a) Treason – against external security At present, there are special laws which adopted both the
b) Coup d’etat, rebellion, and sedition — against Spanish and American penal legal system.
internal security
c) Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade – Essence of codification of criminal laws: To place all crimes
against economic security as “mala in se” under one Code.
Q: Why are conspiracy and proposal to commit punishable Provision breakdown:

“Special laws” – penal law which punished acts not defined
in crimes against external and internal security of the
and penalized by the RPC;
State?
● It is a statute enacted by Legislative branch, penal in
A: In such crimes, if the culprit succeeds in his criminal
character, which is not an amendment to the RPC.
enterprise, he would obtain the power and therefore impunity
● Usually follow the form of American penal law.
for the crime committed [as against ordinary crimes where the
State survives the victim and the culprit cannot find in the
When penalties under the special law are different from
success of his work any impunity].
those under the RPC— the RPC is not suppletory.
Offenses Not Subject to the Case example: People v. Simon

Provisions of the Code - While the information alleges that the crime was
attended with grave abuse of confidence, the same
cannot be appreciated as the suppletory effect of
ARTICLE 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
the RPC to special penal law, as provided in Article
to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, 10, cannot be invoked when there is a legal
unless the latter should specially provide the contrary. impossibility of application, either by express
provision or by necessary implication.
Two Clauses under Article 10 - When the penalties under the special law are
● The first clause should be understood to mean that different from and are without reference or relation
only the special penal laws are controlling with to those under RPC, there can be no suppletory
regard to offenses therein specifically punished. It effect of the rules, for the application of penalties
only restates the elemental rule of statutory under the said Code or by other relevant statutory
construction that special legal provisions prevail provisions are based on or applicable only to said
over general ones (lex specialis derogant generali). hard rules for felonies under the Code.
● The second clause contains the soul of the article.
The main idea and purpose of the article is embodied Case example: People v. Panida
in the provision that the code shall be - This involved the crime of carnapping and the
supplementary to special laws, unless the latter penalty imposed was the indeterminate sentence of
should specifically provide the contrary. 14 years and 8 months, as minimum, to 17 years old
four months, as maximum. The Court did not apply
Requisites to supplementarily apply the provisions of RPC the provisions of the RPC suppletorily as the
anti-carnapping law provides for its own penalties

which are distinct and without reference to the said export gold” and hence, it contemplates the
Code. situation existing prior to the consummation of the
exportation.
Offenses under special laws, not subject to the provisions - Indeed, its purpose would be defeated if the penal
of this Code relating to attempted and frustrated crimes. sanction were deferred until after the article in
● Pursuant to the first clause, it was held that the question had left the Philippines, for jurisdiction over
attempted or the frustrated stage of the execution it and over the guilty party would be lost thereby
of an offense penalized by a special law is not
punishable, unless the special law provides a penalty Mitigating or aggravating circumstances, not applicable to
therefor (US v. Basa). offenses punishable under special laws
● Offenses which are punishable under the special
The special law has to fix penalties for attempted and laws are not subject to the provisions of Article 64
frustrated crime (rules for the graduation of penalties) of the RPC,
● Penalty for the consummated crime cannot be and it has been held that the provisions of the RPC,
imposed when the stage of the acts of the relative to the application of the circumstances
execution is either attempted and frustrated, as the modifying the criminal liability of the accused are not
penalty for the attempted and frustrated crime is applicable to special laws.
two degrees or one degree lower, respectively. ● Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code prescribing the
● The special law does not provide for a penalty one rules for the graduation of penalties containing
or two degrees lower than that provided for the three periods when mitigating and/or aggravating
consummated stage. circumstances attended the commission of the
● In order that crime may be punished in case its crime, was held inapplicable to offenses penalized by
commission reached only the attempted or special laws, because the penalty prescribed by
frustrated stage of execution, the special law has to special law is usually indeterminate and does not
fix a penalty for the attempt and a penalty for the contain three periods.
frustration of the crime defined by it. ● For this reason, the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary plea of guilty is not considered to mitigate
Q: What is the penalty for the mere attempt to commit the the liability of one accused of illegal possession of
crime defined by special law? firearms (People v. Gonzales).
A: The attempted stage is punishable by the penalty provided
by that law. Q: When are the rules for graduating penalties applicable to
special?
Rules for accomplices under special laws A: Where the special law adopted penalties from the RPC, the
● No punishment for a mere accomplice is provided.
rules for graduating penalties by degrees or determining the
Although by Article 10, its provisions may be applied
proper period should be applied.
to offenses punished by special laws in a
supplementary manner, the pertinent provisions
“Supplementary” – means supplying what is lacking;
thereof on accomplices simply cannot be given
additional.
effect.
● Some provisions of the Penal Code are perfectly
● Because the combined provisions of both the RPC
applicable to special laws.
and the NIRC do not provide any such penalty or at
● The Supreme Court has extended some provisions
least lay down the basis or the manner of its
of the Penal Code to special penal laws.
determination, even if appellant is conceded to have
performed acts which would make of him an Cases where the provisions of the RPC were applied to the
accomplice, it would be impossible to impose any offenses punishable under special laws:
penalty upon him because of the demonstrated a) Article 2 of the Code on territoriality was applied to
inapplicability of the principles of the RPC on violence against women and that on
accomplices [to the case at bar], applying the extraterritoriality to piracy under P.D. No. 532.
principle nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege. b) Provision on conspiracy as a crime under Article 8 of
the Code and the rule on conspiracy as a mode of
Case example: People v. Jollife incurring criminal liability were applied to violation of
- When the accused was about to board a plane of the B.P. Blg. 22.
Pan American World airways, four pieces of gold c) Provision on justifying circumstances of exercise of
bullion were found tied to his body. He was charged right (to suspend payment) under Article 11 of the
with a violation of RA No. 265 Code was applied to violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
- Section 4 of Circular No. 21 issued in accordance d) Provision on retroactivity under Article 22 of the
with the provisions of R.A. No. 265 provides that “any Code was applied to violation of election law.
person desiring to export gold in any form must e) Provision on confiscation of instrument of the crime
obtain a license from the Central Bank xxx.” This (under Article 45 of the Code) was applied to offense
section explicitly applies to “any person desiring to punishable under special law.

f) Provision on three-fold rule under Article 70 of the ● Under R.A. No. 9165, the provisions of the RPC shall
Code was applied to multiple penalties imposed for not apply to the provisions of the Act, except in the
committing crimes involving dangerous drugs. case of minor offenders.
● Hence, if a convict, who is not a child in conflict with
Case example: People v. Moreno the law, failed to pay the penalty of fine imposed for
- Where the accused was convicted of homicide possession of dangerous drugs paraphernalia by
through reckless imprudence and violation of the reason of insolvency, the rule on subsidiary
Motor Vehicle Law, but the special law has no imprisonment.
provision regarding indemnity to heirs of the
deceased and subsidiary imprisonment in case of Supplementary Application of the Provisions of the RPC
insolvency, the Court held that Article 39 (indemnity - Three kinds of offenders: (1) principal, (2)
to heirs) and Article 100 (subsidiary imprisonment) accomplice, and (3) accessory.
of the RPC are supplementary to the Motor Vehicle - Article 6 governs stages of execution; Articles 13, 14,
Law. and 15 on modifying circumstances; Articles 17, 18,
and 19 on the nature of participation of particular of
Suppletory Application of the RPC to Special Laws – finds the offender.
relevance only when the provisions are silent on a particular
matter. Supplementary Application of the Provisions to Special
Laws
“Unless the latter should specifically provide the contrary.”
● In the absence of contrary provision, the general
Question: Can the provisions of the abovementioned articles
provisions of the RPC which, by their nature, are
of the RPC be applied as supplementary to offenses
necessarily applicable, may be applied suppletorily.
punishable under special laws?
Cases where the Supreme Court applied suppletorily the

1) Spanish Penalty – where the penalty for offense
provisions of the RPC:
under special law is actually taken from RPC in its
a) Subsidiary penalty – The Court applied suppletorily
technical nomenclature (e.g., prision mayor), rules
the provision on subsidiary penalty under Article 39
for the application of penalties and the correlative
of the RPC to cases of violations (e.g., Revised Motor
effects thereof shall be given suppletory effect.
Vehicle law), noting that the special law did not
● Adoption of the penalty under RPC lucidly
contain any provision that the defendant could be
reveals the statutory intent to give the
sentenced with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
related provisions on penalties under the
insolvency.
Code the corresponding application to
b) Civil liability – The Court applied suppletorily the
said laws.
provision on Article 100 (civil liability) of the RPC to a
● Thus, Articles 6, 13-15, 17-19 can be
case for violation of the Revised Motor Vehicle law.
applied by way of supplement to an
c) Rules on service of sentence – The Court applied
offense under special law punishable by a
suppletorily the rules on the service of sentences
penalty borrowed from the Code.
provided in Article 70 of the RPC in favor of the
accused who was found guilty of multiple violations
2) American Penalty – where the penalties under the
of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, considering the
special law are different from those under RPC, the
lack of similar rules under the special law.
rules for the application of penalties and other
d) Definition on principals, accomplices, and
relevant provisions cannot be given suppletory
accessories – The Court applied suppletorily
effect.
Articles 17-19 of the RPC to define the words
● By not borrowing the penalty under the
principal, accomplices, and accessories under the
Code, the intention of the lawmakers is not
Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act, because
to adopt by way of supplement the rules
said words were not defined therein, although the
connected with imposition of penalties,
special law referred to the same terms in
such as Articles 6, 13-15, 17-19 of the RPC.
enumerating the persons liable for the crime of
● The nature of the penalty prescribed for
illegal recruitment.
felony under the RPC is different from that
e) Principle of conspiracy – The Court applied
prescribed for offense punishable under a
suppletorily the principle of conspiracy under Article special law.
8 of the RPC to BP Blg. 22 (penalizing bouncing ● It is impossible to apply the rules on
checks, in the absence of a contrary provision imposition of penalty and all provisions
therein). connected thereto to penalty prescribed
by special law unless it borrowed the
Prohibition on Applying the Code penalty under the RPC.

CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING Second. That the injury feared to be greater than that done to
avoid it.
CRIMINAL LIABILITY Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of
preventing it.
5. Any person who acts in fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful

The circumstances affecting criminal liability are: exercise of a right or office.
a) Justifiying circumstances (Article 11) 6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior
b) Exempting circumstances (Article 12), and other for some lawful purpose.
absolutory causes (Articles 20; 124, last par.; 280,

last par.; 332; 344; etc.) Justified acts – there is no crime committed, the act being
c) Mitigating circumstances (Article 13) justified.
d) Aggravating circumstances (Article 14) ● In stating that the persons “do not incur any criminal
e) Alternative circumstances (Article 15) liability,” Article 11 recognizes the acts of such
persons as justified.
Imputability – quality by which an act may be ascribed to a ● Such persons are not criminals, as there is no crime
person as its author or owner; implies that the act committed committed; hence, no civil liability as well.
has been freely and consciously done and may, therefore, be
put down to the doer as his very own. Burden of proof upon the accused
● The circumstances mentioned in the provision are
Responsibility – obligation of suffering the consequences of matters of defense, and it is incumbent upon the
crime; obligation of taking the penal and civil consequences of accused, in order to avoid criminal liability, to prove
the crime. the justifying circumstances claimed by him to the
satisfaction of the court.
Difference between imputability and responsibility
Self-Defense
Imputability Responsibility
Article 11, Paragraph 1. — Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights,
Implies that a deed may be The person must take the provided that the following circumstances occur:
imputed to a person. consequence of such deed.
First. Unlawful aggression;
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
Guilt – element of responsibility, for a man cannot be made to Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself.
answer for the consequences of a crime unless he is guilty.
Justifying Circumstances Self-defense – defense of the person or body of the one

assaulted; as well as that of his rights, i.e., those rights the
enjoyment of which is protected by law.
ARTICLE 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do not incur any
criminal liability:
● Aside from the right to life on which rests the
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that legitimate defense of our person, we have the right
the following circumstances concur: to property acquired by us, and the right to honor
First. Unlawful aggression;

which is not the least prized of man’s patrimony.
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent
or repel it; Burden of proof in self-defense
Third; Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
● Where the accused invokes self-defense, it is
defending himself.
incumbent upon him to prove by clear and
2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, convincing evidence that he indeed acted in
ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural, or adopted
defense.
brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same
degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil ● He must rely on the strength of his own evidence
degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in and not on the weakness of the prosecution, for
the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further
even if the prosecution evidence is weak, it could not
requisite, in case the provocation was given by the person
attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein. be disbelieved after the accused himself admitted
the killing.
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger,
● Self-defense must be proved with certainty by
provided that the first and second requisites in mentioned in the
first circumstance of this article are present and that the person sufficient, satisfactory, and convincing evidence
defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil that excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on
motive.
the part of the person invoking it, and it cannot be
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act
which causes damage to another, provided that the following justifiably entertained where it is not only
requisites are present: uncorroborated by any separate competent
evidence but, in itself, is extremely doubtful.
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
● Otherwise, conviction would follow from his
admission that he killed the victim.

- There is no occasion to speak of ‘reasonable
Reason why penal law makes self-defense lawful necessity of the means employed’ or of ‘sufficient
● It would be quite impossible for the State in all cases provocation’ on the part of one invoking legitimate
to prevent aggression upon its citizens (and even self-defense, because both circumstances
foreigners) and offer protection to the person presuppose unlawful aggression which was not
unjustly attacked. present in the case.
● However, it cannot be conceived that a person
should succumb to an unlawful aggression without Two kinds of aggression
offering any resistance. a) Lawful aggression – such as the fulfillment of a duty
● Law on self-defense finds justification in man’s or the exercise of a right in a more or less violent
natural instinct to protect, repel, and save his person manner.
or rights from impending danger or peril.
● It is based on that impulse of self-preservation born Example: The act of a chief of police who used
to man and part of his nature as a human being. violence by throwing stones at the accused when
the latter was running away from him to elude arrest
Two perspectives in Self-defense for a crime committed in his presence, is not
unlawful aggression, because the purpose was to
capture the accused and place him under arrest.
Classicists Positivists
Lawful defense is grounded Lawful defense is an Example: The act of a policeman who, after firing five
on the impossibility on the exercise of a right, an act of cautionary shots into the air, aimed directly at the
part of the State to avoid a social justice done to repel escaping detainee when he had already reasons to
present unjust aggression the attack of an aggression. fear that the latter would be able to elude him and
and protect a person
his pursuing companions.
unlawfully attacked, and
therefore it is inconceivable
for the State to require that Protection of property under the Civil Code
the innocent succumb to an - Pursuant to Article 429, NCC, a person may use force
unlawful aggression or violence to protect his property; and if in
without resistance. protecting his property such person uses force to
prevent its being taken by another, the owner of the
Requisites of self-defense property is not an unlawful aggressor, because he is
1) Unlawful aggression merely exercising a right.
2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it; and Case example: U.S. v. Merced
3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the - A paramour (illicit lover of a married person),
person defending himself. surprised in the act of adultery, cannot invoke

self-defense if he killed the offended husband who
*The first two requisites are common to self-defense, defense of a relative, and a was assaulting him.
defense of a stranger. These three kinds of legitimate defense differ only in the
- The Supreme Court said even though it were true
third requisite.
and even if the deceased did succeed in entering the
First requisite: Unlawful Aggression room in which the accused (the paramour and the
● A condition sine qua non (trans., indispensable) for wife of the deceased) were lying, and did
justifying the circumstance of self-defense. immediately thereupon assault (the paramour),
● There can be no self-defense, complete or giving him several blows with the bolo which the
incomplete, unless the victim has committed an deceased carried, that assault was natural and
unlawful aggression against the person defending lawful, for the reason that it was made by a deceived
himself. and offended husband in order to defend his honor
● For such requisite to exist, it is necessary that we be and rights by punishing the offender of his honor,
assaulted or attacked, or at least threatened with an and if he had killed his wife and the paramour, he
attack in an immediate and imminent manner (e.g., would have exercised a lawful right and such acts
brandishing a knife with which to stab us or pointing would have fallen within the sanction of Article 247
a gun to discharge against us). of the RPC.
● If there is no lawful aggression, there is nothing to - The paramour knew well that by maintaining unlawful
prevent or repel; hence, the second requisite will relations with the deceased’s wife, he was
have no basis. performing an unlawful and criminal act and exposed
himself to the vengeance of the offended husband,
Case example: People v. Yuman and that, by their meeting each other in the said
- Act of morality wounding the victim has not been house, he was running the danger of the latter’s
preceded by aggression on the part of the accused. surprising them there.

b) Unlawful aggression – an attack that has actually - The defensive act was justified because the three
broken out or materialized or at the very least is requisites for self-defense were present: (a) There
clearly imminent; it cannot consist in oral threats or was unlawful aggression of Laurel, (b) There is lack
a merely threatening stance or posture. of sufficient provocation on the part of Laurel, who
● Equivalent to assault or at least threatened assault did not provoke the occurrence complained of, and
of an immediate and imminent kind. (c) There is reasonable means employed when he
● There must be an actual physical assault upon a used a pocket-knife against the assault made upon
person, or at least a threat to inflict real injury; where him with a cane, which may also be a deadly weapon.
threat must be offensive and positively strong,
showing the wrongful intent to cause an injury. b) Imminent unlawful aggression – danger is on the
● Presupposes an actual, sudden, and unexpected point of happening; not required that the attack
attack, or imminent dnager thereof, and not merely a already begins, for it may be too late.
threatening or intimidating attitude.
● There is unlawful aggression when the peril to one’s Difference between actual unlawful aggression and imminent
life, limb, or right is either actual or imminent. unlawful
Elements of unlawful aggression Actual or Material Imminent

a) There must be a physical or material attack or
assault. An attack with physical An attack that is impending
b) The attack or assault must be actual, or, at least, force or with a weapon, an or at the point of
imminent. offensive act that positively happening; it must not
determines the intent of consist in a mere
c) The attack or assault must be unlawful.
the aggressor to cause the threatening attitude, nor
injury. must it be merely imaginary,
Determining factor: When there is no peril to one’s life, limb, but must be offensive and
or right, there is no unlawful aggression. positively strong.
Case example: US v. Padilla

Case example: People v. Cabungcal
- The deceased, after kidding the accused, who is
- The accused invited several persons to a picnic in a
another Constabulary soldier acting as sentry and
fishery on his property. Returning home, they
singing, told the latter that he had no voice for
boarded two boats that they rowed themselves; one
singing. After words were exchanged and while still
boat being steered by the accused, and the other by
in a spirit of fun, the deceased seized the accused
an old woman. Nine persons were in the boat of the
by the throat, whereupon the latter killed the
accused, the great majority of whom were women,
deceased with his rifle.
and the deceased Juan Loquenario. Upon reaching a
- The fact that the deceased seized the accused by
place of great depth, the deceased rocked the boat
the throat and exerted pressure thereon in one of
which started to take water. The accused, fearing
his frolic which he had persistently kept up with
the boat might capsize, asked the deceased not to
notorious imprudence, and in spite of the opposition
do it. As the deceased paid no attention to this
of the accused, cannot be considered as an illegal
warning and continued rocking the boat, the
aggression in the case of two companions in arms
accused struck him on the forehead with an oar. The
quartered in the same barracks.
deceased fell into the water and was submerged, but
a little while after appeared on the surface, having
Peril to One’s Life
grasped the side of the boat. The deceased then
a) Actual or material unlawful aggression – danger
stated that he was going to capsize the boat and
must be present, i.e., actually in existence.
started to move it. The women began to cry, and the
accused struck him on the neck with the same oar,
Case example: US v. Jose Laurel
causing the deceased to die
- Laurel was at a parochial building. He was invited to
come out in the yard. Exequiel asked Laurel why he
- The defensive act was justified. Due to the condition
of the river at the point where the deceased started
kissed Concepcion (the former’s lover). Laurel
to rock the boat, if it had capsized, the passengers
replied that he had done so because “she was very
would have run the risk of losing their lives, the
fickle and prodigal of her use of the word ‘yes’ on all
majority of whom were women, especially the
occasions.” Exequiel told him that he should not act
nursing child. The conduct of the deceased in
that way, and struck him a blow on the head with a
rocking the boat until the point of having it taken
cane or club, which assault made Laurel dizzy and
water and in his insistence on this action gave rise to
fall to the ground. Fearing that his aggressor would
the belief on the accused that it would capsize if he
continue to assault him, he took hold of the pocket
did not separate the deceased from the boat in such
knife which he was carrying in his pocket and
a manner as to give him no time to accomplish his
stabbed Exequiel.
purpose. It was necessary to momentarily

- A light push on the head with the hand does not
Instances when it is not unlawful aggression: constitute unlawful aggression (People v. Sabio).
a) Holding a knife in a threatening manner, as a mere - A mere push or a shove, not followed by other acts,
threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient does not constitute unlawful aggression.
to justify the commission of an act which is
punishable per se; it is necessary that an attack or Case considered unlawful aggression:
material aggresssion shall have been made (US v. - A slap on the face is an unlawful aggression.
Guy-sayco). - Two persons met in the street, one of which slapped
b) Drawing a dagger, o pocket or kitchen knife, hence, the face of the other and the latter repelled it by
the kiiling of the victim is not justified. clubbing him and inflicting upon him less serious
- N.B.: Opening a knife and making a motion physical injury.
as if to attack, however, is an imminent - The Court held that the act of slapping another
unlawful aggression justifying the exercise constituted the use of force qualifying an unlawful
of self-defense. aggression.
c) Drawing a gun [as a general rule] without
manifestation of any aggressive act. Q; Why does slap on the face constitute unlawful
- [Exception]: When picking up a weapon is aggression?
preceded by circumstances indicating the A: Since the face represents a person and his dignity, slapping
intention of the deceased to use it in it is a serious physical attack. It is a physical assault coupled
attacking the accused, such act is with a willful disregard, nay, a defiance, of an individual’s
considered unlawful aggression. Pointing a personality. Therefore, it may be frequently regarded as
gun at the accused with intent to shoot is placing in real danger a person’s dignity, rights and safety.
also an unlawful aggression.
Mere belief of an impending attack –not sufficient; neither is
Mistake of fact and Unlawful Aggression an intimidating or threatening attitude.
● Even if there is no unlawful aggression, if the
accused honestly believed the existence of unlawful Strong retaliation for an injury or threat amounting to
aggression, the court will consider the unlawful unlawful aggression
● When a person who was insulted, slightly injured or
aggression as an element of self-defense as present
threatened, made a strong retaliation by attacking
because of the Ah Chong case or mistake of fact
the one who gave the insult, caused the slight injury
principle.
or made the threat, the former became the offender,
and the insult, injury, or threat should be considered
Example: If the accused honesty believed that police officers,
as a provocation mitigating his liability (US v.
who had entered his house to serve a warrant of arrest, were
Carrero). In this case, there is no self-defense.
bandits, he was entirely justified in making an attempt to expel
them from his premises in defense of his person and home.
Retaliation is not self-defense
Peril to One’s Limb – may also be actual or imminent; includes

Retaliation – to punish in kind the wrongdoer responsible for
peril to the safety of one’s person from physical injuries.
harming someone because they have harmed oneself;
● When a person is attacked, he is in imminent danger
revenge.
of death or bodily harm.
● An attack with fist blows may imperil one’s safety
Difference between retaliation and self-defense
from physical injuries. Such an attack is unlawful
aggression.
Retaliation Self-Defense
Example: The blow with a deadly weapon may be aimed at the
vital parts of his body, in which case there is danger to his life; The aggression that was The aggression was still
begun by the injured party existing when the
or with a less deadly weapon or any other weapon that can
already ceased to exist aggressor was injured or
cause minor physical injuries only, aimed at other parts of the
disabled by the person
body, in which case, there is a danger only to his limb. when the accused attacked
making a defense.
him.
Existence of actual physical force or actual use of weapon –
When a person had inflicted Where a person is about to
the person defending himself must have been attacked with
slight physical injuries on strike another with fist
actual physical force or with actual use of weapon.
another, without intention blows and the latter, to
to inflict other injuries, and prevent or repel the blows,
Cases not considered unlawful aggression: the latter attacked the stabs the former with a
- Insulting words addressed to the accused, no matter former, the one making the knife, the act of striking
how objectionable that may have been, without attack was an unlawful with fist blows is an
physical assault, could not constitute unlawful aggressor. unlawful aggression which
aggression (US v. Carrero). may justify the use of the

will of the judgment debtor personal property with sentimental
knife, which is a reasonable
value to the latter, although other personal property sufficient
means.
to satisfy the claim of the plaintiff was made available to said
sheriff, was an unlawful aggressor and the debtor had a right
Retaliation is not a justifying circumstance— when unlawful to repel the unlawful aggression (People v. Hernandez).
aggression ceases, the defender no longer has the right to kill
or even wound the former aggressor. Factors that belie claim of self-defense:
● Upon the cessation of the unlawful aggression and a) Nature, character, location, and extent of the wound
the danger or risk to life and limb, the necessity for b) Improbability of the deceased being the aggressor
the person invoking self-defense to attack his c) Refusal to give statement with plea of self-defense
adversary ceases. d) Physical fact
● If he persists in attacking his adversary, he can no
longer invoke the justifying circumstance of Refusal to give statement as inconsistent with the plea of
self-defense. self-defense
● Self-defense does not justify the unnecessary killing ● When the accused surrendered to the policeman, he
of an aggressor who is retreating from the fray. declined to give any statement, which is the natural
course of things he would have done if he had acted
Justification of homicide on the ground of self-defense— it merely to defend himself.
is essential that the killing of the deceased by the defendant ● A protestation of innocence or justification is the
be simultaneous with the attack made by the deceased or at logical and spontaneous reaction of innocence or
least both acts succeeded each other without appreciable justification is the logical and spontaneous reaction
interval of time. of a man who finds himself in such an inculpatory
- When the killing of the deceased by the accused was predicament.
after the attack made by the deceased, the accused
must have no time nor occasion for deliberation and When the aggressor flees, unlawful aggression no longer
cool thinking (US v. Ferrer) exists
● When unlawful aggression which has begun no
Case example: People v. Arellano longer exists, because the aggressor runs away, the
- The deceased drew a revolver and leveled it at the one making a defense has no more right to kill or
accused, who, sensing the danger to his life, even wound the former aggressor.
sidestepped and caught the hand of the deceased
with his left, thus, causing the gun to drop to the Retreat to take a more advantageous position
floor. Immediately, the accused drew his knife and ● If it is clear that the purpose of the aggressor in
stabbed the deceased in the abdomen. retreating is to take more advantageous position to
- The weapon falling to the floor could not be taken to insure the success of the attack already begun by
mean that the unlawful aggression on the part of the him, the unlawful aggression is still considered
deceased had ceased. Uppermost in the accused’s continuing, and the one making a defense has a right
mind at the time must have been the fact that his life to pursue him in his retreat and to disable him.
was in danger and that to save himself, he had to do

No unlawful aggression when there is agreement to fight
something to stop the aggression. He had no time
● There is no unlawful aggression in a concerted fight,
nor occasion for deliberation and cool thinking
when there is an agreement to fight and the
because it was imperative for him to act on the spot.
challenge to fight was accepted.
● Rationale is where the fight is agreed upon, each of
Case example: People v. Gutierrez the protagonists is at once assailant and assaulted,
- In order to constitute an element of self-defense, and neither can invoke the right of self-defense,
the unlawful aggression must come, directly or because aggression which is an incident in the fight
indirectly, from the person who was subsequently is bound to arise from one or the other of the
attacked by the accused. combatants.
- The element of unlawful aggression cannot be ● However, when there is mutual agreement to fight,
considered present when the author thereof is an aggression ahead of the stipulated time and
unknown. place would be unlawful, because the offended party
was not prepared to meet an assault at any time,
Case example: People v. Calantoc even before reaching the appointed time and place
- The alleged act of the victim in placing his hand in his for the agreed encounter.
pocket, as if he was going to draw something,
cannot be characterized as unlawful aggression One who voluntarily joined a fight cannot claim
self-defense
Public officer in excess of his authority may become an - Such plea cannot be availed of because no unlawful
unlawful aggressor— a provincial sheriff who, in carrying out a aggression, so to speak, was committed by the
writ of execution, exceeded his authority by taking against the deceased against the appellant.

- The appellant voluntarily joined the fight, when he demand explanation of the perpetrator of that insult,
did not have to; hence, he voluntarily exposed and the one who also struck the first blow when he
himself to the consequences of a fight with his was not satisfied with the explanation offered.
opponents.
- Granting arguendo that the first attack came from
the other side of the fight, yet same cannot be Unlawful aggression in defense of other rights
considered an unlawful or unexpected aggression.
- The first attack which came from either is but an 1) Attempt to rape a woman – defense of right to
incident of the fight. chastity.
● Thus, embracing a woman, touching her
The new rule of “Stand ground when in the right” private parts, throwing her to the ground
● The ancient common law rule in homicide for the purpose of raping her, constitutes
denominated “retreat to the wall,”* has now given an attack upon her honor, and therefore,
way to the new rule. an unlawful aggression.
● Where the accused is where he has the right to be, ● Thus, placing of hand by a man on the
the law does not require him to retreat when his woman’s upper thigh is unlawful
assailant is rapidly advancing him with a deadly aggression.
weapon.
● This applies when a person is unlawfully assaulted 2) Defense of property – provided by Article 429 of the
and the aggressor is armed with a weapon. Under Civil Code, where the lawful possessor of a thing
which, the assailed may face his aggressor and is may use force as may be reasonably necessary to
not required to take refuge in the fight. repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful
physical invasion or usurpation of his property.
Reason for the rule: If one flees from an aggressor, he runs
the risk of being attacked in the back by the aggressor. 3) Defense of home – when a person is attacked in his
own house, he has a right to protect it, and those
Case example: US v. Domen within it, from the intrusion or attack.
- The deceased struck the acccused 4-5 ● He may repel force by force in defense of
times with a piece of wood, but the person, habitation, or property against one
accused did not retreat but struck back who manifestly intends or endeavors by
wounding the deceased on the forehead.It violence or surprise to commit a felony,
was held that the accused had reasonable such as arson.
grounds to believe that the deceased ● In such case, one is not obliged to retreat,
intended to take his life. but may pursue his adversary until he has
- He was entitled to stand his ground and secured himself from danger.
meet any attack made upon him with a
deadly weapon with such force necessary Threat to inflict real injury as unlawful aggression
to save his own life. ● To consider that unlawful aggression was actually
committed, it is necessary that an attack or material
N.B.: Standing ground when in the right rule should aggression, an offensive act positively determining
be distinguished from voluntarily facing a fight. the intent of the aggressor to cause an injury shall
Thus, when accused came out of the house to face have been made.
the challenge made by the victim, he is not standing ● A mere threatening or intimidating attitude, not
his ground but tacitly accepting the challenge; preceded by an outward and material aggression, is
hence, the accused cannot successfully plea not unlawful aggression, because it is required that
self-defense since mutual aggression could not be the act be offensive and positively strong, showing
the basis of such. the wrongful intent of the aggressor to cause an
injury.
*Retreat to the wall rule makes it the duty of a person assailed to
retreat as far as he can before he is justified in meeting force
with force. Examples of threats to inflict real injury
a) When one aims a revolver at another, with the
Exception to the rule of stand ground when in the right: If intention of shooting him.
the accused has the opportunity to safely escape or run away, b) The act of a person in retreating two steps and
accused should retreat to the wall or give ground. placing his hand in his pocket with a motion
indicating his purpose to commit an assault with a
Test in determining the unlawful aggressor
weapon.
● In the absence of direct evidence to determine who
c) The act of opening a knife, and making a motion as it
provoked the conflict, in the nature of the order of
to make an attack.
things, the person who was deeply offended by the
insult was the one who believed he had a right to
Case example: People v. Javier

- When intent to attack is manifest, picking up a employed depend upon the circumstances of the
weapon is sufficient unlawful aggression. case.
- When the picking up of a weapon is preceded by ● However, absent any unlawful aggression, or when it
circumstances indicating the intention of the has ceased to exist, there would be no necessity for
deceased to use it in attacking the defendant, such any course of action to take as there is nothing to
act is considered unlawful aggression. prevent or repel.
Aggression must be real, not merely imaginary Necessity of the course of action taken
● Mere imagination of a possible aggression is not
tenable. Control of the blow
● The aggression, if not real, must be at least ● The person defending is not expected to control
imminent. his blow, as he is not expected to think clearly.
● The killing of the unlawful aggressor may still be
Second requisite: Reasonable Means justified as long as the mortal wounds are inflicted at
● In self-defense, there must be a reasonable a time when the elements of complete self-defense
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel are still present.
the unlawful aggression. ● The law does not require that he should mete out his
● When we are attacked, the danger to our life or limb blows in such manner that upon a calm and
is either imminent or actual. In making a defense, we deliberate review of the incident, it will not appear
prevent the aggression that places us in imminent that he exceeded the precise limits of what was
danger or repel the aggression that places us in absolutely necessary to put his antagonist hors de
actual danger. combat, or that he struck one blow more than was
● A threat to inflict real injury places us in imminent absolutely necessary to save his own life.
danger; an actual physical assault places us in ● Under circumstances, an accused cannot be
actual danger expected to reflect coolly nor wait after each blow to
● The law protects not only the person who repels an determine the effects thereof.
aggression (meaning actual), but even the person ● However, in repelling or preventing an unlawful
who tries to prevent an aggression that is expected aggression, the one defending must aim at his
(meaning imminent). assailant, and not indiscriminately fire his deadly
weapon. Although the defender had a perfect and
Elements of reasonable necessity – both must be lawful right to defend himself, indiscriminately firing
reasonable, and depends on the existence of unlawful his weapon at the risk of the lives and limbs of
aggression and upon the nature and extent of the aggression: innocent persons would not render his defense
1) There be a necessity of the course of action taken by justified.
the person making a defense.
2) There be a necessity of the means used. Necessity of the means used
● The means employed by the person making a
First element— depends on the existence of unlawful defense must be rationally necessary to prevent or
aggression, where of there is no unlawful aggression or it had repel an unlawful aggression.
ceased to exist, there is no necessity to take a course of
action for there is nothing to prevent or repel. Factors on which the reasonable means employed depend
on
a) Nature and quality of the weapon used by the
Second element— depends on the nature and quality of
aggressor.
weapons, the physical condition and size of the aggressor and
the person defending himself.
Limitations to use of weapons not commensurate
with the one used by aggressor:
Reasonableness depends on the circumstances
1) There was no other available means
● The person attacked is not duty-bound to expose
2) If there was other means, the one making a
himself to be wounded or killed, and while the
defense could not coolly choose the less
danger to his person or life subsists, he has a perfect
deadly weapon to repel the aggression
and indisputable right to repel such danger by
wounding his adversary, and if necessary, to disable
Scenarios of one weapon against another:
him completely so that he may not continue the
1) Knife or dagger against a club
assault.
2) Firearm against a dagger or knife
● In emergencies where the person or life of another is
3) Pocket knife against a cane
imperiled, human nature does not act upon
4) Gun against a bolo
processes of formal reason, but in obedience to the
5) Bolo or knife against a stick
instinct of self-preservation.
6) Fist blows; when a person is attacked with
● The reasonableness of the necessity to take a
fist blows, he must repel the same with the
course of action and of the necessity of the means

weapon that nature gave him, i.e., with aggression by his unjust conduct or by inciting or
fists also. However, this only applies when provoking the assailant.
the aggressor and defender are of the ● This rule is also a safeguard against a criminal, who
same size and strength intends to misuse the benefit of self-defense, where
to implement his criminal design with impunity, he
b) The aggressor’s physical condition, character, will provoke first his intended victim to do an
size, and other circumstances, as well as those of aggressive act before killing him.
the defender.
c) The place and occasion of the assault. Provocation – any immoral act or conduct, unjustified act or
conduct which stirs a person to do wrong
Test of Reasonableness
● Perfect equality between the weapon used by the Reason: When the person defending himself from the attack
one defending himself and that of the aggressor is by another gave sufficient provocation to the latter, the former
not required, because the person assaulted does is also to be blamed for having given cause for the aggression.
not have sufficient tranquility of mind to think, to Hence, the one defending himself must not have given cause
calculate, and to choose which weapon to use. for the aggression by his unjust conduct or by inciting or
● Reasonable necessity of the means employed does provoking the assailant.
not imply material commensurability between the
means of attack and defense. Instances where the requisite is present:
● What the law requires is rational equivalence. a) When no provocation at all was given to the
aggressor by the person defending himself.
Doctrine of Rational Equivalence – plea of self-defense b) Even if a provocation was given, it was not sufficient.
would prosper if there is a rational equivalence between the c) Even if the provocation was sufficient, it was not
means of attack by the unlawful aggressor and the means of given by the person defending himself.
defense by the accused that would characterize the defense d) Even if a provocation was given by the person
as reasonable. defending himself, it was not proximate and
● Presupposes the consideration not only of the immediate to the act of aggression.
nature and quality of the weapons used by the
defender and the assailant but also of the totality of When is there provocation?
circumstances surrounding the defense in regard to ● When it is given, sufficient, given directly by the
unlawful aggression. defender, and proximate and immediate to the act
of aggression.
Principal factors of rational equivalence
a) The imminent danger to which the person is
exposed. Test of sufficiency of provocation
b) The instinct, more than reason, that moves or impels ● It should be proportionate to the act of aggression
the defense. and adequate to stir the aggressor to its
c) The proportionateness thereof does not depend commission.
upon the harm done, but rests upon the imminent ● To engage in verbal argument cannot be considered
danger of such injury. sufficient provocation.
● It is not necessary that the one who gave
Rule regarding the reasonableness of the necessity of the provocation is guilty of using violence, thus
means employed when the defender is a peace officer becoming an unlawful aggressor.
● The peace officer, in the performance of his duty,
represents the law which he must uphold. Scenarios where provocation is sufficient, thereby rendering
● While the law on self-defense allows a private the act unjustifiable:
individual to prevent or repel an aggression, the duty a) When one challenges the deceased to come out of
of a peace officer requires him to overcome his the house and engage in a fist fight with him and
opponent. prove who is the better man.
● A police officer is not required to afford a person b) When one hurls insults or imputes to another the
attacking him, the opportunity for a fair and equal utterance of vulgar language, as when the accused
struggle. and his brothers imputed to the deceased, the
utterance of vulgar language against them, which
Third requisite: Lack of Sufficient Provocation imputation provoked the deceased to attack them.
● In self-defense, there must be a lack of sufficient c) When the accused tried to forcibly kiss the sister of
provocation on the part of the person defending the deceased. The accused thereby gave sufficient
himself. provocation to the deceased to attack him. There is
● To be entitled to the benefit of the justifying no complete self-defense, because the third
circumstance of self-defense, the one defending requisite is not present.
himself must not have given cause for the

Requisite of lack of sufficient provocation refers
exclusively to the defender
● If the accused appears to be the aggressor, it cannot Defense of Person Defense of Right
be said that he was defending himself from the

Defense against unlawful Defense against unlawful
effect of another’s aggression.
aggression, which is aggression which is
● If provocation proven was not given by the defender, constitutive of crime constitutive of a crime
but of another person, then the requisite of lack of against person (e.g., involving the right of the
sufficient provocation is present. homicide or murder, rape) or defender such as theft,
any other crime involving acts of lasciviousness, or
Provocation by the defender not proximate and immediate violence against person libel.
to the aggression (e.g., direct assault,
● If A slapped B one or two days before B attacked the kidnapping, robbery).
former, the provocation given by A should be

disregarded, because it was not proximate and Defense of honor – crimes such as rape, slander by deed and
immediate to the aggression made by B. libel violate the honor of a person.
● In US v. Laurel, the kissing of the girlfriend of the ● In such cases, one whose honor is at stake may use
aggressor was a sufficient provocation to the latter, reasonable means to prevent or repel unlawful
but since the kissing took place on December 26, aggression against honor.
and the aggression was made on December 28, the ● If the act injurious to one’s honor is not a crime, the
provocation was disregarded by the Court. same could not be considered as unlawful
aggression to justify infliction of injuries in defense
Application of all three requisites under Self-Defense of honor.
Case example: People v. Boholst-Caballero

Example: The refusal of the victim to comply with his promise
- Cunigunda Boholst and Francisco Caballero were
to marry the accused with resultant embarrassment to the
married but separated eventually. While walking on
latter and injury to her honor is not constitutive of unlawful
the road, Francisco met his wife unexpectedly and
aggression which would justify the act od inflicting injury.
reacted angrily, and suspecting that she was out for
Furthermore, hurting the victim would not regain her honor,
some bad purpose, held her by the collar of her dress
which was ruined due to such refusal to marry.
and said: “Where have you been prostituting? You
are a son of a bitch!” This was followed by a slapping
Defense of property right – Article 429, NCC provides that:
on the face until Cunigunda’s nose bled, pulling off
her hair, pushing her down to the ground, and “The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to
strangling her. exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For
- Because she had no other recourse as she was this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably
necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful
being choked, she pulled out the knife of her physical invasion or usurpation of his property.”
husband and thrust it at him, killing him. Cunigunda
was charged with parricide ● This rule is called self-help principle.
- All the elements of self-defense are present in this ● A defender may employ reasonable and necessary
case: means to prevent or repel unlawful aggression
against his property right pursuant to the rule on
a) Unlawful aggression – the deceased husband was self-defense.
kneeling over her as she lay on her back on the
ground and his hand was choking her neck. Old rule: Invasion of property must be accompanied with an
b) Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent attack against the owner or lawful possessor thereof to be
or repel it – a woman being strangled and choked by considered as an unlawful aggression.
a furious aggressor and rendered almost
unconscious by the strong pressure on her throat Present rule: Invasion of property is an unlawful aggression
had no other recourse but to get hold of any weapon although it is not accompanied with an attack against the
within her reach and try to save herself from owner or lawful possessor thereof.
impending death.
c) Lack of sufficient provocation – she did not give Battered Woman Syndrome as a Defense
sufficient provocation to warrant the aggression or
attack on her person. The husband was not justified SECTION 26, R.A. 9262. Battered Women Syndrome as a Defense. —
Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered
in inflicting bodily punishment with an intent to kill by
woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding
choking his wife. All she did was to provoke an the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of
imaginary commission of a wrong in the mind of her self-defense under the Revised Penal Code. In the determination of the state
husband, which is not sufficient provocation under of mind of the woman who was suffering from battered woman syndrome at
the time of the commission of the crime, the courts shall be assisted by
the law of self-defense.
expert psychiatrists/psychologists.
Two Kinds of Defense in Article 11, par. 1 (Self-defense)

● As provided by the provision above, battered woman - Exhausted from the persistent stress, the battered
syndrome is a defense notwithstanding the absence woman soon withdraws emotionally. But the more
of any of the elements for justifying circumstances she becomes emotionally unavailable, the more the
of self-defense under the RPC such as unlawful batterer becomes angry, oppressive and abusive.
aggression. - Often, at some unpredictable point, the violence
● It refers to a scientifically defined pattern of "spirals out of control" and leads to an acute
psychological and behavioral symptoms found in battering incident.
women living in battering relationships as a result of
cumulative abuse. 2) Acute battering incident – characterized by
brutality, destructiveness and, sometimes, death.
Who is a battered woman? - The battered woman deems this incident as
● A woman who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful unpredictable, yet also inevitable.
physical or psychological behavior by a man in order - During this phase, she has no control; only the
to coerce her to do something he wants her to do batterer may put an end to the violence. Its nature
without concern for her rights. reasons for ending it.
● To be classified as one, the couple must go through - The battered woman usually realizes that she
● the battering cycle at least twice. Any woman may cannot reason with him, and that resistance would
find herself in an abusive relationship with a man only exacerbate her condition.
once. If it occurs a second time, and she remains in - She has a sense of detachment from the attack and
the situation, she is defined as a battered woman. terrible pain, although she may later clearly
remember every detail.
Battery – an act of inflicting physical harm upon the woman of - Her apparent passivity in the face of acute violence
her child resulting to physical and psychological or emotional may be rationalized thus: the batterer is almost
distress. always much stronger physically, and she knows
from her past painful experience that it is futile to
Elements of battered woman syndrome fight back.
1) Battering husband, with whom the battered wife has - These incidents are often very savage and out of
a marital, sexual, or dating relationship inflicted control, such that innocent bystanders of
physical harm upon her. intervenors are likely to get hurt.
2) Infliction of physical harm must be cumulative.
3) Cumulative abuse results to physical and 3) Tranquil, loving (nonviolent) phase – begins when
psychological or emotional distress to the woman. the acute battering ends, where the couple
experiences profound relief.
Cumulative abuse — ‘cumulative’ means resulting from - On one hand, the batterer may show a tender and
successive addition; thus, single act of battery or physical nurturing behavior towards his partner. He knows
harm resulting to physical and psychological or emotional that he has been viciously cruel and tries to make up
distress is not sufficient to avail of the benefit of justifying for it, begging for her forgiveness and promising
circumstance of battered woman syndrome. never to beat her again.
- On the other hand, the battered woman also tries to
Cycle of Violence convince herself that the battery will never happen
1) Tension-building phase – minor battering occurs, again; that her partner will change for the better;
verbal or slight physical abuse or another form of and that this ‘good, gentle, and caring man’ is the
hostile behavior. real person whom she loves.
- The woman usually tries to pacify the batterer - The chances of his reforming, or seeking or receiving
through a show of kind, nurturing behavior; or by professional help, are very slim, especially if she
simply staying out of his way. remains with him. Generally, only after she leaves
- She allows herself to be abused in ways that, to her, him does he seek professional help as a way of
are comparatively minor. All she wants is to prevent getting her back.
the escalation of the violence exhibited by the - It is in this phase of remorseful reconciliation that
batterer. she is most thoroughly tormented psychologically.
- However, this wish proves to be double-edged - The illusion of absolute interdependency is
because her ‘placatory’ and passive behavior well-entrenched in a battered woman's psyche. She
legitimizes his belief that he has the right to abuse and her batterer, are indeed emotionally dependent
her in the first place. on each other—she for his nurturant behavior, he for
- The techniques adopted by the woman in her effort her forgiveness.
to placate him are not usually successful, and the
verbal and/or physical abuse worsens. Defense of Relatives
- Each partner senses the imminent loss of control
and the growing tension and despair.

Article 11, Paragraph 2. — Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights
But when the sons of A came, what they saw was that their
of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural, or adopted father was lying in the mud wounded. They believed in good
brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those faith that their father was the victim of an unlawful aggression.
by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and
second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present,
If they killed B under such circumstances, they are justified
and the further requisite, in case the provocation was given by the person because there was a mistake of fact on the part of the sons of
attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein. A.
Relatives that can be defended Case example: Oblinar v. CA

a) Spouse - Romeo and Fernando attacked accused’s husband,
b) Ascendants (e.g., father, grandmother) Emiliano Olbinar. Accused did not see the
c) Descendants (e.g., son, grandson) commencement of the assault on her husband, and
d) Legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sisters had no way of knowing if her husband had given
e) Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil sufficient provocation therefor. All that she saw, on
degree responding to her husband’s cry for help, was that he
was on the ground, there was blood on his person,
Relatives by affinity [in the same degrees]– consequence of and two men were boxing and kicking him.
marriage, would refer to the parents in law, son or daughter in - After she tried vainly to get the men to stop beating
law, and brother or sister in law. her husband, she got a bolo to strike the aggressors.
● The relationship by affinity created between the Accused was charged with serious physical injuries.
surviving spouse and the blood relatives of the - Under the circumstances, she obviously felt the
deceased spouse survives the death of either party compelling urgency for swift action to stop the
to the marriage which created the affinity. assault on her husband, and there was nothing else
she could do towards this end except to try to hit out
Relatives by consanguinity – up until the fourth civil degree, at his attackers. The Court is therefore satisfied that
therefore including: Procerfina acted in justifiable defense of her
a) First degree – parents husband.
b) Second degree – brothers and sisters
c) Third degree – uncle and niece or aunt and nephew Second requisite: Reasonable means
d) Fourth civil degree – first cousins ● Gauge of reasonable necessity of the means
employed to repel the aggression is to be found in
*Anyone not considered as relative within the concept of defense of relative is a the situation as it appears to the person repelling
stranger.
the aggression.
● The reasonableness of the means adopted is not
Basis of justification– Founded not only upon a humanitarian
one of mathematical calculation or material
sentiment, but also upon the impulse of blood which impels
commensurability between the means of attack and
men to rush, on the occasion of great perils, to the rescue of
defense, but the imminent danger against the
those close to them by ties of blood.
subject of the attack as perceived by the defender
Requisites of defense of relatives and the instinct more than reason that moves the
1) Unlawful aggression defender to repel the attack.
2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it Third requisite of defense of relative: Accused must have
3) In case the provocation was given by the person no part in the provocation.
attacked, the one making a defense had no part ● The clause “in case the provocation was given by the
therein person attacked,” does not mean that the relative
defended should give provocation to the aggressor;
First requisite: Unlawful Aggression that clause merely states an event which may or may
a) When two persons are getting ready to strike each not take place.
other, there can be no unlawful aggression ● There is still a legitimate defense of a relative even if
b) If the accused appears to be the aggressor, he the relative being defended has given provocation,
cannot invoke the defense of having acted in provided that the one defending such relative has no
defense of a relative part in the provocation.
c) Unlawful aggression need not exist as a matter of ● The reason for such rule is that although the
fact, but can be made to depend upon the honest provocation prejudices the person who gave it, its
belief of the one making a defense effects do not reach the defender who took no part
therein, because the latter was prompted by some
Example: A attacked B and wounded B with a dagger, but B noble or generous sentiment in protecting and
defended himself and struck B with a bolo and as a result, A saving a relative.
was seriously wounded and fell in the mud with B standing in ● The fact that the relative defended gave provocation
front of A in a position as if to strike again in case A would is immaterial; but if the defender had induced his
stand up. There is no doubt that A was the unlawful aggressor. relative, thereby partaking in provocation, his act

would not be completely justified because the third
In case the relative of the It is required that the
requisite would be lacking.
accused sufficiently accused is not induced by
● Even if the person defending his relative was also provokes the aggressor in revenge, resentment, or
induced by revenge or hatred, there is still a committing unlawful other evil motive in
legitimate defense as long as the three requisites aggression, the accused defending a stranger from
are present. must have no part in such the unlawful aggression.
provocation.
Case examples of defense of relatives
In case the stranger sufficiently provokes the aggressor in
a) People v. Ammalun – the accused, at a distance of
committing unlawful aggression, and the accused have a
about 20 brazas from his house, heard his wife part in such provocation, justifying circumstance of
shouting for help. Once home, he saw the deceased defense of stranger cannot be invoked.
on top of his wife, so he drew his bolo and hacked
the deceased at the base of his neck when the latter
Stranger – any person not included in the enumeration of
was forcibly abusing his wife.
relatives mentioned in par. 2 of Article 11. Even a close friend or
b) US v. Rivera – Domingo Rivera challenged the
relative is a stranger within the meaning of paragraph 3.
deceased to prove who of them was the better man.
When the deceased picked up a bolo and went after The person defending “be not induced”
him, Domingo Rivera took to flight. The deceased ● This means that even if a person has a standing
pursued him, and upon overtaking him, inflicted two grudge against the assailant if he enters upon the
wounds. Antonio, father of Domingo, rushed to his defense of a stranger out of generous motive to
son’s assistance and struck with a cane the bolo save the stranger from serious bodily harm or
from the hands of the deceased. Domingo inflicted possible death, the third requisite of defense of
fatal wounds upon the deceased. While the son was stranger still exists.
originally at fault for giving provocation to the ● The third requisite would be lacking if such person
deceased, yet the father was justified in disarming was prompted by his grudge against the assailant,
the deceased, having acted in lawful defense of his because the alleged defense of the stranger would
son. But Domingo was declared guilty of the crime of be only a pretext.
homicide.
Case example: People v. Cabellon and Gaviola
Defense of Stranger - In defending his wife’s brother-in-law, the accused
acted also from an impulse of resentment against
the deceased; thus, the third requisite of defense of
Article 11, Paragraph 3. — Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights
of a stranger, provided that the first and second requisites mentioned in the
stranger is not present.
first circumstance of this article are present and that the person defending be
not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive. Case examples of defense of stranger:
1) A was able to deprive B, a constabulary lieutenant, of
Requisites of defense of stranger his pistol during the fray. B ordered C, a constabulary
1) Unlawful aggression soldier under his command, to search A for the
2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to pistol. When C was about to approach A to search
prevent or repel it him, the latter stepped back and shot at C who was
3) The person defending be not induced by revenge, able to avoid the shot. When A was about to fire
resentment, or other evil motive again at C, D (another constabulary soldier) fired at
A with his rifle which killed him, which was justified
Basis of defense of stranger: what one may do in his having acted in defense of stranger (People v.
defense, another may do for him. The ordinary man would not Ancheta, et al.).
stand idly by and see his companion killed without attempting 2) A heard screams and cries for help. When A
to save his life. responded, he saw B attacking his (B’s) wife with a
dagger. A approached B and struggled for the
Third requisite of defense of stranger: Disinterested or possession of the weapon, in the course of which A
generous motive inflicted wounds on B. A acted in defense of stranger
● The Code requires that the defense of a stranger be (People v. Valdez).
actuated by a disinterested or generous motive, 3) Furnishing a weapon to one in serious danger of
when it puts down “revenge, resentment, or other being throttled is defense of stranger, where a
evil motive” as illegitimate. Japanese hit an old man, 78 years of age, on the
face, shoved him to the ground and attempted to
Difference between the third requisite of defense relative and choke him. The accused furnished the old man with
that of defense of stranger a small gaff, used by game cocks, with which the old
man killed his assailant. The accused was justified in
Defense of Relative Defense of Stranger furnishing the old man with the gaff, it being in
defense of stranger (US v. Subingsubing).

A: NO. The instinct of self-preservation will always
Admission by the accused— additional admission by accused make one feel that his own safety is of greater
that he was spurred by anger into hacking victim several times importance than that of another.
militates against the necessity of deliberating on the third
requisite of defense of stranger. 2(b): If the driver drove at full speed, disregarding the
condition of the place, and although he saw the truck at a
Avoidance of Greater Evil or Injury distance 500 meters away, he did not slacked his speed, he
cannot invoke par. 4 of the Article because it was brought
(State of Necessity)
about by his own reckless imprudence.
Article 11, Paragraph 4. — Any person who, in order to avoid an evil injury, does Example 3: The killing of the fetus to save the life of the mother
an act which causes damage to another, provided that the following requisite
are present:
may be held excusable
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; Example 4: X was raped by three black Americans. Out of
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.
extreme shame and after three months, X went to Dr. Yes and
asked for an abortion. Dr. Yes steadfastly refused until X
produced a bottle of iodine and informed him that if he would
“Damage to another” – covers injury to persons and damage not abort her baby, she would commit suicide. Dr. Yes
to property. performed an abortion on X, which was successful. Dr Yes is
not exempt from criminal liability. Suicide, which is sought to
Case example: People v. Norma Hernandez
be avoided, is not an evil greater than abortion. Moreover, the
- The Court applied par. 4 of Article 11 in a crime
threat to commit suicide is not imminent. In sum, evil sought to
against honor, where the accused who was about to
be avoided does not exist.
be married to the offended party eloped with
another man, after the offended party had made
Example 5: X armed with a weapon attacked A. B drew his gun
preparations for the wedding, the Court holding that
to defend A. But the accused prevented B from shooting X, and
there was a necessity on the part of the accused of
grappled with him for possession of the gun. A died. The
avoiding a loveless marriage with the man whom she
accused cannot invoke a state of necessity as a defense. The
loved were justified and did not amount to the crime
act of B in defending A is lawful, hence the lawful act is not an
of slander by deed.
evil that can be sought to be avoided.
“The evil sought to be avoided actually exists” – the evil

Example 6: Mercy killing is condemned by law although the
must actually exist; If the evil sought to be is merely expected
motive may be to spare a hopeless patient from prolonged
or anticipated or may happen in the future, par. 4 is not
suffering. The killing could not be justified as avoidance of
applicable.
greater evil, since ending the life of the patient is an evil
● The greater evil should not be brought about by the
greater than his physical sufferings.
negligence or imprudence of the actor.
● The evil which brought about by the greater evil Examples of damage to property under par. 4:
must not result from a violation of law by the actor. a) Fire breaks out in a cluster of nipa houses, and in
order to prevent its spread to adjacent houses of
Examples of injury to person under par. 4: strong materials, the surrounding nipa houses are
pulled down.
Example 1: An escaped convict who has to steal clothes in b) Where a truck of the Sandard Vcuum Oil Co
order to move about unrecognized, does not act from delivering gas at a gasoline station caught fire, and
necessity. He is liable for theft of the clothes to prevent the burning of the station, the truck was
driven to the middle of the street and there
Example 2(a): A person was driving his car on a narrow road abandoned, but it continued to move and crashed
with due diligence and care when suddenly, he saw a against and burned a house. The owner of the house
six-by-six truck in front of his car. If he would serve his car to had a cause of action against the owner of the gas
the left, he would fall into a precipice, or if he would swerve it station under par. 2 of Article 101, in relation to par. 4
to the right, he would kill a passerby. He was forced to choose of Article 11.
between losing his life in the precipice, or sacrificing the life of c) During the storm, the ship which was heavily loaded
an innocent bystander. He chose the latter, swerve his car to with goods was in danger of sinking. The captain of
the right, ran over and killed the passerby. the vessel ordered part of the goods thrown
overboard. In this case, the captain is not criminally
Q: Does this violate the second condition required liable for causing part of the goods to be thrown
by the Code (i.e., injury feared be greater than overboard.
that done to avoid it)?
Civil liability under this paragraph

General rule: No civil liability in justifying circumstances. - If a detained prisoner under the custody of the
accused, a policeman detailed to guard him, by
Exception: There is civil liability in par. 4 of Article 11. means of force and violence, was able to leave the
- But, the civil liability is borne by the persons cell and actually attempted to escape,
benefited. notwithstanding the warnings given by the accused
- The persons for whose benefit the harm has been not to do so, and was shot by the accused, the latter
prevented, shall be civilly liable in proportion to the is entitled to acquittal (People v. Bisa).
benefit which they may have received. - Four members of police force went after him as soon
as the detention prisoner had escaped. When the
Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful Exercise escaping detainee saw one of the policemen, he
of Right or Office lunged at the latter, hitting him with a stone on the
right cheek, as a consequence of which he fell down,
and while in that position, he was again struck with a
Article 11, Paragraph 5. — Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in
the lawful exercise of a right or office. stone by the escaping detainee. The latter ran away
pursued by the policeman and his companions; in
the course of the pursuit, the policeman fired a
Requisites of defense in the fulfillment of duty
1) The accused acted in the performance of a duty or in warning shot into the aur, but the escaping detainee
the lawful exercise of a right or office. paid no heed. The policemen fired into the air four
2) The injury caused or the offense committed be the times and kept on pursuing him. Fearing that
necessary consequence of the due performance of detainee might finally be able to elude the arrest,
duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office. the policeman fired directly at him while he was in
the act of jumping again into another part of the
Case example: People v. Oanis creek, the shot having hit him on the back (Valcorza
- Oanis and Galanta were given instructions to v. People).
capture Balagtas, a notorious criminal and escaped
convict, and if overpowered, to get him dead or alive. General rules for defense in fulfillment of a duty
They went into a room and shot a man sleeping with a) Shooting of a prisoner by guard must be in
his back towards the door, without first making any self-defense, or be absolutely necessary to avoid his
reasonable inquiry as to his identity. The victim escape.
turned out to be an innocent man. b) Shooting an offender who refused to surrender is
- Though the first requisite is present (acting in the justified; the reason is that it is the duty of peace
performance of duty), the second requisite is not officers to arrest violators of the law not only when
because, through impatience, over-anxiety, or in they are provided with the corresponding warrant of
their desire to take no chances, the accused arrest but also when they are not provided with said
exceeded in the fulfillment of their duty when they warrant if the violation is committed in their own
killed a sleeping person whom they believed to be presence; and this duty extends even to cases the
the wanted criminal without making any previous purpose of which is merely to prevent a crime about
inquiry as to his identity. to be consummated.

c) Although an officer is justified in using force as is
Fulfillment of a duty – one who acts in fulfillment of duty reasonably necessary to secure and detain the
incurs no criminal liability. offender, overcome his resistance, prevent his

escape, recapture him if he escapes, and protect
Case example: People v. Felipe Delima himself from bodily harm, yet he is never justified in
- Napilon escaped from jail but was found in the house using unnecessary force or in treating him with
of Alegria by policeman Delima. The fugitive was wanton violence, or in resorting to dangerous means
armed with a pointed piece of bamboo with the when the arrest could be effected otherwise.
shape of a lance, and did not surrender. The
policeman fired his revolver to impose authority, but Case where there is a legitimate performance of duty (People
v. Cabrera)
the bullet did not hit him. The criminal ran away,
- When the victim, without apparent reason, but
without parting with his weapon. The police officer
probably due to drunkenness, fired his gun several
fired his revolver again, this time hitting him and
times at the Alta Vista Club, the accused and his
killing the fugitive.
partner had to intervene for they were with the NBI.
- The killing was done in the performance of a duty.
They would have been remiss in their duty if they did
The deceased was under the obligation to surrender,
not. It must be pursuant to law when he tried to
and had no right, after evading service of his
discharge his duty as an NBI agent and that the kiling
sentence, to commit assault and disobedience with
of the victim was justified under the circumstances,
a weapon in his hand, which compelled the
which was true for the accused.
policeman to resort to such an extreme means.
Cases where the ruling in the Delima case were applied:

Case where there is an illegal performance of duty (People v. a) Delima case – there would be no self-defense
Tan) because there is no unlawful aggression.
- The defense of fulfillment of a duty does not avail. b) Bisa case – the one pointing the gun at another
- The attitude adopted by the deceased in putting his would be committing a felony.
hands in his pocket is not sufficient to justify the
accused to shoot him. The deceased was unarmed Difference between duty of police officers and military duty
and the accused could have first warned him, as the
latter was coming towards him, to stop where he
Duty of police officers Military duty
was, raise his hands, or do the things a policeman is
trained to do, instead of mercilessly shooting him
To arrest ordinary criminals To search and destroy
upon a mere suspicion that the deceased was in accordance with the enemies of the country in
armed. flagrante delicto rule, hot times of war or rebels.
- The Court finds the requisites absent in this case. pursuit rule or fugitive rule,
Appellant was not in the performance of his duties at and to use reasonable force Main objective of the
the time of the shooting for the reason that the girls in the performance thereof. members of the AFP is to
pursue, annihilate, and
he was attempting to arrest were not committing any
destroy enemies of the
act of prostitution in his presence. If at all, the only
state, and they may use the
person he was authorized to arrest during that time element of surprise in doing
was Roberto Reyes, who offered him the services of so.
a prostitute, for acts of vagrancy.
Lawful Exercise of Right or Office – one who acts in the
exercise of right or office incurs no criminal liability.
Summary execution of murder is not part of the duty of
police officers
1) Exercise of right
- The victim owned the jeep used by one of the
● If in protecting his possession of the property, he
accused in dumping the body of a murdered person.
injured the one trying to get it from him, he is
Three days prior to the fatal killing, the victim was
justified under this paragraph, by virtue of Article
warned from making an incriminatory statement
429 of the Civil Code.
against the accused.
● It is not necessary that there be unlawful aggression
- The principal intention of the accused as police
against the person charged with the protection of
officers was to kill the victim rather than to perform
the property. If there is unlawful aggression against
their duty to serve the search warrant against him.
the person charged with the protection of the
The accused, who cold-bloodedly killed the victim,
property, then par. 1 of Article 11 applies, it being a
are not entitled to the benefit of justifying
defense to property.
circumstance of performance of duty.
Actual invasion of property may consist of a mere

Case example: People v. Bisa
disturbance of possession or of a real dispossession
- The guard leveled his gun at the escaping prisoner
a) Mere disturbance of possession – Force may be
and the prisoner grabbed the muzzle of the gun and,
used against it at any time as long as it continues,
in the struggle for the possession of the gun, the
even beyond the prescriptive period for an action of
guard jerked away the gun from the hold of the
forcible entry.
prisoner, causing the latter to be thrown halfway
b) Invasion consists of a real dispossession – Force to
around, and because of the force of the pull, the
regain possession can be used only immediately
guard’s finger squeezed the trigger, causing it to fire,
after the dispossession.
hitting and killing the prisoner. The guard was acting
c) Property is immovable – There should be no delay in
in the fulfillment of duty.
the use of force to recover it; a delay, even if
excusable, such as when due to the ignorance of the
Difference between fulfillment of duty to prevent escape and
self-defense dispossession, will bar the right to the use of force.
Once the usurper’s possession has become firm by
the lapse of time, the lawful possessor must resort
Fulfillment of duty to Self-defense to the competent authority to recover his property.
prevent escape
2) Exercise of office
The public officer acting the The element of unlawful
fulfillment of a duty may aggression is a sine qua non ● Office is a right, and its correspondent duty, to
appear to be an aggressor, requisite. exercise a public trust.
but his aggression is not ● An assigned duty or function.
unlawful, it being necessary
to fulfill his duty. Example: A surgeon who amputated the leg of a
patient to save him from gangrene is not liable for
Differences exhibited in the following cases, where the the crime of mutilation because he was acting in the
accused was a private person: lawful exercise of his office.

Exception: If the illegality of the order is not patent and the
Example: The executioner of Bilibid Prison cannot be accused honestly believed that the order was issued for a
held liable for murder for the execution performed by lawful purpose, an act done in obedience to said order is
him because he was merely acting in the lawful justified under the principle ignorantia facti excusat
exercise of his office. (ignorance of fact is an excuse).
Case example: Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan

Obedience of Lawful Order
- Former President Marcos instructed the accused,
General Manager of the Manila International Airport
Article 11, Paragraph 6. — Any person who act in obedience to an order issued Authority to pay directly to the president’s office and
by a superior for some lawful purpose.
in cash what the MIA owes the Philippine National
Construction Corporation (PNCC). Tabuena also
Requisites of obedience to an order received a Presidential Memorandum reiterating
1) Order has been issued by a superior such verbal instruction. In obedience to President
2) Such order must be for some lawful purpose Marcos’ verbal instruction, the accused caused the
3) Means used by the subordinate to carry out said release of PhP 55 Million of MIAA funds in favor of
order is lawful PNCC.
- Accused is entitled to the justifying circumstance of
● Both the person who gives the order and the person obedience to a lawful order. Marcos had a say in
who executes it, must be acting within the matters involving inter-government agency affairs
limitations prescribed by law. and transactions. Additionally, as a recipient of such
kind of directive coming from the highest official of
Example of absence of third requisite: the land no less, good faith should be read on the
- The court ordered that the convict should be accused’s compliance, without hesitation nor any
executed on a certain date. The executioner put him question, with the Marcos Memorandum.
to death on a day earlier than the date fixed by the
court.
Exempting Circumstances
- The execution of the convict, although by virtue of a
lawful order of the court, was carried out against the
provision of Article 82. ARTICLE 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. — The
following are exempt from criminal liability:
- The executioner is guilty of murder.
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during
a lucid interval
When the order is not for a lawful purpose, the subordinate
who obeyed it is criminally liable When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act
which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his
a) One who prepared a falsified document with full
confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for
knowledge of its falsity is not excused even if he persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave
merely acted in obedience to the instruction of his without first obtaining the permission of the same court.
superior, because the instruction was not for a

2. A person under nine years of age.*
lawful purpose (People v. Barroga). 3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has
b) A soldier who, in obedience to the order of his acted with discernment, in which case, such minor shall be
proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Article 80
sergeant, tortured to death the deceased for
of this Code.**
bringing a kind of dish different from that the had
asked to furnish a constabulary detachment, is When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the
court, in conformity with the provisions of this and the preceding
criminally liable. Obedience to an order of a superior
paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody of his family,
is justified only when the order is for some lawful who shall be charged with his surveillance and education;
purpose. The order to torture was illegal, and the otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some institution
or person mentioned in said Article 80
accused was not bound to obey it (People v. Margen,
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care,
et al.). causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of
causing it
Case example: People v. Beronilla 5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear
- Doctrine: The subordinate is not liable for carrying
of an equal or greater injury
out an illegal order of his superior, if he is not aware 7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when
of the illegality of the order and he is not negligent. prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause
- When the accused acted upon orders of superior

officers, which he, as military subordinate, could not *A child fifteen years of age or under is exempt from criminal liability under R.A. No.
question, and obeyed the orders in good faith, 9344
without being aware of their illegality, without any

**Implied repealed by R.A. No. 9344
fault or negligence on his part, he is not liable
because he had no criminal intent and was not Differences between justifying and exempting circumstances
negligent.

Justifying circumstance Exempting circumstance
Imbecility or Insanity
The accused does not incur criminal liability.
Article 12, Paragraph 1. — An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has
Pertains to act complained Pertains to the actor; that acted during a lucid interval.
of; the act is justified. the act is not justified, but
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law
the actor is exempt from
defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of the
criminal liability.
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.
Nonfelonious; the Act is unjustified and
non-criminal character of criminal, although the actor
the act would make the is exempt from criminal Imbecile – a mentally retarded person, which includes:
actor exempt not only from liability. Such exemption
criminal liability but also civil does not extend to civil
liability (except in Art 11, par. liability arising from crime. Mental Age IQ
4).
The act, being criminal, Idiot 2-year-old 0-19
Non-felonious act could not could be a source of civil
be a source of civil obligation of the exempted Imbecile 7-year-old 20-49
obligation arising from actor (except in Art 12, par.
crime. 4). Moron or 12-year-old 50-69
feebleminded
Exempting circumstances – non-imputability; those grounds

a) Idiot or imbecile – exempt from criminal liability.
for exemption from punishment because there is wanting in
the agent of the crime any of the conditions which make the b) Moron or feebleminded – not exempt from criminal
act voluntary or negligent. liability since his mental age is higher than imbecile,
● There is a crime committed, but no criminal liability could distinguish right from wrong; exempting
arises. circumstance shall not be considered.
● Technically, one who acts by virtue of any of the
Case example: People v. Nunez; People v. Formigones
exempting circumstances commits a crime,
- A feebleminded who could feel the pangs of jealousy
although by the complete absence of any of the
and take violent measures to the extent of killing his
conditions which constitute free will or
wife, whom he suspected of being unfaithful to him,
voluntariness of the act, no criminal liability arises.
in the belief that in doing so he was vindicating his
honor, could hardly be regarded as imbecile.
Basis: Complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or
intent, or on the absence of negligence on the part of the
Basis for exemption: Complete absence of intelligence, an
accused.
element of voluntariness.
● A person must act with malice or negligence to be
criminally liable.
Difference between imbecility and insanity
● One who acts without intelligence, freedom of
action, or intent does not act with malice.
● One who acts without intelligence, freedom of Imbecility Insanity
action, or fault does not act with negligence.
One who, while advanced in Exists when there is a
age, has a mental complete absence of
Kinds of exempting circumstances
development comparable to intelligence in committing
a) General – can be appreciated in any crime even if it
that of children between the act, that is, the accused
is punishable under special law in favor of any two and seven years of age. is deprived of reason and
offender, and are those listed in Article 12: acts without the least
- Insanity and imbecility One who is deprived discernment
- Accident completely of reason or
- Irresistible force discernment and freedom For it to be exempting, there
of the will at the time of must be complete
- Uncontrollable fear
committing the crime. deprivation of intelligence
- Lawful and insuperable cause
while committing the act.
- Section 6 of R.A. No. 9344 on minority
b) Specific – can be appreciated in a specific crime or Exempt in all cases from Not so exempt if it can be
crime in favor of a specific offender. criminal liability. shown that he acted during
a lucid interval.
Burden of proof
● Any of the circumstances mentioned in this article is Insanity – a manifestation in language or conduct of disease
a matter of defense and the same must be proved by or defect of the brain, or a more or less permanently diseased
the defendant to the satisfaction of the court. or disordered condition of the mentality, functional or organic,

and characterized by perversion, inhibition, or disordered
function of the sensory or of the intellective faculties, or by Cases exhibiting test of cognition:
impaired or disordered volition. 1) After satisfying his lust, the accused threatened the
victim. This implies that the accused knew what he
Elements of the exempting circumstance of insanity was doing, that it was wrong, and wanted to keep it a
1) Offender is insane secret (People v. Alipio)
2) Offender has not acted during a lucid interval 2) The fact that immediately after the incident,
offender thought of surrendering to the
*Second element is not applicable if the offender is imbecile; an imbecile has no law-enforcement authorities, is incontestable proof
lucid interval.
that he knew what he had done (People v. Villa).
3) Immediately after stabbing the victim, the accused
Lucid interval – insane act with intelligence; a brief period
escaped and went into hiding. These acts tend to
during which an insane person regains sanity that is sufficient
establish that the accused was well aware of what
to regain the legal capacity to contract, make a will, and to act
he had just committed, and was capable of
on his/her own behalf.
distinguishing right from wrong (People v. Belonio).
Indicators of complete deprivation of intelligence in

insanity: b) Test of volition – not a good rule anymore; even if
a) Deprivation of reason; the mental condition of the accused had passed the
b) Acting without the least discernment; volition test, the plea of insanity will not prosper
c) There be a total deprivation of freedom of the will. unless it also passed the cognition test.
● The mental condition of the accused is a mitigating
Insanity as not an absolute exempting circumstance circumstance of mental illness if there is deprivation
● The aforementioned indicators need to be present; of freedom.
to constitute insanity, there must be complete ● In sum, if a sex maniac or homicidal maniac had
deprivation of intelligence or that there be a total merely passed the volition test but not the cognition
deprivation of freedom of the will. test, he will only be given the benefit of mitigating
● Thus, the mere abnormality of mental faculties is circumstance of illness.
not enough, especially if the offender has not lost ● Diminution of freedom is enough to mitigate the
consciousness of his acts. At most, it is only a liability of the offender suffering from illness.
mitigating circumstance. ● Thus, kleptomania is a mitigating circumstance of
mental illness.
Procedure when the imbecile or insane committed a felony
● The court shall order his confinement in one of the Evidence of insanity – must refer to the time preceding the
hospitals or asylums established for persons act under prosecution or to the very moment of its execution.
afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave ● If the evidence points to insanity subsequent to the
without first obtaining the permission of the court. commission of the crime, the accused cannot be
● But the court has no power to permit the insane acquitted. He is presumed to be sane when he
person to leave the asylum without first obtaining committed it.
the opinion of the Director of Health that he may be ● If the insanity is only occasional or intermittent in its
released without danger. nature, the presumption of its continuance does not
arise. It must be shown that such insanity was
Burden of proof upon the defense present at the time of the commission of the
● The defense must prove that the accused was offense.
insane at the time of the commission of the crime. ● If the defendant had lucid intervals, it will be
● Sanity being the normal condition of the human presumed that the offense was committed in one of
mind, the prosecution may proceed upon the them.
presumption that the accused was sane and ● It is only when a person who has been adjudged
responsible when the act was committed. insane, or who has been committed to a hospital or
● The presumption is always in favor of sanity and the to an asylum for the insane, is presumed to continue
burden of proof of insanity is on the defense. to be insane.
Tests of insanity Degree of evidence necessary to overthrow the

a) Test of cognition – mental condition of the accused presumption of sanity
is an exempting circumstance of insanity if there ● To ascertain a person's mental condition at the time
was a complete deprivation of intelligence in of the act, it is permissible to receive evidence of the
committing the criminal act; or mitigating condition of his mind during a reasonable period
circumstance of mental illness if there was only a both before and after that time.
partial deprivation of intelligence. ● Direct testimony is not required, nor are specific
● Mere abnormality of the mental faculties is not an acts of derangement essential to establish insanity
exempting circumstance of insanity. as a defense.

● Mind can be known only by outward acts. Thereby, psychosis, a slight destruction of the ego. Despite
we read the thoughts, motives, and emotions of a this, his symptoms were not socially incapacitating
person and come to determine whether his acts and he could adjust to his environment, and
conform to the practice of people of sound mind. distinguish right from wrong.
● To prove insanity, therefore, circumstantial - He had no delusions and was not mentally deficient.
evidence, if clear and convincing, will suffice. The accused was not legally insane when he killed
the hapless and helpless victim.
Difference between insanity at the time of the commission of
the felony and insanity at the time of the trial d) People v. Antonio
- Antonio killed another because a voice kept nagging
At the time of the at him to kill the other person. He pleaded guilty but
At the time of the trial
commission of the felony claimed insanity. The Supreme Court held that mere
mental disturbance, mere craziness is not the
Exempt from criminal When he was sane at the insanity contemplated by the law. It is the insanity
liability. time of the commission of which would deprive the offender the capacity to
the crime, but became
distinguish right from wrong and the consequences
insane at the time of the
of his act.
trial, he is liable criminally.
However, trial will be Case examples when insanity is manifested:

suspended until the mental
capacity of the accused be a) People v. Bonoan [NOT ANYMORE CONTROLLING; see new
restored to afford him a fair principle, p. 64]
trial. - When a person suffering from a form of psychosis, a
type of dementia praecox, homicidal attack is
Case examples when defense of insanity is not credible: common because of delusions that he is being
interfered with sexually, or that his property is being
a) People v. Renegado taken.
- Renegado testified that he was acting very sanely - During the period of excitement, such person has no
that Monday morning. He went to the canteen in a control whatever of his acts. Thus, dementia
cheerful manner. When he noticed the arrival of Lira praecox is covered by the term insanity.
who banged his folders on the table, elbowed him, - The unlawful act of the accused may be due to his
and said in a loud voice: “ano ka.” mental disease or mental defect, producing an
- He saw Lira put his right hand inside his pocket and “irresistible impulse,” as when the accused has been
with the other hand pushed a chair towards him; he deprived or has lost the power of his will which would
became “confused” because he remembered that enable him to prevent himself from doing the act.
Lira threatened to kill him if he would see him again;
at this point, he lost his senses and regained it when b) People v. Aldemita
Mrs. Tan told him to not do that– he had already - Formerly called dementia praecox, schizophrenia is
finished wounding Lira. a chronic mental disorder characterized by inability
- If appellant was able to recall those incidents, the to distinguish between fantasy and reality and often
Court cannot understand why his memory stood still accompanied by hallucinations and delusions.
at that very crucial moment when he stabbed Lira. - In the most disorganized form, withdrawal into a
The defense of insanity is incredible. fantasy life takes place and is associated with
serious thought disorder and profound habit
b) People v. Magallano deterioration in which the usual social customs are
- Government psychiatric doctors who had closely disregarded.
observed the accused for a month and a half found - Symptomatically, schizophrenic reactions are
him in good contact with his environment and that recognizable through odd and bizarre behavior
he did not manifest any odd behavior for in fact he apparent in aloofness or periods of impulsive
could relate the circumstances that led to his destructiveness and immature and exaggerated
confinement. emotionality, often ambivalently directed.
- He was coherent and intelligent. Before the killing, - The interpersonal perceptions are distorted in the
he was working for a living through fishing three more serious states by delusions and hallucinations.
times a week and he himself fixed the prices for his
catch. The presumption of sanity has not been c) People v. Mancao and Aguilar
overcome. - Epilepsy is a chronic nervous disease characterized
by fits, occurring at intervals, attended by convulsive
c) People v. Puno motions of the muscles and loss of consciousness.
- The accused was afflicted with schizophrenic - When the accused claimed that he was an epileptic
reaction, but knew what he was doing he had but it was not shown that he was under the

influence of an epileptic fit when he committed the ● Feebleness, which is not exempting, because the
offense, he is not exempt from criminal liability. offender could distinguish right from wrong. An
imbecile or an insane cannot distinguish right from
d) People v. Gimena wrong.
- Somnambulism or sleepwalking, where the acts of
the person afflicted are automatic, is embraced in Irresistible impulse (the Bonoan principle) is NOT anymore
the plea of insanity and must be clearly proved. controlling
- Reason is the general rule that a person is not
criminally liable if his acts are not voluntary. Old rule: the test of volition or deprivation of freedom is being
- The question of whether hypnotism is artificial considered in determining the insane condition of the accused
somnambulism is still a debatable question. for purpose of criminal exception.
- Under such test, violent mania, kleptomania, or
e) People v. Lacena sexual mania is equivalent to insanity because of the
- One who was suffering from malignant malaria and irresistible impulse to kill, steal, or have sex.
inflicted injury to another is not criminally liable,
because such illness affects the nervous system New and controlling principle: Even if the mental condition of
and causes among others such complication as the accused had passed the volition test or deprivation test or
acute melancholia and insanity at times. deprivation of freedom test, the plea of insanity will not
prosper unless it also passed the cognition test or
Kleptomania: an exempting or mitigating circumstance deprivation of intelligence test. The controlling test is
● There is debate as to what circumstance cognition.
kleptomania would fall under. In Philippine courts, - Basis of the exempting circumstance of insanity is
the question has not been brought before the court based on lack of intelligence or discernment and not
for its determination. lack of freedom.
● The case of a person suffering from kleptomania - Mania is not equivalent to insanity. It is just a
must be investigated by competent alienist or mitigating circumstance.
psychiatrist to determine whether the impulse to - Irresistible impulse to kill or steal, may not be
steal is irresistible or not. considered as exempting under the cognition test.
● If the unlawful act of the accused is due to his
mental disease or mental defect, producing an Minority
irresistible impulse, as when the accused has been
deprived or has lost the power of his will which would Under 9 Years of Age
enable them to prevent himself from doing the act, it
should be covered by the term insanity because Article 12, Paragraph 2. — A person under nine years of age.
even irresistible homicidal impulse was considered

embraced in the term “insanity.” Basis: complete absence of intelligence.
● On the other hand, if the mental disease or defect
only diminishes the exercise of his willpower, and did ‘Under nine years’ – should be construed “nine years or less,”
not deprive him of the consciousness of his acts, as may be inferred from the next subsequent paragraph which
then kleptomania, if it be the result of his mental does not totally exempt a person “over nine years of age” if he
disease or mental defect, is only a mitigating acted with discernment.
circumstance.
Age of Absolute Responsibility raised to 15 Years of Age

Other examples of what is NOT insanity
● R.A. No. 9344, otherwise known as the ‘Juvenile
a) Pedophilia is a mental disorder not synonymous with
Justice and Welfare Act of 2006,’ raised the age of
insanity. It is a sexual disorder wherein the subject
absolute irresponsibility from nine to 15 years of age.
has strong, recurrent, and uncontrollable sexual and
● Under Section 6, a child 15 years of age or under at
physical fantasies about children which he tries to
the time of the commission of the offense shall be
fulfill, especially when there are no people around.
exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall
Despite such affliction, the subject could distinguish
be subject to an intervention program as provided
between right and wrong.
under Section 20 of the same law.
b) Amnesia is no defense to a criminal charge unless it
is shown by competent proof that the accused did
Over 9 Years, Under 15 Years of Age
not know the nature and quality of his action and
that it was wrong. Failure to remember is in itself no
Article 12, Paragraph 3. — A person over nine years of age and under fifteen,
proof of the mental condition of the accused when unless he has acted with discernment, in which case, such minor shall be
the crime was performed. proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Article 80 of this Code.
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in

Another example of what is NOT imbecility
conformity with the provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall

commit him to the care and custody of his family, who shall be charged with his
Child in conflict with the law – a person who at the time of
surveillance and education; otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of the commission of the offense is below 18 years old but not
some institution or person mentioned in said Article 80. less than 15 years and one day old.
Basis: Complete absence of intelligence. Determination of age

● The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the
Paragraph 3, Impliedly Repealed by R.A. No. 9344 presumption of minority and shall enjoy all the
● Declares that a child 15 years of age or under is rights of a child in conflict with the law until proven
exempt from criminal liability. to be 18 years old or older at the time of the
commission of the offense.
SECTION 6, R.A. No. 9344. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. — A child ● In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be
fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall resolved in his/her favor.
be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an
intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.
Rules in the determination of age of the child
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise a) Any person contesting the age of the child in conflict
be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program,
with the law prior to the filing of the information in
unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be
subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act. any appropriate court may file a case in a summary
proceeding for the determination of age before the
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption
Family Court which shall decide the case within 24
from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws.
hours from receipt of the appropriate pleadings of all
interested parties.
Presumption on minor contemplated in the provision – a
b) If a case has been filed against the child in conflict
minor under 18 but above 15 must have acted with
with the law and is pending in the appropriate court,
discernment to incur criminal liability. The minor is presumed
the person shall file a motion to determine the age of
to have acted without discernment.
the child in the same court where the case is
pending. Pending hearing on the said motion,
General rule: Under 18 but above 15 has acted without
proceedings on the main case shall be suspended.
discernment, exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to
c) The best evidence to prove the age of a child is an
an intervention program.
original or certified true copy of the certificate of live
birth.
Exception: [Unless] he/she has acted with discernment, the
d) In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar
child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in
authentic documents such as baptismal certificates
accordance with the Act.
and school records or any pertinent document that
shows the date of birth of the child.
Burden of proof upon the prosecution
e) In the absence of the documents under paragraphs 1
● It is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that a
and 2 due to loss, destruction or unavailability, the
minor who is over 15 but under 18 years of age has
testimony of the child, or of a member of the family
acted with discernment, in order for the minor not to
related to the child by affinity or consanguinity who
be entitled to this exempting circumstance.
is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree
such as the exact age or date of birth of the child,
Periods of criminal responsibility
the testimonies of other persons, the physical
appearance of the child and other relevant evidence,
Life period of a human being shall suffice.
Age of absolute 15 years and below (infancy)

Burden of proof of age
irresponsibility
● Any person alleging the age of the child in conflict
Age of conditional 15 years and 1 day to 18 years with the law has the burden of proving the age of
responsibility such child.
● In all cases involving a child, the court shall make a
Age of full 18 years or over (adolescence) to 70
responsibility categorical finding as to the age of the child.
years (maturity)
Age of mitigated 15 years and 1 day to 18 years, the Discernment – mental capacity of the child at the time of the
responsibility offender acting with discernment; over commission of the offense to understand the differences
70 years of age. between right and wrong, and the consequences of the
wrongful act.
*Senility [age over 70 years], although said to be the second childhood, is ● Such capacity may be known and should be
only a mitigated responsibility. It cannot be considered as similar to infancy determined by taking into consideration all the facts
which is exempting.
and circumstances afforded by the records in each
case, the very appearance, the very attitude, the
very comportment and behavior of said minor, not

only before and during the commission of the act,
the corpus delicti (body of the
but also after and even during the trial.
crime).
Determination of discernment
Difference between intent and discernment
● Taken into account are the ability of the child to
understand the moral and psychological
components of criminal responsibility and the Intent Discernment
consequences of the wrongful act, and whether a
child can be held responsible for essentially Desired act of the person Moral significance that a
antisocial behavior. person ascribes to the said
act
Guidelines set by the Supreme Court in determining

Both are products of the mental processes within a person.
discernment in crimes involving children in conflict with
the law
Hence, a person may not intend to shoot another, but may
be aware of the consequences of his negligent act which
Definition of The capacity of the child at the time of the may cause injury to the same person in negligently
discernment handling an air rifle.
commission of the offense to understand
the difference between right and wrong
and the consequences of the wrongful act. Factors of discernment
a) Utterances of the minor
Task of ascertaining Done preliminary by a social worker and
discernment b) Manner the crime was committed, including the
finally by the court.
nature of the weapon used in the commission of the
crime
The social worker’s assessment is merely
evidentiary and is not binding upon the - Thus, when the minor committed the crime
court. Ultimately, the court finally during nighttime to avoid detection or took
determines discernment, based on its own the loot to another town to avoid
appreciation of all the facts and discovery, he manifested discernment
circumstances in each.
c) Extent of participation of the accused in committing
Determination of a crime
Take into account the ability of a child to
discernment d) Conduct of the offender after its commission,
understand the moral and psychological
components of criminal responsibility and including attempts to silence a witness and disposal
the consequences of the wrongful act; and of evidence
whether a child can be held responsible for - Thus, when he knew how much of an
essentially antisocial behavior. atrocious and vicious act they had done–
that killing was a condemnable act– he
Presumption No presumption that a minor acts with
fully appreciated the consequences of his
discernment.
unlawful act
Burden of proof The prosecution must specifically prove as
a separate circumstance that the alleged Cross-examination of the child
crime was committed with discernment. ● Proper occasion for the prosecution to extract from
him positive indicators of his capacity to discern.
The prosecution is burdened to prove ● The best opportunity for the government to
beyond reasonable doubt, by direct or
incriminate him. The prosecution must endeavor to
circumstantial evidence, that the minor
establish the mental capacity of the minor to fully
acted with discernment.
appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act.
Facts and a) The very appearance, the very
circumstances
assessed by the court attitude, the very comportment and Presumption of Lack of Discernment
in each case behavior of said minor, not only a) If the child in conflict with the law is 15 years of age
before and during the commission of or below, lack of intelligence, which is the basis of
the act, but also after and even the exempting circumstance of minority, is
during trial;
consclusively presumed. Thus, no amount of
b) The gruesome nature of the crime;
evidence can be presented by the prosecution to
c) The minor’s cunning and
shrewdness; overcome, dispute, or rebut it.
d) The utterances of the minor; b) If the child in conflict with the law is above 15 years
e) The minor’s overt acts before, during of age, lack of intelligence, is disputably presumed.
and after the commission of the Thus, the prosecution must present convincing
crime; evidence to overcome, dispute, or rebut it. Failure to
f) The nature of the weapon used;
do so, the accused will be acquitted.
g) The minor’s attempt to silence a
witness; and
h) The disposal of evidence or hiding of

Allegation of “intent to kill” in the information is sufficient
even if the juvenile is already 18
allegation of discernment
● The requirement that there should be an allegation years of age or more at the time of
that she acted with discernment should be deemed the pronouncement of his guilt. As
amply met with allegation in the information that the long as he is 18 years and below at
accused acted with the intent to kill. the time of the commission, even if
● The allegation clearly conveys the idea that she he is above 18 at the promulgation
knew what would be the consequence of her of the judgment, he can still
unlawful act of punishing her victim, and that she benefit from the suspended
knew it to be wrong. sentence.
Section 40 If a child is under suspended

Kinds of Exempting Circumstance of Minority
sentence, the court shall decide to
discharge or to extend the
1) Absolute – where the child in conflict is 15 years of sentence for a specific period of
age or under; thus, not subject to condition of lack time or until the child attains the
of discernment. maximum age of 21. Although there
● A child in conflict with the law, whose age is automatic suspension, it is
is 15 years or below, cannot think evil. tempered by Section 40.
Therefore, the maximum limit is 21
Without an evil mind, he cannot be held
years old.
responsible for committing a crime
2) Conditional – where the child in conflict is above 15 Treatment of child below age of responsibility
years of age; subject to condition of lack of ● If it has been determined that the child taken into
discernment. custody is 15 years old or below, the authority which
● The criminal responsibility of the accused will have an initial contact with the child has the duty
will depend on whether or not he to immediately release the child to the custody of
discerned the consequence of his criminal his/her parents or guardian, or in the absence
act. thereof, the child’s nearest relative.
● Said authority shall give notice to the local social
welfare and development officer who will determine
Without discernment With discernment the appropriate programs in consultation with the
child and to the person having custody over the
He is entitled to exempting He is only entitled to
child.
circumstance. privilege mitigating
● If the parents, guardians, or nearest relatives cannot
circumstance, which will
be located, or if they refuse to take custody, the
lower the penalty by one
child may be released to any of the following:
degree.
a) A duly registered non-governmental or
religious organization;
Suspension of sentence b) A barangay official or a member of the
Barangay Council for the Protection of
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 Children (BCPC);

c) A local social welfare and development
Pertinent Provision Applicability officer; or
d) When and where appropriate, the DSWD.
Section 38 Once the child who is under 18 ● If the child referred to herein has been found by the
years of age at the time of the Local Social Welfare and Development Office to be
commission was found guilty of the abandoned, neglected, or abused by his parents, or
offense charged, the Court shall in the event that the parents will not comply with the
determine and ascertain any civil prevention program, the proper petition for
liability which may have resulted involuntary commitment shall be filed by the DSWD
from the offense committed. or the Local Social Welfare and Development Office
pursuant to P.D. No. 603 (or The Child and Youth
However, instead of pronouncing Welfare Code).
the judgment of conviction, the
court shall place the child in
Accident
conflict with the law under
suspended sentence, without
Article 12, Paragraph 4. — Any person who, while performing a lawful act with
need of application. Provided due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of
however that the suspension of causing it.
the sentence shall still be applied

Basis: Complete absence of criminal intent and negligence on any fault or intention on the part of the defendant, in
the part of the accused. Under this circumstance, a person accordance with the 3rd and 4th requisites.
does not commit either an intentional felony or a culpable - But the act of drawing a weapon in the course of a
felony; hence, no criminal and civil liability. quarrel, not being in self-defense, is unlawful; it is a
light threat and there is no room for the invocation of
Elements accident as a ground for exemption (People v.
1) A person is performing a lawful act Reyta).
2) With due care*
3) He causes an injury to another by mere accident Accident – something that happens outside the sway of our
4) Without fault or intention of causing it will, and although it comes about through some act of our will,
lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable
*Its application presupposes that there is no fault or negligence on the part of the
person performing the lawful act with due care.
consequences.
The person must be performing a lawful act Accident presupposes lack of intention to commit the
wrong done
Case examples when it is not a lawful act: ● It contemplates a situation where a person is in fact
a) People v. Galagac in the act of doing something legal, exercising due
- While defending himself against the unjustified care, diligence, and prudence, but in the process
assault upon his person made by his assailant, produces harm or injury to someone or something
appellant Galagac fired his revolver at random, not in the least in the mind of the actor— an
wounding two innocent persons. accidental result flowing out of a legal act.
- The discharge of a firearm in such thickly populated ● If the consequences are plainly foreseeable, it will be
palace in the City of Manila being prohibited and a case of negligence.
penalized by the RPC, Galagac was not performing a
lawful act when he accidentally hit and wounded Case example: US v. Tañedo
Marina Ramos and Alfonso Ramos. Hence, the - The accused, while hunting, saw wild chickens and
exempting circumstance provided for in Article 12, fired a shot. The slug, after hitting a wild chicken,
par. 4 cannot be properly invoked by the appellant. recoiled and struck the relative of the accused. The
relative died.
b) People v. Nocum - If life is taken by misfortune or accident while the
- The defendant drew a gun and shot twice in the air actor is in the performance of a lawful act executed
because the two persons fighting paid him no with due care and without intention of doing harm,
attention. The bout continued, so he fired another there is no criminal liability.
shot at the ground, but unfortunately, the bullet - There is no question that the accused was engaged
ricocheted and hit an innocent bystander, who died in the performance of a lawful act when the accident
thereafter. occurred. He was not negligent or at fault, because
- It is a case of negligence, and not an accident. It is the deceased was not in the direction at which the
apparent that the defendant wilfully discharged his accused fired his gun. It was not foreseeable that
gun, without taking the precautions demanded by the slug would recoil after hitting the wild chicken.
the circumstances that the district was populated,

and the likelihood that his bullet would glance over Example: The accused borrowed a high-powered firearm and
the hard pavement of the thoroughfare. The used it to hunt wild pigs. He shot a wild pig, but the bullet
consequence here was clearly foreseeable. recoiled and killed another person. He is liable for reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide. A registered firearm in the
Case example where the person is performing a lawful act: possession of an individual other than the licensee is a loose
a) People v. Vitug; People v. Tiongco firearm. The accused is not performing a lawful act.
- When the defendant drew his gun and struck the
deceased after the latter had given him a fist blow on Case example: US v. Tayongtong
the shoulder, the defendant was performing a lawful - A chauffeur, while driving his automobile on the
act. The striking with the gun was a legitimate act of proper side of the road at a moderate speed and
self-defense. with due diligence, suddenly and unexpectedly saw
- Since the striking could not have been done in any a man in front of his vehicle coming from the
other manner except how it was done so by the sidewalk and crossing the street without any
appellant, the striking was done with due care as warning that he would do so. It being physically
required by the second element for exemption. impossible to avoid hitting him, the man was hit.
Whether the gun was cocked or uncocked, the - It was held that he was not criminally liable, it being a
striking could not have been done in any other mere accident.
manner. The injury, therefore, that resulted from the

Difference between accident and negligence
firing of the gun was caused by accident and without

- Article 12 will not apply since the accused did not
Accident Negligence
commit a lawful act without evil intention.
A fortuitous circumstance, Failure to observe, for the
event or happening; an protection of the interest of 2) Proximate cause rule under Article 12(4)
event happening without another person, that - Article 12 on accident applies if the proximate cause
any human agency, or if degree of care, precaution, of the death of the victim is a lawful act without
happening wholly or partly and vigilance which the criminal intent and culpa.
through human agency, an circumstances justly
- Article 4 is not applicable since this provision
event which under the demanded without which
requires the commission of an intentional felony.
circumstance is unusual or such other person suffers
unexpected by the person injury. Hence, he is exempt from criminal liability.
to whom it happens.
3) Proximate cause rule under Article 365
- Article 365 applies if the proximate cause of the
When claim of accident NOT appreciated
1) Repeated blows negate claim of wounding by mere death of the victim is recklessness, imprudence, or
accident. negligence.
2) Accidental shooting is negated by threatening words - Article 4 is not applicable since it requires the
preceding it and still aiming the gun at the prostate commission of an intentional felony, nor Article 12 on
body of the victim, instead of immediately helping accident since it requires that the lawful act is
him. without culpa.
3) Husband and wife had an altercation. The deceased - Hence, he is liable for culpable felony (e.g., reckless
husband got a carbine and holding it by the muzzle imprudence resulting in homicide).
raised it in attempt to strike accused wife. She

side-stepped and grappled with him for the 4) Proximate rule under Article 67
possession of the gun and in the scuffle the gun - Article 67 applies if the proximate cause of the death
went off, the bullet hitting her husband in the neck. of the victim is an unlawful act which is not a felony
So went the version of the accused. It was difficult, if (e.g., offenses under special law) but committed
not almost impossible, for her who was frail and without culpa.
shorter than her husband, who was robust and taller, - Article 4 does not apply; neither Article 12 nor Article
to have succeeded in taking hold of the carbine, for if 365.
her husband was to strike her with the butt of the - The accused will be convicted with homicide but he
carbine and she side-stepped, he would not have is entitled to the lesser penalty under Article 67.
continued to hold the carbine in a raised position.

Absence of any powder burns at the entrance of the Irresistible Force
wound in the body of the deceased is convincing
proof that he was shot from a distance, and not with Article 12, Paragraph 5. — Any person who acts under the compulsion of an
irresistible force.
the muzzle of the gun almost resting on his shoulder
or the back of the neck (People v. Samson).
Basis: Complete absence of freedom, an element of
No accidental self-defense – There is no such defense as voluntariness.
accidental self-defense in the realm of criminal law.
● Self-defense necessarily implies a deliberate and Elements
positive overt act of the accused to prevent or repel 1) Compulsion is by means of physical force
an unlawful aggression of another with the use of 2) Physical force must be irresistible
reasonable means; he is aware of the consequences 3) Physical force must come from a third person
of his deliberate acts.

● Basis of exemption of circumstances of accident is Irresistible force – it must produce such an effect upon the
lack of negligence and intent; the accused in individual that, in spite of all resistance, it reduces him to a
performing a lawful act does not commit either an mere instrument and, as such, incapable of committing a
intentional or culpable felony; he is not aware of the crime.
consequence of his lawful act. ● In spite of the resistance of the person on whom it
operates, it compels his members to act and his
Proximate Cause Rules under the RPC mind to obey.
1) Proximate cause rule under Article 4 ● Such a force can never consist in anything which
- Article 4 applies if the proximate cause of the death springs primarily from the man himself; it must be a
of the victim is a felony. force which acts upon him from the outside and by a
- The accused is liable for the wrongful act (e.g., third person.
homicide) done although it differs from the wronful ● It can never consist in an impulse or passion or
act (e.g., slight physical injuries or threat) intended. obfuscation. It must consist of an extraneous force
coming from a third person.

Nature of force required Basis: Complete absence of freedom; “actus me invito factus
● Must be irresistible to reduce the actor to a mere non est meus actus,” which translates to “an act done by me
instrument who acts not only without will but against my will is not my act.”
against his will. ● Presupposes that a person is compelled to commit a
● Duress, force, fear, or intimidation must be present, crime by another, but the compulsion is by means of
imminent, and impending and of such a nature as to intimidation or threat, but not force or violence.
induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or
serious bodily harm if the act is not done. Elements
● A threat or future injury is not enough. The 1) The threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater
compulsion must be of such a character as to leave than or at least equal to that which he is required to
no opportunity for the accused to escape or defend commit.
himself in equal combat. 2) That it promises an evil of such gravity and
imminence that the ordinary man would have
Case example: US v. Caballeros succumbed to it.
- A witness, who was present when the Americans
were killed, testified that Baculi (accused) was not a Requisites of uncontrollable fear
member of the group who killed the Americans, but 1) Existence of an uncontrollable fear
that he was in a banana plantation on his property 2) Fear must be real and imminent
gathering some bananas; that when he heard the 3) Fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to
shots he began to run, but when seen by the leaders that committed
of the band, the latter called to him and striking him
with the butts of their guns they forced him to bury Case example: US v, Exaltacion
the corpses. - Exaltacion and Tanchinco were compelled under fear
- Baculi was not criminally liable as accessory for of death to swear allegiance to the Katipunan,
concealing the body of the crime of murder because whose purpose was to overthrow the government by
he acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force of arms.
force. - The accused cannot be held criminally liable for
rebellion, because they joined the rebels under the
Case example: People v. Sarip impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or
- The claim that the accused was threatened with a greater injury.
gun by his friend, the mastermind, is not credible - Death is a much greater injury than imprisonment for
where he himself was armed with a rifle. 12 years and paying a fine.
Case example: People v. Del Rosario Example: A threatened to burn the house of B should the latter
- Accused was unarmed and unable to protect himself not kill his (B’s) father, and B killed his father for fear that A
when he was prevented at gunpoint by his might burn his (B’s) house. B is not exempt from criminal
co-accused from leaving the crime scene during the liability for the reason that the evil with which he was
perpetration of the robbery and killing, and was only threatened was much less than that of killing his father.
forced to help them escape after the commission of
the crime. Duress – use of power to impose one’s will on another;
- As a rule, it is only natural for people to be seized by compulsion by threat.
fear when threatened with weapons, even those less - Duress as a valid defense should be based on real,
powerful than a gun, such as knives and clubs. imminent, or reasonable fear for one’s life or limb and
People will normally, usually, and probably do what should not be speculative, fanciful, or remote fear.
an armed man asks them to do, nothing more,
nothing less. No opportunity for escape or self-defense
- In this case, accused was threatened with a gun. He ● A threat of future injury is not enough; the
could neither be expected to flee nor risk his life to compulsion must be of such a character as to leave
help a stranger. no opportunity to the accused for escape or
- A person under the same circumstances would be self-defense in equal combat.
more concerned with his personal welfare and ● Duress is unavailing where the accused had every
security rather than the safety of a person whom he opportunity to run away if he had wanted to, or to
only met for the first time that day. resist any possible aggression because he was also
armed.
Uncontrollable Fear
Speculative, fanciful, and remote fear is NOT uncontrollable
fear
Article 12, Paragraph 6. — Any person who acts under the impulse of an
uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
● If the only evidence relating to a sort of a threat is
the testimony of the defendant: “You have to comply
with the order; otherwise, you have to come along

with us,” that threat is not of such a serious
character and imminence as to create in the mind of b) A mother who at the time of childbirth was overcome
the defendant an uncontrollable fear that an equal by severe dizziness and extreme debility, and left the
or greater evil or injury would be inflicted upon him if child in a thicket where said child died, is not liable
he did not comply. for infanticide, because it was physically impossible
● Mear fear, in the absence of proof of actual physical for her to take home the child.
or moral compulsion to act, is not sufficient to
exempt the accused from criminal liability. In all the exempting circumstances, intent is wanting in the
agent of the crime
Difference between irresistible force and uncontrollable fear ● Intent presupposes the exercise of freedom and the
use of intelligence.
● In paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of Article 12, the imbecile,
Irresistible force Uncontrollable fear
insane, or minor, not having intelligence, does not
Offender uses violence or Offender employs act with intent.
physical force to compel intimidation or threat in ● The person acting under any of the circumstances
another person to commit a compelling another to mentioned in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 12, not
crime. commit a crime. having freedom of action, does not act with intent.
● In paragraph 4 of Article 12, it is specifically stated
Lawful or Insuperable Cause that the actor causes an injury by mere accident
without intention of causing it.
Article 12, Paragraph 7. — Any person who fails to perform an act required by
law, when prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause. Kinds of Defense in Criminal Cases
Basis: The accused acts without intent, the third condition of Negative defense Affirmative defense
voluntariness in intentional felony.
Definition Denial of allegations in Confession and
Elements the Information or avoidance plea since
1) An act required by law to be done complaint by the the accused
accused that he confessed that he
2) A person fails to perform such act
committed the act, committed the act
3) His failure to perform such act was due to some which is constitutive which is allegedly
lawful or insuperable cause of a crime. constitutive of a
crime, but at the
Insuperable cause – motive which has lawfully, morally, or same time he is
physically prevented a person to do what the law commands. avoiding criminal
liability by raising new
matters such as the
When prevented by some lawful cause
subject act is
- A confessed to a Filipino priest of his conspiracy justified, or he is
against the government. Under Article 116, a Filipino exempt from or
citizen who knows of such conspiracy must report absolved of criminal
the same to the governor or fiscal of the province liability.
where he resides. If the priest does not disclose and
Presumption The accused is The accused is
make known the same to the proper authority, he is
presumed innocent presumed guilty until
exempt from criminal liability, because, under the
until the contrary is the contrary is
law, the priest cannot be compelled to reveal any proven. proven.
information which he came to know by reason of the
confession made to him in his professional capacity. Burden The prosecution has The defense has the
of proof
burden of proving burden of proving
When prevented by some insuperable cause beyond reasonable with certainty by
doubt that the sufficient,
criminal act is satisfactory, and
a) The municipal president detained the offended party
committed or omitted convincing evidence
for three days because to take him to the nearest
by the accused. that he is not
justice of peace required a journey for three days by criminally liable for
boat as there was no other means of transportation. committing the act
Under the law, the person arrested must be complained of
delivered to the nearest judicial authority at most because of justifying
within 36 hours; otherwise, the public officer will be or exempting
circumstance, or of
liable for arbitrary detention. The distance which
absolutory cause.
required a journey for three days was considered an
insuperable clause.

Other Absolutory Causes ● The officer orchestrates the crime, from conception
to execution, making the accused a mere
Absolutory causes – those where the act committed is a instrument.
crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment, there is
no penalty imposed. Basis: A sound public policy requires that the courts shall
● Exceptional circumstance (Article 247) and condemn the practice of instigation by directing the acquittal
instigation are absolutory causes. of the accused; public policy which deplores government
operation which makes a criminal out of a law-abiding citizen
In addition to the justifying circumstances (Article 11) and the by employment of deceptive means to convince one to commit
exempting circumstances (Article 12), there are other a crime and by apprehending him if the submits himself to
absolute causes in the following articles: such inducement.
Case example: US v, Phelps

Article 6 Spontaneous desistance of the person who commenced
- An internal revenue agent who represented himself
the commission of a felony before he could perform all the
acts of execution as a private individual engaged in gambling. He
approached the accused and induced the latter to
Article 20 Accessories Who are Exempt from Criminal Liability. — The look for an opium den where he said he could smoke
penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed
upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, opium. The agent went to the accused three times
ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and to convince the latter of his desire to smoke opium.
adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within
the same degrees, with the single exception of The accused then made efforts to look for a place
accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of
where both of them could smoke because of the
the next preceding article*
insistence of the agent. After a while, the agent left
*Article 19, par. 1. – By profiting themselves or assisting the
after smoking, and returned later to arrest the
offender to profit by the effects of the crime
accused allegedly for smoking opium.
Article 124, last The commission of a crime, or violent insanity or any other - The accused was not criminally liable because he
paragraph ailment requiring the compulsory confinement of the
patient in a hospital, shall be considered legal grounds for was instigated to commit the crime of smoking
the detention of any person. opium.
Article 247, pars. 1 Any legally married person who, having surprised his
and 2 spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with Instigation in a victimless crime
another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the ● Instigation to commit victimless crime such as illegal
act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them
any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of sale of dangerous drugs and illegal gambling is
destierro. If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of considered as absolutory cause since there is no
any other kind, he shall be exempt from punishment.
victim or private complainant involved.
Article 280, par. 3 The provisions of this article (on trespass to dwelling) ● But, in case of crimes with victims, it would be unfair
shall not be applicable to any person who shall enter
another's dwelling for the purpose of preventing some
if the accused would be acquitted simply because an
serious harm to himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a instigation made by government agent is against
third person, nor shall it be applicable to any person who
shall enter a dwelling for the purpose of rendering some
public policy.
service to humanity or justice, nor to anyone who shall
enter cafes, taverns, inns and other public houses, while
the same are open. Example: A police officer instigated a person to rape or murder
a victim. After the consummation of rape or murder, the agent
Article 332 No criminal, but only civil, liability shall result from the
apprehended the accused.
commission of the crime of theft, swindling or malicious
mischief committed or caused mutually by the following ● Instigation should not be considered as an
persons:
absolutory cause. The rapist or murderer and the
1) Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or
relatives by affinity in the same line; instigating police officer are liable for rape or murder
2) The widowed spouse with respect to the
property which belonged to the deceased
as principal by direct participation and principal by
spouse before the same shall have passed inducement, respectively.
into the possession of another; and
3) Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and
sisters-in-law, if living together. Entrapment – law enforcement agents induce a person to
commit a crime that they had no previous intent to commit.
Article 344, par. 4 In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness
and rape, the marriage of the offender with the offended ● Essentially, it is a setup where the idea of committing
party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the the crime originates from the officers, rather than
penalty already imposed upon him. The provisions of this
paragraph shall also be applicable to the co-principals, the suspect.
accomplices and accessories after the fact of the
● Involves catching an individual in the act of
above-mentioned crimes.
committing a crime that they had already intended
to commit.
Instigation – a law enforcement officer induces an individual
● Law enforcement merely provides the opportunity
to commit an act he would otherwise have no intention of
for the person to commit the criminal act. The
committing; which is also an absolutory cause.
purpose is to catch a criminal in flagrante delicto, or
in the act of committing the crime.

Case example: People v. Lua Chua and Uy Se Tieng evidence of the criminal’s course of conduct– a
- The accused wrote to his correspondent in Hong decoy solicitation is not tantamount to inducement
Kong to send him a shipment of opium. This opium or instigation.
had been in Hongkong for some time, awaiting a ship
that would go direct to Cebu. Complete defenses in criminal cases
- The Collector of Customs of Cebu received 1) Any of the essential elements of the crime charged
information that the accused was intending to land is not proved by the prosecution and the elements
opium, and promised the accused that he would proved do not constitute any crime
remove all difficulties in the way, and agreed to 2) Any act falling under justifying circumstances
receive PhP 2,000. Juan Samson, a secret 3) Any act falling under exempting circumstances
serviceman, pretended to smooth the way for the 4) Any of the absolutory causes
introduction of the prohibited drug. a) Spontaneous desistance during
- It is true that Juan Samson smoothed the way for the attempted stage (Art. 6)
introduction of the prohibited drug, but that was b) Light felony is attempted or frustrated, and
after the accused had already planned its not against persons or property (Art. 7)
importation and ordered for said drug. c) Accessory is a relative of the principal (Art.
- Juan Samson neither induced nor instigated the 20)
accused to import the opium in question, but d) Legal grounds for arbitrary detention (Art.
pretended to have an understanding with the 124)
Collector of Customs, who had promised them that e) Legal grounds for trespass (Art. 280)
he would remove all difficulties in the way. f) Theft, swindling, or malicious mischief
- This is not a case where an innocent person is committed against a relative (Art. 332)
induced to commit a crime merely to prosecute him, g) Slight or less physical injuries inflicted by
but a trap set to catch a criminal. the person who surprised his spouse or
daughter in the act of sexual intercourse
Difference between instigation and entrapment with another person (Art. 247)
h) Marriage of the offender with the offended
party when the crime committed is rape,
Instigation Entrapment
abduction, seduction, or acts of
The instigator practically Ways and means are lasciviousness (Art. 344)
induces the would-be resorted to for the purpose i) Instigation
accused into the of trapping and capturing 5) Guilt of the accused is not established beyond
commission of the offense the lawbreaker in the reasonable doubt
and himself becomes a execution of his criminal
6) Prescription of crimes
co-principal plan
7) Pardon by the offended party before the institution
Accused must be acquitted No bar to the prosecution of criminal action in crime against chastity
and conviction of the
lawbreaker Mitigating Circumstances
The law enforcer conceives Means originates from the
the commission of the mind of the criminal. The ARTICLE 13. Mitigating Circumstances. — The following are mitigating
crime and suggests to the idea and the resolve to circumstances:
accused who adopts the commit the crime come 1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites
necessary to justify the act or exempt from criminal liability in the
idea and carries it into from him
respective cases are not attendant.
execution
2. That the offender is under eighteen years of age or over seventy
years. In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in
Legal effects exempt Legal effects do not exempt accordance with the provisions of Article 80.
criminal from liability criminal from liability 3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as
that committed.
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended
Buy-bust operation as an entrapment – buy-bust operation party immediately preceded the act.
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a
is considered as a form of entrapment, which is a valid means
grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his
of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act. spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted
● In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime brother or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
6. That if having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to
originates from the offender, without anybody
have produced passion or obfuscation.
inducing or prodding him to commit the offense. 7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person
● A police officer’s act of soliciting drugs from the in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his
guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for
accused during a buy-bust operation, or what is
the prosecution.
known as a decoy solicitation is not prohibited by law 8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind, or otherwise suffering
and does not render invalid the buy bust operation. some physical defect which thus restricts his means of action,
defense, or communication with his fellow beings.
● The sale of contraband is a kind of offense habitually
committed, and the solicitation simply furnishes

9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the only the effect of applying the penalty lower by one or
willpower of the offender without however depriving him of
the penalty provided by law two degrees than that
consciousness of his acts.
for the crime in its minimum provided by law for the
10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and
analogous to those above-mentioned. period, in case of divisible crime.
penalty.
Mitigating circumstances – those which, if present in the The penalty is reduced by The penalty is reduced or
commission of the crime, do not entirely free the actor from period. graduated by degree.
criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the penalty.
Example: The penalty for Example: The penalty for
frustrated homicide is homicide is reclusion
Basis: On the diminution of either freedom of action,
prision mayor [range from 6 temporal [range from 12
intelligence, or intent, or on the lesser perversity of the years and 1 day to 12 years]. years and 1 day to 20 years].
offender. If the accused confessed in If the accused is a minor,
open court, the penalty for the penalty of reclusion
Classes of mitigating circumstances prision mayor shall be temporal shall be reduced
1) Ordinary mitigating – those enumerated in applied in its minimum or graduated to prision
subsections 1 to 10 of Article 13. period [range from 6 years mayor [range from 6 years
and 1 day to 8 years]. and 1 day to 12 years].
2) Privileged mitigating:
Case example: People v. Honradez
ARTICLE 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen - The accused who was charged with robbery was less
years of age. — When the offender is a minor under eighteen years of
than 18 years old. He committed the crime during the
age and his case falls under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act x x x. nighttime purposely sought, which is an aggravating
circumstance.
ARTICLE 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is
- The aggravating circusmtance of nighttime cannot
not wholly excusable. — A penalty lower than by one or two degrees
than that prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly offset the privileged mitigating circumstances of
excusable by reason of the lack of some of the conditions required to minority.
justify the same or to exempt from criminal liability x x x, Provided, that
the majority of such conditions presented.
Mitigating circumstances only reduce the penalty, but do
ARTICLE 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain not change the nature of the crime (People v. Talam)
three periods. — In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law - Where the accused is charged with murder, as when
contain three periods, whether it be single divisive penalty or
treachery as a qualifying circumstance is alleged in
composed of three different penalties, each one of which forms a
period x x x, the courts shall observe for the application of the penalty the information, the fact that there is a generic or
the following rules, according to whether there are or are not privileged mitigating circumstance does not change
mitigating circumstances:
the felony to homicide:
(5) When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no a) If there is an ordinary or generic mitigating
aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall impose the circumstance, not offset by any
penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may
aggravating circumstance, the accused
deem applicable, according to the number and nature of such
circumstances. should be found guilty of the same crime
of murder, but the penalty to be imposed is
Privileged mitigating circumstances applicable only to reduced to the minimum of the penalty for
particular crimes murder.
1) Voluntary release of the person illegally detained b) If there is a privileged mitigating
within three days without the offender attaining his circumstance, the penalty for murder will
purpose and before the institution of criminal action. be reduced by one or two degrees lower.
The penalty is one degree lower. - In every case, the accused should be held guilty for
2) Abandonment without justification of the spouse murder. The judgment of the trial court that the
who committed adultery. The penalty is one degree mitigating circumstance of non-habitual
lower. drunkenness changes the felony to homicide is
erroneous, because treachery is alleged in the
Difference between ordinary and privileged mitigating information and the crime committed by the
circumstances
appellant is that of murder.
Ordinary Mitigating Privileged Mitigating Incomplete Justification and Exemption
Susceptible of being offset Cannot be offset by

by any aggravating aggravating circumstance. Article 13, Paragraph 1. — Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all
the requisites necessary to justify the act or exempt from criminal liability in the
circumstance.
respective cases are not attendant.
If not offset by aggravating Produces the effect of

circumstance, it produces imposing upon the offender Circumstances of justification or exemption which may
give place to mitigation
Example: In self-defense, there was unlawful aggression on
the part of the accused, the means employed to prevent or
Under Article 11 Under Article 12
repel it was reasonable, but the one making a defense gave
Self-defense Minority above 15 but below sufficient provocation, he is entitled to a privileged mitigating
Defense of relatives 18 years of age circumstance, because the majority of the conditions required
Defense of stranger Causing injury by mere to justify the act is present.
State of necessity accident
Performance of duty Uncontrollable fear Example: If in the defense of a relative, there was unlawful
Obedience to order of
*Paragraphs 1 and 2 cannot be
aggression on the part of the deceased, but the one
superior
given place to mitigation because defending the relative used unreasonable means to prevent or
the mental condition of a person is
indivisible; there is no middle repel it, he is entitled to privileged mitigating circumstance.
ground between sanity and
insanity, between presence and
absence of intelligence. Case example of incomplete defense: US v. Rivera
- The deceased was about the set on fire the house of
the accused, where she was sleeping together with
Situations contemplated in paragraph 1 according to the
requisites present: her children. They grappled and the accused boloed
to death the deceased. There was unlawful
aggression consisting in trying to set on fire the
house of the accused. There was the element of
All requisites of a Justifying or exempting circumstance
circumstance are danger to the occupants of the house.
shall be appreciated.
present - But having already driven the aggressor out of the
house, who was prostrate on the ground, the
Majority of the The privilege mitigating circumstance accused should not have persisted in wounding her
requisites is present of incomplete justification or
no less than 14 times.
exemption shall be appreciated.
- Therefore, there is absence of one circumstance to
Minority of the The ordinary mitigating circumstance justify the act— reasonable necessity of killing the
requisites is present of incomplete justification or aggressor. The accused was entitled to a privileged
exemption shall be appreciated. mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense [of
her person, her home, and her children].
When all the requisites necessary to ‘justify’ the act Case example of incomplete self-defense: People v. De Jesus
are not attendant - The deceased was in a state of drunkenness, so he
was not as dangerous as he would if he had been
Incomplete Self-defense, Defense of Relatives, and sober. His aim proved faulty and easily evaded as
Defense of Stranger — in these three classes of defense, shown by the fact that the person defending was
unlawful aggression must be present, it being an not hit by the stab attempts-blows directed against
indispensable requisite. What is absent to either one or both him. The necessity of the means used to repel the
of the last two requisites. aggression is not clearly reasonable.
Case example of incomplete defense of relative: People v.

RECAP: Requisites of Self-Defense
1) Unlawful aggression; Toring
2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel - The deceased hit the first cousin of the accused
it; and
3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending with the butt of a shotgun. The deceased also
himself. pointed the shotgun at the first cousin, took a bullet
Third Requisite of Defense of Relatives: In case the provocation was given by from his jacket pocket, showed it to him and asked
the person attacked, the one making a defense had no part therein.
him, “Do you like this, Dong?” to which the latter
Third Requisite of Defense of Stranger: The person defending be not induced replied, “No, Noy, I do not like that.”
by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
- The deceased placed the bullet in the shotgun and
was thus pointing it at the first cousin when the
● Article 13, par. 1 applies only when unlawful accused came from behind the deceased and
aggression is present, but the other two requisites stabbed him.
are not present. - There was unlawful aggression on the part of the
● When two of the three requisites mentioned therein deceased and there was no provocation on the part
are present (e.g., unlawful aggression and any one of the accused. But the accused was motivated by
of the other two), the case must not be considered revenge, resentment, or evil motive because of a
as one in which an ordinary or generic mitigating running feud between the deceased and his
circumstance is present. Instead, it should be brothers. He is only entitled to the privileged
considered a privileged mitigating circumstance mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense of
referred to in Article 69. relative.

Incomplete justifying circumstance of Avoidance of Greater Incomplete justifying circumstance of an Obedience to an
Evil or Injury Order
RECAP: Requisites of Avoidance of Greater Evil or Injury RECAP: Requisites of Obedience to an Order
1) That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; 1) Order has been issued by a superior
2) That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; 2) Such order must be for some lawful purpose
3) That there be no other practical and less harmful means of 3) Means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful
preventing it.
*If the order is unlawful, all elements of obedience to an order are not
present.
● It is a mitigating circumstance if any of the last two

requisites (i.e., that the injury feared be greater than Case example: People v. Bernal, et al.
that done to avoid it, and that there be no other - Roleda fired at Pilones, following the order of
practical and less harmful means of preventing it) Sergeant Benting, Roleda’s superior. It appears that
are absent. that on their way to the camp, Roleda learned that
Pilones had killed not only a barrio lieutenant but
Incomplete justifying circumstance of Fulfillment of Duty also a member of the military police, and this may
have aroused in Roleda a feeling of resentment that
may have impelled him to readily and without
RECAP: Requisites of Performance of Duty
1) The accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful questioning follow the order of Sgt. Benting.
exercise of a right or office.
- To this may be added the fact of his being a
2) The injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary
consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful subordinate of Sgt. Benting who gave the order, and
exercise of such right or office. while out on patrol, when the soldiers were
supposed to be under the immediate command and
● There is no ordinary mitigating circumstance of control of the patrol leader.
performance of duty.
● Fulfillment of duty is either a justifying circumstance When all the requisites necessary to ‘exempt’ from
or privilege mitigating circumstance. criminal liability are not attendant
● If the first requisite is present but the second is not,
the court shall appreciate the privilege mitigating Incomplete exempting circumstance of Minority over 15 and
circumstance of incomplete fulfillment of duty. under 18 years of age
● If the first requisite is not present, it follows that the ● If the CICL is above 15 years of age acted with
second is also not. Fulfillment of duty, complete or discernment, he is entitled only to a mitigating
not, shall not be appreciated since the first requisite circumstance, because not all the requisites
thereof is indispensable. necessary to exempt from criminal liability are
● In fact, the circumstance of taking advantage of present. The case of such minor is specifically
public position may be appreciated as aggravating. covered by R.A. No. 9344.
Case example: People v. Oanis Incomplete exempting circumstance of Accident

- As the deceased was killed while asleep, the crime
committed is murder with the qualifying RECAP: Requisites of Accident
circumstance of alevosia. There is, however, a 1) A person is performing a lawful act
2) With due care
mitigating circumstance of weight consisting in the 3) He causes an injury to another by mere accident
incomplete justifying circumstance. 4) Without fault or intention of causing it
- Only the first requisite (performance of a duty or in

the lawful exercise of a right or office) is present– ● If the second requisite (with due care) and the first
appellants have acted in the performance of a duty. part of the fourth requisite (without fault) are
The second requisite (injury is the necessary absent, the case will fall under Article 365 which
consequence of the due performance of the duty) is punishes a felony by negligence or imprudence. In
lacking. Their duty was to arrest Balagtas, or to get effect there is a mitigating circumstance because
him dead or alive if resistance if offered by him and the penalty is lower than that provided for
they were overpowered. intentional felony.
- According to Article 69, the penalty lower by one or ● If the first requisite (performing lawful act) and the
two degrees than that prescribed by law shall, in second part of the fourth requisite (without
such case, be imposed. intention) are absent; thus the person committed an
- Since the Supreme Court considered one of the two unlawful and had intention of causing the injury, it
requisites as constituting the majority, it seems that will be an intentional felony. There is no mitigating
there is no ordinary mitigating circumstance under circumstance.
Article 13, paragraph 1, when the justifying or
exempting circumstance has two requisites only. There is no incomplete insanity

● There is no privilege mitigating circumstance of Minority and Senility
incomplete insanity under Article 13(1). The mental
condition of a person is indivisible; i.e., there is no
Article 13, Paragraph 2. — That the offender is under eighteen years of age or
middle ground between sanity and insanity. over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in
● However, if the mental illness of the offender would accordance with the provisions of Article 80 (now Art. 192, P.D. No. 603).
diminish the exercise of his will-power without

however depriving him of the consciousness of his Article 13(2) impliedly repealed by R.A. No. 9344
acts, the same may be considered as ‘ordinary’ ● Minority is either an exempting circumstance or a
mitigating circumstance of illness under Article privilege mitigating circumstance.
13(9). ● In privilege mitigating circumstance of minority, the
penalty shall be reduced to one degree lower.
Incomplete exempting circumstance of Uncontrollable Fear ● A child above 15 years but below 18 years of age shall
— if only one of the requisites are present, then there is only a be exempt from criminal liability unless he/she has
mitigating circumstance. acted with discernment.
● An offender 15 or over but under 18 years of age is
RECAP: Requisites of Uncontrollable Fear entitled only to the benefits provided under Article
1) Existence of an uncontrollable fear of an injury
68 of the RPC*. On the other hand, if such offender
2) Fear of an injury must be real and imminent
3) Fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed acted with discernment, such child in conflict with
the law shall undergo diversion programs.
● When it is considered grave fear, not entirely

uncontrollable, as ordinary mitigating circumstance
Basis: Diminution of intelligence, a condition of voluntariness.
under Paragraph 1, together with voluntary

*Pertinent provision as compared to incomplete justification
surrender, the CA should fix the maximum term of
or exemption
the indeterminate penalty in its medium period.
Case example: People v. Magpantay Incomplete justification or Minority

- Felix and Pedro took turns to guard, so that when exemption
one was asleep the other was awake. When Pedro
Article 69, entitled “Penalty Article 68, entitled “Penalty
was asleep, the silhouette of a man passed in front
to be imposed when the to be imposed upon a
of their house without any light. When Felix saw the crime committed is not person under eighteen
silhouette, he asked who it was but it walked wholly excusable,” where years of age,” where the
hurriedly, which made Felix suspicious as it might be the penalty will be reduced penalty will be reduced to
a scouting guard of the Dilim gang, Felix fired into to one or two degrees lower one degree lower
the air, yet the figure continued its way.
- When Pedro heard the short, he suddenly grabbed No ordinary mitigating circumstance of minority
the rifle at his side and fired at the figure on the ● Where the accused was 17 years old when he
road, causing the death of the man, who turned out committed the crime, the minority of the accused is
to be Pedro Pinion, returning home unarmed after not merely an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
fishing in a river. Instead, the imposable penalty must be reduced by
- The accused voluntarily surrendered to the one degree, conformably to Article 68 (People v.
barrio-lieutenant and then to the chief of police. The Chua).
Court held that the accused acted under the
influence of the fear of being attacked. Having in Diversion – an alternative, child-appropriate process of
mind that they might be raided at any moment and determining the responsibility and treatment of a CICL on the
suddenly awakened by the shot fired by Felix. basis of his/her social, cultural, economic, psychological, or
- However, the fear was not entirely uncontrollable, for educational background without resorting to formal court
had he not been so hasty and had he stopped a few proceeding.
seconds to think, he would have ascertained that
there was no imminent danger. Diversion Program – the program that the CICL is required to
- Because there are two mitigating circumstances in undergo after he/she is found responsible for an offense
favor of the accused (Paragraph 1 and 6), Article 64 without resorting to formal court proceedings.
provides that the court shall impose the penalty next
lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it Conditions of Diversion
may deem applicable, according to the number and a) Where the imposable penalty for the crime
nature of such circumstances.* committed is not more than six (6) years
imprisonment, the law enforcement office or Punong
*Reyes believes that Article 69 (Penalty to be imposed when the crime Barangay with the assistance of the local social
committed is not wholly excusable) should be applied in relation with welfare and development officer or other members
paragraph 6 of Article 12.
of the Local Councils for the Protection of Children

(LCPC) established in all levels of local government, program, but not exceeding a period of two (2)
shall conduct mediation, family conferencing and years.
conciliation and, where appropriate, adopt
indigenous modes of conflict resolution in Where diversion may be conducted – at the Katarungang
accordance with the best interest of the child with a Pambarangay, the police investigation or the inquest or
view to accomplishing the objectives of restorative preliminary investigation stage and at all levels and phases of
justice and the formulation of a diversion program. the proceedings including judicial level.
The child and his/her family shall be present in these
activities. Duty of the Punong Barangay or the Law Enforcement
b) In victimless crimes where the imposable penalty is Office when there is no diversion
not more than six (6) years of imprisonment, the a) The Punong Barangay handling the case shall,
local social welfare and development officer shall within 3 days from determination of the absence of
meet with the child and his/her parents or guardians jurisdiction over the case or termination of the
for the development of the appropriate diversion diversion proceedings as the case may be, forward
and rehabilitation program, in coordination with the records of the case to the law enforcement
the Barangay Council for the Protection of Children officer, prosecutor or the appropriate court, as the
(BCPC). case may be.
c) Where the imposable penalty for the crime b) In case a Law Enforcement Officer is the one
committed exceeds six (6) years imprisonment, handling the case, within same period, such officer
diversion measures may be resorted to only by the shall forward the records of the case to the
court. prosecutor or judge concerned for the conduct of
inquest and/or preliminary investigation. The
Conferencing, mediation, and conciliation document transmitting said records shall display the
● A child in conflict with the law may undergo word “child” in bold letters.
conferencing, mediation or conciliation outside the
criminal justice system or prior to his entry into said Senility – when the offender is over 70 years, it is an ordinary
system. A contract of diversion may be entered into mitigating circumstance.
during such conferencing, mediation or conciliation ● While paragraph 2 of Article 13 covers offenders
proceedings. under 18 years of age and those over 70 years, Article
68, providing for privileged mitigating
Contract of diversion circumstances, does not include the case of
● If during the conferencing, mediation, or conciliation, offenders over 70 years old.
the child voluntarily admits the commission of the ● Prior to the enactment of RA No. 9346 prohibiting
act, a diversion program shall be developed when the imposition of the death penalty, there were two
appropriate and desirable. cases where the fact that the offender is over 70
● Such admission shall not be used against the child in years of age had the effect of a privileged mitigating
any subsequent judicial, quasi-judicial or circumstance [where the penalty of death will have
administrative proceedings. to be lowered to life imprisonment (reclusion
● The diversion program shall be effective and binding perpetua)], namely:
if accepted by the parties concerned. The a) When he committed an offense punishable
acceptance shall be in writing and signed by the by death, that penalty shall not be
parties concerned and the appropriate authorities. imposed; and
● The diversion proceedings shall be completed within b) When the death sentence is already
45 days; the implementation of which shall be imposed, it shall be suspended and
supervised by the local social welfare and commuted.
development officer. The period of prescription of
the offense shall be suspended until the completion Difference between seniority under R.A. No. 7432 and under
of the diversion proceedings but not to exceed 45 Criminal Law
days.
● The child shall present himself/herself to the Under R.A. No. 7342 Under Criminal Law
competent authorities that imposed the diversion
program at least once a month for reporting and A senior or elderly refers to There is generic or ordinary
evaluation of the effectiveness of the program. any resident citizen of the mitigating circumstance of
Philippines who is at least seniority is present if the
Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of
accused is over 70 years of
the contract of diversion, as certified by the local 60 years old. Thus, on the
age.
social welfare and development officer, shall give the 60th birthday of resident
offended party the option to institute the citizen, he becomes a
appropriate legal action. senior citizen under the law.
● The period of prescription of the offense shall be
suspended during the effectivity of the diversion

Praeter Intentionem c) The location of the wound, it being fatal, suggests
that the accused may have had a definite and
perverse intention of producing the injury which
Article 13, Paragraph 3. — That the offender had no intention to commit so
grave a wrong as that committed. resulted.
Factors showing that accused intended the wrong

Basis: Intent (as element of voluntariness in intentional committed
felony) is diminished. 1) Weapon used
2) Part of the body injured
Rule for the application – Can only be applied when the facts 3) Injury inflicted
proven that there is a notable and evident disproportion 4) Manner it is inflicted
between the means employed to execute the criminal act and
its consequences. Instances that exhibit intent to kill, Paragraph 3 cannot apply:
a) Using a heavy club in attacking the deceased whom
Case example: People v. Rabao the accused followed, without giving him an
- The husband who has quarreling with his wife opportunity to defend himself.
punched her in the abdomen, causing the rupture of b) Stabbing the deceased with a lethal weapon, such
her hypertrophied spleen, from which she died. as a fan knife or a butt of a rifle, upon a vulnerable
part of the body (e.g., head, chest, stomach), death
Case example: US v. Bertucio could be reasonably be anticipated.
- The accused confined himself to giving a single blow c) Striking the victim on the right forehead.
with a bolo on the right arm of the victim and did not d) In cases of conspiracy, where the act of one is the
repeat the blow. The death of the victim was due to act of all.
neglect and the lack of medical treatment, his death e) Inflicting stab wounds in rapid succession.
having resulted from hemorrhage which those who f) Brute force, such as strangulation over a
attended to him did not know how to stop or control defenseless child.
in time.
Cases where there is lack of intent and not covered under
Case example: People v. Ural Paragraph 3
- The policeman (accused), boxed the detention a) Felonies by negligence – since the offender acts
prisoner (deceased), inside the jail. As a without intent (as replaced by negligence,
consequence of the fistic blows, the deceased imprudence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill), there
collapsed on the floor. is no intent which may be considered as diminished.
- The accused stepped on the prostate body and left. b) Unintentional abortion – committed by any person
After a while, he returned with a bottle, poured its who, by violence, shall cause the killing of the fetus
contents on the recumbent body of the deceased, in the uterus or the violent expulsion of the fetus
ignited it with a match and left the cell again. As a from the maternal womb, causing its death, but
consequence, the victim died. unintentionally.
- The court held that the accused is entitled to the
mitigating circumstance of “no intention to commit Intention during the commission of the crime
so grave a wrong as that committed.” ● It is the intention of the offender at the moment
when he is committing the crime which is
Intention, being an internal state, must be judged by considered.
external acts — the intention, as an internal act, is judged not ● Article 13, Paragraph 3 addresses itself to the
only by the proportion of the means employed by him to the intention of the offender at the particular moment
evil produced by his act, but also by the fact that the blow was when he executes or commits the criminal act; not
or was not aimed at a vital part of the body. to his intention during the planning stage
Instances: Case example: People v. Abueg

a) In the case of People v. Ural, it can be deduced that - Lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong,
the accused had no intent to kill the victim when mitigating in robbery with homicide.
after he maltreated the victim, he allowed the victim - It has not been satisfactorily established that in
to secure medical treatment at the municipal forcing entrance through the door which was then
dispensary. closed, the accused were aware that the deceased
b) If the accused loaded a revolver and killed the was behind the door and would be hurt. There is no
deceased, it must be presumed that he intended the clear showing that they ever desired to kill the
natural consequence of his act, considering the deceased, as they thought to enter the house to
means employed, and is therefore not entitled to the retaliate against the male occupants or commit
benefit of the mitigating circumstance (US v. robbery.
Fitzgerald).
Physical injuries and mitigating circumstances

● In crimes against persons who do not die as a result 3) Provocation must be immediate to the act, i.e., to the
of the assault, the absence of the intent to kill commission of the crime by the person who is
reduces the felony to mere physical injuries, but it provoked
does not constitute a mitigating circumstance.
Sufficient – adequate to excite a person to commit the wrong
Cases where the victim dies, but still a mitigating and must accordingly be proportionate to its gravity.
circumstance:
a) The accused merely intended to set the deceased’s Factors considered in determining whether provocation is
clothes on fire, as part of their fun-making. Burning sufficient
the clothes of the victim would cause at the very a) Act constituting the provocation
least some kind of physical injuries on this person. b) Social standing of the person provoked
The accused is guilty of the resulting death of the c) Place and time when the provocation is made
victim but he is entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a Cases where there is sufficient provocation:
wrong as that committed (People v. Pugay). 1) US v. Carrero— The accused was a foreman in
b) Petitioner was committing a felony when he boxed charge of the preservation of order and he provided
the victim and hit him with a bottle. The fact that the himself with a pick handle. The deceased, one of the
victim was previously afflicted with a heart ailment laborers in line to receive their wages, left his place
does not alter petitioner’s liability for his death. and forced his way into the file. The accused ordered
Nevertheless, the Court must appreciate as him out, but he persisted, and the accused gave him
mitigating circumstance the fact that the physical a blow with the stick on the right side of the head
injuries could not have resulted naturally and above the ear. When the aggression is in retaliation
logically, in the actual death of the victim, if the for an insult, injury, or threat, the offender cannot
latter’s heart was in good condition (Garcia v. successfully claim self-defense, but at most, he can
People). be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance
under the provisions of par. 4 of Article 13.
Applicability of paragraph 3 only to offenses in physical 2) People v. Marquez— When in his house, the
injuries or material harm accused saw an unknown person jump out of the
● The mitigating circumstance that the offender did window and his wife begged for his pardon on her
not intend to commit grave a wrong as that knees, he killed her. Such conduct on the part of his
committed was not appreciated in cases of wife constitutes a sufficient provocation to the
defamation or slander (People v. Galang de accused.
Bautista). 3) US v. Cortes— Although there was no unlawful
aggression, because the challenge was accepted by
Applied in Malversion of Public Funds the accused, and therefore there was no
● Petitioner misappropriated the missing funds under self-defense, there was however the mitigating
his custody and control because he was impelled by circumstance of immediate provocation, where the
the genuine love for his brother and his family. Per deceased insulted the accused and then challenged
his admission, petitioner used part of the funds to the latter.*
pay off a debt owed by his brother. Another portion 4) People v. Manansala— There was sufficient
went to his medications for his debilitating diabetes. provocation on the part of the victim where the
Evidently, there was no intention to commit so grave latter hit the accused on the eye with his fist before
a wrong; hence, he is entitled to the mitigating the fight.
circumstance. 5) US v. Firmo— The intoxicated deceased found the
accused lying down without having prepared the
Sufficient Provocation evening meal, which then angered him, so he abused
the accused by kicking and cursing him. A struggle
Article 13, Paragraph 4. — That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of

followed and the accused the accused stabbed him
the offended party immediately preceded the act. with a pen-knife. The accused was entitled to the
mitigating circumstance that sufficient provocation
Provocation – any unjust or improper conduct or act of the or threat immediately preceded the act.
offended party, capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating 6) People v. Macariola— The victim’s act of kicking the
anyone. accused on the chest prior to the stabbing does not
constitute unlawful aggression for purposes of
Basis: Diminution of intelligence and intent self-defense, but the act may be considered as
sufficient provocation, a mitigating circumstance in
Requisites favor of the accused.
1) Provocation must be sufficient 7) Romera v. People— Thrusting his bolo at petitioner,
2) Must originate from the offended party threatening to kill him, and hacking the bamboo walls
of his house are sufficient provocation to enrage any

man, or stir his rage and obfuscate his thinking, more Case example: US v. Malabanan
so when the lives of his wife and children are in - If during the fight between the accused and another
danger. As a result, petitioner stabbed the victim person who provoked the affair, the deceased merely
while he was still in a fit of rage. There was sufficient approached to separate them and did not give the
provocation and the circumstance of passion or accused any reason for attacking him, and in
obfuscation attended the commission of the attacking the other person the accused killed the
offense. deceased, the provocation given by the other
person cannot be taken as a mitigating
*Where the defendant sought the deceased, the challenge circumstance.
to fight by the latter is NOT provocation (US v. Mendac)
● If the defendant appeared in front of the house of Difference between sufficient provocation as requisite of
the deceased, after they had been separated by incomplete self-defense and as a mitigating circumstance
other persons who prevented a fight between them,
even if the deceased challenged him to a fight upon As incomplete As a mitigating
seeing him near his house, the defendant cannot be self-defense circumstance
given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of
provocation, because when the defendant sought Pertains to its absence on Pertains to its presence on
the deceased, the former was ready and willing to the part of the person the part of the offended
defending himself. party.
fight.
Cases where provocation are held not sufficient: Case example: People v. Alconga
1) People v. Laude— When the injured party asked the - The provocation given by the deceased at the
accused for an explanation for the latter’s commencement of the fight is not a mitigating
derogatory remarks against certain ladies, the circumstance, where the accused ran away and the
accused cannot properly claim that he was provoked accused killed him while fleeing, because the
to kill. deceased from the moment he fled did not give any
2) People v. Nabora— While the accused was taking a provocation for the accused to pursue and attack
walk one evening, the deceased met him and him.
pointing his finger at the accused asked the latter
what he was doing there and said, “don’t you know Provocation must be immediate to the commission of the
we are watching for honeymooners here?” The crime
accused drew out his knife and stabbed the ● There should not be any interval of time between the
deceased. The provocation made by the deceased provocation by the offended party and the
was not sufficient. commission of the crime by the person provoked.
3) US v. Abijan— The fact that the deceased (public ● The reason for such requirement is that the law
officer) had ordered the arrest of the accused for states that the provocation ‘immediately preceded
misdemeanor is not such a provocation that will be the act.’
considered in mitigation of the penalty for the crime ● When there is an interval of time, the conduct of the
of homicide committed by the accused who killed offended party could not have excited the accused
the officer giving such order. The performance of to the commission of the crime, having had time to
duty is not a source of provocation. regain his reason and to exercise self-control.
4) People v. CA— The blowing horns, cutting of lanes,

Case example: People v. Tan
or overtaking can be considered as acts of
- Provocation given by an adversary at the
provocation, but were not sufficient. Moreover, the
commencement and during the first stage of a fight
deceased’s act of asking for an explanation from the
cannot be considered as mitigating where the
accused was not sufficient provocation for him to
accused pursued and killed the former while fleeing,
claim that he was provoked to kill or injure the
and the deceased, from the moment he had fled
deceased.
after the first stage of the fight to the moment he
died, did not give any provocation for the accused to
Provocation must originate from the offended party
● Where the alleged provocation did not come from pursue, much less further attack him.
the deceased but from the latter’s mother, the same

Case example: People v. Benito
may not be appreciated in favor of the accused.
- The provocation did not immediately precede the
Example: A and B were together. A hit C on the head with a shooting, where the accused had almost a day to
piece of stone from his sling-shot and ran away. As he could mull over the alleged provocation before he reacted
not overtake A, C faced B and assaulted her. In this case, C is by shooting the victim. When he shot the vicitm the
not entitled to this mitigating circumstance, because B never next day, it was a deliberate act of vengeance and
gave the provocation or took part in it. not the natural reaction of a human being to
immediately retaliate when provoked.

deeply embarrassed, and the encounter took place
Case example: People v. Deguia in about half an hour’s time.
- Where one of the accused, after the provocation by
the deceased consisting in accusing him of having Case example: People v. Doniego
stolen two jackfruits from his tree and taking them - Stabbing to death the son of the accused which
from the sled of the accused, went home and later most naturally and logically must have enraged and
returned fully armed and killed he deceased. obfuscated him, that seized by that feeling of hatred
- There was a misapplication of the rule that the and rancour, he stabbed indiscriminately the people
provocation was considered in favor of the accused. around.
It would be correct if the accusation that the
accused stole the jackfruits be considered as a Par. 5 applies to grave offense committed against surviving
grave offense instead of provocation, because an spouse of deceased relative
interval of time between the grave offense and the ● The relationship by affinity created between the
commission of the crime is allowed in such case. surviving spouse and the blood relatives of the
deceased spouse survives the death of either party
Where threat immediately preceded the act – threat should to the marriage which created the affinity.
not be offensive and positively strong because if it is, the
threat to inflict real injury is an unlawful aggression which may Example: A, the surviving husband of B, was killed by C. B’s
give rise to self-defense. brothers would be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
mitigation of grave offense if they cause serious physical
Example: If A was threatened by B with bodily harm and injuries to C immediately after learning of A’s death.
because of the threat, A immediately attacked and injured B,
there was a mitigating circumstance of threat immediately Lapse of time is allowed between the grave offense and the
preceding the act. vindication
● The word “immediate” used in the English text is not
Vague threats NOT sufficient the correct translation, as the Spanish text uses
● The victim’s mere utterance, “If you do not agree, “proxima.”
beware,” without further proof that he was bent
upon translating his vague threats into immediate Case example: People v. Parana
- The accused was slapped by the deceased in the
action, is not sufficient.
presence of many persons a few hours before the
● Where the victims shouted at the accused, “Follow
former killed the latter. It was considered a
us if you dare and we will kill you,” there is sufficient
mitigating circumstance that the act was committed
threat.
in the immediate vindication of a grave offense.
- Although the grave offense (slapping of the accused
Vindication of a Grave Offense
by the deceased), which engendered perturbation
of mind, was not so immediate, it was held that the
Article 12, Paragraph 5. — That the act was committed in the immediate influence thereof, by reason of its gravity and the
vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his
spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and circumstances under which it was inflicted, lasted.
sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees. until the moment the crime was committed.
Basis: Diminution of the conditions of voluntariness. Case example: People v. Palaan

- The killing of the paramour by the offended husband
Grave offense – contrary to a grave felony, it is an annoying or one day after the adultery was considered still
insulting act. proximate.
Requisites Case example: People v. Diokno

1) That there be a grave offense done to the one - The lapse of time between the grave offense
committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants, (abducting the daughter of the accused by the
descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted deceased) and the vindication (killing of the
brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the deceased) was two or three days.
same degrees. - Although the aggression took place three days after
2) That the felony is committed in vindication of such the elopement took place, the offense did not cease
offense. A lapse of time is allowed between the while whereabouts of the abducted daughter
vindication and the doing of the grave offense. remained unknown and her marriage to the
deceased legalized.
Case example: People v. Pongol - There was no interruption from the time the offense
- Being accused by the victim that the accused stole was committed to the vindication thereof.
the former’s rooster which made the latter feel - The accused belongs to a family of old customs to
whom the elopement of a daughter with a man
constitutes a grave offense to their honor and

causes disturbance of the peace and tranquility of his dead son and seized that feeling of hatred and
the home and at the same time spreads uneasiness rancour, to have stabbed indiscriminately the people
and anxiety in the minds of the members thereof. around.
- The attenuating circumstance of immediate
Instances where interval of time negates vindication vindication of a grave offense– the stabbing of his
1) People v. Lumayag— Approximately 9 months son to death, or of having committed the crime upon
before the killing, the deceased boxed the accused an impulse may be deemed to have attended the
several times in the face resulting in the conviction commission of the crime alternatively, because both
of the deceased for less serious physical injuries. He mitigating circumstances cannot co-exist.
appealed, pending which the accused killed him. It
cannot be said that the incident was an immediate Basis to determine the gravity of offense
or a proximate vindication of the first. ● The court must consider the social standing of the
2) People v. Benito— The deceased uttered the person, the place, and the time when the insult was
following remark in the morning in the presence of made. There are cases where the age of the
the accused and his officemates: “Nag-iistambay accused is also considered.
pala dito ang magnanakaw,” or “Hindi ko alam na
itong Civil Service pala ay istambayan ng ng Case example: US v. Ampar
magnanakaw.” In the afternoon of the same day, the - During a fiesta, an old man 70 years of age asked the
accused killed the deceased. The mitigating deceased for some roast pig. In the presence of
circumstance of vindication of a grave offense does many guests, the deceased insulted the old man
not avail. saying that there is no more; that the old man come
3) People v. Lopez— Where the accused heard the back and be the roast pig instead. A little later, while
deceased say that the accused’s daughter is a flirt, the deceased was squatting down, the old man
and the accused stabbed the victim two months came up behind him and struck him on the head with
later, the mitigating circumstance of immediate an axe.
vindication of a grave offense cannot be considered - While it may be mere trifle to an average person, it
in favor of accused because he had sufficient time to was a serious matter to an old man, to be made the
recover his serenity. The supposed vindication did butt of a joke.
not immediately or proximately follow the alleged - The age of the accused and the place were
insulting and provocative remarks. considered in determining the gravity of the offense.
Difference between provocation and vindication Case example: People v. Lopez

- Provocation should be proportionate to the damage
caused by the act and adequate to stir one to its
Provocation Vindication
commission.
Made directly to the person The grave offense may be
committing the felony. committed also against the Passion or Obfuscation
offender’s relatives
mentioned by the law.
Article 11, Paragraph 6. — That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as
naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.
The cause that brought Offended party must have
about the provocation need done a grave offense the
not be a grave offense. offender or his relatives Basis: Diminution of his intelligence and intent.
mentioned by the law.
Requisites
It is necessary that the Vindication of the grave
1) The victim perpetrated unlawful or unjust act, which
provocation or threat offense may be proximate,
immediately preceded the which admits of an interval produced passion or obfuscation
act, i.e., there be no interval of time between the grave 2) Passion must arise from lawful sentiment of the
of time between the offense done by the offender and not from spirit of lawlessness or
provocation and the offended party and the revenge
commission of the crime. commission of the crime by 3) By reason of the passion or obfuscation, the
the accused.
offender lost control and reason
4) The length of time between the perpetration of the
Reason for the difference: The greater leniency in case of act that produced passion and the commission of
vindication is because it concerns the honor of a person, an the crime must not be considerable enough for the
offense which is more worthy of consideration than mere spite accused to recover his normal equanimity
against the one giving the provocation or threat.
Reason for mitigation: When there are causes naturally
Case example: People v. Doniego producing in a person powerful excitement, he loses his
- It was most natural and logical for the appellant to
have been enraged and obfuscated at the sight of

reason and self-control, thereby diminishing the exercise of - The actuation of the accused arose from a natural
his will power. instinct that impels a father to rush to the rescue of
a beleaguered son, regardless of whether the latter
Rule for the application: Passion or obfuscation may be right or wrong.
constitute a mitigating circumstance only when the same
arose from lawful sentiments. Exercises of a right or fulfillment of duty is not proper
source of passion or obfuscation
There is no mitigating circumstance despite existence of
actual passion or obfuscation on the part of the offender Case example: People v. Noynat, et al.
when: - The accused killed the deceased when the latter
1) The act is committed in a spirit of lawlessness; or was about to take the carabao to the bario
2) The act is committed in a spirit of revenge. lieutenant. The action of the deceased in taking the
carabao of the accused to him and demanding
payment for the sugarcane destroyed by that
The act of the offender party must be unlawful or unjust carabao, and in taking the carabao to the barrio
● The crime committed by the accused must be lieutenant when the accused refused to pay, was
provoked by prior unjust or improper acts of the perfectly legal and proper and constituted no
injured party, reasonable cause for provocation to the accused.
- The finding that the accused acted upon impulse so
Case example: People v. Quijano powerful as naturally to have produced passion or
- A common-law wife, who, having left the common obfuscation is not justified, because the deceased
home, refused to go home with the accused, was was clearly within his rights in what he did.
acting within her rights, and the accused
(common-law husband) had no legitimate right to Case example: People v. Caliso
compel her to go with him. - Since the mother of the child, killed the accused,
- The act of the deceased in refusing to go him with had the perfect right to reprimand the accused for
the acused, while provocative, nevertheless was indecently converting the family’s bedroom into a
insufficient to produce the passion or obfuscation rendezvous of herself and her lover, the said
that the law contemplates. accused cannot properly invoke the mitigating
- A common law marriage is not recognized by the circumstance of passion or obfuscation to minimize
Philippine laws, hence passion arising from such her liability for the murder of the child.
relationship is not appreciated.
Case example: US v. Taylor
Case example: US v. Ortencio - The accused was making a disturbance on a public
- The accused killed his wife on the occasion when street and a policeman came to arrest him, the anger
she visited her aunt’s husband. This mitigating and indignation of the accused resulting from the
circumstance was applicable, having in mind the arrest cannot be considered passion or obfuscation,
jealousy of the accused and her refusal to return to because the policeman was performing a lawful act.
his house until after arrival of her uncle.
Act must be sufficient to produce such a condition of mind
Case example: People v. Ancheta, et al.
- The mitigating circumstance of having acted under Case example: US v. Diaz
an impulse so powerful as to have produced passion - If the cause of the loss of self-control was trivial and
and obfuscation should be considered in favor of the slight, as when the victim failed to work on the
owner who, upon seeing the person who stole his hacienda of which the accused was the overseer, or
carabao, shoots the supposed thief. where the accused saw the injured party picking
fruits from the tree claimed by the former, the
Case example: People v. Samonte, Jr. obfuscation is not mitigating.
- The act of the deceased in creating trouble during
the wake of the departed father of Applicable amount of time – no mitigating circumstance of
defendant-appellant scandalizes the mourners and passion when more than 24 hours elapsed between the
offenfs the sensibilities of the grieving family, was alleged insult and the commission of the felony, or if several
both unlawful and sufficient to infuriate hours passed between the cause of passion or obfuscation
accused-appellant, his guilt is mitigated by passion and the commission of the crime, or where at least half an hour
or obfuscation. intervened between the previous fight and subsequent killing
of the deceased by the accused.
Case example: People v. Castro ● There is no fixed rule in determining the length of
- The accused is entitled to the mitigating time to negate the appreciation of passion. The
circumstance of passion or obfuscation where he hit nature of the acts of the victim that caused it should
the deceased upon seeing the latter box his be considered. If there has been an appreciable
four-year-old son. period long enough for pause and reflection, it is

error to consider passion or obfuscation for the accused and lived with another man. The accused
accused. enraged by such conduct, killed the deceased.
● Passion was not appreciated as mitigating - The mitigating circumstance cannot be considered
circumstance when the time passed by 24 hours, 5 in his favor because the causes which mitigate
hours, and even 30 minutes. The lapse of 10 to 15 criminal responsibility for the loss of self-control are
minutes was appreciated. such which originate from legitimate feelings, and
● The reason for these is that the act producing the not those which arise from vicious, unworthy, and
obfuscation must not be far removed from the immoral passions.
commission of the crime by a considerable length of - The cause of passion and obfuscation of the
time, during which the accused might have accused was his vexation, disappointment, and
recovered his normal equanimity. anger engendered by the refusal of the woman to
● Proving that the act which produced passion or continue to live in illicit relations with him, which she
obfuscation took place at a time not far removed had a perfect right to do.
from the commission of the crime is the burden of
the defense. Case example: People v. Bautista
- There was a heated confrontation between victim
Composure test – used in determining if the accused has and Usman, a security guard. The accused, another
already recovered his normal equanimity for appreciation of security guard, made a remark against victim, to
passion as mitigating circumstance, the court shall consider which the vicitm retorted by answering “Huwag ka
not only the lapse of time between the perpetration of the act mangialam.” The accused took the shotgun while
that produced passion and the commission of the crime, but the argument between Usman and the victim
also his composure. continued. As the accused went near the victim, the
latter said “Putangina ka, huwag ka mangialam dito.”
Crime committed must be the result of a sudden impulse of The accused fired at the victim, hitting him on the
natural and uncontrollable fury left side of his head, which caused his death.
● Obfuscation cannot be mitigating in a crime which - Passion was not appreciated. The obfuscation must
was planned and calmly meditated or if the impulse originate from lawful feelings. The turmoil and
upon which the accused acted was deliberately unreason which naturally result from a quarrel or
formented by him for a considerable period of time. fight should not be confused with the sentiment or
excitement in the mind of a person injured or
Case example: People v. Constantino, et al. offended to such a degree as to deprive him of sanity
- There is neither and obfuscation nor proximate and self-control, because the cause of this
vindication of a grave offense where the killing of the condition of mind must necessarily have preceded
decedent was made four days after the stabbing of the commission of the offense.
the appellant’s kin. Moreover, vengeance is not a
lawful sentiment. Case example: US v. Dela Cruz
- Did not follow the Hicks ruling, because the common
Passion and obfuscation may build up and strengthen over law husband abandoned his common law wife after
time taking advantage of her for several years.
● Passion and obfuscation as a mitigating - The accused killed his common law wife upon
circumstance need not be felt only in the seconds discovering her in flagrante carnal communication
before the commission of the crime. It may build up with a common acquaintance.
and strengthen over time until it can no longer be - The accused was entitled to the mitigating
repressed and will ultimately motivate the circumstance of passion or obfuscation because the
commission of the crime. impulse caused by the sudden revelation that she
was untrue to him, and his discovery of her in
Case example: People v. Oliverio flagrante in the arms of another; passion, which
- Where the victim not only threatened to molest
arose from the hurt feeling of an abandoned woman,
accused’s daughter but also accused him in public of
will mitigate her criminal.
having incestuous relations with his mother,
insulting him in full view of his immediate superior, Difference between Hicks and Dela Cruz when it involves
passion may linger and build up over time as common law marriage
repressed anger enough to obfuscate reason and
self-control.
Hicks Case Dela Cruz Case
Passion or obfuscation must arise from lawful sentiments

Passion arose from exercise Passion was produced by
of right of the victim to end the act of infidelity. Even if
Case example: US v. Hicks
an immoral relationship. not married, the victim had
- For about five years, the accused and the deceased
Hence, passion is not a the obligation of fidelity to
lived illicitly in the manner of husband and wife. mitigating circumstance the accused. The sentiment
Afterwards, the deceased separated from the

- The accused who raped a woman is not entitled to
since it is based on an of the accused cannot be
the mitigating circumstance of passion or
immoral sentiment considered as immoral
obfuscation because he finds himself in a secluded
place with a young ravishing woman, almost naked,
Case example: People v. Engay
and therefore, liable to succumb to the
- The accused, as common law wife, lived with the
uncontrollable passion of his bestial instinct.
deceased for 15 years, whose house she helped
support. Later, the deceased married another
In spirt of Revenge
woman. The accused killed him.
● In provocation, the crime must not be committed as
- Contrary to the Hicks case where the causes which
a deliberate act of revenge.
produce in the mind loss of reason and self-control
● There can be no revenge in provocation because one
arose from vicious, unworthy, and immoral passions,
of the requisites is that it should not be committed
this case exhibited that the accused lived for 15
as a deliberate act of revenge
years as the real wife of the deceased, whose house
● There can be no revenge in passion or obfuscation
she helped to support. It was a natural feeling of
because such passion must arise from lawful
despair in the woman who saw her life broken and
sentiments and not from a spirit of lawlessness or
found herself abandoned by the very man whom she
revenge.
considered for so long a time as her husband and for
whom she had made so many sacrifices.
Offender must act under the impulse of special motives
- The mitigating circumstance of passion or ● Excitement is the natural feeling of all persons
obfuscation was considered in favor of the accused. engaged in a fight, especially those who had
received a beating, and the impulse in that state is
Case example: People v. Gravino
not considered in law so powerful as to produce
- The girl’s sweetheart killed the girl’s father and
obfuscation sufficient to mitigate liability.
brother because the girl’s parents objected to their
getting married and the girl consequently broke off
Case example: People v. Mil
their relationship. - The accused killed P, because the latter did not
- Such an act is actuated more by a spirit of deliver the letter of F to A, on which (letter) the
lawlessness and revenge, rather than any sudden accused had pinned his hopes of settling the case
and legitimate impulse of natural and uncontrollable against him amicably. The failure of P to deliver the
fury. letter is a prior unjust and improper act sufficient to
produce great excitement and passion in the
Case example: People v. Lopez
accused as to confuse his reason and impel him to
- Passion or obfuscation to be properly appreciated
kill P. It was a legitimate and natural cause of
must arise from lawful sentiments
indignation and anger
- The act of the victim of demanding that they vacate
her land and transfer elsewhere and discontinue
Case example: US v. Herrera
their excavation threat was not unlawful and unjust - Two individuals had been wrestling together and
as she was exercising her right to her land after being separated, one of them followed up the
- The exercise of a lawful right cannot be the proper other and wounded him with a knife as he was
source of obfuscation that they may be considered a entering a vehicle.
mitigating circumstance. Therefore, exercise of right - The aggressor cannot claim in his favor that the
is not a source of mitigating circumstance of previous struggle produced in him entire loss of
passion. reason or self-control, for the existence of such
excitement as is inherent in all who quarrel and come
In spirit of Lawlessness to blows does not constitute a mitigating
● The act, being actuated more by a spirit of circumstance. The guilty party must have acted
lawlessness and revenge than by any sudden under the impulse of special motives.
impulse of natural and uncontrollably fury, and
because such sudden burst of passion was not Obfuscation arising from jealousy
provoked by prior unjust or improper acts of the ● Jealousy felt from an illicit relationship cannot
victim, cannot avail of the mitigating circumstance appreciate the mitigating circumstance of passion
of passion or obfuscation. or obfuscation.
● The feeling of resentment resulting from rivalry in
Case example: People v. Cabarrubias amorous relations with a woman is a powerful
- Screams of a child are not provocative enough to instigator of jealousy and prone to produce anger
generate a sudden impulse of natural and and obfuscation.
uncontrolled fury. ● Jealousy of a suitor does not arise from a lawful
passion. The fact that the deceased favored a rival
Case example: People v. Sanico
of the accused in his courtship of the young woman

does not constitute legitimate passion which Other circumstances that cannot coexist with passion or
mitigates the guilt. The act of the deceased was not obfuscation
enough to obfuscate the accused; nor did the latter a) Vindication of grave offense
have any right to prevent others from courting the b) Lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong
girl, or the deceased from favoring said courtship. c) Treachery
d) Evident premeditation
The cause producing passion or obfuscation must come
from the offended party
Passion or obfuscation Treachery
Case example: US v. Esmedia The offender loses his The mode of attack must be
- The two sons, believing that S would inflict other reason and self-control. consciously adopted.
wounds upon their father, who was already
wounded, in defense of their father, immediately Therefore, one who loses his reason and self control
killed S. under this great excitement, the two sons cannot deliberately employ a particular means, method or
also proceeded to attack and did kill C who was near form of attack in the execution of the crime.
the scene at the time.
- Since C had taken no part in the quarrel and had not Case example: People v. Yaon
in any manner provoked the sons, passion or - Vindication of grave offense cannot coexist with
obfuscation cannot mitigate their liability with passion and obfuscation.
respect to the killing of C. this extenuating - One single fact cannot be made the basis of
circumstance is applied to reduce the penalty in different modifying circumstances.
cases where the provocation which caused they - Exception to the general rule is when there are other
eated passion was made by the injured party. facts, although closely connected with the fact
upon which one circumstance is premised, the other
Mistake of fact and passion: Passion or obfuscation may circumstance may be appreciated as based on the
lawfully arise from causes existing only in the honest belief other fact.
of the offender
● If the accused honestly believe as to the existence Case example: People v. Diokno
of a passion which does not exist, passion will be - The deceased, a Chinaman, had eloped with the
appreciated because of the mistake of fact principle. daughter of the accused, and later when the
● Thus, the belief of the defendant that the deceased deceased saw the accused coming, the deceased
had caused his dismissal from his employment is ran upstairs in his house, there are two facts which
sufficient to confuse his reason and impel him to are closely connected: (1) elopement, which is a
commit the crime. grave offense to a family of old customs, and (2)
refusal to deal with him, a stimulus strong enough to
Cases where passion was appreciated in favor of the offender produce in his mind a fit of passion.
who had a mistake of fact:
- Two mitigating circumstances of vindication and
a) The belief entertained in good faith by the
passion were considered in favor of the accused.
defendants that the deceased cast upon their
- The vindication of a grave offense was based on the
mother a spell of witchcraft which was the cause of
fact of elopement and that of passion on the fact
her serious illness, is so powerful a motive as to
that the deceased, instead of meeting him and
naturally produce passion or obfuscation.
asking for forgiveness, ran away from the accused.
b) The accused was driven strongly by jealousy
because of the rumors regarding the amorous
Case example: People v. Domingo
relationship between his wife and the victim.
- Passion cannot coexist with treachery because in
c) The accused’s act in shooting victim was influenced
passion, the offender loses his control and reason,
by a legitimate feeling consequent upon his belief
while in treachery, the means employed are
that victim killed his horse.
consciously adopted and one who loses his reason
and self-control could not deliberately employ a
Case example: People v. Pagal
particular means, method, or form of attack in the
- Provocation and obfuscation arising from one and
execution of the crime.
the same cause should be treated as only one
- Vindication or obfuscation cannot also be
mitigating circumstance.
considered when the person attacked is not the one
- Since the alleged provocation which caused the
who gave cause therefor.
obfuscation arose from the same incident, i.e., the
alleged maltreatment and/or ill-treatment of the
Case example: People v. Pagal
appellants by the deceased, those two mitigating
- The essence of premeditation is that the execution
circumstances cannot be considered as two distinct
of the criminal act must be preceded by cam
and separate circumstances, but should be treated
thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry
as one.

out the criminal intent during the space of time Interconnection between Provocation, Vindication,
sufficient to arrive at a composed judgment. and Passion or Obfuscation
Summarization of sources and cannot be sources of passion The aforementioned are three different concepts. However,
there are occasions that their concepts interlock. The
commission of a single crime may sometimes be attended by
Source Not a source
these three circumstances.
- Improper - The victim’s exercise of
performance of duty right SOURCE OF CRIMINAL MITIGATION
- Repeated challenge - The victim’s
to a duel performance of duty Provocation Vindication Passion
- Assault (except those - Mutual assault,
that are mutual or quarrel, or fistfight The provocative acts Grave offense or Unlawful or unjust act
committed by the gravely offensive, that produced
caused by
victim, that is, annoying, or insulting obfuscation or passion
provocation) adequate to excite a act committed by the such as creating
- Where the cause of person to commit a victim against the trouble during the wake
wrong, which must be accused or his relatives of the father of the
loss of self-control
proportionate in such as insulting accused or jealousy.
was trivial and slight gravity, such as kicking remark against
- Planned and and cursing. daughter of the
accused or urinating on
meditated
accused in front of
commission of a guests.
crime
Jealousy and refusal to live with the accused can be a TIME FACTOR
source of passion provided that it arose from a lawful

Provocation Vindication Passion
sentiment; if the relationship is illicit, it is not.
Provocation must Vindication may be The offended party’s
immediately precede proximate, which unlawful or unjust act
Difference between passion or obfuscation and irresistible the act, i.e., there be no requires that interval of that caused the
force interval of time time between the grave powerful impulse need
between the offense done by the not be immediately
provocation on the part victim and the preceded by the
of the victim and the commission of the commission of the
Passion or obfuscation Irresistible force commission of the crime by the offender crime; what is
crime by the offender. must not be sufficient important is that such
for the accused to act was not far
Mitigating circumstance Exempting circumstance
regain his composure removed from the
or his moral equanimity. commission of the
Does not require physical Requires physical force crime by a considerable
length of time.
force
For instance, Insulting For instance, Insulting For instance,
In the offender himself Must come from a third the accused. the accused in front of Assaulting the
person several persons. offender.
Must arise from lawful Unlawful

SOURCE OF EXCITEMENT
sentiments
Provocation Vindication Passion
Difference between passion or obfuscation and provocation

Provocative act of the Grave offense may be Unlawful or unjust act
victim must be made committed by the of the offended party
directly only against victim against the may be directed
Passion or obfuscation Provocation the offender. offender or his spouse, against the offender or
ascendants, his relative.
descendants,
Produced by an impulse Comes from the injured legitimate, natural, or
which may be caused by party. adopted brothers or
sisters, or relatives by
provocation.
affinity within the same
degrees.
Offense which engenders Must immediately precede
perturbation of mind need the commission of the
not be immediate. It is only crime. Interrelationship of the three concepts
required that the influence ● Challenge to a fight can be a source of provocation.
thereof lasts until the But calling the accused, who is the president of a
moment the crime is Labor Union, and abusador and challenging him to a
committed. duel in the presence of several persons, gravely
offended him, hence, vindication of grave offense will
In both, the effect is the loss of reason and self-control on
mitigate his criminal liability.
the part of the offender.
● Repeatedly berating the accused and challenging
him to a duel are acts that produce sudden impulse
of natural fury dictating to the accused to commit

the crime. Hence, passion as a mitigating
Surrender Arrest
circumstance may be appreciated.
Offender voluntarily Government authorities
Provocation and vindication and self-defense delivered his person into compulsorily took the
● If the provocative act or gravely offensive act offender into custody in
the custody of government
committed by the victim constitutes unlawful order that he may answer
authorities to answer for
aggression, privilege mitigating circumstance of for commission of offense.
the commission of crime.
incomplete self-defense or defense of relative may
be appreciated, and not the mitigating circumstance
of provocation or vindication. Requisite of voluntariness – a surrender to be voluntary must
● If the unlawful aggression ceased, the accused is be spontaneous in such a manner that it shows the interest of
not entitled to complete or incomplete self-defense, the accused to surrender unconditionally to the authorities,
however, the ceased aggression may be a source of either because (1) he acknowledged his guilt, or (2) he wishes
provocation, passion, or vindication. to save them the trouble and expenses necessarily incurred in
his search and capture.
Acts where Two Circumstances may be Present ● If none of these two reasons impelled the accused
● Mitigating circumstances arising from the same acts to surrender, because his surrender was obviously
of the victim shall be considered as one. motivated more by an intention to insure his safety,
● For instance, although the unlawful aggression had his arrest being inevitable, the surrender is not
ceased in a case, it was nonetheless a grave offense spontaneous and therefore not voluntary.
for which the accused may be given the benefit of ● The word spontaneous emphasizes the idea of an
vindication. But the mitigating circumstance of inner impulse, acting without external stimulus.
sufficient provocation cannot be considered apart ● The conduct of the accused, not his intention alone,
from the circumstance of vindication of a grave after the commission of the offense, determines the
offense. These two circumstances arose from the spontaneity of the surrender.
same incident; thus, provocation and vindication
shall be considered as one mitigating circumstance. Case example: People v. Tenorio
- The accused, after plunging a bolo into the victim’s
chest, ran toward the municipal building. Upon
Voluntary Surrender & Voluntary Plea of Guilt
seeing a patrolman, he immediately threw away his
bolo, raised his two hands, offered no resistance,
Article 13, Paragraph 7. — That the offender had voluntarily surrendered and said to the patrolman “Here is my bolo, I stabbed
himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily
confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence the victim.”
for the prosecution. - There was intent or desire to surrender voluntarily to
the authorities.
Basis: Lesser perversity of the offender.
Case example: People v. Morato
Two mitigating circumstances in this paragraph - The Provincial Commander announced that he would
1) Voluntary surrender to a person in authority or his issue a shoot to kill order unless accused voluntarily
agents. surrenders, and that his employer persuaded
2) Voluntary confession of guilt before the court prior accused to surrender.
to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution. - What is important is that accused was not arrested
and that he presented himself to the Provincial
Extent of the circumstance Commander to surrender on the day following the
● Although these circumstances are considered killing.
mitigating in the same subsection of Article 13, when
both are present, they should have the effect if Case example: People v. Dayrit
mitigating as two independent circumstances. - After the commission of the crime, the accused fled
● If any of them must mitigate the penalty to a certain to a hotel to hide not from the police authorities, but
extent, when both are present, they should produce from the companions of the deceased who pursued
this effect to a greater extent. him to the hotel but could not get to him because
the door was closed after the accused had entered.
Voluntary Surrender Once in the hotel, the accused dropped his weapon
at the door and when the policemen came to
Requisites of voluntary surrender investigate, he readily admitted ownership of the
1) The offender had not been actually arrested weapon and then voluntarily went with them. No
2) The offender surrendered himself to a person in warrant had been issued for his arrest.
authority or to the latter’s agent - The accused was granted the benefit of the
3) The surrender was voluntary mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

Case example: People v. Benito circumstance because the law does not require that
- Immediately after the shooting, the accused, having the surrender be prior to the order of arrest
all the opportunity to escape, did not do so, but - The mere filing of an information and/or the issuance
instead called up the police department. When the of a warrant of arrest will no automatically make the
policemen went to the scene of the crime to surrender involuntary. It continues to be mitigating
investigate, he voluntarily approached them and when the warrant of arrest has been issued until the
without revealing his identity, told them that he time before it is served before his person.
would help in connection with the case as he knew
the suspect and the latter’s motive.when brought to Case example: People v. Dela Cruz
the police station as a possible witness, he confided - The accused surrendered through the mediation of
to the investigators that he was voluntarily his father before any warrant of arrest had been
surrendering and also surrendering the fatal gun issued. His surrender was appreciated as mitigating.
used in the shooting of the victim.
- These acts of the accused were held strongly Case example: People v. Yecla
indicative of his intent or desire to surrender - Presenting oneself in the municipal building to post
voluntarily to authorities. the bond for temporary release two days after the
issuance of the order for the arrest is in obedience
Case example: People v. Magpantay to the order of arrest and was tantamount to the
- The two accused left the scene of the crime but delivery of his person to the authorities to answer for
made several attempts to surrender to various local the crime for which his arrest was ordered.
officials, which somehow did not materialize for one
reason or another. It was already a week after when Instances not constituting voluntary surrender
they were finally able to surrender. a) The government had already conducted a search
- Voluntary surrender avails. After committing the operation.
crime, the accused defied no law or agent of the b) The warrant of arrest showed that the accused was
authority, and when they surrendered, they did so in fact arrested.
with meekness and repentance. c) The accused surrendered only after the warrant of
arrest was served upon him.
Case example: People v. Jereza d) The accused was actually arrested by his own
- The accused trooped to the police headquarters to admission or that he yielded because of the warrant
surrender the firearm used in committing the crime. of arrest.
It is not clear whether or not he also sought to e) The accused went into hiding and surrendered only
submit his very person to the authorities. when they realized that the forces of the law were
- The accused is given the benefit of the doubt, and closing in on them.
his arrival at the police station is considered as an f) The accused only surrendered when they realized
act of surrender. that they were completely surrounded and there
was no chance of escape. Their surrender was not
Case example: People v. Braña spontaneous as it was motivated more by an intent
- Where there is nothing on the record to show that to insure their safety.
the warrant for the arrest of the accused had g) The search for the accused had lasted four years,
actually been served on him, or that it had been which belies the spontaneity of the surrender.
returned unserved for failure of the server to locate h) No other evidence was presented to establish
said accused, and there is direct evidence to show indubitably that he deliberately surrendered to the
that he voluntarily presented himself to the police police.
when he was taken into custody i) Where the accused went to the police not to
surrender, but merely to report the incident which
Case example: People v. Babiera does not evince any desire to own responsibility for
- The accused helped in carrying his victim to the
the killing of the deceased.
hospital where he was disarmed and arrested; it is
j) Where the accused was arrested in his boarding
tantamount to voluntary surrender.
house and upon being caught, pretended to say that
he was on his way to the municipal building to
Case example: Rivera v. CA
surrender to the authorities, for that is not the
- When after the commission of the crime and the
nature of voluntary surrender that may serve to
issuance of the warrant of arrest, the accused
mitigate one’s liability in contemplation of law.
presented himself in the municipal building to post
k) When the accused went to the chief of police to
the bond for his temporary release, voluntary
whom he related what happened between him and
surrender is mitigating
the injured party and surrendered the bolo– not his
- The fact that the order of arrest had already been
person. Surrender of weapons cannot be equated
issued is no bar to the consideration of the
with voluntary surrender.

l) The accused gave himself up to the police because his guilt or an intention to save the authorities from
he did so out of fear of retaliatory action from the the trouble and expenses.
relatives of the deceased; this is not the kind of ● The fact that the accused did not escape or go into
surrender that entitles the accused to the benefit of hiding after the commission of the murder and in
voluntary surrender. fact he accompanied the chief of police to the scene
of the crime without however surrendering to him
What is NOT spontaneous, and therefore NOT voluntary and admitting complicity in the killing did not amount
surrender to voluntary surrender.
● The circumstance that the accused did not resist
Case example: People v. Gervacio
arrest or struggle to free himself after he was taken
- Immediately after the commission of the
to custody by authorities cannot amount to
robbery-slaying attributed to Gervacio and Mocorro,
voluntary surrender. While it is claimed that the
they fled together to the province of Leyte which
accused intended to surrender, the fact is that he
necessitated the authorities of Quezon City to go to
did not, despite several opportunities to do so, and
the place and search for them.
was in fact, arrested.
- Gervacio surrendered to the Mayor of Biliran 12 days
after the commission of the crime.
No need for express declaration of surrender
● A categorical declaration of voluntary surrender is
Surrender made to a person in authority or his agent
not necessary. The mere action of placing
● Voluntary surrender to commanding officer of the
themselves at the disposal of the authorities are
accused is mitigating, because the former is an
indicating of their respect for the law.
agent of a person in authority.
● Voluntary surrender to the chief clerk of a district
Time and place for surrender
engineer is not mitigating, because such chief clerk
● There is no voluntary surrender if the accused was
is neither a person in authority nor his agent.
not placed under physical custody by authorities, as
● The accused who surrendered first to the Municipal
long as the accused is free to roam around as he
Court, with whom he posted a bond, and then to the
pleased.
Constabulary headquarters of the province, is
● The RPC does not make any distinction among the
entitled to the mitigation of voluntary surrender.
various moments when the surrender may occur; it
only requires the offender to surender to the
Person in authority – one directly vested with jurisdiction, i.e.,
authorities to save the government the trouble and
a public officer who has the power to govern and execute the
expense of looking for him.
laws whether as an individual or as a member of some court or
● The law does not require that the surrender be prior
governmental corporation, board or commission (e.g., a barrio
to the issuance of the order of arrest,
captain and barangay chairman, mayor, judge, and chief of
● If the appellants surrendered because, after having
police).
been fugitives from justice from more than seven
years, they found it impossible to live in hostility and
Agent of a person in authority – a person, who, by direct
resistance to the authorities, the surrender was not
provision of the law, or by election or by appointment by
spontaneous. But, appreciable time contemplated
competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of
for surrender ends when the government had
public order and the protection and security of life and
already wasted money and resources in its effort to
property and any person who comes to the aid of persons in
serve the warrant.
authority (e.g., police officers, NBI agents, barangay tanod).
Surrender must be unconditional

Third persons acting as intermediaries
● The surrender contemplated should be voluntary,
- If the accused, instead of going directly to the police
and consequently unconditional; surrendering is not
station, went to a relative who in turn, called the
negotiable and the accused may not give conditions
police, and with the accused offering no resistance
for his arrest.
at all, he is entitled to mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender.
The surrender must be by reason of the commission of the
- That the accused went to his relative first and not crime for which defendant is prosecuted
directly to the police is of no moment, because the ● Defendant cannot claim the circumstance of
relative only acted as intermediary and such is voluntary surrender because he did not surrender to
recognized by law. the authority or its agents by reason of the
commission of the crum for which he was
Voluntary surrender does not simply mean non-flight prosecuted, but for being a Huk who wanted to come
● It does not matter if the accused never avoided
within the pale of the law.
arrest and never hid. What the law considers as
● If the defendant surrendered as a Huk to take
mitigating is the voluntary surrender of an accused
advantage of the amnesty, but the crime for which
before his arrest, showing either acknowledgment of

he was prosecuted was distinct and separate from ● The philosophy behind this rule is that, the
rebellion, his surrender is not mitigating. spontaneous willingness of the accused to admit
the commission of the offense charged, is absent.
Plea of Guilty ● If the rule were otherwise, an accused, who naturally
nourishes the hope of acquittal, could deliberately
Confession – statement made by an accused disclosing the plead not guilty in the municipal court, and upon
guilt of the crime with which he is charged and excluding conviction and on appeal to the court of first
possibility of reasonable inference to the contrary. instance, plead guilty just so he can avail himself of
the benefit of a mitigating circumstance — which
Reason why plea of guilty is mitigating: It is an act of cannot be countenanced.
repentance and respect for the law. It indicated a moral
disposition in the accused, favorable to his reform. Case example: People v. Lungbos
- The trial on merits had already commenced, but the
Requisites of plea of guilty accused manifested that he would change his plea
1) The offender spontaneously confessed his guilt of not guilty to a plea of guilty.
2) The confession of guilt was made in open court, that - For the spontaneous willingness of the accused to
is, before the competent court that is to try the case admit the commission of the offense charged, which
3) The confession of guilt was made prior to the is rewarded by the mitigating circumstance, is
presentation of evidence for the prosecution absent.
Confession in open court Case example: People v. Moro Sabilul

● The accused, upon arraignment, pleaded guilty - The plea of guilty was conditioned upon the
before the competent court to the crime charged allegation that the killing was done when the
after the information was read in the language appellant surprised his wife in the act of sexual
known to him. intercourse with the deceased.
● The accused may submit a sworn written confession - The Court pointed out that an accused may not
to the court. What is important is that the enter a conditional plea of guilty in the sense that he
confession is judicial. admits his guilt provided that a certain penalty be
● Extrajudicial confession made by the accused is imposed upon him. The Court is therefore
not mitigating since it is made outside of the court constrained to hold that the appellant in this case
● Plea of guilty made before MTC in a preliminary must be considered as having entered a plea of not
investigation is not a mitigating circumstance guilty.
because it is not a competent court.
Plea of guilty to lesser offense than that charged, NOT
Confession made before presentation of evidence mitigating
● An accused should not be allowed to speculate on ● Plea of guilty to a lesser offense is not a mitigating
the outcome of the proceedings by pleading not circumstance because to be voluntary, the plea of
guilty on arraignment, only to later substitute the guilty must be to the offense charged.
same with a plea of guilty after discovering that the ● For voluntary confession to be appreciated, the
prosecution has a strong case against him. same must not only be made unconditionally, but
● A plea of guilty must be made at the first the accused must admit to the offense charged, e.g.,
opportunity, indicating repentance on the part of robbery with homicide, and not to either robbery or
the accused. homicide only. If the voluntary confession is
● Plea of guilty after the fiscal had presented evidence conditional or qualified, it is not mitigating.
is not mitigating, because the third requisite is
lacking. Plea of guilty to amended information
● It is not required that the prosecution must have

Case example: People v. Ortiz
presented all its evidence when the plea of guilty
- Trial had already begun on the original information
was made to negate the appreciation of mitigating
for murder and frustrated murder. However, in view of
circumstance of voluntary confession.
willingness of the accused to plead guilty for a lesser
offense, the prosecution, with leave of court,
Plea of guilty on appeal, not mitigating
amended said information to make it one for
● If an accused, charged with an offense cognizable by
homicide and frustrated homicide, and the accused
the municipal court, pleads not guilty therein, and on
pleaded guilty thereto. That was an entirely new
appeal to the court of first instance, changes his
information and no evidence was presented in
plea to that of guilty upon re-arraignment, he should
connection with the charges made therein before
not be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
the accused entered his plea of guilty. The accused
confession of guilt.
is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of plea of
guilty.

trustworthy index of his capacity to give a free and
Plea of guilty to the offense charged in the amended informed plea of guilty.
information, lesser than that charged in the original 4) Inform the accused of the exact length of
information, is mitigating imprisonment or nature of the penalty under the law
and the certainty that he will serve such sentence.
Case example: People v. Intal
a) For not infrequently, an accused pleads
- Charged with double murder, the accused moved
guilty in the hope of a lenient treatment or
the Court to permit him to withdraw his former plea
upon bad advice or because of promises of
of not guilty to be substituted with that of guilty to
the authorities or parties of a lighter
the lesser crime of double homicide. The
penalty, should he admit guilt or express
prosecution moved to amend the information so as
remorse.
to change the crime from double murder to double
b) It is the duty of the judge to ensure that
homicide. Both motions were granted by the court.
the accused does not labor under these
- The plea of guilty to the lesser offense charged in
mistaken impressions because a plea of
the amended information is mitigating.
guilty carries with it not only the admission
of authorship of the crime proper, but also
Case example: People v. Lacson
of the aggravating circumstances
- When the accused is charged with a grave offense,
attending it, that increase punishment.
the court should take his testimony in spite of his
5) Inquire if the accused knows the crime with which he
plea of guilty.
is charged and to fully explain to him the elements of
- The trial court should determine whether the
the crime which is the basis of his indictment. Failure
accused really and truly comprehended the
of the court to do so would constitute a violation of
meaning, full significance and consequences of his
his fundamental right to be informed of the precise
plea, and that the same was voluntarily and
nature of the accusation against him and a denial of
intelligently entered or given by the accused.
his right to due process.
- Because there is no law prohibiting the taking of
6) All questions posed to the accused should be in a
testimony after a plea of guilty, where a grave
language known and understood by the latter.
offense is charged, the Court has deemed such
7) The trial judge must satisfy himself that the
taking of testimony the prudent and proper course
accused, in pleading guilty, is truly guilty. The
to follow for the purpose of establishing the guilt and
accused must be required to narrate the tragedy or
the precise degree of culpability of the defendant.
reenact the crime or furnish its missing details.
Mandatory presentation of evidence in plea of guilty to

capital offense Plea of guilty is not mitigating in culpable felonies and in
crimes punishable by special laws
● Where the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense,
● Article 365, par. 5, of the RPC prescribes the
that court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the
penalties for culpable felonies, which provides that
voluntariness and full comprehension of the
“in the imposition of these penalties, the courts shall
consequences of his plea and shall require the
exercise their sound discretion, without regard to
prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree
the rules in Article 64.”
of culpability. The accused may present evidence in
● When the crime is punished by a special law, the
his behalf.
court shall also exercise its sound discretion, as
Article 64 is not applicable. The penalty prescribed
Guidelines in the conduct of a search inquiry
by special laws is usually not divisible into three
1) To rule out the possibility that the accused has been
periods. Article 64 is applicable only when the
coerced or placed under a state of duress, ascertain
penalty has three periods.
from the accused himself:
a) How he was brought into the custody of
the law; Physical Defect
b) Whether he had the assistance of a
competent counsel during the custodial Article 13, Paragraph 8. — That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or
and preliminary investigations; and otherwise suffering from some physical defect which thus restricts his means
of action, defense, or communication with his fellow beings.
c) Under what conditions he was detained
and interrogated during the investigations.
2) Ask the defense counsel a series of questions as to Basis: One suffering from physical defect, which restricts
whether he had conferred with, and completely one’s means of action, defense, or communication with one’s
explained to, the accused the meaning and fellow beings, does not have complete freedom of action,
consequences of a plea of guilty. therefore there is a diminution of that element of
3) Elicit information about the personality profile of the voluntariness.
accused, such as his age, socio-economic status,
and educational background, which may serve as a Requisites

1) The accused is deaf and dumb, blind, or suffering f) Pyromania in arson
from physical defect g) Monomania of wealth in estafa
2) The physical defect of the accused restricts his h) Nymphomania or satyriasis, in crimes against
means of action, defense, or communication with his chastity
fellow beings i) Being feebleminded
Physical defect – refers to being armless, cripple, or a This paragraph includes illness of the mind
stutterer, whereby his means to act, defend himself or ● It refers not only to diseases of pathological state
communicate with his fellows are limited. that trouble the conscience or will, but also applies
● This paragraph does not distinguish between to those suffering from some illness of the body, the
educated and uneducated deaf-mute or blind mind, the nerves, or the moral faculty.
persons. The Code considers them as being on ● A diseased mind, not amounting to insanity, may give
equal footing. place to mitigation.
Restriction of means of action, defense, or communication Cases where illness of the offender considered mitigating:
● If the accused is totally blind or deaf and dumb, he
does not have to prove that his means of action, a) People v. Balneg, et al.
defense, or communication are thereby restricted - The mistake of belief of the accused that the killing
● In case of other physical defects, he must prove of witch was for public good may be considered a
such restrictions. mitigating circumstance for the reason that those
● But, the commission of a blind person of crime of who have obsession that witches are to be
estafa will not entitle him to this mitigating eliminated are in the same condition as who,
circumstance. attacked with a morbid infirmity but still retaining
consciousness of his acts, does not have real
Case example: People v. Deopante control over his will.
- The accused suffers from physical defect, a severed
left hand, does not mean that he should be b) People v. Amit
automatically credited with the mitigating - Although she is mentally sane, we, however, are
circumstance of physical defect. inclined to extend our sympathy to the appellant
- In order for this condition to be appreciated, it must because of her misfortunes and weak character.
be shown that such physical defect restricted him of - According to the report, she is suffering from a mild
means of action, defense, or communication to such behavior disorder as a consequence of the illness
an extent that he did not have complete freedom of she had in early life. The Court is willing to regard this
action, consequently resulting in diminution of as a mitigating circumstance under Article 13, either
voluntariness. in par. 9 or in par. 10.
c) People v. Formigones
Illness Diminishing the Exercise of Willpower
- The fact that the accused is feebleminded warrants
the finding in his favor of the mitigating
Article 13, Paragraph 9. — Such illness of the offender as would diminish the circumstance either under par. 8 or under par. 9 of
exercise of the willpower of the offender without however depriving him of
consciousness of his acts. Article 13.
d) People v. Antonio, Jr.

Basis: Diminution of intelligence and intent.
- The evidence of the accused-appellant shows that
while there was some impairment of his mental
Requisites
1) The illness of the offender must diminish the faculties, since he was shown to suffer from chronic
exercise of his willpower mental disease called “schizo-affective” disorder or
2) Such illness should not deprive the offender of psychosis, such impairment was not so complete as
consciousness of his acts to deprive him of his intelligence or the

consciousness of his acts.
Illness that may diminish exercise of willpower - The schizo-affective disorder or psychosis of
a) Neurosis, which made accused ill-tempered and accused-appellant may be classified as an illness
easily angered which diminished the exercise of his willpower but
b) Puerperal fever without depriving him of the consciousness of his
c) Obsession that witches are to be eliminated; this is acts. He may thus be credited with this mitigating
in the same condition as one who, attacked with a circumstance but will not exempt him from his
morbid illness but still retaining consciousness of his criminal liability.
acts, does not have real control over his will
d) Schizophrenia Standard of this circumstance: If the mental illness
e) Kleptomania in theft completely deprives the offender of the consciousness of his

acts, it shall be an exempting circumstance. If there is only consequence, drove the accused to kill the victim.
partial absence of consciousness of his acts, it shall be This is a case of outraged feeling of owner of animal
mitigating. taken for ransom analogous to vindication of a grave
offense.
Under Test of Cognition

Analogous to Paragraph 6: Passion or obfuscation
Complete deprivation of Partial deprivation of ● Outraged feeling of creditor who killed his debtor
intelligence = exempting intelligence = mitigating who tried to escape and refused to pay his debt,
circumstance. circumstance. similar to passion and obfuscation
● Impulse of jealous feeling justified, similar to passion
and obfuscation
Under Test of Volition ● Esprit de corps [common loyalty shared by the
members of a particular group]— outrage feeling of a
The mental condition of the accused is mitigating if there is
soldier against a rebel
deprivation of freedom.
Analogous to Paragraph 7: Voluntary surrender and plea of

Mania – mental condition of the person involving deprivation guilty
of freedom. This is not equivalent to insanity, which is an ● Voluntary restitution of fund or partial restitution if it
exempting circumstance; but, it is within the contemplation of was made before the case was instituted; this can
the word illness, which is a mitigating circumstance. be appreciated in malversation or failure to render an
accounting.
Other Analogous Circumstances ● The act of the accused of testifying for the
prosecution, without previous discharge, is a
mitigating circumstance analogous to plea of guilty.
Article 13, Paragraph 10. — And, finally, any other circumstance of a similar
nature and analogous to those abovementioned.
What is not analogous to voluntary confession: Repentance

Similar nature and analogous and confession to the crime as an ‘accomplice’ although he
● This paragraph authorizes the court to consider in participated as principal.
favor of the accused any other circumstance of a
similar nature and analogous to those mentioned in Analogous to Paragraph 9: Illness that diminishes exercise
paragraphs 1 to 9 of Article 13. of willpower
● Manifestations of Battered Wife Syndrome
Analogous to Paragraph 1: Incomplete justifying or ● The cyclical nature and the severity of the violence
exempting circumstance inflicted upon appellant resulted in cumulative
● Extreme poverty is analogous to Paragraph 1 provocation, which broke down her psychological
[incomplete justification of state of necessity] resistance and natural self-control, psychological
● Basis: Right to life is more sacred than a mere paralysis, and difficulty in concentrating or
property right impairment of memory.
● Application: only to crimes of property ● Such manifestations were analogous to an illness
● Coverage: Those whose economic condition is that diminished the exercise by appellant of her
worse than that of a poor person willpower without depriving her of consciousness of
her acts.
Example: A clerk receiving salary; or an officeman who lost his
gainful occupation, are NOT entitled to this circumstance. Instances that do not equate to analogous circumstances:
a) Killing the wrong man
Analogous to Paragraph 2: Minority or senility b) The accused who was charged with the crime of
● The accused, who was 20 years of age at the time of falsification, who invokes mitigating circumstance of
the commission of the crime of treason, was the lack of irreparable material damage; this is not
dependent for support on his two brothers who was recognized as a mitigating circumstance, and
in the service of the Japanese; and considering his neither is it analogous to other paragraphs
immature age that disabled him to fully discern the c) Not resisting arrest
consequences of his acts, his penalty was mitigated. d) The condition of running amuck (go wildly out of
● The defendant was over 60 years old and with failing control)
sight, which is analogous to Paragraph 2, as similar

Error in personae is not a mitigating circumstance
to the case of one over 70 years of age.
● Praeter intentionem may be governed by Article 13,
but aberratio ictus and error personae are governed
Analogous to Paragraph 5: Vindication of a grave offense
by Article 48 and 49, respectively.
● The victim took away the carabao of the accused
and held it for ransom. The carabao died, which, as a

● Therefore, they cannot be considered as analogous 3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the
circumstances because they are governed by respect due the offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex,
or that it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the
different provisions of the RPC. latter has not given provocation.
4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious

Mitigating circumstances which are personal to the ungratefulness.
offenders— the following shall only serve to mitigate the 5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive
or in his presence, or where public authorities are engaged in the
liability of the principals, accomplices, and accessories as to discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious
whom such circumstances are attendant: worship.
6. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an

uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such circumstances
1) From the moral attributes of the offender may facilitate the commission of the offense.
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted

Example: A and B killed C, A acting under an impulse together in the commission of an offense, it shall be deemed to
have been committed by a band.
which produced obfuscation. The circumstance of
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration,
obfuscation arose from the moral attribute of A and
shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.
it shall mitigate the liability of A only. It shall not 8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or
mitigate the liability of B. persons who insure or afford impunity.
9. That the accused is a recidivist.
2) From his private relations with the offended party A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall
have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime
embraced in the same title of this Code.
Example: A, son of B, committed robbery against the
10. That the offender has been previously punished by an offense to
latter, while C, a stranger, bought the property taken which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or
by A from B, knowing that the property was the more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
effect of the crime of robbery. The circumstance of 11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or
promise.
relationship arose from the private relation of A with
12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison,
B and it shall mitigate the liability of A only. It shall explosion, stranding of a vessel or international damage thereto,
derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice
not mitigate the liability of C, an accessory.
involving great waste and ruin.
13. That the act be committed with evidence premeditation.

3) From any other personal cause 14. That craft, fraud or disguise be employed.
15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be

Example: A, 16 years old and acting with employed to weaken the defense.
discernment, inflicted serious physical injuries on C. 16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
B, seeing what A had done to C, kicked the latter, There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
thereby concurring in the criminal purpose of A and against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the
execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
cooperating with him by simultaneous act. The execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which
circumstance of minority arose from other personal the offended party might make.
cause and it shall mitigate the liability of A only, not 17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which
add ignominy to the natural effects of the act.
the liability of B, an accomplice.
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry. There is an
unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not intended
for the purpose.
Circumstances which are neither exempting nor mitigating
1) Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow 19. That as a means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor,
door, or window be broken.
2) Error in personae or mistake in the identity of the
20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen
victim years of age or by means of motor vehicles, airships, or other
similar means.
3) Entrapment of the accused
21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be
4) Accused is over 18 years of age
deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for
5) Performance of righteous action, no matter how its commission.
meritorious it may be, if he caused the killing off a

single human being; hence, criminally liable
Aggravating circumstances – those which, if attendant in the
commission of the crime, serve to increase the penalty
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AGGRAVATE without, however, exceeding the maximum of the penalty
CRIMINAL LIABILITY provided by law for the offense.
Basis: The greater perversity of the offender manifested in

Aggravating Circumstances the commission of the felony as shown by:
a) The motivating power itself;
b) The place of commission;
ARTICLE 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The following are aggravating
c) The means and ways employed;
circumstances:
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position. d) The time;
2. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to the e) The personal circumstance of the offender, or of the
public authorities.
offended party.

circumstance cannot be offset by confession, which is an
Kinds of aggravating circumstances ordinary mitigating circusmtance.
1) Generic – those that can generally apply to all
crimes. Difference between qualifying aggravating circumstance and
2) Specific – those that apply only to particular crimes. generic aggravating circumstance
3) Qualifying – those that change the nature of the
crime.
Qualifying aggravating Generic aggravating
4) Inherent – those that must of necessity accompany circumstance circumstance
the commission of the crime.
Its effect is not only to give Its effect, not offset by any
the crime its proper and mitigating circumstance, is
Examples Provision/s Covered exclusive name but also to to increase the penalty
place the author thereof in which should be imposed
Generic Dwelling, nighttime, Circumstances in
such a situation as to upon the accused to the
or recidivism. paragraphs 1, 2, 3
deserve no other penalty maximum period, but
[dwelling], 4, 5, 6, 9,
than that specially without exceeding the limit
10, 14, 18, 19, and 20
prescribed by law for said prescribed by law.
EXCEPT “by means of
crime.
motor vehicles”, of
Article 14.
Cannot be offset by a May be compensated by a
mitigating circumstance. mitigating circumstance.
Specific Ignominy in crimes Circumstances in
against chastity paragraphs [except
Must be alleged in the If it is not alleged, it is a
dwelling] 15, 16, 17,
information. generic mitigating
Cruelty and and 21 of Article 14.
circumstance only.
treachery in crimes
against persons
Q: Why must a qualifying aggravating circumstance be
Qualifying Alevosia (treachery) Article 248 alleged in the information?
or evident enumerates the
A: It is an integral part of the offense. For instance, in an
premeditation qualifying aggravating
information for qualified rape, the qualifying circumstance of
qualifies the killing circumstances which
of a person to qualify the killing of use of a deadly weapon was not alleged, it cannot be
murder person to murder. appreciated as a qualifying circumstance but can only be
treated as a generic aggravating circumstance.
Inherent Evident
premeditation is To be appreciated, qualifying and aggravating
inherent in robbery, circumstances must be alleged in the Information
theft, estafa, ● Pursuant to the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal
adultery, and
Procedure, every Complaint or Information must
concubinage
state not only the qualifying but also the aggravating
circumstances.
Ordinary and special aggravating circumstances
● This rule may be given retroactive effect in the light
● Effects of ordinary aggravating circumstance and
of the well-established rule that statutes regulating
special aggravating circumstance are the same. The
the procedure of the courts will be construed as
presence of ordinary or special aggravating
applicable to actions pending and undetermined at
circusmtance will require the application of the
the time of their passage.
prescribed penalty in its maximum period but the
● The aggravating circumstances of evident
same cannot increase the penalty to the next higher
premeditation, dwelling, and unlawful entry, not
hdegree.
having been alleged in the Information, may not
● However, while an ordianry aggravating
now be appreciated the liability of the
circumstance can be offset by an ordinary mitigating
accused-appellant.
circumstance, a special aggravating circumstance is
not subject to the offset rule.
If not alleged, they may still be considered in the award of
damages
Example: A was convicted of homicide. Confession and ● Although the aggravating circumstances in question
nighttime were appreciated. Nighttime for being an ordinary cannot be appreciated for the purpose of fixing a
aggravating circumstance will be offset by confession as an heavier penalty in this case, they should, however be
ordinary mitigating circumstance. Hence,neither of the two considered as bases for the award of exemplary
circumstance will modify the penalty for homicide. damages, conformably to current jurisprudence.
Example: A was convicted of homicide. Confession and taking Qualifying circumstances need not be preceded by other
advantage of public position were appreciated. Taking words to be considered as such
advantage of public position for being a special aggravating

● Qualifying circumstances need not be preceded by principals, accomplices, and accessories as to whom such
the words “aggravating/qualifying,” “qualifying,” or circumstances are attendant:
“qualified by” to be considered, as it is sufficient that a) From the moral attributes of the offender
these circumstances be specified in the Information b) From his private relations with the offended party
to apprise the accused of the charges against him to c) From any other personal cause
enable him to prepare fully for his defense, thus
precluding surprises during the trial. Examples:
● When the prosecution specifically alleges in the a) A, with evident premeditation, gave B ₱1,000 to kill C.
Information the circumstances mentioned in the law B immediately killed C. Evident premeditation is an
as qualifying the crime, and succeeds in proving aggravating circumstance which arises from the
them beyond reasonable doubt, the Court is moral attribute of A. It shall serve only the liability of
constrained to impose the higher penalty mandated A, but not that of B.
by law. b) A, stepson of B, killed the latter. C, knowing that A
killed B without justification, buried the dead body of
Aggravating circumstances which do not have the effect of B to prevent the discovery of the crime. The private
increasing the penalty relation of A with B shall serve to aggravate only the
1) Aggravating circumstances (a) which in themselves liability of A, and not of C, the accessory.
constitute a crime specially punishable by law, or (b) c) A, who was previously convicted by final judgment of
which are included by the law in defining a crime and theft and served sentence therefor, and B
prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be taken committed robbery. Both were prosecuted and found
into account for the purpose of increasing the guilty after trial. Upon his conviction for robbery, A
penalty (Article 62, par. 1). was a recidivist. Recidivism is an aggravating
circumstance which arises from personal cause. It
Examples: shall serve to aggravate only the liability of A, but not
a) “That the crime be committed by means of that of B.
x x x fire, x x x explosion” is in itself a crime
of arson or crime involving destruction. It is Aggravating circumstances which depend for their
not to be considered to increase the application upon the knowledge of the offender — the
penalty for the crime of arson or for the following circumstances shall serve to aggravate the liability of
crime involving destruction. those persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of
b) “That the act x x x be committed in the the execution of the act or their cooperation therein:
dwelling of the offended party” or “that the 1) Circumstances which consist in the material
crime be committed after an unlawful execution of the act; or
entry”, or “that as a means to the 2) Circumstances which consist in the means
commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor, employed to accomplish it.
door, or window be broken” is included by
Article 299 in defining robbery in an Examples:
inhabited house. It shall not be taken into a) In his house, A ordered B to kill C. A and B did not talk
account for the purpose of increasing the about the manner in which C would be killed. B left
penalty for that kind of robbery. the house of A and looked for C. B found C and killed
the latter with treachery. The aggravating
2) The same rule shall apply with respect to any circumstance of treachery consists in the material
aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to execution of the act. Since A had no knowledge of it,
such a degree that it must of necessity accompany treachery shall only aggravate the liability of B.
the commission thereof (Article 62, par. 2). b) A ordered B and C to kill D, instructing them to wait
until nighttime so that the crime could be committed
Examples: with impunity. B and C killed D at nighttime. Although
a) Evident premeditation is inherent in theft,
A did not take direct part in the commission of the
robbery, estafa, adultery, and
crime, the aggravating circumstance of nighttime
concubinage.
shall also aggravate his liability, because he had
b) Taking advantage of public position is
knowledge of it at the time of the execution of the
inherent in crimes where the offenders,
act by B and C.
who are public officers, committed the
crime in the exercise of their functions, No presumption of aggravating circumstance
such as in bribery, malversation, etc. ● Aggravating circumstance should be proved fully as
the crime itself in order to increase the penalty.
Aggravating circumstances which are personal to the
offenders — aggravating circumstances which arise from the
Taking Advantage of Public Position
following shall only serve to aggravate the liability of the

Article 14, Paragraph 1 — That advantage be taken by the offender of his public
induced the injured induced the injured parties to
position. pay these alleged fines, as they believed that he had
the right [as a councilor] to collect fines and it was
Basis: The greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the for this reason that they made payments.
personal circumstance of the offender and also by the means - It is true that he had no right to either impose or
used to secure the commission of the crime. collect any fine whatsoever and that a municipal
councilor is not an official designated by law to
Applicability: Only when the person committing the crime is a collect public fines, but these facts do not destroy
public officer who takes advantage of his public position. or disprove the important fact that the accused did,
by taking advantage of his public position, deceive
Kind of aggravating circumstance and defraud the injured parties out of the money
● Taking advantage of public position is a special they paid him.
aggravating circumstance. - The crime committed by Torrida is estafa by means
of deceit.
“Advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.”
● The public officer must use the influence, prestige, Case example: U.S. v. Dacuycuy
or ascendancy which his office gives him as the - 39 persons requested the accused, then a councilor,
means by which he realizes his purpose. to purchase cedulas for them giving him ₱39. He took
● The essence of the matter is presented in the only 16 cedulas, and spent the rest of the money.
inquiry, “Did the accused abuse his office in order to - When a public officer commits a common crime
commit the crime?” independent of his official functions and does acts
that are not connected with the duties of his office,
Examples: he should be punished as a private individual without
a) The accused took advantage of his public position this aggravating circumstance.
when he, having access to the cell where the victim - Dacuycuy did not avail himself of the influence,
was confined, maltreated the victim. He could not prestige, or ascendency which his position carried
have done so if he was not a policeman on guard with it, when he committed the crime of estafa with
duty. The prisoner was under his custody. abuse of confidence. He received the money in his
b) There is abuse of public position where a police provate capacity. He was requested by the people to
officer in the course of investigation of a charge buy cedula certificated for them.
against him for grave threats shot the complainant
in a treacherous manner. Case example: U.S. v. Estabaya
c) Advantage of public position is present where the - The mere fact that the defendant, a justice of the
accused used their authority as members of the peace, misappropriated the money he received from
police and constabulary to disarm the victim before the debtor in an extrajudicial agreement under
shooting him. obligation to turn it over to the creditor, does not
aggravate his liability, inasmuch as no legal
Case example: People v. Veloso proceedings were pending at the time of this
- The aggravating circumstance of taking advantage agreement and the debt was not reduced to
of public position is not present in the case of a judgment.
Congressman who offered resistance to his captor - He did not take advantage of his official position in
upon being surprised in a gambling house. the commission of the crime of estafa.
- The reason for the ruling is that the Congressman
did not take advantage of the influence or There must be proof that the accused took advantage of
reputation of his office. his public position
● Absence of proof that advantage was taken by
Case example: U.S. v. Torrida accused-appellant of his being a confidential agent
- The aggravating circumstance of taking advantage the aggravating circumstance of abuse of public
of public position is present when a councilor position could not be properly appreciated against
collects fines and misappropriates them. him (People v. Ordiales).
- The accused, councilor of the town of Aparri,
ordered that the deaths of all large animals must be Examples when peace officers took advantage of their public
reported to him as councilman. As a result, the
positions:
a) A policeman in uniform who abducted a girl by
owners of several such animals were induced to pay
availing himself of his position.
the accused supposed fines on the belief that such
b) The chief of police who, during the search of a boat
were required by a municipal ordinance. He spent
by means of intimidation, obtained money from the
the money paid to, and received by him as fines.
crew.
- The fact that the accused was a councilor at the
time placed him in a position to commit these
crimes. If he were not a councilor, he could not have

c) A special agent of the military police who committed ● If the accused could have perpetrated the crime
robbery with homicide with the gun which he had even without occupying his position, there is no
been authorized to carry as a peace officer. abuse of public position.
● The mere fact that accused-appellant is a policeman
Case example: Fortuna v. People and used his government-issued .38 caliber revolver
- The mere fact that the three accused were all police to kill is not sufficient to establish that he misused
officers at the time of the robbery placed them in a his public position in the commission of the crime.
position to perpetrate the offense. If they were not
police officers, they could not have terrified the Contempt of or Insult to Public Authorities
Montecillos into boarding the mobile patrol car and
forced them to hand over their money.
Article 14, Paragraph 2 — That the crime be committed in contempt of or with
- It was on account of their authority that the
insult to the public authorities.
Montecillos believed that Mario had in fact
committed a crime and would be brought to the
Basis: The greater perversity of the offender, as shown by his
police station for investigation unless they gave
lack of respect for the public authorities.
them what they demanded.
Requisites
Cases when wearing uniform is immaterial:
1) The public authority is engaged in the exercise of his
a) Although he was off-duty and there is evidence that
functions
he was in civilian clothes at the time, it is
2) He who is thus engaged in the exercise of said
nonetheless obvious that knowing that the offended
functions is not the person against whom the crime
party was aware of his being a policeman, and
is committed
sought to impose, illegally, his authority as such, the
3) Offender knows him to be a public authority
penalty provided by law must be meted out in its
4) His presence has not prevented the offender from
maximum period (People v. Tongco).
committing the criminal act
b) The mere fact that he was in fatigue uniform and had
army rifle at the time is not sufficient to establish
Example: A and B are quarreling on a street and the municipal
that he misused his public position in the
mayor, upon passing by, attempts to separate them to stop the
commission of the crime (People v. Pantoja).
quarrel. Notwithstanding the intervention and the presence of
Failure in official duties is tantamount to abusing of office mayor, A and B continued to quarrel until A succeeded in killing
● Even if defendant did not abuse his office, if it is B. In this case, A committed the crime of homicide with the
proven that he has failed in his duties as such public aggravating circumstance of in contempt of or with insult to
officer, this circumstance would warant the public authority,
aggravation of his penalty.
Public authority – also called “person in authority”; a public
Case example: U.S. v. Cagayan officer who is directly vested with jurisdiction, that is, having
- The fact that defendant was the vice-president of a the power to govern and execute the laws, such as the
town at the time he voluntarily joined a band of councilor, mayor, governor, barangay captain, and barangay
brigands made his liability greater. chairman.
*Under Article 152, teachers and lawyers are persons in authority for purposes of
Not aggravating when it is an integral element of, or
applying the provisions of Article 148 and 151 on crimes of direct assault and
inherent in, the offense resistance, but not for purposes of appreciating aggravating circumstance of
● The circumstance of taking advantage of public contempt of public authorities under Article 14 or mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender to a person in authority.
position cannot be taken into consideration in
offenses where taking advantage of official-position
Agent of person in authority – any person who, by direct
is made by law an integral element of the crime, such
provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent
as in malversation (Article 217), or in falsification of
authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and
document committed by public officers (Article 171).
the protection and security of life and property, such as barrio
● Taking advantage of public position is inherent in the
councilman, barrio policeman and barangay leader, and any
case of accessories (Article 19, par. 3), and in crimes
person who comes to the aid of persons in authority.
committed by public officers (Arts. 204-245).
Not applicable when crime is committed in the presence of

Not aggravating if accused could have perpetrated the an agent only
crime without occupying police position
● Paragraph 2 was not applied in a case where the
● There was no showing that the accused-appellant
crime was committed in the presence of the chief of
took advantage of his being a policeman to shoot
police of a town, because he is not a public authority,
Jelord Velez or that he used his “influence, prestige,
but an agent of the authorities.
or ascendancy” in killing the victim.
Accused-appellant could have shot Velez even
without being a policeman.

Crime should not be committed against the public ● Thus, in the case of robbery of a thing belonging to
authority the President, the aggravating circumstance of
● If the crime is committed against a public authority disregard of respect due the offended party cannot
while he is in the performance of his official duty, the be taken into account, because of the mere fact that
offender commits direct assault (Article 148) the thing belongs to the President does not make it
without this aggravating circumstance, because it is more valuable than the things belonging to a private
not a crime committed in contempt of or with insult person.
to him, but a crime directly committed against him. ● It is not proper to consider this aggravating
circumstance in crimes against property.
Case example: People v. Santok
- The above rule was not followed where it was held Case example: People v. Pagal
that the crime committed was homicide with the - Robbery with homicide is primarily a crime against
aggravating circumstance of the commission of the property and not against persons. Homicide is a
offense in contempt of the public authority, since mere incident of the robbery, the latter being the
the deceased was shot while in the performance of main purpose and object of the criminal.
his official duty as barrio lieutenant.
- The accused should have been prosecuted for and
Disregard of Rank, Age, or Sex
convicted of a complex crime of homicide with direct
assault, without the aggravating circumstance. “With insult or in disregard.”
● It is necessary to prove the specific fact or
Knowledge that a public authority is present is essential circumstance, other than that the victim is a woman
● Lack of knowledge on the part of the offender that a
[or an old man or one of high rank], showing insult
public authority is present indicates lack of intention
or disregard of sex [or age or rank] in order that it
to insult the public authority.
may be considered as aggravating circumstance.
● There must be evidence that in the commission of
Example: A killed B in the presence of the town mayor but A did
the crime, the accused deliberately intended to
not know of the presence of the mayor, this aggravating
offend or insult the sex or age of the offended party.
circumstance should not be considered against A.
Disregard of Rank of the Offended Party

Presence of public authority has not prevented the
● There must be a difference in the social condition of
offender from committing the crime
the offender and the offended party.
● An offense may be said to have been committed in
contempt of a public authority when his presence,
Rank – a high social positioning or standing as a grade in the
made known to the offender, has not prevented the
armed forces; or to a graded official standing or social position
latter from committing the criminal act.
or station; or to the order or place in which said officers are
placed in the army and navy in relation to others; or to the
Disregard of Rank, Age, or Sex or Act
designation or title of distinction conferred upon an officer in
Committed in the Dwelling order to fix his relative position in reference to other officers in
matters of privileges, precedence, and sometimes of
Article 14, Paragraph 3 — That the act be committed with insult or in disregard command or by which to determine his pay and emoluments as
of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex, or in the case of army staff officers; or to a grade or official
that it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not
given provocation. standing, relative position in civil or social life, or in any scale of
comparison, status, grade, including its grade, status, or scale
od comparison within a position.
When all four aggravating circumstances are present, it is
considered as one
● Four circumstances are enumerated in this Instances constituting circumstance of disregard of rank:
a) A private citizen who attacked and injured a person
paragraph which can be considered single or
in authority, or a pupil who attacked and injured his
together. If all four circumstances are present, they
teacher, where the act is not constituting direct
have the weight of one aggravating circumstance
assault.
only.
b) Killing a judge because he was strict or because of
● The aggravating circumstance of sex and age of the
resentment which the accused harbored against
injured party as well as those of dwelling place and
him as a judge.
nighttime must also be taken into account.
c) An attempt upon the life of a general of the
Philippine Army is committed in disregard of his rank
Basis: The greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the
d) Killing of a staff sergeant by his corporal, or of the
personal circumstance of the offended party and the place of
Assistant Chief of Personnel Transaction of the Civil
the commission of the crime.
Service Commission by a clerk therein.
e) Murder of a municipal mayor, or of a city chief of
Applicability: This circumstance [rank, age, or sex] may only
police by the chief of the secret service division.
be taken into account only in crimes against persons or honor.

f) Assault upon a 66-year-old RTC judge by a municipal aggravating circumstance of disrespect to sex is
judge. committed.
g) Killing of a consul by a mere chancellor, or of an army b) The accused who, upon knowing the death of their
general. relative, and not being able to take revenge on the
killers, because of their imprisonment, selected and
Proof of fact of disregard and deliberate intent to insult killed a female relative of the killers in retaliation,
required committed the act with this aggravating
● Disregard of the rank of the victim who was a circumstance.
barangay captain cannot be appreciated as an c) Direct assault upon a lady teacher.
aggravating circumstance there being no proof of
the specific fact or circumstance that the accused Case example: People v. Mangsant
disregarded the respect due to the offended party, - A and B (woman) were sweethearts. B told A that she
nor does it appear that the accused deliberately no longer cared for him and that she loved another
intended to insult the rank of the victim as barrio man. A stabbed B to death.
captain. - It was not proved or admitted by the accused that
when he committed the crime, he had the intention
Disregard of Age of the Offended Party to offend, or disregard the sex of the victim.
Instances when circumstance of disregard of age is present: Aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank, age, or sex
a) When the offended person, by reason of his age, is not considered in the following cases:
could be the father of the offender.
b) Where the aggressor was 45 years old, while the 1) When the offender acted with passion and
victim was an octogenarian (person between 80-89 obfuscation.
years old).
c) Where the person killed was 80 years old and very Case example: People v. Ibañez
weak. - When a man is blinded with passion or
d) When the deceased was 65 while the offenders were obfuscation, this being the condition of
32 and 27 years of age, respectively. the mind, he could not have been
e) Crime was committed in disregard of the respect conscious that his act was done with
due to the victim on account of age and relationship, disrespect to the offended party.
the accused being a grandson of the deceased.
f) In cases where the victim is of tender age as well as 2) When there exists a relationship between the
of old age. In a murder case, one of the victims was a offended party and the offender.
12-year-old boy.
g) Where one of the victims was only 5 years old, Case example: People v. Valencia
- After a decree of divorce, the accused
another a minor, and the third, a 7-month-old baby.
asked his former wife to allow him to visit
Instance when the circumstance was not considered their daughter but she refused, which
aggravating: made the accused infuriated and pointed
- When the injuries inflicted upon a 9-year-old girl his gun at her. The gun went off and she
were “without any thought or intention x x x of was injured.
heaping contumely or insult upon the child because - Despite the divorce decree, there still
of her sex or her tender age.” existed some relationship between the
accused and his divorced wife, which had a
Deliberate intent to offend or insult required direct bearing with their only child. The
● The circumstance of old age cannot be considered accused had to deal with no other person
aggravating in the absence of evidence that the but with his former wife to visit his
accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the daughter.
age of the victim.
Case example: People v. Akanatsu
Disregard of the Sex of the Offended Party - The record does not show that the
● Refers to the female sex, not to the male sex. commission of the crime in question was
● Disregard of sex is not aggravating in the absence of attended by any offense to or disregard of
evidence that the accused deliberately intended to the age of the offended party, about 75 or
offend or insult the sex of the victim or showed 65 years old, taking into account the
manifest disrespect to her womanhood. circumstances under which the act in
question developed and the pre-existing
Examples: relations between the accused and the
a) When a person compels a woman to go to his house deceased.
against her will, the crime of coercion with the

- There existed in this case a relation of ● When it is the offended party who has provoked the
employer and laborer because the incident, he loses his right to the respect and
deceased was a laborer of the offender. consideration due him in his own house.
3) When the condition of being a woman is The provocation must be:

indispensable in the commission of the crime. 1) Given by the owner of the dwelling
● In parricide, rape, abduction, or seduction, 2) Sufficient
sex is not aggravating. 3) Immediate to the commission of the crime
● Rape being a sex crime or one committed
against a woman, the trial court erred in ● If all these conditions are present, the offended
considering sex as an aggravating party is deemed to have given provocation, and the
circumstance in imposing the penalty, it fact that the crime is committed in the dwelling of
being inherent in the crime of rape. the offended party is not an aggravating
circumstance.
Disregard of sex is absorbed in treachery ● On the other hand, if any of those conditions is not
● There was disregard of sex because the blouse of present, the offended party is deemed not to have
the victim was needlessly removed, but the given provocation, and the fact that the crime is
circumstance is absorbed in treachery which is committed in the dwelling of the offended party is an
attendant (People v. Clementer). aggravating circumstance.
● However, in People v. Lapaz, it was held that the
aggravating circumstance of disregard of sex and There must be close relation between provocation and
age are not absorbed in treachery because commission of crime in the dwelling
treachery refers to the manner of the commission of ● Although the Code provides that the aggravating
the crime, while disregard of sex and age pertains to circumstance of dwelling cannot be properly taken
the relationship of the victim. into account if the provocation was given by the
offended party, this is true only when there exists a
close relation between the provocation and the
Dwelling
commission of the crime of the crime in the dwelling
of the person from whom the provocation came.
Dwelling – a building or structure, exclusively used for rest and
comfort.
Case example: People v. Dequiña
● A combination of house and store, or a market stall
- The defendant learned that the deceased and the
where the victim slept is not a dwelling.
former’s wife were maintaining illicit relations. One
● Considered an aggravating circumstance primarily
night, he went to the house of the deceased and
because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords
killed him there. The defense contended that the
to human abode.
deceased provoked the crime by his illicit relations
● One’s dwelling is a “sanctuary worthy of respect” and
with the defendant’s wife.
that one who slanders another in the latter’s house
- It was held that the provocation [illicit relations] was
is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere.
not given immediately prior to the commission of the
crime. Dwelling is still aggravating.
- Even if the defendant came to know of the illicit
place of the commission of the offense.
relations immediately before he went to the house of
the deceased, the aggravating circumstance of
What aggravates the commission of the crime in one’s
dwelling: dwelling may still be considered against the
1) The abuse of confidence which the offended party defendant because the provocation did not take
reposed in the offender by opening the door to him. place in that house.
2) The violation of the sanctity of the home by - If the defendant surprised the deceased and the
trespassing therein with violence or against the will wife of the defendant in the act of adultery in the
of the owner. house of the deceased, the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling would not exist.
Case example: People v. Lumasag
- The evidence must show clearly that the defendant Owner of the dwelling gave immediate provocation,
entered the house of the deceased to attack him. dwelling is not aggravating
● Dwelling is not aggravating, although the incident
Offended party must not give provocation happened in the house of the victim, where the
● A condition sine qua non of this circumstance, is stabbing was triggered by his provocative and
that the offended party “has not given provocation” insulting acts, for having given sufficient provocation
to the offender. before the commission of the crime, he has lost his
right to the respect and consideration due him in his
own house.

● In abduction or illegal detention where the victim
Case example: U.S. v. Licarte was taken from her or his house and carried away to
- While in her house, the offended party began to another place, dwelling is aggravating.
abuse the daughter of that accused and to call her ● But dwelling was not aggravating in a case where the
vile names. The accused hears the insulting words deceased was called down from his house and he
and appeared in front of the offended party’s house was murdered in the vicinity of the house.
and demanded an explanation
- A quarrel ensued, and the accused, becoming very What dwelling includes:
angry and excited, entered the house of the 1) Dependencies
offended party and struck her with a bolo. 2) The foot of the staircase
- The invasion of the privacy of the offended party’s 3) Enclosure under the house
home was the direct and immediate consequence of
the provocation given by her. Hence, no aggravating Case example: People v. Diamonon
circumstance of dwelling. - Where the victim was stabbed at the foot of the
stairs, dwelling was not aggravating.
Prosecution must prove that no provocation was given by - Aquino, J., concurring and dissenting, said that the
the offended party dwelling is aggravating because the killing took place
● Evidence must be shown by the prosecution that the at the foot of the stairs of the victim’s house.
offended party has not given provocation in his
house, as it cannot be presumed. Case example: People v. Sespene
● It is an essential element of the aggravating - If the deceased was only about to step on the first
circumstance of dwelling. rung of the ladder when he was assaulted, the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling will not be
Entry to dwelling not necessary to apply this circumstance applicable.
● It is not necessary that the accused should have
actually entered the dwelling of the victim to commit In case of two houses where deceased used to live, it is
the offense, it is enough that the victim was aggravating when crime is committed in any of them
attacked inside his own house., although the ● It was held that the aggravating circumstance of
assailant may have devised means to perpetrate the dwelling was present because the deceased was
assault from without, murdered in one of the two houses where the
deceased used to live and have his place of abode
Case example: People v. Ompaid during his stay.
- The aggravating circumstance of dwelling should be
taken into account, although the triggerman fired Instances when dwelling is not aggravating:
the shot from outside the house and his victim was 1) Both offender and offended party are occupants of
inside. the same house, and this is true even if offender is a
servant in the house. Thus, dwelling is not
Case example: People v. Talay aggravating in rape where the accused and the
- Dwelling was held aggravating where the victim who offended party are domiciled in the same house.
was asleep in his house was shot as he opened the 2) When robbery is committed by the use of force upon
door of his house upon being called and awakened things, it is not aggravating because it is inherent. To
by the accused. commit robbery by the use of force upon things, the
offender must enter the dwelling of the house, or
Case example: People v. Bautista other building, of the offended party.*
- Dwelling is aggravating, even if the offender did not 3) In the crime of trespass to dwelling, it is inherent or
enter the upper part of the house where the victim included by law in defining the crime. This crime can
was, but shot from under the house. be committed only in the dwelling of another.
4) Owner of the dwelling gave sufficient and immediate
Killing took place outside the dwelling; commission of the provocation.
crime began in the dwelling
5) When the dwelling where the crime was committed
● Where the accused began the aggression upon the
did not belong to the offended party.
person of the deceased in the latter’s dwelling by
6) When the rape was committed on the ground floor of
binding his hands or dragging him from his house
a two-storey structure, the lower floor being used as
and after taking him to a place near the house he
a video rental store and not as a private place of
killed him, dwelling is aggravating, since the act
abode or residence.
performed cannot be divided or the unity resulting
from its details be broken up.
*Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons is
aggravating
Dwelling is aggravating in abduction or illegal detention

● The reason is that this class of robbery can be the latter’s breach of the fidelity she owes her
committed without the necessity of trespassing the husband, she and her paramour violated the respect
sanctity of the offended party’s house. due to the conjugal home, and they both thereby
● Entrance into the dwelling house of the offended injured and committed a very grave offense against
party is not an element of the offense. the head of the house.
Robbery with homicide is aggravating Dwelling is not aggravating in adultery when paramour also
● Dwelling is not inherent, hence aggravating, in lives there
robbery with homicide since the author thereof ● The rule is different if both the wife and the
could have accomplished the heinous deed without paramour (defendants) and the offended party were
having to violate the domicile of the victim. living in the same house because the defendants
had a right to be in the house.
Summation of kinds of robbery in consideration of aggravating
circumstance Dwelling and abuse of confidence
● The aggravating circumstance of confidence was
properly applied, when the offended husband took
Kind Aggravating Rationale
the paramour into his home, furnished him with food
Robbery and lodging without charge, and treated him like a
Dwelling is inherent, the
offender must enter the son (U.S. v. Destrito).
☓
dwelling to commit the ● The aggravating circumstance present in such case
act. is abuse of confidence, if the offender availed
himself of the favorable position in which he was
Robbery with Entrance into the placed by the very act of the injured party, thus
violence against dwelling is not an
or intimidation ✓ grossly abusing the confidence of the latter in
of persons element of the offense. admitting him into his dwelling.
Robbery with Dwelling is not inherent; Dwelling is not included in treachery

homicide the act may be
✓ ● Although nocturnity and abuse of superior strength
accomplished without
are always included in the qualifying circumstance of
entry to dwelling.
treachery, dwelling cannot be included therein.
Instances when dwelling is found aggravating although crimes

Abuse of Confidence or Obvious
were committed not in the dwelling of the victims:
1) Vicitm was raped in the boarding house where was a Ungratefulness
bedspacer. Her room constituted “dwelling” as the
term is used in Article 14(3). Article 14, Paragraph 4 — That the act be committed with (1) abuse of
2) Victims were raped in their paternal home where confidence or (2) obvious ungratefulness.
they were guests at the time and did not reside

there. But, in case the victim was a “mere visitor” in Abuse of confidence – exists only when the offended party
the house where he was killed, dwelling was not has trusted the offender who later abuses such trust by
considered aggravating. committing the crime.
3) Where the victim was killed in the house of her aunt ● The abuse of confidence must be a means of
where she was living with her niece, dwelling was facilitating the commission of the crime, the culprit
considered aggravating because dwelling may mean taking advantage of the offended party’s belief that
temporary dwelling. the former would not abuse said confidence.
4) The victims, while sleeping as guests in the house of
another person, were shot to death in that house. Basis: The greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the
Dwelling was held aggravating, as the Code speaks means and ways employed.
of dwelling, not domicile.
Requisites
Dwelling is aggravating when the husband killed his 1) The offended party had trusted the offender.
estranged wife in the house solely occupied by her 2) The offender abused such trust by committing a
● The aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present crime against the offended party.
when the husband killed his estranged wife in the 3) The abuse of confidence facilitated the commission
house occupied by her, other than the conjugal of the crime.
home.
Example: A jealous lover, who had already determined to kill his
Adultery committed in the dwelling is aggravating sweetheart, invited her on a ride in the country. The girl,
● When adultery is committed in the dwelling of the
unsuspecting of his plans, went with him. In the car, the
husband even if it is also the dwelling of the
unfaithful wife, it is aggravating because, besides

jealous lover stabbed her. It was held that this aggravating
The confidence reposed by The victim, being a
circumstance was present.
the parents of the girl in the 9-month-old child, could
offender could not have not resist the commission
When confidence does not exist facilitated the commission of the crime. The
a) People v. Luchico — After preliminary advances of of the crime because the confidence reposed by the
the master, the female servant refused and fled. The offended girl could resist, parents of the child in the
master followed and after catching up with her, although unsuccessfully, offender facilitated the
threw her on the ground and committed the crime of the commission of the commission of the crime.
crime.
rape. When he raped her, she had already lost her
confidence in him from the moment he made an
indecent proposal and offended her with a kiss. No Immediate and personal confidence
aggravating circumstance in this case, because the ● The confidence between the offender and the
confidence must facilitate the commission of the offended party must be immediate and personal.
crime, the culprit taking advantage of the offended
party’s belief that the former would not abuse said Case example: U.S. v. Torrida
- The mere fact that the voters had reposed
confidence.
confidence in the defendant by electing him to a
b) People v. Brocal — There is no abuse of confidence
public office does not mean that he abused their
in attempted rape where on the day of the crime, the
confidence when he committed estafa against them.
accused was in the company of the offended girl, not
because of her confidence in him, but because they
Felonies where abuse of confidence is inherent
were partners in a certain business.
1) Malversation (Article 217)
Special relation of confidence between accused and victim 2) Qualified theft (Article 310)
● There is no abuse of confidence where the 3) Estafa by conversion or misappropriation (Article
deceased and the accused happened to be together 315)
because the former invited the latter to 4) Qualified seduction (Article 337)
nightclubbing and to bring with him the money the
latter owed the former. Ungratefulness – must be obvious, that is, manifest and clear.
Betrayal of confidence is NOT aggravating Cases where the aggravating circumstance of obvious
ungratefulness is present:
Case example: People v. Arthur Crumb 1) The accused killed his father-in-law in whose house
- The parents of the offended party [living in the he lived and who partially supported him.
house of the accused] entrusted her to the care of 2) The accused was living in the house of the victim
said accused. who employed him as an overseer and in charge of
- One evening, while the offended party was standing carpentry work, and had free access to the house of
in front of a store watching some children who were the victim who was very kind to him and his family,
playing, the accused took her by the arm and forcibly and who helped him solve his problems.
led her to an isolated toilet, hidden from public view 3) A security guard killed a bank officer and robbed the
by some tall grasses, and once in the spot, he bank.
intimidated her with a knife and through the use of 4) The victim was suddenly attacked while in the act of
force and violence succeeded in having sexual giving the assailants their bread and coffee for
intercourse with her. breakfast. Instead of being grateful to the victim, at
- There is no showing that the accused was able to least by doing him no harm, they took advantage of
commit the crime by abusing the confidence his helplessness when his two arms were used for
reposed in him by the parents of the girl; hence, not carrying their food, thus preventing him from
an aggravating circumstance. defending himself from the sudden attack.
5) Visitor commits robbery or theft in the house of his
Killing of a child by an ”amah” is aggravated by abuse of host. BUT the act of stealing the property of the host
confidence is considered as committed with abuse of
● An amah is a nursemaid or maid in Eastern Asia. confidence.
● When the killer of the child is the domestic servant 6) The mere fact that the accused and offended party
of the family and is sometimes the deceased child’s live in the same house is not in itself enough to hold
amah, the aggravating circumstance of grave abuse that there was present abuse of confidence where
of confidence is present (People v. Caliso). the house was not the property of the offended
party.
Comparison between Crumb and Caliso case
Difference between abuse in confidence and obvious
ungratefulness
Crumb case Caliso case

● This aggravating circumstance is present even if he
Abuse of confidence Obvious ungratefulness
is not engaged in the discharge of his duties where
The essence is taking The basis of appreciation is the crime is committed.
advantage of the the commission of a crime
confidence reposed by the instead of being grateful to Other public authorities must be actually engaged in the
victim on the offender to the generosities given by performance of duty
facilitate the commission of the victim to the offender. ● As regards the place where the public authorities
the crime. are engaged in the discharge of their duties, there
must be some performance of public functions.
Abuse in confidence and obvious ungratefulness as
intertwining concepts Case example: U.S. v. Punsalan
● In such case, the abuse of confidence and obvious - Where the accused and the deceased, having
ungratefulness shall be treated as one. gotten into some trouble, left the courtroom and
went into an adjoining room, where the accused,
Case example: People v. Verdad without any warning, attacked the deceased with a
- A houseboy (accused) who enjoyed the trust and knife and killed him on the spot, it has been held that
confidence of Tomas Ramos and his family, was it was an error to consider the aggravating
allowed to sleep in the sala and to stay alone in the circumstance of having committed the offense in the
house when the whole family was away. He was also place where the public authority was exercising his
entrusted with the keys to the house. The accused functions.
was treated like a member of the family and was - The reason for not applying the circumstance was
completely trusted. that the court had already adjourned when the crime
- The circumstance of abuse of confidence and was committed and the attack was made in the
obvious ungratefulness were appreciated as one. adjoining room, not in the very place where the
justice of peace was engaged in the discharge of his
Place of the Commission of the Crime duties.
Electoral precinct during election day is a “place where

Article 14, Paragraph 5 — That the crime be committed in the palace of the
Chief Executive, or in his presence, or where the public authorities are engaged public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their
in the discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship. duties”
● The aggravating circumstance was appreciated in
the murder of a person in an electoral precinct or
polling place during election day.
place of the commission of the crime, which must be
respected.
Place dedicated to religious worship
● Cemeteries are not such a place, however
Difference between place where public authorities are
engaged in the discharge of their duties [par. 5] and contempt respectable they may be, as they are not dedicated
or insult to public authorities [par. 2] to the worship of God.
● The church is a place dedicated to religious worship.
Paragraph 5 Paragraph 2 Instances where the aggravating circumstance that the crime
be committed in a place dedicated to religious worship was
The public authorities are in the performance of their appreciated:
duties. 1) The accused shot the victim inside the church.
2) In a case of unjust vexation where the accused
Public authorities who are Public authorities are
kissed a girl inside a church when a religious service
in the performance of their performing their duties
duties must be in their outside of their office. was being solemnized.
office.
Case example: People v. de la Cruz
Public authority may be the Public authority should not - Where the violation of the child Brigada took place in
offended party. be the offended party. the Sta. Cruz Chapel in Sta. Maria, Bulacan, a
building dedicated to and actively used for religious
Official or religious functions not necessary worship, the generic aggravating circumstance of
● The place of the commission of the felony, if it is commission of the offense in a place dedicated to
Malacañang palace or a church, is aggravating, religious worship is present.
regardless of whether State or official or religious
functions are being held. Offender must have intention to commit a crime when he
● The Chief Executive need not be in Malacañang entered the place
palace. His presence alone in any place where the
Case example: People v. Jaurigue
crime is committed is enough to constitute the
aggravating circumstance.

- At the time of the commission of the crime, both the recognized or to escape more readily. As soon as B came, A
deceased and defendant were inside a chapel. The stabbed him to death.
deceased placed his hand on the right thigh of the
defendant girl, who pulled out with her right hand a “Whenever such circumstances may facilitate the
fan knife and stabbed him. commission of the offense.”
- The aggravating circumstance that the killing was ● Paragraph 6 requires only that nighttime,
done in a place dedicated to religious worship uninhabited place, or band “may facilitate the
cannot be legally considered, where there is no commission of the offense.”
evidence to show that the defendant had murder in ● The test fixed by the statute is an objective one.
her heart when she entered the chapel on the fatal
night. Instances when nighttime facilitated the commission of the
crime:
- This ruling seems to be applicable in case a crime is
1) When because of the darkness of the night the
committed in Malacañang palace or where public
crime can be perpetrated unmolested, or
authorities are engaged in the discharge of their
interference can be avoided, or there would be
duties.
greater certainty in attaining the ends of the
offender.
Nighttime, Uninhabited Place, or Band 2) The defendant was able to consummate the crime
with all its dastardly details without any one of the
Article 14, Paragraph 6 — That the crime be committed (1) in the nighttime, or persons living in the same premises becoming aware
(2) in an uninhabited place, or (3) by a band, whenever such circumstance may
of what was going on.
facilitate the commission of the offense.
Other tests for the application of the aggravating

Basis: The time and place of the commission of the crime and circumstances under par. 6
means and ways employed. ● The Supreme Court considered that circumstances
are aggravating when they are “especially sought
Above circumstances not considered as one aggravating for” or when the offender “took advantage thereof.”
circumstance
● There is a possibility of the circumstances being Instances when nighttime is especially sought for or took
considered separately when their elements are advantage thereof:
distinctly perceived and can subsist independently, 1) The offender especially sought for nighttime, when
revealing a greater degree of perversity. he sought for it in order to realize the crime with
more ease.
When is nighttime, uninhabited place, or band aggravating 2) The accused waited for the night before committing
1) When it facilitated the commission of the crime.
robbery with homicide.
2) When especially sought for by the offender to insure
3) Nighttime was appreciated against the accused who
the commission of the crime for the purpose of
was living only 150 meters away from the victim’s
impunity.*
house and evidently waited for nightfall to hide his
3) When the offender took advantage thereof for the
identity and facilitate his escape, knowing that most
purpose of impunity.
barrio folks are already asleep, or getting ready to
sleep, at 9:00 PM.
*Impunity – exemption or freedom from punishment
4) The accused lingered for almost three hours in the
Nocturnity evening at the restaurant before carrying out their
● Although nocturnity should not be estimated as an plan to rob it.
aggravating circumstance, since the time for the 5) The accused tried to ascertain whether the
commission of the crime was not deliberately occupants of the house were asleep, thereby
chosen by the accused; yet if it appears that the indicating the desire to carry out the plot with the
accused took advantage of the darkness for the least detection or to insure its consummation with a
more successful consummation of his plans, to minimum of resistance from the inmates of the
prevent his being recognized, and that the crime house.
might be perpetrated unmolested, the aggravating

Instance when nighttime is not considered especially sought
circumstance should be applied.
for:
● To take advantage of the fact or circumstance in
1) When the notion to commit the crime was conceived
committing a crime clearly implies an intention to do
only shortly before its commission.
so, and one does not avail oneself of the darkness
2) When the crime was committed at night upon mere
unless one intended to do so.
casual encounter.
Example: A, with intent to kill B, had hidden behind a tree and

When nighttime not specifically sought for, but…
availed himself of the darkness to prevent his being
1) It facilitated the commission of the offense

2) The offender took advantage of the same to commit
the crime Case example: People v. Velaga
- Where the darkness of the night was merely
Case example: People v. Corpus incidental to the collision between two vehicles
- The circumstance of nocturnity, although not which caused the heated argument and the
specifically sought for by the culprit, shall aggravate eventual stabbing of the victim, nighttime is not
his criminal liability if it facilitated the commission of aggravating.
the offense or the offender took advantage of the - To be aggravating, the prosecution must show that
same to commit the crime. the accused purposely sought to commit the crime
at nighttime in order to facilitate the achievement of
Tests for nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance his objectives, prevent discovery or evade capture.
Information must allege that nighttime was sought for or

Objective test Subjective test
taken advantage of by the accused or that it facilitated the
commission of the crime
Under which nocturnity is Under which nocturnity is
● The jurisprudence on this subject is to the effect
aggravating because it aggravating because it was
facilitates the commission purposely sought by the that nocturnity must have been sought or taken
of the offense. offender. advantage of to improve the chances of success in
the commission of the crime or to provide impunity
for the offenders.
“For the purpose of impunity.”
● The bare statement in the information that the crime
● To prevent his (accused’s) being recognized, or to
was committed in the darkness of the night fails to
secure himself against detection and punishment.
satisfy the criterion.
Case example: U.S. v. Yumul
- It was held that the commission of the crime was Not aggravating when crime began at daytime
● When the crime was the result of a succession of
attended by the aggravating circumstance of
acts which took place within the period of two hours,
nighttime, because of the silence and darkness of
commencing at 5:00 PM and ending at 7:00 PM,
the night which enabled the offender to take away
without a moment’s interruption in which it can be
the girl “with impunity”— a thing which undoubtedly
said that the thought of nighttime, being the most
the offender could not have done in the daytime and
favorable occasion for committing the crime,
in sight of people.
occurred to the accused, there is no aggravating
“Took advantage thereof.” circumstance of nighttime.
● The offender took advantage of any of the
circumstances of nighttime, uninhabited place, or by Commission of the crime must begin and be accomplished
in the nighttime
a band when he availed himself thereof at the time of
● Although the safe was thrown into the bay at night,
the commission of the crime for the purpose of
but the money, the taking of which constituted the
impunity or for the more successful consummation
offense, was withdrawn from the treasury during the
of his plans.
daytime, the crime of malversation was not attended
by the aggravating circumstance of nighttime.
Nighttime
Offense must be actually committed in the darkness of the
Nighttime (or obscuridad)– period of darkness beginning at night; hence it is not aggravating when:
end of dusk and ending at dawn; nights are from sunset to ● The defendants did not intentionally seek the cover
sunrise. of darkness for the purpose of committing murder
and they were carrying a light of sufficient brilliance
Requisites which made it easy for the people nearby to
1) Offender committed the crime in the darkness or recognize them.
silence of the night. ● The crime of robbery with homicide was committed
2) The darkness or silence of the night facilitated the at daybreak when the defendants could be
commission of the crime or insured impunity. recognized.
3) Offender intended to capitalize nighttime in
committing the crime. When the place of the crime is illuminated by light,
nighttime is not aggravating
Nighttime by and of itself is not an aggravating ● Although the offense was committed at nighttime,
circumstance the record does not show that appellant had sought
● It becomes so only when it is especially sought by it purposely or taken advantage thereof to facilitate
the offender, or taken advantage of by him to the perpetration of the offense. The place from
facilitate the commission of the cime or to insure his which he fired at seemed to be sufficiently lighted
immunity from capture.

for him to be clearly visible to, as well as recognized - The crime is committed in an uninhabited place
by, all of those who happened to be nearby. where the killing was done during the nighttime, in a
● Nocturnity is not aggravating where there is no sugarcane plantation about a hundred meters from
evidence that the accused had purposely sought the nearest house, and the sugarcane in the field
the cover of the darkness of the night to commit the was tall enough to obstruct the view of neigbors and
crime; nor is there evidence that nighttime passerby.
facilitated the commission of the crime, aside from
the fact that the scene of the crime was illuminated. Case example: People v. Rubia; People v. Arpa
- The purely accidental circumstance that on the day
Lighting of a matchstick or use of flashlights does not in question another banca, namely, that of the
negate the aggravating circumstance of nighttime witness for the prosecution, was also at sea, is not
● It is self-evident that nighttime was sought by an argument against the consideration of such
appellant to facilitate the commission of the offense, aggravating circumstance.
when all the members of the household were asleep. - It was difficult for the victim to receive any help and it
● The fact that Restituto Juanita hit a matchstick does was easy for the assailants to escape punishment.
not negate the presence of said aggravating
circumstance. Case example: People v. Nulla
● The court rejected the contention that nocturnity - Uninhabited place is aggravating where the felony
could not be appreciated because flashlights were was perpetrated in the open sea, where no help
used. could be expected by the victim from other persons
and the offender could easily escape punishment.
Uninhabited Place
Case example: People v. Bangug
Uninhabited place (or despoblado) – one where there are no - The fact that persons occasionally passed in the
houses at all, a place at a considerable distance from town, or uninhabited place and that on the night of the
where the houses are scattered at a great distance from each murder another hunting party was not a great
other. distance away, does not matter. It is the nature of
● Whether or not the crime committed is attended by the place which is decisive.
this aggravating circumstance should be determined
not by the distance of the nearest house from the Case example: People v. Aguinaldo; People v. Mendova
- A place about a kilometer from the nearest house or
scene of the crime, but by whether or not in the
other inhabited place is considered an uninhabited
place of the commission of the offense there was a
place.
reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some
help.
Case example: People v. Atitiw
- With the finding of the body of the victim in a solitary
Characteristics of uninhabited place – no reasonable
place off the road and hidden among the trees and
possibility of the victim receiving some help from others, such
tall grasses on a hill, some 500 meters away from the
as:
toll gate where help to the victim was difficult and
a) Place where there are no houses at all
the escape of the accused seemed easy, it is correct
b) Place at a considerable distance from town
to appreciate the aggravating circumstance of
c) Place where the houses are scattered at a great
uninhabited place.
distance from each other
d) Vessel in the open sea
Case example: People v. Ong
e) Uninhabited island
- The killing was done in an isolated place that
f) Uninhabited forest
resembles that of an abandoned subdivision. The
place was ideal not merely for burying the victim but
Requisites to be an ‘ordinary’ aggravating circumstance
also for killing him for it was a place where the
1) Crime is committed in an uninhabited place.
possibility of the victim receiving some help from
2) The uninhabited place facilitated the commission of
third persons was completely absent.
the crime or insured impunity.
- The accused sought the solitude of the place in
3) Offender intended to capitalize uninhabited place in
order to better attain their purpose without
committing the crime.
interference, and to secure themselves against
detection and punishment.
Case example: People v. Laoto
- The aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place
When the victims are the occupants of the only house in
should not be considered when the place where the
the place, the crime is committed in an uninhabited place
crime was committed could be seen and the voice of
the deceased could be heard from a nearby house.
Case example: People v. Piring
- Where the accused attacked and killed a couple in
Case example: People v. Fausto Damaso
their house, the circumstance of uninhabited place

was not taken into consideration as aggravating - There is an intention to cause death if the accused
circumstance, because it was not proven that there throws a stone at the victims, thus including stone
were no houses near the house of the deceased. under the term arms in the phrase “more than 3
- The implication is that, if it was shown that there armed malefactors acted together.”
were no houses there, it would be considered an
uninhabited place, even if there was a house there If one of the four armed persons is a principal by
and the victims were living in that house. inducement, they do not form a band
● What is more, the supposed participation of the
Solitude must be sought to better attain the criminal petitioner Gamara, as defined in the same
purpose information, was that of principal by inducement,
● It must appear that the accused sought the solitude which undoubtedly connotes that he has no direct
of the place where the crime was committed, in participation in the perpetration thereof.
order to better attain his purpose. ● All the armed men, at least four in number, must take
● The offenders must choose the place as an aid direct part in the execution of the act constituting
either: the crime.
a) To an easy and uninterrupted
accomplishment of their criminal designs; When nighttime, uninhabited place, or by a band did not
or facilitate the commission of the crime, was not especially
b) To insure concealment of the offense, that sought for, or was not taken advantage of
● When four armed persons, who casually met another
he might thereby be better secured
group of three armed persons in an uninhabited
against detection and punishment.
place at nighttime, quarreled with the latter and, in
Instances when the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited the heat of anger, the two groups fought against
place is not present: each other, resulting in the death of one of the three
1) The offended party was casually encountered by the which formed the other group, nighttime,
accused and the latter did not take advantage of the uninhabited place, and by a band are not aggravating
place or there is no showing that it facilitated the circumstances.
commission of the crime.
2) Although the house nearest to the dwelling of the Reason: When the meeting between the offenders and the
victim was about a kilometer away, if the defendants group of the deceased was casual, the offenders could not
did not select the place either to better attain their have sought for the circumstances of nighttime, uninhabited
object without interference or to secure themselves place, and their forming a band. When the offenders attacked
against detection and punishment. the group of the deceased in the heat of anger, they could not
have taken advantage of such circumstances. And since they
did not afford the offenders any advantage, such
By a Band
circumstances could not have facilitated the commission of
the crime.
Band (or cuadrilla) – whenever more than three armed
malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an
“By a band” is aggravating in the following crimes:
offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band.
a) Against property
b) Against persons
Requisites
c) Illegal detention
1) Crime must be committed by a band.
d) Treason
2) Band facilitated the commission of the crime or
insured impunity.
Not applicable to crimes against chastity
3) Offender intended to capitalize band in committing
● In the crime of rape committed by four armed
the crime.
persons, this circumstance was not considered.
“By a band” – the armed men shall have acted together in the
Abuse of superior strength and use of firearms, absorbed in
commission of the offense.
aggravating circumstance of “by a band”
● The aggravating circumstance of taking advantage
Armed men must act together in the commission of the
of their superior strength and with the use of
crime
firearms is absorbed by the generic aggravating
● The mere fact that there are more than three armed
circumstance of the commission of the offense by a
men at the scene of the crime does not prove the
band.
existence of a band, if only one of them committed
the crime while the others were not aware of the
“By a band” is inherent in brigandage
● In the crime of brigandage, which is committed by
more than three armed persons forming a band of
Case example: People v. Manlolo
robbers (Article 306), the circumstance that the
crime was committed by a band should not be

considered as aggravating because it is inherent in ● Under the doctrine of ejusdem generis,* the phrase
or is necessarily included in defining the crime. “other calamity or misfortune must be a condition or
distress similar to “conflagration, shipwreck,
“By a band” is aggravating in robbery with homicide earthquake, and epidemic” such as eruption of a
● It was held that in the imposition of the penalty for volcano, destructive cyclone, avalanche, landslide,
the crime of robbery with homicide, the aggravating typhoon, and tsunamis.
circumstance that the crime was committed by a
band should be taken into consideration. *ejusdem generis doctrine – general terms follow the designation of particular
things, the general term will be construed to comprehend those things of the same
nature as those specifically enumerated.
On Occasion of Calamity or Misfortune
General rule: Chaotic conditions after liberation is not included
Article 14, Paragraph 7 — That the crime be committed on the commission of a in Article 14(7).
conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic, or other calamity or
misfortune.
Exception: The chaotic condition resulting from the liberation
of San Pablo was considered a calamity; hence, considered
Basis: Reference to the time of the commission of the crime. aggravating (People v. Penjan).
Reason for the aggravation Case when “misfortune” is not considered aggravating:
● Found in the debased form of criminality met in one - The development of engine trouble at sea is a
who, in the midst of a great calamity, instead of misfortune, but it does not come within the context
lending aid to the afflicted, adds to their suffering by of the phrase “other calamity or misfortune as used
taking advantage of their misfortune to despoil in Article 14(7), such as the chaotic conditions
them. resulting from war or the liberation of the Philippines
during the last World War. Clearly, no condition of
Requisites great calamity or misfortune existed when the motor
1) Offender committed the crime on occasion of
banca developed engine trouble (People v. Arpa).
calamity or misfortune.
2) Offender took advantage of the disastrous condition
Aid of Armed Men or of Persons who Afford
to facilitate the commission of the crime or to insure
impunity. Impunity
Example: A fireman who commits robbery in a burned house, or Article 14, Paragraph 8 — That the crime be committed with the aid of (1)
that of a thief who immediately after a destructive typhoon armed men, or (2) persons who insure or afford impunity.
steals personal property from the demolished houses.

Basis: The means and ways of committing the crime.
Offender must take advantage of the calamity or
misfortune Requisites
1) Armed men or persons took part in the commission
● In the case where the accused was provoked by the
of the crime, directly or indirectly.
offended party to commit the crime during the
2) The accused availed himself of their aid or relied
calamity
upon them when the crime was committed.
or misfortune, this aggravating circumstance may
not be taken into consideration for the purpose of
Rule for the application of this circumstance
increasing the penalty because the accused did not
● The casual presence of armed men near the place
take
where the crime was committed does not constitute
advantage of it.
an aggravating circumstance when it appears that
the accused did not avail himself of their aid or rely
Case example: People v. Lao Wan Sing
upon them to commit the crime.
- A fire broke out at a store located on the western
side of Rizal Street. The fires spread northward,
engulfing several buildings. Aid of Armed Men
- Taking advantage of the confusion, accused set fire
to the kitchen establishment, which was covered by Armed men must take part directly or indirectly
insurance policy. He was convicted of the crime of
Case example: U.S. v. Abaigar
arson with ordinary mitigating circumstance of
- The accused stabbed the deceased to death.
taking advantage of the confusion occasioned by
- The testimony of the accused, corroborated by that
another fire.
of the witness for the prosecution, is that the crime
was committed by him (accused) alone, without
To aggravate criminal liability, calamity or misfortune must
assistance from anyone.
be similar to conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, and
epidemic

- It is true that in the house near the place where the
crime was committed, there were ten men armed “Aid of armed men” includes “armed women”
with daggers, and five without arms, but these men
took no part, directly or indirectly, in the commission Case example: People v. Licop
of the crime, and it does not appear that they heard - Aid of armed women is aggravating in kidnapping and
the conversation which caused the sudden serious illegal detention.
determination on the part of the accused to kill the
deceased. Case example: People v. Villanueva
- It was opined that some use of arms or show of
- The accused, therefore, did not avail himself of their
armed strength is necessary to guard a kidnap victim
aid or rely upon them to commit the crime.
to prevent or discourage escape and so in a sense, it
Examples of “with the aid of armed men”: may be justly regarded as included in or absorbed by
a) A, in order to get rid of her husband, secured the the offenses of itself.
services of other Moros by promising them rewards
and had them kill her husband. As planned, they Aid of Persons who Afford Impunity
armed themselves with clubs, went to the house of
the victim and clubbed him to death while A held a Commission of the crime with the aid of persons who
lighted lamp. A also supplied them with rope with insure or afford impunity is an ordinary mitigating
circumstance
which to tie her husband. In this case, A committed
parricide “with the aid of armed men.”
Example: A treacherously killed X. Thereafter, B and C helped A
b) O and L were prosecuted for robbery with rape. It
in burying X for purposes of concealing the corpus delicti.
appeared from their written confessions that they
Without the dead body of X, it would be very difficult for the
had companion who were armed when they
prosecution to cause the conviction of A for murder. A is liable
committed the crime. It was held that they were
for murder qualified by the circumstance of treachery.
guilty of robbery with rape with the aggravating
Ordinary mitigating circumstance of committing a crime with
circumstance of aid of armed men.
the aid of persons to afford impunity. B and C are liable for
murder as accomplices.
Exceptions to the aggravating circumstance of “aid of
armed men”
1) This aggravating circumstance shall not be Difference between the circumstances of “aid of armed men”
and “aid of persons who insure or afford impunity”
considered when both the attacking party and the
party attacked were equally armed.
2) This aggravating circumstance is not present when “Aid of armed men” “Aid of persons who insure
the accused as well as those who cooperated with or afford impunity”
him in the commission of the crime acted under the
Offender purposely sought Offender purposely sought
same plan and for the same purpose.
or consciously relied upon or consciously relied upon
the aid of armed men in person(s) to prevent his
Difference between “with the aid of armed men” (par. 8) and committing the crime. being recognized or to
“by a band” (par. 6) secure him against
detection and punishment.
“By a band” “With the aid of armed
The men, whose aid the The persons, whose aid the
men”
accused relied upon, must offender relied upon, need
be armed. not be armed.
Requires that more than Such circumstance is
three armed malefactors present even if one of the
shall have acted together in offenders merely relied on
Recidivism
the commission of the their aid, for actual aid not
crime. necessary.
Article 14, Paragraph 9 — That the accused is a recidivist. A recidivist is one
who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted
“Aid of armed men” is absorbed by “employment of a band” by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code.
● It is improper to separately take into account against
the accused the aggravating circumstance of (1) the
Recidivist – one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall
aid of armed men, and (2) employment of a band in
have been previously convicted by final judgment of another
appraising the gravity of the offense, in view of the
crime embraced in the same title of the RPC.
definition of band which includes any group of armed
men, provided they are at least four in number.
Basis: The greater perversity of the offender, as shown by his
● If there are four armed men, aid of armed men is
inclination to crimes.
absorbed in employment of a band.
● If there are three armed men or less, aid of armed
Requisites
men may be the aggravating circumstance. 1) The offender is on trial for an offense.

2) He was previously convicted by final judgment of Example: The accused was prosecuted and tried for theft,
another crime. estafa, and robbery. Judgments for three offenses were read
3) Both the first and the second offenses are embraced on the same day. It was held that he was not a recidivist
in the same title of the Code. because the judgment in any of the first two offenses was not
4) The offender is convicted of the new offense. yet final when he was tried for the third offense.
Controlling factor Present crime and previous crime must be embraced in the
● What is controlling is the time of the trial, not the same title of this Code
time of the commission of the offense.
● It is not required that at the time of the commission Case example: People v. Lauleco
of the crime, the accused should have been - If the accused had been twice convicted of violation
previously convicted by final judgment of another of a city ordinance and subsequently he was
crime. prosecuted for violation of Article 195 of the RPC
concerning gambling, he is not a recidivist.
“At the time of his trial for one crime.” - When one offense is punishable by an ordinance or
● The phrase should not be restrictively construed as special law and the other by the RPC, the two
to mean the date of arraignment. offenses are not embraced in the same title of the
● It is employed in its general sense, including the Code.
rendering of the judgment.
● It is meant to include everything that is done in the Case example: People v. Hodges
course of the trial, from arraignment until after - Recidivism was considered aggravating in a usury
sentence is announced by the judge in open court. case where the accused was previously convicted of
the same offense. Under its Article 10, the RPC
No recidivism if the subsequent conviction is for an offense should be deemed as supplementing special laws of
committed before the offense involved in the prior a penal character.
conviction
Examples of crimes embraced in the same title of the RPC
Case example: People v. Baldera - Robbery and theft are embraced in Title Ten,
- The accused was convicted of robbery with referring to crimes against property. Homicide and
homicide committed on December 23, 1947. He was physical injuries are embraced in Title Eight,
previously convicted of theft committed on referring to crimes against persons.
December 30, 1947. - The felonies defined and penalized in Book II of the
- The accused was not a recidivist. RPC are grouped in different titles (e.g., Title Eight
and Title Ten).
Illustration for another instance where accused is not a
recidivist:
There is recidivism even if the lapse of time between two
felonies is more than 10 years
Crime Year of Commission Year of Conviction ● Recidivism must be taken into account as an
aggravating circumstance no matter how many years
Robbery 2005 2006 have intervened between the first and second
felonies.
Theft 2001 2010
Effects of pardon and amnesty on this circumstance

“Previously convicted by final judgment.” 1) According to Article 89, amnesty extinguishes the
● Section 7 of Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal penalty and all its effects.
Procedure provides that except where the death 2) Pardon does not prevent a former conviction from
penalty is imposed, a judgment in a criminal case being considered as an aggravating circumstance.
becomes final:
1) After the lapse of the period for perfecting Case example: People v. Lacao
an appeal; or - The accused-appellant admitted during the trial that
2) When the sentence has been partially or he was once convicted of the crime of homicide but
totally satisfied or served; or he was granted an absolute pardon therefor.
3) The accused has waived in writing his right - Recidivism was properly considered since a pardon
to appeal; or for a preceding offense does not obliterate the fact
4) The accused has applied for probation. that the accused is a recidivist upon his conviction
of a second offense embraced in the same title of
● Section 6 of Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal the RPC.
Procedure provides that [a]n appeal must be taken
within 15 days from promulgation or notice of the Reiteracion or Habituality
judgment or order appealed from.”

Article 14, Paragraph 10 — That the offender has been previously punished for
day to 20 years. Then, he is convicted of falsification
an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or two or more punishable by a penalty ranging from 6 years and 1
crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
day to 12 years. The penalty for homicide for which
he served sentence is greater than that for the new
Basis: The greater perversity of the offender as shown by his offense (falsification).
inclination to crimes.
Other instances for example no. 2:
Requisites
1) The accused is on trial for an offense.
Falsification first Homicide first and
2) He previously served sentence for another offense before homicide homicide again
to which the law attaches an equal or greater
penalty, or for two or more crimes to which it There is no habituality There is recidivism
attaches lighter penalty than that for the new because the penalty for because the first and the
offense. the first offense is less second offenses are
than that for the embraced in the same
3) He is convicted of the new offense.
second offense. title of the Code.
Case example: People v. Villapando The rule is that the Although the law requires
- The accused was convicted of homicide, less serious penalty for the first only final judgment in
physical injuries, and slight physical injuries, all offense must at least recidivism, even if the
committed on January 14, 1979. be equal to that for the convict served sentence
- He was found by the trial court to have committed second offense. for one offense, there is
still recidivism, provided
offenses prior to and after that date, as follows: (1)
prior to January 1979, he was arrested and accused of the crime of
the first and the second
theft; (2) on May 15, 1973, he was likewise charged for physical injuries offenses are embraced in
but said case was amicably settled; (3) on January 15, 1973, he was the same title of the
likewise charged for the crime of theft and was convicted of said Code.
offense; (4) he was likewise charged and convicted in another criminal
case; (5) he was also charged for theft but said case was settled
amicably; and (6) he was charged and convicted for theft on October 3) “Punished for two or more crimes to which it
30, 1982.
attaches a lighter penalty.”
- The records did not disclose that the accused has
- A served 30 days imprisonment for theft; later, he
been so previously punished. Reiteracion or
served two months for estafa; now he is tried for
habituality is not attendant.
homicide which is punishable with reclusion
temporal (12 years and 1 day to 20 years. For the
“Has been previously punished.”
previous two offenses, the law provides lesser
● This means that the accused previously served
penalties.
sentence for another offense or sentence for other
offenses before his trial for the new offense.
It is the penalty attached to the offense, not the penalty
● The second requisite is present: (1) when the actually imposed
penalty provided by law for the previous offense is ● Article 14(10) speaks of penalty attached to the
equal to that for the new offense; or (2) when the offense, which may have several periods. Hence,
penalty provided by law for the previous offense is even if the accused served penalty of prision mayor
greater; or (3) when the accused served at least two in its minimum period and is now convicted of an
sentences, even if the penalties provided by law for offense for which the penalty of prision mayor is
the crimes are lighter. imposed, there is still habituality, provided that the
penalty attached to the two offenses is prision
Examples: mayor in its full extent.
1) “Punished for an offense to which the law
attaches an ‘equal’ penalty.”
Reiteracion or habituality is not always aggravating
- A served sentence for forcible abduction punishable
● If, as a result of taking this circumstance into
by reclusion temporal (12 years and 1 day to 20
account, the penalty for the crime of murder would
years). Later, after A was released from prison, he
be the death and the offenses for which the offender
committed homicide punishable also by reclusion
has been previously convicted are against property
temporal. In fixing the penalty for homicide, the court
and not directly against persons, the court should
will have to consider the aggravating circumstance
exercise its discretion in favor of the accused by not
of habituality against A.
taking this aggravating circumstance into account.
2) “Punished for an offense to which the law Difference between recidivism and reiteration
attaches ‘greater’ penalty.”
- There is reiteracion or habituality in a case where the
accused once served sentence for homicide Reiteracion Recidivism
punishable by a penalty ranging from 12 years and 1

● When this aggravating circumstance is present,
The offender shall have It is enough that a final
there must be two or more principals, the one who
served out his sentence for judgment has been
the first offense. rendered in the first gives or offers the price or promise and the one who
offense. accepts it, both of whom are principals— to the
former, because he directly induces the latter to
The previous and It requires that the offenses commit the crime, and the latter because he
subsequent offenses must be included in the same title commits it.
not be embraced in the of the Code.
same title of the Code.
Application of this paragraph
● When this aggravating circumstance is present, it
Not always aggravating Always to be taken into
circumstance. consideration in fixing the affects not only the person who received the price or
penalty to be imposed upon the reward, but also the person who gave it.
the accused. ● The established rule in Spanish jurisprudence is to
the effect that the aggravating circumstance of
Four forms of repetition under aggravating circumstance price, reward, or promise thereof affects equally the
offeror and the acceptor.
Generic aggravating 1) Recidivism (Article 14[9]).

circumstance Instances when this aggravating circumstance is present:
2) Reiteracion or habituality 1) Price was a qualifying aggravating circumstance in
(Article 14[10]). the case where P procured an ignorant man to kill
the brother and grandniece of P for a reward of ₱60.
Extraordinary aggravating 3) Multi-recidivism or habitual
circumstance The ignorant man, following the instruction of P,
delinquency (Article 62[5]).
killed them. It was held that murder by inducement of
a price is committed.
Special aggravating 2) The aggravating circumstance that the crime was
4) Quasi-recidivism (Article
circumstance committed for hire or reward can be applied to the
160).
instigator of the crime.
Habitual delinquency – when a person, within a period of 10 Instance when this aggravating circumstance is not
years from the date of his release or last conviction of the considered against other accused:
crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, - The aggravating circumstance of price or reward
theft, estafa, or falsification, is found guilty of any of said cannot be considered against the other accused for
crimes a third time or oftener. the reason that it was not she who committed the
● The offender is either a recidivist or one who has crime in consideration of said price or reward.
been previously punished for two or more offenses - If the price, reward, or promise is alleged in the
(habituality). He shall suffer an additional penalty for information as a qualifying aggravating
being a habitual delinquent. circumstance, it shall be considered against all the
accused, it being an element of the crime of murder;
Quasi-recidivism – any person who shall commit a felony after however, in this case, price was considered a generic
having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to aggravating circumstance only because it was not
serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be alleged to qualify the crime to murder.
punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by
law for the new felony. The purpose must be to induce another to perform the
deed
● The evidence must show that one of the accused
Case example: People v. Durante
- Defendant, while serving sentence in Bilibid for one used money or other valuable consideration for the
crime, struck and stabbed the foreman of the purpose of inducing another to perform the deed.
brigade of prisoners. He shall be punished with the ● If without previous promise it was given voluntarily
maximum period of the penalty prescribed by the law after the crime had been committed as an
for the new felony. expression of his appreciation for the sympathy and
aid shown by other accused, it should not be taken
into consideration for the purpose of increasing the
Price, Reward, or Promise
penalty.
Article 14, Paragraph 11 — That the crime be committed in consideration of a Case example: People v. Paredes
price, reward, or promise.
- Evidence shows that there was an offer of a reward
by appellant Bartolome, and a promise by appellant
Basis: The greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the Santos, but the evidence is not conclusive that
motivating power itself. appellant Perlas participated in the commission of
the robbery by reason of such reward or promise, it
Concurrence of two or more offenders

appearing that even before the other accused met ● If the purpose of the explosion, inundation, fire, or
with Bartolome and the other municipal official who poison is to kill a ‘predetermined’ person, the crime
made the promise, the other accused had already committed is murder.
decided to commit the robbery. ● Once any of these circumstances is alleged in the
- The reward and the promise aforementioned must information to qualify the offense, it should not be
have given the other accused, including appellant considered as generic aggravating circumstance for
Perlas, further encouragement in the commission of the purpose of increasing the penalty, because it is
the robbery. an integral element of the offense.
- However, for this aggravating circumstance to be
considered against the person induced, the said “By means of fire.”
inducement must be the primary consideration for
the commission of the crime by him. Case example: U.S. v. Burns
- The accused had set fire to an automobile under a
building, with the result that the edifice was
Great Waste and Ruin
consumed by fire. One of the inmates of the house
perished in the conflagration.
Article 14, Paragraph 12 — That the crime be committed by means of - In order to constitute murder, there should be an
inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or intentional damage
thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving actual design to kill and that the use of fire should be
great waste or ruin.
purposely adopted as a means to that end.
Basis: Reference to means and ways employed. Case example: People v. Bersabal; People v. Piring
- If a house was set on fire after the killing of the
If not used as a means to accomplish a criminal purpose victim, there would be two separate crimes of arson
● Unless used by the offender as a means to and murder or homicide.
accomplish a criminal purpose, any of the
circumstances in paragraph 12 cannot be considered “By means of explosion.”
to increase the penalty or change the nature of the
offense. Example: What crime is committed if a hand grenade is thrown
into the house where a family of seven persons lives, and as a
As a generic aggravating circumstance result of the explosion, the wall of the house is damaged,
● When another aggravating circumstance already endangering the lives of the people there? The offense is a
qualifies the crime, any of these aggravating crime involving destruction.
circumstances shall be considered generic a) If one of the people there died, but no intent to kill on
aggravating circumstance only. the part of the offender — crime involving
destruction.
Example: A killed his wife by means of fire, as when he set their b) If there is intent to kill and explosion is used by the
house on fire to kill her; or by means of explosion, as when he offender to accomplish his criminal purpose, and the
threw a hand grenade at her to kill her; or by means of poison victim dies as a direct consequence thereof —
which he mixed with the food of his wife. In any of these cases, murder.
there is only a generic aggravating circumstance, because
they cannot qualify the crime. The crime committed is already “By means of derailment of locomotive.”
parricide which is already qualified by relationship. ● Under Article 330, which defines and penalizes the
crime of damage to means of communication,
In case of arson derailment of cars, collision, or accident must result
a) When the crime intended to be committed is arson from damage to railway, telegraph, or telephone
and somebody dies as a result thereof, the crime is lines. But this is without prejudice to the criminal
simply arson and the act resulting in the death of liability for other consequences of criminal act.
that person is not even an independent crime of
homicide, it being absorbed. Kinds of crime committed under this circumstance
b) If the offender had the intent to kill the victim,
burned the house where the latter was, and the
Damage to means of The result of the derailment
victim died as a consequence, the crime is murder, communication of cars is only damaged
qualified by the circumstance that the crime was property.
committed “by means of fire.”
Damage to means of Death of a person also
When used as means to kill another person, the crime is communication with results without intent to kill
murder homicide on the part of the offender.
● The killing of the victim “by means” such
Murder Derailment of cars or
circumstances as inundation, fire, poison, or
locomotive was the means
explosion qualifies it to murder.
used to kill the victim and

Case example: People v. Ompad
there was intent to kill on
- Pastor Labutin had planned to liquidate Simplicio
the part of the offender.
Tapulado. The plan could be deduced from the
outward circumstances shown from the time he
Q: Must this aggravating circumstance be considered to walked with Ompad and Libre (the triggermen) to the
raise the penalty, if it already qualifies the crime to murder? house of Samar where he caused his co-accused to
A: NO. Article 62, par. 1, provides that when the aggravating be drunk, the breaking out of his plan to kill the
circumstance is included by the law in defining a crime, it shall victim to his co-accused at the time when he knew
not be taken into consideration for the purpose of increasing that they were already drunk, his remark that he had
the penalty. grudge against the victim in reply to the comment of
Ompad that he had no ill-feeling against the victim,
- Each of the circumstances of “fire,” “explosion,” and his immediate action to supply the ammunition when
“derailment of a locomotive” may be a part of the Ompad remarked about the lack of it, and his being
definition of particular crime, such as arson (Art. always near the triggermen at the critical moments
320), crime involving destruction (Art. 324), and when the crime was actually to take place.
damages and obstruction to means of - These circumstances were means which he
communication (Art. 330). considered adequate and effective to carry out the
- In these cases, they do not serve to increase the intended commission. He had sufficient time to
penalty because they are already included by the law reflect and allow his conscience to overcome his
in defining the crimes. resolution to kill. That Pastor Labutin acted with
known premeditation, is evident indeed.
Difference between paragraph 12 and paragraph 7
Evident premeditation may be considered as to principal by
induction
Paragraph 12 Paragraph 7
Crime is committed by Crime is committed on the Case example: U.S. v. Gamao

means of any such act occasion of a calamity or - When Gamao as far back as March 1907, attempted
involving great waste or misfortune. to induce Batolinao to kill the priest; in March 1909, 2
ruin. months prior to the murder, he offered Patpat ₱50 to
kill the priest; some days prior to the murder, he said
that an anarchistic society had been formed with the
Evident Premeditation
object of killing the friars; and on the afternoon of
May 15, he presided at the meeting held in his own
Article 14, Paragraph 13 — That the act be committed with evident house, where it was agreed that the priest should be
premeditation.
killed and he there deliberately selected his nephew
to commit the crime, and directly induced him to do
Basis: Reference to the ways of committing the crime, it; the crime, insofar as Gamao was concerned, was
because evident premeditation implies a deliberate planning committed with known premeditation.
of the act before executing it.
Essence of premeditation
Requisites ● The execution of the criminal act must be preceded
1) The time when the offender determined to commit
by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution
the crime.
to carry out the criminal intent during the space of
2) An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has
time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.
clung to his determination.
3) A sufficient lapse of time between the determination Case example: People v. Escabarte
and the execution to allow him to reflect upon the - Evident premeditation has been fully established
consequence of his act and to allow his conscience where the commission of the crime was
to overcome the resolution of his will. premeditated and reflected upon and was preceded
by cool thought and a reflection with the resolution
Prior determination to kill to carry out the criminal intent during a span of time
● The above requisites of evident premeditation in
sufficient to arrive at the hour of judgment.
murder presuppose the existence of prior
determination to kill on the part of the offender. Instances when evident premeditation may not be
● There is no “time of criminal determination,” appreciated:
“clinging to such determination,” and “lapse of time 1) Absent any proof as to how and when the plan to kill
between such determination and its execution” to was hatched or what time elapsed before it was
speak of if the prosecution failed to establish that carried out.
prior to the killing, the accused determined to
commit the crime.

2) Neither is it aggravating where the fracas was the
result of rising tempers, not a deliberate plan, nor Second requisite necessary
when the attack was made in the heat of anger. ● The premeditation must be based upon external
3) Absence of evidence showing that the accused had, acts and not presumed from mere lapse of time.
prior to the killing, resolved to commit the same, nor
is there proof that the shooting of the victim was the Case example: People v. Zapatero
result of meditation, calculation, or resolution, and - The criminal intent evident from outward acts must
the deceased was unknown to the accused before be notorious and manifest, and the purpose and
the incident. determination must be plain and have been adopted
after mature consideration on the part of the
Premeditation must be evident persons who conceived and resolved upon the
● There must be evidence showing that the accused perpetration of the crime, as a result of deliberation,
meditated and reflected on his intention between meditation, and reflection sometime before its
the time when the crime was conceived by him, and commission.
the time it was actually perpetrated.
● The premeditation must be evident and not merely Case example: People v. Carillo
suspected. - Although in offender’s confession there is a
statement that, on the morning of June 29, when he
Case example: U.S. v. Manalinde heard that Calma was at large, he proposed to kill
- The accused who pleaded guilty confessed that his him, there is an entire absence of evidence showing
wife died about 100 days before; that he was that he meditated and reflected on his intention
directed by Datto Mupuck to go huramentado and to between the time it was conceived and the time the
kill the two persons who he would meet in the town; crime was actually perpetrated.
that if he was successful in the matter, Mupuck
would give him a pretty woman on his return; that in Instances when second requisite exists:
- After the offenders had determined (conceived) to
order to carry out his intention to kill two persons in
commit the crime, they manifestly indicated that
the town, he provided himself with a kris, which he
they clung to their determination:
concealed in banana leaves; that he traveled for a
day and a night from his home; that upon reaching
a) When the crime was carefully planned by
the town, he attacked from behind a Spaniard, and
the offenders.
immediately after, he attacked a Chinaman who was
b) When the offenders previously prepared
close by; and that he had no quarrel with the
the means which they considered
assaulted persons.
adequate to carry it out.
- Those facts established the aggravating
c) When a grave was prepared at an isolated
circumstance of evident premeditation.
place in the field for the reception of the
Three requisites of evident premeditation as illustrated by the body of the person whom the criminals
Manalinde case: intended to kill.
d) When the defendants made repeated
statements that the hour of reckoning of
First requisite On a certain date, Manalinde accepted the
the victim would arrive and armed
proposition that he would turn huramentado
themselves with deadly weapons.
and kill two persons he would meet in the
marketplace. On said date, the offender is said e) When the defendant commenced to
to have determined to commit the crime. sharpen his bolo on the afternoon
preceding the night of the crime.
Second requisite He undertook the journey to comply therewith f) When the defendant, according to his own
and provided himself with a weapon, which confession, three times attempted to take
served as acts manifestly indicating that the
the life of the deceased in order to be able
offender clung to his determination to commit
to marry his widow, with whom he was in
the crime.
love.
Third requisite After the journey for a day and a night, he g) Where the accused repeatedly plotted the
killed the victims. One day and one night commission of the murder over a period of
consitute a sufficient lapse of time for the several weeks and, on at least two
offender to realize the consequences of his occasions, made preliminary efforts to
contemplated act.
carry it out.
Date and time when the offender determined to commit the Mere threats without the second element do not show
crime essential evident premeditation
● The reason for such is the lapse of time for the
purpose of the third requisite is computed from that Case example: People v. Fuentesela
date and time.

- A threat to kill, unsupported by other evidence which latter was answering a call of nature on the porch of
would disclose the true criminal state of mind of the his house.
accused, will only be construed as a casual remark - Possibly, the killing was actually premeditated but
naturally emanating from a feeling of rancor and not the prosecution’s evidence is not conclusive on the
a resolution of the character involved in evident presence of that aggravating circumstance.
premeditation.
Case example: People v. Manzano
Case example: People v. Carillo - The mere fact that after lunchtime the accused
- The mere fact that the accused stated in his mauled and detained the victim and that around
extrajudicial confession that as soon as he heard 4:00 PM, while the latter was in their custody, he was
that the deceased had escaped from the army killed, would not mean that there was evident
stockade he prepared to kill him, is not sufficient to premeditation.
establish evident premeditation.
- It is necessary to establish that the accused Instances when there is sufficient lapse of time:
meditated on his intention between the time it was a) The accused had three day’s time to meditate upon
conceived and the time the crime was actually the crime which he intended to commit and was not
perpetrated. Defendant’s proposition was nothing prompted by the impulse of the moment.
but an expression of his own determination to b) From the incident that dated back one month
commit the crime which is entirely different from previously when the deceased during a fight,
premeditation. slapped the appellant and ordered him to kneel
down, the humiliation inflicted him caused him to
Case example: People v. Sarmiento; People v. Bautista persist in the thought that one day he would be
- Two days immediately preceding the shooting, avenged. So he made clear on the very same evening
appellant threatened to shoot the deceased and on of that encounter. Two days later, he stepped on the
the eve of the killing, appellant expressed his running board of a bus, peeped inside and inquired if
intention to finish him. However, there was no the deceased was there. When he did not find him,
showing, that in between, appellant made plans or he made the remark that if he was there, he had
sought the deceased to accomplish the killing. something for him. Under such circumstance, the
- In fact, the killing happened when appellant was premeditation to inflict harm is quite evident.
plowing the field and the deceased unexpectedly c) The accused had one whole day to make the
appeared thereat. It is clear that appellant’s act of necessary preparations from the time he conceived
shooting the deceased was not premeditated. the idea of attacking the deceased.
- The rule is that the qualifying circumstance of d) The accused had more than one-half day for
premeditation is satisfactorily established only if it is meditation and reflection and to allow his
proved that the defendant had deliberately planned conscience to overcome the resolution of his will
to commit the crime, and had persistently and (vencer las determinaciones de la voluntad) had he
continuously followed it, notwithstanding that he desired to hearken to its warnings.
had ample time to allow his conscience to overcome e) Four hours had intervened between rage and
the determination of his will, if he had so desired, aggression of the accused is sufficient time for
after meditation and reflection. desistance.
- This circumstance is not proven and evident f) The lapse of time of 3 ½ hours between the plan and
premeditation was not present when there is no the commission of the crime is sufficient for the
evidence as to the time when the defendant decided offenders to reflect dispassionately upon the
to kill the victim. consequences of their contemplated act.
g) The accused apprehended the victims at 10:00 PM
Existence of ill-feeling or grudge alone is not proof of and the crime was consummated at 1:00 AM. The
evident premeditation accused had sufficient time to meditate and reflect
● The circumstance where the appellant might have on the consequences of their act.
nursed a grudge or resentment against the victim is
not a conclusive proof of evident premeditation. Why sufficient time is required
● The offender must have opportunity to coolly and
Case example: People v. Manangan serenely think and deliberate on the meaning and
- About 12 days before the killing, the accused tried to the consequences of what he planned to do, an
injure the victim. He desisted after he was restrained interval long enough for his conscience and better
by third persons who intervened during the judgment to overcome his evil desire and scheme.
altercation. ● Evident premeditation contemplates cold and deep
- The prosecution’s evidence does not show the steps meditation, and tenacious persistence in the
that the accused took thereafter in order that he accomplishment of the criminal act.
could kill the victim of that fateful hour when the ● Mere determination to commit the crime does not of
itself establish evident premeditation for it must

appear, not only that the accused made a decision When evident premeditation is appreciated even if vicim is
to commit the crime prior to the moment of different from that intended
execution, but also that his decision was the result ● Evident premeditation may be considered as present
of meditation, calculation, or reflection or persistent even if a person other than the intended victim was
attempt. killed, if it is shown that the conspirators were
determined to kill not only the victim but also anyone
There must be sufficient time between the outward acts who may help him put a violent resistance.
and the actual commission of the crime
Plan to kill a particular person not necessary
Case example: U.S. v. Buncad ● For premeditation to exist, it is not necessary that
- The mere fact that the accused was lying in wait for the accused planned to kill a “particular” person.
his victim just before the attack is not sufficient to
sustain a finding of evident premeditiation, in the Case examples:
absence of proof that he had been lying in wait for a 1) U.S. v. Manalinde — The criminal intent which was
substantial period of time. carried out was to kill the first two person whom the
accused should meet at the place where he
Case example: U.S. v. Mercoleta intended to commit the crime. Evident premeditaiton
- When it appears that the accused borrowed a bolo was considered against the accused.
for the purpose of committing the crime early in the 2) U.S. v. Zalsos and Ragmac — After careful and
morning and was lying in wait for some time before thoughtful meditation, the accused decided to kill,
he attacked his victim, evident premeditation is at the first opportunity, whatever individual he
sufficiently established. should meet from the town of Macabebe, on
account of the previous illness of his son of cholera
Conspiracy and evident premeditation which he attributed to the persons from Macabebe.
Inasmuch as the accused intentionally sought out a
General rule: Conspiracy presupposes premeditation, where native of the town, a “human being,” there is no
conspiracy is directly established, with proof of attendant doubt that, actuated by the impulse of his prejudice
deiberation and selection of the method, time, and means of against any individual from Macabebe and obedient
executing the crime, the existence of evident premeditation to his criminal resolution seriously conceived and
can be taken for granted. selected to carry out vengeance, he perpetrated the
crime with premeditation.
Exception: Conspiracy is only implied, thus evident 3) U.S. v. Rodriguez — A general attack upon a village
premeditation may not be appreciated in the absence of proof having been premeditated and planned, the killing of
as to how and when the plan to kill the victim was hatched or any individual during the attack is attended by the
what time has elapsed before it was carried out. aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation.
Evident premeditation and price or reward can co-exist Reason for the difference of the rulings
● The aggravating circumstance of price, reward, or ● When the offender decided to kill a particular person
promise may be taken into consideration and premeditated on the killing of the latter, but
independently of the fact that premeditation has when he carried out his plan he actually killed
already been considered, inasmuch as there exists another person, it cannot properly be said that he
no incompatibility between these two premeditated on the killing of the actual victim.
circumstances, because if it is certain that as a ● But if the offender premeditated on the killing of any
general rule price or reward implies premeditation, it person, it is proper to consider against the offender
is no less certain that the latter may be present the aggravating circumstance of premeditation,
without the former. because whoever is killed by him is contemplated in
● The rule that premeditation is absorbed by reward or his premeditation.
promise is applicable only to the inductor. The mere ● Where the victim belonged to the class designated
fact that another executed the act on the promise of by the accused, although the victim was not
reward does not necessarily mean that he had previously determined by him, premeditation is an
sufficient time to reflect on the consequences of his aggravating circumstance.
act.
Instance when the victim was undetermined and evident
When victim is different from that intended, premeditation premeditation is not appreciated:
is not aggravating - In U.S. v. Carranto, it appears that the victim was
● Evident premeditation may not be properly taken undetermined and the threats made by the
into account when the person whom the defendant defendant who had lost a fishing boat was that
proposed to kill was different from the one who either he or the thief would be turned into ghost.
became his victim. - The killing of the thief afterwards was held not to be
murder qualified by evident premeditation because

there was merely a threat which was not of a direct a) The accused was practically in a stupor when the
and specific character. crime was committed.
b) The regular driver of the victim feigned illness to
Evident premeditation in robbery with homicide enable another driver to drive for the victim who
● Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery, drove the vehicle first to the house of the regular
specially where it is committed by various persons, driver who said he was already well and so he
because they must have an agreement, they have to boarded with his co-accused, took over the driver’s
meditate and reflect on the manner of carrying out seat, and during the trip shot the victim who was
the crime and they have to act coordinately in order also on board the vehicle.
to succeed. c) The unlawful scheme could have been carried out
● But if there is evident premeditation not only to steal just the same even without the pretense.
property but also the killing of the victim, it shall be
considered to increase the penalty. Instances when craft is present and aggravating:
● If there is no evidence that the conspirators a) Where four men, having determined to kill a man in
previously planned and agreed to kill the victims, an uninhabited place so that the crime might be less
evident premeditation is not aggravating in robbery easily discovered, invited him to go with them on a
with homicide. journey to a distant mountain on the pretense that
they would find there a molave tree from which
Case example: People v. Pagal flowed a liquid supposed to have a peculiar virtue,
- Where the killing of a person during the commission and murdered him in a remote and uninhabited
of robbery was only an incident, because their place.
original plan was only to rob, and they killed the b) The accused pretended to be bona fide passengers
deceased when the latter refused to open the ‘kaha in the taxicab driven by the deceased, when they
de yero’ and fought with them, this aggravating were not so in fact, in order not to arouse his
circumstance should be disregarded. suspicion.
c) The accused assumed the position of authority, and
Craft, Fraud, or Disguise pretended to be a member of the CID when he was
not, to gain entrance and be able to be with the
offended party alone in the latter’s house, thus
Article 14, Paragraph 14 — That (1) craft, (2) fraud, or (3) disguise be employed.
enabling him to commit acts of lasciviousness
against her.
Basis: Reference to the means employed in the commission of d) Defendants pretended to be constabulary soldiers
the crime. to gain entry into the place of the victims.
e) When the accused brushed the dirt on the pants of
Application
the offended party, which the accused himself had
● This circumstance is characterized by the intellect
dirtied, and while the attention of the offended party
or mental rather than the physical means to which
was centered on the act of the accused, a
the criminal resorts to carry out his design.
confederate of the accused grabbed the wallet of
the offended party from behind.
Examples where this paragraph was applied:
f) In a case where the defendants asked the offended
a) Astucia (craft) — Where a thief falsely represents
party to change a ₱10-bill, when the latter took out
that he is the lover of the servant of a house in order
his wallet, the defendants snatched it from the hand
to gain entrance and rob the owner (astucia).
of the offended party, it was held that the crime of
b) Fraude (fraud) — Where A simulates the handwriting
robbery was attended by the aggravating
of B, who is a friend of C, inviting the latter, without
circumstance of craft.
the knowledge of B, by means of a note written in
g) Craft was used by the accused in the commission of
such simulated hand, to meet B at the designated
the offense of rape when the accused resorted to
place, in order to give A, who lies in wait at the place
the use of innocent-looking chocolate candies
appointed, an opportunity to kill C.
which did not arouse the suspicion of the
c) Disfraz (disguise) — Where one uses a disguise to
complainant that they contained deleterious drug,
prevent being recognized.
the purpose of the accused in giving them being to
weakem her resistance so that she would not be
Craft – involves the use of intellectual trickery or cunning on
able to repulse physically and mentally his sexual
the part of the accused.
assault.
● This is chicanery resorted to by the accused to aid in
h) Where all the accused with murder in their hearts
the execution of his criminal design. It is employed
pretended to accompany the victim in a friendly
as a scheme in the execution of the crime.
manner in going home and in order to lure him into a
false sense of security and making him unmindful of
Instances when craft is not attendant:
the tragedy that would befall him, one of them even

placed his hands on the shoulder of the victim while b) While the appellant reportedly had a sort of a mask
walking. and was using sunglasses, these clumsy
i) The unsuspecting victim found herself caught in the accouterments could not constitute the aggravating
malevolent trickery practiced by the appellant, the circumstance of disguise.
consequence of which proved fatal. c) Even if the appellant assumed masquerade, he was
readily recognizable because his face could easily be
When craft is not an aggravating circumstance seen together with the identifying feature of his
● Craft may not be appreciated independently for the mustache.
pupose of aggravation, where craft partakes of an
element of the offense. Instances when disguise is attendant:
a) The accused with two others wore masks to cover
Case example: People v. Tiongson their faces. The fact that the mask subsequently fell
- When the offender never intended to genuinely down, thus paving the way for this one’s
enter into the transaction of purchase and sale with identification does not render the aggravating
the owner of the jeep, to the offender the deed of circumstance of disguise inapplicable.
sale being a sham, as he did not pay the price b) The defendant illegally wore a Constabulary uniform.
thereof, the fraud takes the place of trespass in the c) The use of an assumed name in the publication of a
taking of the jeep involved in the crime of qualified libel.
theft committed by him.
Purpose of the offender in using any device must be to
Case example: People v. Cunanan conceal his identity
- Craft is not clearly established where the evidence
shows that the accused and his companions, who Case example: U.S. v. Rodriguez
came out from behind a patch of bamboo trees, did - While it appears that some of the offenders had
not camouflage their hostile intentions at the cloths wrapped about their heads, it does not
incipiency of the attack, as they announced their appear that this was done as disguise, but was
presence at the scene of the crime with shouts and following rather the custom of the country in which
gunshots. they had been reared.
Fraud – insidious words or machinations used to induce the Case example: U.S. v. Guysayco
- The act of the accused in disguising herself by using
victim to act in a manner which would enable the offender to
her husband’s clothes and a hat given to her by her
carry out his design.
companion before they continued on their way to
Instances when fraud is attendant: the place where she killed the deceased, was not
a) Where the defendants induced their victims to give considered aggravating circumstance of disguise,
up their arms upon a promise that no harm should be because she did it for fear of being attacked on the
done to them, and when the latter gave up their way.
arms, the former attacked and killed them.
b) Where the accused lured a minor girl to go with him Case example: People v. Cunanan
- The malefactors resorted to a disguise, but the
and look for her sister who was allegedly waiting for
circumstance did not facilitate the consummation of
the offended girl somewhere at Junquera Street but
the killing nor was it taken advantage of by the
instead, accused upon reaching said destination,
malefactors in the course of the assault.
dragged the girl to a secluded area and there raped
- As per the prosecution, at the incipiency of the
her.
attack, the accused and his companions did not
Difference between craft and fraud camouflage their hostile intentions.

- They announced their presence at the scene of the
crime with shouts and gunshots. That mode of
Craft Fraud attack counteracted whatever deception might have
arisen from their disguise.
The act of the accused was There is a direct
done in order not to arouse inducement by insidious
the suspicion. words or machinations. Abuse of Superior Strength or Means to
Weaken the Defense
Disguise – resorting to any device to conceal identity.
Article 14, Paragraph 15 — That (1) advantage be taken of superior strength, or
Instances when disguise is not considered: (2) means be employed to weaken the defense.
a) The defendant covered his face with handkerchief

before committing the crime, but in spite of the use
Abuse of Superior Strength
of handkerchief to cover their faces, the culprits
were recognized by the victim.
“Advantage be taken.”

● This means to use purposely excessive force out of a) The accused attacked an unarmed 4’11 ft girl with a
proportion to the means of defense available to knife.
the person attacked. b) The accused was armed while the victim, a married
woman, was unarmed and she guilelessly
When abuse of superior strength is aggravating approached the group of the accused, without the
1) The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior least inkling that any harm would befall her, when
strength depends on the age, size, and strength of she was shot in the back after her hands were tied
the parties. behind her.
2) It is considered whenever there is a notorious c) An attack by three men against a helplessness and
inequality of forces between the victim and the defenseless woman constitutes abuse of superior
aggressor, assessing a superiority of strength strength.
notoriously advantageous for the aggressor which is
selected or taken advantage of by him in the Exception: No abuse of superior strength in parricide
commission of the crime. against the wife
3) The offender uses a powerful weapon which is out of ● Abuse of superior strength is inherent in the crime of
proportion to the defense available to the offended parricide where the husband kills the wife.
party. ● Abuse of superior strength should not be applied to
the case of a husband who kills his wife, for the
Instances of no advantage of superior strength: reason that sex is inherent in the crime of parricide.
a) One who attacks with passion and obfuscation does
not take advantage of his superior strength. Evidence of relative physical strength necessary
b) This aggravating circumstance does not apply when ● The mere fact that one person was attacked by two
a quarrel arose unexpectedly and the fatal blow was aggressors does not constitute this aggravating
struck at a time when the aggressor and his victim circumstance, if the relative physical strength of the
were engaged against each other as man to man. parties does not appear.
● There must be evidence that the accused were
- In these two cases, the offenders may or might have physically stronger and that they abused such
superior strength, but they do not or did not take superiority.
advantage of it.
Numerical superiority, not sufficient
Instances of abuse of superior strength: ● The mere fact of there being a superiority of
a) Where a strong man has ill-treated a child, an old or numbers is not sufficient to bring the case within
decrepit person, or one weakened by disease, or aggravating circumstance.
where a person’s physical strength has been
overcome by the use of drugs or intoxicants. In each When there is abuse of superior strength by numerical
of these cases, there is a marked difference of superiority:
a) Number of aggressors, if armed, may point to abuse
physical strength between the offended party and
of superior strength, as when the three of them were
the offender.
wielding bolos and the victim was unarmed and
b) When the aggressors were police officers fully
trying to flee.
armed, and the deceased was defenseless and
b) The two accused jumped on the victim as he was
under the influence of liquor. The two aggressors
wrestling with their companion who has remained at
took advantage of these circumstances to
large. It was while they had him thus outnumbered
consummate the offense.
that one of the accused delivered the fatal blow.
c) Where the victim who died was an innocent and
c) The assailants were four in number and were armed
tender baby, barely six months old, and the wounded
with bladed instruments, while the deceased was
children were aged 5 and 12 years old, because of
alone, unarmed and taken by surprise.
the marked difference of physical strength between
the offended parties and the offender.
No abuse of superior strength when one acted as principal
and the other two as accomplices
Abuse of superior strength when a man attacks a woman
● When one of the three accused committed the crime
with a weapon
as principal and the two as accomplices, abuse of
● An attack made by a man with a deadly weapon upon
superior strength cannot be taken into
an unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes the
consideration, because it would be inconsistent.
circumstance of abuse of that superiority which his
● It must appear that the accused cooperated
season and the weapon used in the act afforded him,
together in some way designed to weaken the
and from which the woman was unable to defend
defense, in order for abuse of superior strength to
herself.
be estimated as an aggravating circumstance.
Examples:
Circumstance of superior strength is absorbed in treachery

● Superior strength is absorbed and inherent in Treachery – when the offender commits any of the crimes
treachery. against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in
the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to
Circumstance of superior strength absorbs band insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the
● Abuse of superior strength absorbs “by a band” or defense which the offended party might make.
cuadrilla, as the two have the same essence which is
the utilization of the combined strength of the Basis: Reference to the means and ways employed in the
assailants to overpower the victim and consummate commission of the crime.
the crime; hence, should not be treated separately
and distinctly. Requisites
1) At the time of the attack, the victim was not in a
Difference between “by a band” and “abuse of superior position to defend himself.
strength” 2) The offended consciously adopted the particular
means, method, or form of attack employed by him.
“By a band” “Abuse of superior
strength” Rules regarding treachery
1) Applicable only to crimes against persons.
Offense is committed by What is taken into account 2) Means, methods, or forms need not insure the
more than three armed is not the number of accomplishment of crime, as the law says “to insure
malefactors regardless of aggressors nor the fact that its execution” only.
the comparative strength of they are armed, but their
3) The mode of attack must be consciously adopted,
the victim/s. relative physical might in
which is based on the phrase “employing means,
regard to the offended
party. methods, or forms in the execution which tend
directly and specially.”
Means Employed to Weaken Defense Case example: People v. Rey

- The attack was sudden, unexpected, without
Application: Only to crimes against persons, and sometimes warning, and without giving the victim an
against person and property (e.g., robbery with physical opportunity to defend himself or repel the
injuries or homicide). aggression, as the deceased did not sense any
danger that he would be shot by the assailant as
Instances when the circumstance of employing means to there was no grudge or misunderstanding between
weaken defense is present:
them.
a) One, struggling with another, suddenly throws a
cloak over the head of his opponent, and while in this Not necessary that the mode of attack insures the
situation he wounds or kills him. consummation of the crime
b) One who, while fighting with another, suddenly casts ● The treacherous character of the means employed
sand or dirt upon the latter’s eyes and then wounds in the aggression does not depend upon the result
or kills him. thereof but upon the means itself, in connection
c) The offender, who had intention to kill the victim, with the aggressor’s purpose in employing it.
made the deceased intoxicated thereby materially Otherwise, there would be no attempted or
weakening the latter’s resisting power. frustrated murder qualified by treachery, for
example.
When treachery may be considered in the state of ● The law does not require that the treacherous
intoxication means insure the execution of the aggression,
● If in the intoxicated state of the victim, it was
without risk to the person of the aggressor arising
impossible for him to put up any sort of resistance at
from the defense which the offended party might
the time he was attacked, treachery may be
make, it being sufficient that it tends to his end.
considered.
Examples:
Means to weaken the defense absorbed in treachery a) Where the accused attacked the offended party
● The aggravating circumstance of employing means
unexpectedly and the wounds inflicted by him upon
to weaken the defense is absorbed by treachery.
the layer would have caused the death had not the
weapon whereby the same were inflicted met with
Treachery an obstacle, such as the ribs, which prevented its
penetrating the lungs and kidneys, alevosia is
present and the defendant is guilty of frustrated
Article 14, Paragraph 16 — That the act be committed with treachery
(alevosia). murder.
b) Where one assaulted another from behind, but failed
to kill the latter because the wound inflicted was not

sufficient to cause death, the attack was ● The accused could not have made preparation for
characterized by treachery even if the offender did the attack, the meeting between him and the
not attain his end. deceased being casual, and the means, method, or
form of attack could not have been thought of by the
Treachery cannot be presumed accused, because the attack was impulsively done.
● The suddenness of attack does not, of itself, suffice
to support a finding of alevosia, even if the purpose Attacks showing intention to eliminate risk, thus treachery
was to kill, so long as the decision was made all of a is attendant
sudden and the victim’s helpless position was 1) Victim was asleep, half-awake, or just awakened.
accidental. 2) Victim grappling or being held.
● The qualifying circumstance of treachery may not be 3) Victims were having a meal (e.g., lunch).
simply deduced from presumption as it is necessary 4) Attacked from behind with a firearm, bladed weapon,
that the existence of this qualifying or aggravating or other modes of armed attack.
circumstance should be proven as full as the crime
itself in order to aggravate the liability or penalty No treachery when the victim was already defending
incurred by the culprit. himself
● Where the deceased was suddenly attacked, but he
● Where no particulars are known as to the manner in
was able to retreat to avoid being hit by the hacking
which the aggression was made or how the act
blows and was hit only when he was already in the
which resulted in the death of the deceased began
act of defending himself against the attack of the
and developed, it can in no way be established from
accused, there is no treachery.
mere suppositions that the accused perpetrated the
killing with treachery.
Treachery does not connote the element of surprise
● Treachery must be proved by clear and convincing
● Treachery does not connote the element of surprise
evidence.
alone, but exists when the offender employs means
which tend directly and specially to insure the
Mode of attack must be consciously adopted
execution of the offense, without risk to himself
● The accused must make some preparation to kill the
arising from the defense which the offended party
deceased in such a manner as to insure the
might make.
execution of the crime or to make it impossible or
hard for the person attacked to defend himself or
Mere sudden and unexpected attack does not necessarily
retaliate.
give rise to treachery
● Mode of attack must be thought of by the offender
● It does not always follow that because the attack is
and must not spring from the unexpected turn of
sudden and unexpected it is tainted with treachery,
events.
as it could have been done on impulse, as a reaction
to an actual or imagined provocation offered by the
Case example: People v. Abalos
victim.
- The mode of attack could not have been thought of
● If the decision to kill was sudden, there is no
when the decision to shoot the deceased was
treachery, even if the position of the victim was
sudden, in view of the latter’s flight, and the relative
vulnerable, because it was not deliberately sought
positions of the victim and the killer were entirely
by the accused, but was purely accidental.
accidental.
When the accused gave the deceased a chance to prepare,

When treachery cannot be considered
there was no treachery
1) When there is nothing in the record to show that the
● When the accused challenged the deceased to a
accused had pondered upon the mode or method to
gunfight before the shooting, the attack was not
insure the killing of the deceased or remove or
treacherous even if the shooting was sudden and
diminish any risk to himself that might arise from the
the deceased was not prepared because it gave the
defense that the deceased might make, as when his
deceased a chance to prepare for the impending
decision to shoot the victim is sudden, for instance,
attack.
brought about by a stinging provocation from the
latter.
No treachery where the attack is preceded by a warning
2) When there is no evidence that the accused had,
● When the attack was frank, made face-to-face, and
prior to the moment of the killing, resolved to commit
the accused first asked “What did you say?” before
the crime, or there is no proof that the death of the
starting the aggression, there is no treachery
victim was the result of meditation, calculation or
because that question was already a warning to the
reflection.
offended party of the hostile attitude of the
accused.
No treachery when the meeting between the accused and
● However, calling the attention of the victim does not
the victim is casual and the attack is impulsively done
necessarily constitute a warning, when there is still
no opportunity for the victim to defend himself.

Difference between treachery, abuse of superior strength, and
No treachery where shooting is preceded by heated means employed to weaken the defense
discussion
● It must have placed the deceased on his guard and
Treachery Means, methods, or forms of attack
the alleged treachery cannot be legally considered,
are employed by the offender to
as it cannot be said that the deceased was caught make it impossible or hard for the
completely by surprise when the accused took up offended party to put up any sort of
arms against him. resistance.
Case example: People v. Manlapaz Abuse of superior Offender does not employ means,
- The victim had provoked the assailant by hitting not strength methods, or forms of attack; he only
takes advantage of his superior
only him, but also his wife, he should have been
strength.
sufficiently forewarned that reprisal might be in the
offing. Means employed to Offender employs means that only
- The element of a sudden unprovoked attack weaken defense materially weakens the resisting
indicative of treachery is lacking. power of the offended party.
Intent to kill is not necessary in murder with treachery When there is conspiracy, treachery is considered against
● There is no incompatibility, moral or legal, between all the offenders
alevosia and the mitigating circumstance of not ● Treachery should be considered against all persons
having intended to cause so great an injury. participating or cooperating in the perpetrator of the
crime, except when there is no conspiracy among
Case example: People v. Cagoco them.
- One who struck another with the fist from behind, ● Treachery should be considered against those
the blow landing on the back of the head, causing persons only who had knowledge of the employment
the latter to fall backwards, his head striking the of treachery at the time of the execution of the act
asphalt pavement which caused death resulting or their cooperation therein.
from a fracture of the skull, is guilty of murder ● When there is conspiracy, treachery attends against
although he did not intend to kill the deceased. all conspirators, although only one did the actual
stabbing of the victim.
Treachery may exist even if the attack is face to face
● Not necessary for treachery to be present that the Case example: People v. Carandang
attack must come from behind the victim. - If there was no conspiracy even if two accused
● It should be taken into account even if the deceased helped each other in attacking the deceased, only
was face to face with his assailant at the time the the one who inflicted the wound upon the deceased
blow was delivered, where it appears that the attack while the latter was struggling with the other
was not preceded by a dispute and the offended defendant, is to suffer the effect of the attendance
party was unable to prepare himself for his defense. of treachery.
Attack from behind is not always alevosia Case example: People v. Pareja
● It must appear that such mode of attack was - Treachery — evident in the act of the gunman in
consciously adopted and the question of risk to the suddenly firing his revolver, preceded as it was by a
offender must be taken into account. false showing of courtesy of the victim, thus insuring
the execution of the crime without risk from any
Must treachery be present at the beginning of the assault? defense or retaliation the victim might offer — should
● It depends upon the circumstance of the case. be appreciated as a generic aggravating
circumstance against the mastermind even when he
1) When the aggression is continuous, treachery must was not present when the crime was committed.
be present at the beginning of the assault.
2) When the assault was not continuous, in that there Treason by killings absorbs treachery, evident
was an interruption, it is sufficient that treachery premeditation, and use of superior strength
was present at the moment the fatal blow was given. ● Treason, evident premeditation, and use of superior
strength are, by their nature, inherent in the offense
Treachery is present even if victim is different than that of treason.
intended
● Treachery, whenever present in the commission of Circumstances that are absorbed by treachery
the crime, should be taken into account no matter a) Abuse of superior strength
whether the victim of the treacherous attack was or b) Aid of armed men
was not the same person whom the accused c) By a band
intended to kill. d) Means to weaken the defense
e) Nighttime

f) Craft
d) No witness who could years and causes his
g) Disregard of age and sex have seen how the death.
deceased was shot was c) The victim’s hands were
Case example: People v. Piring presented. raised and was pleading
- Circumstance of nighttime, uninhabited place, e) The attack was frontal, for mercy with one of the
cruelty and aid of armed persons cannot be taken indicating that the victim assailants when another
into consideration as aggravating circumstances, was not totally without killed him.
opportunity to defend d) The victim was a woman
because nighttime was necessarily included in that
himself, and all and was first reduced to
of treachery; that of uninhabited place, because it
surrounding helplessness before she
has not been proven that there were no houses near circumstances indicate was shot.
the house of the deceased; that of cruelty, because that the attack was the e) The attack on the victim
the fire, which is the fact in which said result of a rash and was deliberate, sudden
circumstances is made to consist, took place after impetuous impulse of the and unexpected, and from
said means to deliberately augment the seriousness moment rather than from behind. Most of the
a deliberate act of the will. wounds sustained by the
of the crime; and that of aid of armed persons,
victim and which were
because the appellant as well as those who
fatal were found on his
cooperated with him in the commission of the crime back.
in question, acted under the same plan and for the f) The accused was well
same purpose. hidden behind a tree when
he shot the victim who,
Case example: People v. Ruzol unarmed and unaware,
- The aggravating circumstance of dwelling cannot be had no way of defending

himself.
included in the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
g) When the victims were
not in a position to defend
Defenseless condition of victim is included in abuse of themselves as they were
superior strength, not treachery made to lie face down and
● The defenseless condition of the woman and their hands tied at the
children shot to death by the offenders should be back, they were killed.
considered included in the qualifying circumstance h) When advantage was
of abuse of superior strength, not as an independent taken of relative
circumstance of treachery. confusion, so that the act

and identity of the
offender would not be
Treachery is inherent in murder by poisoning (People v.
detected, and his escape
Caliso)
would be facilitated
adequately.
Treachery cannot co-exist with passion or obfuscation i) Flashing the beam of a
on flashlight on the face of
● Treachery cannot co-exist with passion or the victim.
obfuscation, or while in the mitigating of passion or
obfuscation, the offender loses his reason and
self-control, in the aggravating circumstance of Ignominy
treachery the mode of attack must be consciously
adopted. Article 14, Paragraph 17 — That means be employed or circumstances brought
● One who loses his reason and self-control could not about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act.
deliberately employ a particular means, method, or

form of attack in the execution of the crime. Ignominy – circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which
adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the
Summary of Rules/Rationale in considering Treachery crime.
NO TREACHERY TREACHERY IS PRESENT Basis: Reference to the means employed.
a) The assailant was alone a) Victim was tied elbow to

Crimes where this circumstance is applicable
while his victim had four elbow, his body with many
1) Crimes against chastity
companions nearby who wounds, and his head cut
could respond off. 2) Less serious physical injuries
instinctively upon seeing b) Killing of a child even if the 3) Light or grave coercion
their injured companion. manner of attack is not 4) Murder
b) An altercation preceded shown. It exists in the
the attack. commission of the crime Case example: People v. Cantong
c) The meeting of the victim when adult person illegally - Ignominy was considered in the crime of light
and the assailant was only attacks a child of tender
coercion, in a case where the accused who
accidental.
embraced and kissed the offended party acted

under an impulse of anger rather than a desire to victim, thereby aggravating and compounding her
satisfy his lust. moral sufferings.
- The act was committed in the presence of many c) The unwary victim went to the beach where she was
persons and the offended party was a young woman. accustomed to void and when she squatted, the
These circumstances tended to make the effects of assailant unexpectedly appeared behind her, held
the crime more humiliating, her hair, thus tilting her face, and while in that
posture, he inserted her mouth the muzzle of his
Case example: People v. Fernandez pistol and fired.
- The act of plastering mud on the victim’s vagina right
after she was raped, is adequately and properly Instances when ignominy is not present:
described as ignominy. a) The fact that the accused sliced and took the flesh
from the thighs, legs, and shoulders of the victim
Case example: U.S. v. De Leon after killing her with the use of a knife does not add
- There is ignominy to be considered in determining ignominy to the natural effects of the act.
the proper penalty for murder, when before he was b) The victim was already dead when his body was
killed, the deceased, a landowner, was forced by the dismembered. It is required that the offense be
accused to kneel in front of his house servants committed in a manner that tends to make its effects
drawn up in line before him. more humiliating to the victim, that is, add to his
moral suffering.
“That means be employed.” c) The mere fact that the assailant fired more shots at
● In a case where the accused raped a woman after the prostate bodies of his victims is not sufficient to
winding cogon grass around his genital organ, he show the existence of ignominy.
thereby augmented the wrong done by increasing its
pain and adding ignominy thereto. No ignominy when a man is killed in the presence of his wife
● The fact that the deceased was killed in the
“That x x x circumstances be brought about.” presence of his wife certainly could not have such
1) It would be present in a case where one rapes a signification.
married woman in the presence of her husband (or ● The circumstance of ignominy was not present
alleged husband), or where the accused rapes a because no means was employed nor did any
woman in the presence of her betrothed, or where a circumstance surround the act tending to make the
woman was successively raped by four men, or effects of the crime more humiliating.
where the accused used not only the missionary
positions (.e., male superior, female inferior) but also Rape as ignominy in robbery with homicide
the dog style of sexual intercourse (i.e., entry from ● Rape committed on the occasion of robbery with
behind). homicide increases the moral evil of the crime, and it
2) There is ignominy when in compelling an old woman is incorrect to say that there is no law which
to confess to the theft of clothes, the accused considers rape as an aggravating circumstance
maltreated and took off her drawers because the simply because it is not specifically enumerated in
removing of her drawers could have no other Article 14 as an aggravating circumstance.
purpose but to put her to shame. The crime ● Rapes, wanton robbery for personal gain, and other
committed is grave coercion. forms of cruelties are condemned and their
perpetration will be regarded as aggravating
“Which add ignominy to the natural effects of the acts.” circumstances of ignominy and of deliberately
● The means employed or the circumstances brought augmenting unnecessary wrongs to the maintain
about must tend to make the effects of the crime criminal objective under paragraphs 17 and 21 of
more humiliating or to put the offended party to Article 14.
shame.
Unlawful Entry
Instances when ignominy is attendant:
a) The appellants, in ordering the complainant to
exhibit to them her complete nakedness for about Article 14, Paragraph 18 — That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.
two minutes before raping her, brought about a

circumstance which tended to make the effects of Unlawful entry – when an entrance is effected by a way not
the crime more humiliating. intended for the purpose.
b) The accused used a flashlight and examined the
genital of the victim before he ravished her, and Basis: Reference to the means and ways employed to commit
committed the bestial deed in the presence of the the crime.
victim’s old father. These facts clearly show that the
accused deliberately wanted to further humiliate the Reason for aggravation: One who acts, not respecting the
walls erected by men to guard their property and provide for

their personal safety, shows a greater perversity, a greater Q: Is the cutting of the canvas of the tent where soldiers
audacity; hence, the law punishes him with more severity. are sleeping covered by par. 19?
A: It was considered murder with aggravating circumstance of
To effect entrance, not for escape “forcible entry” where the accused cut the ropes at the rear of
● Unlawful entry must be a means to effect entrance a field tent and killed two soldiers inside the tent.
and not for escape.
“As a means to the commission of a crime.”
Example: The act of entering through the window, which is not ● This phrase does not necessarily mean that offender
the proper place for entrance into the house, constitutes should have entered the building.
unlawful entry. However, If the door is broken and thereafter ● What aggravates the liability of the offender is the
made an entry through the broken door, there is no unlawful breaking of a part of the building as a means to the
entry, instead it will be covered by par. 19. commission of the crime.
● To be considered aggravating, breaking the door
Application of this circumstance must be utilized as a means to the commission of
a) It should be considered in rape committed in a house the crime.
after an entry through the window.
b) It should be considered also in murder where the Example: A broke a window to enable himself to reach a purse
accused entered the room of the victim through the with money on the table near that window, which he took while
window. his body was outside of the building. The crime of theft was
c) It should also be considered in robbery with violence attended by this aggravating circumstance.
against or intimidation of persons, because unlawful
entry is not inherent in that particular kind of Case example: People v. Capillas
robbery. The window is not intended for entrance - This circumstance is not to be appreciated where
into the building. the accused did not break the door of the victims as
d) If the crime charged in the information was only a means to commit the robbery with homicide where
theft, and during the trial, the prosecution proved the accused after breaking the rope which was used
unlawful entry, it is a generic aggravating to close the door could have already entered the
circumstance which may raise the penalty for theft house.
to the maximum period. It would be improper to - Breaking of the shutters and the framing of the door
convict the accused of robbery with force upon to insure the elements of surprise does not
things because unlawful entry was not alleged in the aggravate the commission of the crime.
information.
To effect entrance only
Dwelling and unlawful entry taken separately in murders ● It may be resorted to as a means to commit a crime in
committed in a dwelling a house or building. The circumstance is aggravating
● When the accused gained access to the dwelling by only in those cases where the offender resorted to
climbing through the window and once inside, any of said means to enter the house.
murdered certain persons in the dwelling, there were ● If the wall is broken in order to get out of the place, it
two aggravating circumstances which attended the is not an aggravating circumstance.
commission of the crimes.
Example: A murderer who, for the purpose of entering the
Unlawful entry is not aggravating in trespass to dwelling house of the victim, breaks a wall or a window of the house.
● Trespass to dwelling is committed when a private
individual shall enter the dwelling of another against Inherent in robbery with force upon things
the latter’s will and may be committed by means of ● Breaking a part of the building, as one of the means
violence. of entering the building to commit robbery with force
● If the offender entered the dwelling of another upon things, is inherent in that kind of robbery; thus,
through an opening not intended for the purpose, not aggravating.
e.g., the window, the unlawful entry was an integral
part of the circumstance of violence with which the Where breaking of door or window is lawful
crime of trespass was committed.
Rule 113, Section 11 (Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure). Right of officer to
break into building or enclosure. — An officer, in order to make an arrest either by
Breaking of Wall, Roof, Floor, Door, or Window virtue of a warrant, or without a warrant as provided in section 5, may break into any
building or enclosure where the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to
be, if he is refused admittance thereto, after announcing his authority and purpose
Article 14, Paragraph 19 — That as a means to the commission of a crime, a
wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken. Rule 126, Section 7 (Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure). Right to break door
or window to effect search. — The officer, if refused admittance to the place of
directed search after giving notice of his purpose and authority, may break open
Basis: Reference to the means and ways employed to commit any outer or inner door or window of a house or any part of a house or anything
therein to execute the warrant or liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding him
the crime.
when unlawfully detained therein.

vehicle, he stepped down and axed the victim, while
Aid of Persons under 15 Years Old or one of several companions stabbed him, the rest
stoning him. The victim died.
By means of Motor Vehicles
- The jeep having played an important role in the
accomplishment of the crime and the accused and
Article 14, Paragraph 20 — That the crime be committed (1) with the aid of his companions having made good their escape by
persons under fifteen years of age, or (2) by means of motor vehicles, airhsips,
or other similar means. speeding away aboard the jeep in order to avoid
discovery of their identities, use of motor vehicle is
aggravating.
Basis: Reference to means and ways employed to commit the
- If the motor vehicle was used only in facilitating the
crime.
escape, it should not be an aggravating
circumstance.
Two different aggravating circumstances in par. 20
Case example: People v. Muñoz

Aid of persons Tends to repress, so far as possible, - Where the use of a vehicle was not deliberate to
under 15 years old the frequent practice resorted to by facilitate the killing of the victim, the escape of the
professional criminals to avail assailants from the scene of the crime, and the
themselves of minors taking concealment of the body of the victim, but only
advantage of their irresponsibility. incidental, it is not an aggravating circumstance.
By means of motor Intended to counteract the great Case example: People v. Mil
vehicles, airships, or facilities found by modern criminals in - Use of motor vehicle will not be considered as an
other similar means said means to commit crime and flee aggravating circumstance where there is no showing
and abscond once the same is that the motor vehicle was purposely used to
committed. facilitate the commission of the crime or where it is
not shown that without it, the offense charged could
“Aid of persons under 15 years of age.” not have been committed.

- Where the primary purpose of the assailant in riding
Example: A caused B, a 14-year-old boy, to climb the wall of the on a motorized tricycle was to return to their camp
house of C, to enter the same through its window, and once [assailant was a PC enlistedman] after shooting a
inside, to take, as in fact B took, clothes and other personal first victim and it was just incidental that on his way
property in the house of C. Then B threw them to ground to the camp, he happened to see the second victim,
where A picked them up. The aggravating circumstance that the circumstance is not aggravating.
the crime was committed with the aid of a person under 15
Estafa cannot be committed by means of motor vehicle
years of age should be taken into account against A.
● Estafa is committed by means of deceit or abuse of
By Means of Motor Vehicles confidence. It cannot committed by means of motor

● Use of motor vehicle is aggravating where the vehicle.
accused used the motor vehicle in going to the place
Case example: People v. Bagtas, et al.
of the crime, in carrying away the effects thereof,
- While it is true that a jeep was used in carting away
and in facilitating their escape.
the Vicks Vaporub, the crime of estafa was not
● This circumstance may be considered even when
committed by means of said vehicle.
not used as a means to commit the crime, but
furnishes a quick means for the flight or
Theft cannot be committed by means of motor vehicle
concealment of the offender.
● Theft is committed by merely taking personal
property which need not be carried away. It cannot
Case example: People v. Cuadra
be committed by means of motor vehicles.
- When the accused has decided to realize his plan of
liquidating the victim, drove his pickup with his
Case example: People v. Real
companions, conducted surveillance of the victim’s
- The culprits used a car and, for part of the way, a
whereabouts while driving his pickup, killed the
hired jeep in going to and coming from the place
victim upon meeting him, and made good his escape
where the theft was committed. It would be
by speeding away in his vehice, the morot vehicle
stretching the meaning of the law too far to say that
was used as a means to commit the crime and to
the crime was committed by means of motor
facilitate escape, which is aggravating.
vehicles.
Case example: People v. Bardon

Instances when crimes are committed by means of motor
- After an earlier conviction, the principal accused
vehicle:
caught up with the victim on board a jeep which the
a) A, with the help of B and with lewd designs, forcibly
former was driving. As soon as he stopped the
took and carried away a awoman by means of an

automobile to another town. The crime of forcible 1) It is essential that the wrong done was intended to
abduction was committed with this aggravating prolong the suffering of the victim, causing
circumstance. unnecessary moral and physical pain.
b) A truck was used in carrying away the stolen rails and 2) The evidence must show that the sadistic culprit, for
iron and wooden ties from the scene of the theft to his pleasure and satisfaction, caused the victim to
the place where they were sold. suffer slowly and gradually, and inflicted on him
c) Applied in robbery with homicide where a motor unnecessary moral and physical pain.
vehicle was used in transporting the accused. 3) It must be shown that the accused enjoyed and
d) Even if the victim rode voluntarily in the jeepney, delighted in making his victim suffer slowly and
since they were lured and taken to the place where gradually, causing him unnecessary physical or
they were killed, the use of motor vehicles was moral pain the consummation of the criminal act.
considered aggravating.
e) The accused took away the complainant from her “Be deliberated augmented by causing other wrong.”
aunt’s residence in a taxicab. ● This phrase means that the accused at the time of
f) The accused stabbed and inflicted upon his the commission of the crime had a deliberate
girlfriend mortal wounds which caused her death, intention to prolong the suffering of the victim.
while they were in a taxi which was hired and used by
him. Instances when cruelty was not present:
g) The accused used a motor vehicle to insure the a) The assailant stoned twice the victim, not for the
success of their nefarious enterprise. purpose of increasing his sufferings, but to kill him.
h) The car of the accused was used in trailing the b) The acts of the assailants showed only a decided
victim’s car up to the time that it was overtaken and purpose to kill and not to prolong sufferings of the
blocked. It carried the victim on the way to the scene victim.
of the killing; it contained at its baggage c) The purpose was to ensure the death of the three
compartment the pick and shovel used in digging victims and to tamper with the bullet wounds to
the grave; and it was the fast means of fleeing and make them appear as bolo wounds in order to
absconding from the scene. conceal the fact that a gun was used in killing them.
d) The victim was drowned in the sea after stabbing
“Or other similar means.” him while bound.
● Understood as referring to motorized vehicles or e) The victim was buried after being stabbed, not to
other efficient means of transportation similar to make him suffer any longer but to conceal his body
automobile or airplane. and the crime itself.
f) The accused kicked the deceased or placed his right
Example: If the culprit, before committing and after committing foot on the body of the deceased to verify whether
the crime, rode in a bicycle and escaped, there is no or not the latter was still alive, not for the purpose of
aggravating circumstance; but only if he used a motorcycle. deliberately and inhumanly increasing his sufferings.
Instances when cruelty is attendant:

Cruelty
1) The accused burned the mouth and other parts of
the body of an infant, 11 months old.
Article 14, Paragraph 21 — That the wrong done in the commission of the crime 2) The accused extracted the victim’s eye and stuffed
be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its
commission. his mouth with mud.
3) The other wrong was done after the victim was dead,
where the cutting of extremities after victim is killed
Cruelty – when the culprit enjoys and delights in making his
is not cruelty.
victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing him unnecessary
physical pain in the consummation of the criminal act.
“Other wrong not necessary for its commission.”
● Refers to physical suffering of the victim purposely
intended by offender, where it requires deliberate
Example: A and B, who had tied C in the latter’s house, struck
prolongation of the physical suffering of the victim.
him with their guns to make him point the place where he was
keeping his money. Striking him with the guns is “other wrong,”
Basis: Reference to ways employed in committing the crime.
but it is necessary for the commission of the crime of robbery,
particularly to get C’s money. Hence, there is no cruelty.
Requisites
1) The injury caused be deliberately increased by
Cruelty cannot be presumed
causing other wrong.
● There being no showing either that the other
2) The other wrong be unnecessary for the execution
wounds found on the body of the victim were
of the purpose of the offender.
inflicted to prolong his suffering before the fatal
wound was dealt, it cannot be concluded that the
Rules for cruelty to be aggravating
aggravating circumstance was duly proven.

regard aether as a form of ignominy causing
There is cruelty when the series of acts causing disgrace or as a form of cruelty which aggravated
unnecessary sufferings of victim took place in rapid murder, because it was unnecessary to the
succession commission thereof and was a manifest outrage on
the victim’s person.
Case example: People v. Beleno
- One of the two daughters (Corazon) of a woman
Aggravating Circumstances Peculiar
were fired at by the accused. Corazon screamed for
help. to Certain Felonies
- One of the accused grabbed her, raised her from the
ground, while the other accused battered her with
FELONY AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
the butt of the rifle and pounded her on the ground.
- Corazon died of exterbal and intra-cranial Violation of domicile That the offense be committed in the
hemorrhage. nighttime, or if any papers or effects
not constituting evidence of a crime
In case of absence of appreciable time intervening between be not returned immediately after
or among the series of acts of the accused the search by the offender.
● The mere fact of inflicting various successive
Interruption of That the crime shall have been
wounds upon a person in order to cause his death,
religious worship committed with violence or threats.
no appreciable time intervening between the
infliction of one wound and that of another to show Direct assault That the assault is committed with a
that the offender wanted to prolong the suffering of weapon, or when the offender is a
his victim, is not sufficient for taking this aggravating public officer or employee, or when
circumstance into consideration. the offender lays hands upon a
person in authority.
Plurality of wounds alone does not show cruelty.
Slavery If the crime be committed for the
● Number of wounds alone does not show cruelty, it
purpose of assigning the offended
being necessary to show that the accused
party to some immoral traffic, the
deliberately and inhumanly increased the sufferings penalty shall be imposed in its
of the victims. maximum period.
● Where there were many wounds because there were
many assailants, the number of wounds alone is not Grave threats If the threat be made in writing or
sufficient to show that the killing was committed for through a middleman, the penalty
shall be imposed in its maximum
the purpose of deliberately and inhumanly
period.
augmenting the suffering of the victim.
Robbery with If such robbery is committed in an
Difference between ignominy and cruelty violence against or uninhabited place or by a band, etc.,
intimidation of or on a street, road, highway, or alley,
persons and the intimidation is made with the
Ignominy Cruelty
use of firearm, the offender shall be
[except robbery with
homicide, or with rape, etc.]
punished by the maximum period of
Moral suffering Physical suffering the proper penalties.
Rapes, robbery, and other forms of cruelties are Robbery with the use If such robbery is committed in an
aggravating circumstances of ignominy and cruelty in of force upon things uninhabited place and by a band, it
treason shall be punished by the maximum
● Rapes, wanton robbery for personal gain, and other period of penalty provided therefor.
forms of cruelties are condemned and their

perpetration will be regarded as aggravating
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
circumstances of ignominy and of deliberately
augmenting unnecessary wrongs to the main
criminal objective, under pars. 17 and 21 of Article 14.
ARTICLE 15. Their concept. — Alternative circumstances are those which must
be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the
Rape as aggravating in robbery with homicide nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its
commission. They are the relationship, intoxication, and the degree of
● Where rape attends the commission of the crime of
instruction and education of the offender.
robbery with homicide, the rape should be deemed
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration
to aggravate the robbery with homicide.
when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate,
natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degree of
the offender.
Rape as aggravating in murder
● Since the victim was already at the threshold of The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a
mitigating circumstance when the offender has committed a felony in a state of
death when she was ravished, that bestially may be
intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit

Crimes against persons are aggravating when:
said felony; but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be
considered as an aggravating circumstance. a) The offended party is a relative of a higher degree
than the offender.
The alternative circumstances are: b) The offender and the offended party are relatives of
1) Relationship the same level (e.g., killing a brother, brother-in-law,
2) Intoxication or adopted brother).
3) Degree of instruction and education of the offender
Case example: People v. Canitan
- Except an admission by the appellant that the
Relationship
deceased was his brother-in-law, relationship by
affinity should not be deemed to aggravate the crime
Relationship taken into consideration as when the
in the absence of evidence to show that the
offended party is the:
offended party is of a higher degree in the
a) Spouse
relationship than that of the offender.
b) Ascendant
c) Descendant
Circumstances when relationship is aggravating even if the
d) Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister
offended party is a descendant of the offender:
e) Relative by affinity in the same degree of the
offender 1) When the crime against persons is any of the
serious physical injuries, even if the offended party
Other relatives included are: is a descendant of the offender.
a) Stepfather or stepmother and stepson or
stepdaughter, as analogous to that of ascendant
- If the offense of serious physical injuries is
and descendants.
committed by the offender against his child, whether
legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his legitimate
Rationale: The duty of the stepmother to bestow
other descendants, relationship is aggravating. But
upon her stepdaughter a mother’s affection, care,
the serious physical injuries must not be inflicted by
and protection; hence, the effect of the crime of
a parent upon his child by excessive chastisement.
murder committed by the stepmother against her
- Article 263 provided for a higher penalty if the
stepdaughter makes the relationship aggravating.
offense (any of the serious physical injuries) is
committed against any of the persons enumerated
b) Relationship of adopted parent and adopted child,
in Article 246.
as similar to that of ascendant and descendant.
Persons enumerated under Article 246 (defines

Not included and penalizes crime of parricide):
● The relationship between uncle and niece is not a) Father
covered by any of the relationships mentioned. b) Mother
c) Legitimate or illegitimate child
When mitigating and when aggravating d) Any of his ascendants or descendants
● The law is silent as to when to consider relationship
e) Spouse
as mitigating or aggravating.
2) When the crime against persons is homicide or

General rule:
murder, even if the victim is a relative of lower
1) Mitigating — in crimes against property
degree.
2) Aggravating — in crimes against persons and crimes
against chastity
Example: The killing of a stepdaughter by her
stepmother is attended by the circumstance of
Crimes against property, mitigating
relationship which is considered as aggravating. The
● Relationship is mitigating in the crimes of robbery,
crime is not parricide because the relationship is not
usurpation, fraudulent insolvency, and arson.
by blood and in the direct line; but aggravation of the
penalty is considered notwithstanding the fact that
Crimes of theft, swindling or estafa, or malicious mischief,
the victim of the crime was a relative of a lower
relationship is exempting
● Under Article 332 of the Code, no criminal, but only degree.
civil liability shall result from the commission of the
Ordinary rule applies when crime is less serious physical
crime of theft, swindling, or malicious mischief
injuries or slight physical injuries
committed or caused mutually by spouses,
ascendants, and descendants, or relative by affinity
in the same line; brothers and sisters and Relationship is The offended party is a relative of a lower
brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together. mitigating degree of the offender.

- Relationship was mitigating because the cause of
Relationship is The offended party is a relative of a higher
the maltreatment was the desire to render service to
aggravating degree of the offender.
a relative.
Relationship is mitigating in trespass to dwelling

Intoxication
Case example: U.S. v. Ostrea
- Where a son-in-law, believing his wife to be in her Mitigating 1) Intoxication is not habitual.
father’s house, attempted to force an entry thereon, 2) Intoxication is not subsequent to
the relationship is to be considered in mitigation. the plan to commit a felony.
When relationship is an element of the offense, it is neither Aggravating 1) Intoxication is habitual.

mitigating nor aggravating 2) Intoxication is intentional
● When the qualification given to the crime is derived (subsequent to the plan to commit
a felony).*
from the relationship between the offender and
offended party, it is neither mitigating nor
aggravating because it is inseparable from and *It is intentional when the offender drinks liquor fully knowing its effects, to find in
the liquor a stimulant to commit a crime or a means to suffocate any remorse.
inherent in the offense.
● Examples of which are parricide, adultery, and Reasons for the alternative circumstance of intoxication
concubinage. a) As a mitigating circumstance, it finds its reason in
the fact that when a person is under the influence of
In crimes against chastity, relationship is ‘always’ liquor, his exercise of willpower is impaired.
aggravating b) As an aggravating circumstance, because it is
● In crimes against chastity (e.g., acts of intentional, the reason is that the offender resorted
lasciviousness), relationship is aggravating, to it in order to bolster his courage.
regardless of whether the offender is a relative of a
higher or lower degree of the offended party. Intoxication as Mitigating Circumstance
Instances when relationship is aggravating in rape:

Requisites
a) A stepfather raped his stepdaughter.
1) At the time of the commission of the criminal act, he
b) A father raped his own daughter.
has taken such quantity of alcoholic drinks as to blur
his reason and deprive him of a certain degree of
Reason for the difference in the rule as to crimes against
control.
chastity
2) Intoxication is not habitual or subsequent to the
● Relationship is aggravating in crime against chastity
plan to commit the felony.
even if the offended party is a relative of a lower
degree because of the nature and effect of the
“When the offender has committed a felony in a state of
crime committed.
intoxication.”
● It is not shocking to our moral sense when we hear
● The clause means that the offender’s mental
that a father committed, for instance, the crime of
faculties must be affected by drunkenness.
slight physical injury against his daughter, but it
certainly is very shocking when we hear that a father
Drunkenness must affect mental faculties
committed acts of lasciviousness on the person of ● The Code says nothing about the degree of
his own daughter. intoxication needed to mitigate; but obviously to
produce such an effect, it must diminish the agent’s
Rule may be different because of the “other condition
capacity to know the injustice of his acts and his will
attending” the commission of the crime
to act accordingly.
● There is no hard and fast rule on the amount of liquor
Case example: U.S. v. Ancheta
that the accused imbibed on the occasion, but the
- While the relationship of brothers-in-law is
test is that it must be sufficient to affect his mental
aggravating when one commits a crime against the
faculties, to the extent of blurring his reason and
other, such relationship is mitigating when the
depriving him of self-control.
accused killed his brother-in-law in view of the
conduct pursued by the latter in contracting
Instances when intoxication is not mitigating:
adulterous relations with the wife of the accused.
a) The accused was thoughtful enough not to neglect
giving Don Vicente Noble his injection, the inference
Case example: U.S. v. Velarde
would be that his intoxication was not to such a
- The deceased was suffering from an attack of
degree as to affect his mental capacity to fully
insanity and the accused, his brother-in-law, in his
understand the consequences of his act.
desire to place the deceased under control, struck
b) The accused had taken some liquor on the day of the
him with a club, exceeding the limits of his discretion
shooting, but he was aware of everything that
in the heat of the struggle.

occurred on that day and he was able to give a Presumption is that intoxication is accidental
detailed account thereof. ● The prosecution must prove that the intoxication of
c) The persons participating in the act of the offender is habitual or intentional.
misappropriating public funds may, for some time ● In the absence of proof to the contrary, it will be
prior thereto, had been drinking freely of intoxicating presumed that intoxication is not habitual but
liquor, yet they were sufficiently sober to know what accidental, and the fact that the accused was drunk
they were doing when committing the unlawful act. at the time of the commission of the crime must
then be considered as a mitigating circumstance.
Intoxication as an Aggravating Circumstance
Non-habitual intoxication, lack of instruction and
obfuscation are not to be taken separately
Requisites
● As non-habitual intoxication implies a disturbance of
1) Intoxication must be either habitual or intentional.
the reasoning powers of the offender, his lack of
2) Intoxication must have been the source of bravado
instruction cannot have any influence over him, and
or courage that propelled the accused to commit the
obfuscation which has the same effect on his
crime.
reasoning powers cannot be considered
independently of non-habitual intoxication.
Habitual drunkard – one given to intoxication by excessive
● They are considered one mitigating circumstance
use of intoxicating drinks. The habit should be actual and
only and modified the penalty imposed by raising it
confirmed.
and imposing the proper penalty in the minimum
● It is unnecessary that it be a matter of daily
period.
occurrence.
● The habit lessens individual resistance to evil
thought and undermines willpower making its victim Degree of Instruction and Education
a potential evildoer. of the Offender
Case example: People v. Amenamen

- The mere fact that the accused had been drinking Mitigating Low degree of instruction and
education or lack of it.
intoxicating liquor for about seven months and that
he had been drunk once or twice a month, is not
Aggravating High degree of instruction and
constituting habitual drunkenness. education when the offender avails
himself of his learning in committing the
Case example: U.S. v. Mcmann crime.
- A witness testified that he saw the defendant drunk
twelve times or more. He was a habitual drunkard.
Lack of instruction, as mitigating
Case example: People v. Mabilangan Case example: People v. Mangsant

- Drunkenness was also found to be habitual where
- Lack of instruction cannot be taken into account
the defendants admitted in open court that before
where the defendant admitted that he studied in the
they committed the crime, they drank three hours
first grade in public elementary school. Article 15
and often had a drinking party.
applies only to him who really has not received any
instruction.
“Or subsequent to the plan to commit a felony.”
● Even if intoxication is not habitual, it is aggravating
Case example: People v, Limaco
when subsequent to the plan to commit the crime.
- The accused lacks education and instruction if he
did not finish even the first grade in elementary
Example: A decided to kill B. A planned to commit the crime by school.
preparing the means to carry it out. When he was ready to kill
B, A drank a glass of wine and when already intoxicated, he Case example: People v. Luna
looked for B and killed him. Note that A drank wine to intoxicate - Lack of instruction is not mitigating where the
himself after he had planned the commission of the crime. In accused finished Grade 2 and answered in Tagalog,
this case, the intoxication is intentional. questions put to him in English.
Case example: People v. Hernandez Case example: People v. Pujinio

● The accused was drunk, but not habitually so, it was - Having studied up to sixth grade is more than
held that it appearing that the accused, who had sufficient schooling to give the accused a degree of
plotted the death of the victim, drank wine in order instruction as to properly apprise him of what is right
to embolden himself in the carrying out of his evil and wrong.
plan, his intoxication cannot be considered as a
mitigating circumstance. Lack of sufficient intelligence is required in illiteracy

● Not illiteracy alone, but also lack of sufficient would probably not have been committed if the
intelligence are necessary to invoke the benefit of accused were not so ignorant as to believe in
the alternative circumstance of lack of instruction, witchcraft.
the determination of which is left to the trial court.
● A person able to sign his name but otherwise so High degree of instruction, as aggravating
densely ignorant and of such low intelligence that he
does not fully realize the consequences of his Examples: A lawyer, who, with abuse of his education and
criminal act, may still be entitled to this mitigating learning, commits estafa; a medical student who was
circumstance. convicted of slander by deed.
● On the other hand, another person unable to write
because of lack of educational facilities or Degree of instruction is aggravating when the offender
opportunities, may yet be highly or exceptionally availed himself or took advantage of it in committing the
crime
intelligent and mentally alert that he easily realizes
● A doctor, who, using his knowledge, prepared certain
the full significance of his act, in which case he may
kind of poison to kill his victim in such a way as to
not invoke this mitigating circumstance in his favor.
avoid detection, may be considered as having taken
● Mere illiteracy is not sufficient to constitute a
advantage of his high degree of instruction and
mitigating circumstance. There must be also lack of
education.
intelligence.
● The fact that the accused was a lawyer was not
considered aggravating in physical injuries because
Lack of instruction must be proved by the defense
he did not take advantage of his high degree of
● Lack of education must be proved positively and
education.
cannot be based on mere deduction or inference.
● Lack of instruction needs to be proven as all
circumstances modifying criminal liability should be
proved directly and positively.
● In the absence of any basis on record on which to
judge the degree of instruction of the accused, no
evidence having been taken relative thereto
because he entered a plea of guilty, the
circumstance of lack of instruction cannot be
mitigating.
Ordinarily, low degree or lack of instruction is mitigating in

all crimes
● Lack of instruction or low degree of it is appreciated
as mitigating circumstance in almost all crimes.
Exceptions
1) Not mitigating in crimes against property, such as
estafa, theft, robbery, arson.
2) Not mitigating in crimes against chastity, such as
rape and adultery. No one is so ignorant as not to
know that the crime of rape is wrong and in violation
of the law.
Treason, lack of instruction is not mitigating

● Not mitigating, because love of country should be a
natural feeling of every citizen, however unlettered
or uncultured he may be.
Lack of education and instruction is not mitigating in

murder
● Lack of education and instruction cannot mitigate
appellant’s guilt because to kill is forbidden by
natural law which every rational being is endowed to
know and feel.
● Exception: Although ordinarily lack of instruction is
not considered as an extenuating circumstance in
the crime of homicide or murder, nevertheless, the
same may be so considered because the crimes

RULE 110 OF THE RULES OF COURT requisite preliminary
investigation. File the complaint with the
office of the prosecutor.*
Institution of Criminal Actions *Refers to a complaint affidavit, and is
different from the complaint defined *For Metro Manila and other
in Section 3 of Rule 110 chartered cities, the complaint shall
SECTION 1. Institution of criminal actions. — Criminal actions shall be be filed with the prosecutor,
instituted as follows: regardless of the imposable penalty
Cases falling within the jurisdiction of

(a) For offenses where a preliminary investigation is required
the RTC are always commenced by
pursuant to section 1 of Rule 112, by filing the complaint with the
information filed by the prosecutor.
proper officer for the purpose of conducting the requisite
preliminary investigation.
(b) For all other offenses, by filing the complaint or information How jurisdiction of the court in criminal cases is
directly with the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial determined
Courts, or the complaint with the office of the prosecutor. In
Manila and other chartered cities, the complaint shall be filed with
● The jurisdiction of the court in criminal cases is
the office of the prosecutor unless otherwise provided in their determined by the allegations of the complaint or
charters.
information, and not by the findings based on the
The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the running period of evidence of the court after trial.
prescription of the offense charged unless otherwise provided in special laws.
● The complaint or information must be examined for
the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the facts
Criminal action – one by which the State prosecutes a person
set out therein and the prescribed period provided
for an act or omission punishable by law.
for by law are within the jurisdiction of the court, and
● Its institution depends upon whether the offense
where the said information or complaint is filed.
requires a preliminary investigation.
● Jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution or
by the law in force at the time of filing of the
General rule in institution of criminal actions: A criminal
information or complaint. Once jurisdiction is vested
action is commenced by a complaint or information, both of
in the court, it is retained up to the end of the
which are filed in court. If a complaint is filed directly in court,
litigation.
the same must be filed by the offended party, and in case of an
information, the same must be filed by the fiscal.
Q: Can the complaint or information be directly filed in the
RTC or the MTC or other chartered cities?
Exception: A “complaint” filed with the fiscal prior to a judicial
A: According to the Rules of Court, it would depend on
action may be filed by any person.
whether the offense requires a preliminary investigation or
not. However, case of conflict between a city charter and a
Difference between criminal action and criminal prosecution
provision of the Rules of Court, the former, being substantive
law, prevails.
Criminal action Criminal prosecution
Nature of the complaint by the offended party in private
Instituted once a complaint Instituted once the crimes
has been filed to the proper information has been filed ● Complaint (under Article 334 of the RPC) is merely a
office or court, as the case by the prosecutor in court. condition precedent to the exercise by the proper
may be.
authorities of the power to prosecute the guilty
parties. The reason is that what confers jurisdiction
Preliminary investigation - required for offenses where the on the court is not the complaint but the Judiciary
penalty prescribed by law is at least 4 years, 2 months and 1 Law.
day, or prision correccional in its medium period.
When should the information be filed
Proper officer – officers authorized to conduct the requisite ● The information shall be filed with the court within
preliminary investigation, which includes the provincial or city 45 days from the start of the preliminary
prosecutor, and other officers authorized by law.Authority investigation.
includes all crimes cognizable by the proper court in their
respective territorial jurisdiction. Effects of institution of criminal action on prescriptive
period
Instituting criminal action for offenses where preliminary
investigation is either required or not General rule: Institution shall interrupt the running of the
period of prescription of the offense charged. Prescription is
interrupted even if it is filed in a court without jurisdiction.
Preliminary investigation Preliminary investigation
required not required
Exception: Unless otherwise provided in special laws (Section
File the complaint* with the File the complaint or 2 of Act No. 3326).
“proper officer” for the information directly with a) Said act governs the computation of prescription of
purpose of conducting the the MTC and MCTC. offenses under special laws.

b) Prescription commences from the commission (if
known) or discovery (if not known) until institution Complaint
of judicial proceedings.
c) Prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings SECTION 3. Complaint defined. — A complaint is a sworn written statement
are instituted against the guilty person and shall charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the offended party, any peace
officer, or other public officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated.
resume if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons
not constituting double jeopardy.
Nature of the complaint under Rule 110
Complaint or Information ● One that is filed in court to commence a criminal
action in those cases where a complaint of the
offended party is required by law, instead of an
SECTION 2. The Complaint or Information. — The complaint or information
shall be in writing, in the name of the People of the Philippines and against all information which is generally filed by a fiscal.
persons who appear to be responsible for the offense involved.
Requisites of a complaint:
Information – accusation in writing, charging a person with an 1) It must be in writing and under oath
offense subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court. 2) It must be in the name of the “People of the
● Only a public officer described by the Rules of Court Philippines”
as a prosecutor is authorized to subscribe to the 3) It must charge a person with an offense
Information 4) It must be subscribed by the offended party, by any
peace officer or public officer charged with the
Requisites of the complaint or information enforcement of the law violated
a) To be in writing
b) To be in the name of the “People of the Philippines” Persons who can file a complaint:
c) Against all persons who appear to be responsible for a) Offended party
the offense involved b) Any peace officer
c) Other public officer charged with the enforcement of
Rationale for the rule that criminal information must be in the law violated
the name of the People of the Philippines
● Violation of criminal laws is an affront to the People Information
of the Philippines as a whole and not merely to the
person directly prejudiced, he being merely the
SECTION 4. Information defined. — An information is an accusation in writing
complaining witness. charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with
the court
● It is on this account that the presence of a public
prosecutor is necessary to protect vital state
interests, foremost of which is its interest to Requisites of an information:
vindicate the rule of law, the bedrock of peace of the a) Must be in writing
people. b) Must charge a person with an offense
c) Must be subscribed by the prosecutor
Effect of failure to implead the People of the Philippines d) Must be filed in court
● Failure to implead an indispensable party renders all
subsequent actions of the court null and void for Persons authorized to file an Information:
want of authority to act, not only as to the absent a) City or provincial prosecutors and their assistants
parties but even as to those present. b) Duly appointed special prosecutors
● If the Information is not commenced in the name of
the people, it is merely a defect in form and is Requirement before the filing of an information
curable at any stage of the trial. ● The filing of the information must be preceded by a
● While the failure to implead an indispensable party is preliminary investigation.
not per se a ground for the dismissal of an action,
considering that said party may still be added by Difference between information and complaint
order of the court, on motion of the party, or on its
own initiative at any stage of the action and/or such Information Complaint
times as are just, it remains essential as it is
jurisdictional— that any indispensable party be Accusation in writing Sworn statement charging
impleaded in the proceedings before the court charging a person with an a person with an offense
renders judgment. offense, subscribed by the subscribed by the offended
prosecutor and filed with party, any peace officer,
the court. charged with the
Case example: People v. Jose
enforcement of the law
- It was settled that it was necessary for the pettiones
Subscribed by the public violated.
to implead the People of the Philippines as prosecutor/fiscal (sine qua
respondent in the case to enable the Solicitor non requisite).
General to comment on the petition.

Filed by the city or provincial Filed by the offended party, the offenses of seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness independently
of her parents, grandparents, or guardian, unless she is incompetent or
prosecutor and their any peace officer, or other incapable of doing so. Where the offended party, who is a minor, fails to file the
assistants or the duly public officer charged with complaint, her parents, grandparents, or guardian may file the same. The right
appointed special the enforcement of the law to file the action granted to parents, grandparents or guardian shall be
exclusive of all other persons and shall be exercised successively in the order
prosecutor. violated. herein provided, except as stated in the preceding paragraph.
Filed with the court Filed either in court or in the No criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputation of the
offenses mentioned above shall be brought except at the instance of and upon
prosecutor’s office complaint filed by the offended party.
Need not be under oath Must be made under oath The prosecution for violation of special laws shall be governed by the provisions
thereof.
Usually refers to public Usually refers to private

crimes crimes *A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC
SECTION 5. Who must prosecute criminal action. — All criminal actions either
Filing of crimes that cannot be prosecuted de officio commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction
● Private crimes cannot be prosecuted except on and control of a public prosecutor. In case of heavy work schedule of the public
complaint filed by the offended party or if the prosecutor or in the event of lack of public prosecutors, the private prosecutor may
be authorized in writing by the Chief of the Prosecution Office or the Regional State
offended party is a minor, by the parents,
Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to the approval of the court. Once so
grandparents, or the guardian. authorized to prosecute the criminal action, the private prosecutor shall continue
● The institution of private crimes is at the option of to prosecute the case up to end of the trial even in the absence of a public
prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or otherwise withdrawn. x x x .
the aggrieved party. But once that choice is made
manifest, the law will be applied in full force and in
Who shall prosecute a criminal action
spite of the complainant, his death notwithstanding.
● This is in consideration for the offended party who
General rule: All criminal actions shall be prosecuted under
might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence, rather
the control and direction of the public prosecutor.
than go through with the scandal of a public trial.
Exception: If the schedule of the public prosecutor does not

General rule: All crimes are initiated by the prosecutor by a
permit, or in case there are no public public prosecutors, a
complaint or information.
private prosecutor may be authorized in writing by the Chief of
the Prosecution Office or the Regional State Prosecution
Exception: Private crimes, which may only be prosecuted by a
Office to prosecute the case, subject to the approval of the
complaint by the offended party, that is:
court.
a) In certain crimes against chastity (i.e., concubinage,
adultery, seduction, abduction, and acts of
● Compliance with this section is jurisdictional, and
lasciviousness).
not merely a formal requirement.
b) Defamations imputing any of the aforesaid offenses,
● The institution of a criminal action depends upon the
wherein a sworn written complaint is required in
sound discretion of the prosecutor.
accordance with Section 5 of this rule.
● Once the case is already filed in court, the same can
no longer be withdrawn or dismissed without the
Q: Is a criminal information a pleading?
tribunal’s approval.
A: Yes. Filing fees, when required, are assessed and become
● Should the prosecutor find it proper to conduct a
due for each initiatory pleading filed.
reinvestigation of the case at such stage, the
permission of the court must be secured.
Who Must Prosecute Criminal Actions
Prosecution of criminal action
SECTION 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions. — All criminal actions
● Prosecuted under the direction and control of the
commenced by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the
direction and control of the prosecutor. However, in Municipal Trial Courts or prosecutor.
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts when the prosecutor assigned thereto or to the
case is not available, the offended party, any peace officer, or public officer
● This is because since a criminal offense is an outrage
charged with the enforcement of the law violated may prosecute the case. This against the sovereignty of the State, it necessarily
authority cease upon actual intervention of the prosecutor or upon elevation of
the case to the Regional Trial Court. (Repealed by A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC)*
follows that a representative of the State shall direct
and control the prosecution thereof. The rule is also
The crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a
complaint filed by the offended spouse. The offended party cannot institute founded on the theory that a crime is a breach of the
criminal prosecution without including the guilty parties, if both alive, nor, in security and peace of people at large.
any case, if the offended party has consented to the offense or pardoned the
offenders. ● Institution of criminal action depends upon the
discretion of the fiscal.
The offenses of seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness shall not be
prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents,
grandparents or guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has been expressly Rationale of placing the prosecution of criminal case under
pardoned by any of them. If the offended party dies or becomes incapacitated
before she can file the complaint, and she has no known parents, grandparents
the direct control of the public prosecutor
or guardian, the State shall initiate the criminal action in her behalf. ● To prevent malicious ot unfounded prosecution by
The offended party, even if a minor, has the right to initiate the prosecution of
private persons.

a) When the offended party dies or becomes
Powers of the public prosecutor incapacitated before the complaint is filed.
a) To determine whether a prima facie case exists b) When the offended party has no parents,
b) To decide which of the conflicting testimonies grandparents, or guardian.
should be believed free from the interference or
control of the offended party Initiation of prosecution by a minor
c) Subject only to the right against self incrimination,
determine which witnesses to present in court General rule: The offended party, even if a minor, has the right
d) A wide range of discretion of whether, what, and to initiate the prosecution of offenses of seduction,
whom to charge, the exercise of which depends on abduction, or acts of lasciviousness, independently of his
the factors which are best appreciated by the parents, grandparents, or guardian
prosecutor
i) Except where there is an unmistakable Exception: If the minor is incompetent or incapable of doing
showing of grave abuse of discretion on so*
the part of the prosecutor
e) May turn over the actual prosecution of the criminal N.B.: If the offended party is already of age, she has the
case to the private prosecutor, in the exercise of his exclusive right to file the complaint, unless she becomes
discretion, but he may, at any time, take over the incapacitated. The rule for the authority of
actual conduct of the trial parents/grandparents/guardian only applies if the offended
party is still a minor
Conditions for a private prosecutor to prosecute criminal
action Pardon as distinguished from consent
a) Public prosecutor has a heavy workload
b) Private prosecutor is authorized in writing by the
Pardon Consent
Chief of the Prosecutor Office or Regional State
Prosecutor
Refers to past acts Refers to future acts
c) Authority of private prosecutor must be approved by
the court In order to absolve the In order to absolve the
d) Private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute until accused from liability, it accused from liability, it is
the end of the case must be extended to both sufficient even if granted
e) In case of withdrawal or revocation of the authority offenders only to the offending
spouse
of the private prosecutor, the same must be
approved by the court
Who can give pardon
Scope of the duties of the prosecutor in prosecuting the
criminal case
For adultery and Only the offended spouse not
● In the trial of criminal cases, it is the duty of the
concubinage otherwise incapacitated, can validly
public prosecutor to appear for the government and
extend the pardon or consent
file the necessary information in court, and by law he contemplated therein
is duty-bound to take charge thereof until its final
termination. For seduction, The offended minor
abduction, or The parents, grandparents, or
Who may file a complaint for private crimes: acts of guardian
lasciviousness
If the offended party is of age and not
For adultery and Only the offended spouse otherwise incapacitated, only she can
concubinage extend a valid pardon
For seduction, May be prosecuted exclusively and For defamation

abduction, or successively by the persons in this
acts of order:
lasciviousness Pardon given before filing
a) The offended party ● Pardon refers to pardon before filing in court
b) His parents ● Pardon effected after the filing of the complaint
c) His grandparents, or His does not prohibit the continuance of the
guardian prosecution of the offense, except in case of
marriage between the offender and the offended
For defamation Only the party or parties defamed party
● The subsequent marriage between the offended and
the accused extinguishes the criminal liability of the
Instances where the State may initiate the action for
seduction, abduction, or acts of lasciviousness in behalf of latter, together with that of the co-principals,
the offended party: accomplices, accessories, except:

a) Where the marriage was invalid or a) To safeguard the constitutional right of an accused
contracted in bad faith in order to escape to be informed of the nature and cause of
criminal liability accusation against him.
b) In private libel or the libelous imputation of b) To notify the defendant of the criminal acts imputed
the commission of the crimes of to him so that he can duly prepare for his defense.
concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape,
or acts of lasciviousness and in slander by How sufficiency of the complaint is determined
deed ● As long as the crime is described in intelligible terms
c) In multiplied rape, insofar as the other and with such particularity and reasonable certainty
accused in the other acts of rape that the accused is duly informed of the offense
respectively committed by them are charged, then the information is considered
concerned sufficient.
Death of complainant Effect if the information does not allege the facts and acts
● The death of the complainant does not extinguish constituting the offense
the criminal liability of the accused once the ● Where the information is insufficient, it cannot be
complaint is filed the basis of any valid conviction.
● The participation of the offended party in private ● The allegations of facts constituting the offense
crimes is essential not for the maintenance of the charged are substantial matters and the right of an
criminal action, but solely for the initiation thereof accused to question his convictions based on facts
● Any pardon given by the complainant or her death not alleged in the information cannot be waived.
after the filing of the complaint would not deprive
the court of the jurisdiction to try the case Name of the Accused
Effect of desistance of complainant SECTION 7. Name of the accused. — The complaint or information must state
● It does not bar the people from prosecuting the the name and surname of the accused or any appellation or nickname by which
he has been or is known. If his name cannot be ascertained, he must be
criminal action. But, it does operate as a waiver of described under a fictitious name with a statement that his true name is
the right to pursue civil indemnity unknown.
If the true name of the accused is thereafter disclosed by him or appears in

Sufficiency of Complaint or Information some other manner to the court, such true name shall be inserted in the
complaint or information and record.
SECTION 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. — A complaint or

information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation of Rules
the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as a) Complaint or information must state the name and
constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate date
of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was surname of the accused or any appellation or
committed.
nickname by which he has been or is known
When an offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall be b) If his name cannot be ascertained, he must be
included in the complaint or information.
described under a fictitious name with a statement
that his true name is unknown
A complaint or information is deemed sufficient if it c) If the true name of the accused is thereafter
contains: disclosed by him or appears in some other manner to
a) The name of the accused; if the offense is the court, such true name shall be inserted in the
committed by more than one person, all of them shall complaint or information and record
be included in the complaint or information
b) The designation of the offense given by statute Effect of erroneous designation of the name of the accused
c) The acts or omissions complained of as constituting in the information
the offense ● The erroneous designation of the name of the
d) The name of the offended party accused, in the information will not vitiate it.
e) The approximate date of the commission of the
offense Procedures in the error in name
f) The place where the offense was committed a) An error in the name of the accused is not reversible
as long as his identity is sufficiently established. This
Rationale: The right to be informed of the nature and cause of defect is curable at any stage of the proceedings as
the accusation against an accused cannot be waived for insertion of the real name of the accused is merely a
reasons of public policy. Hence, it is imperative that the matter of form
complaint or information filed against the accused be b) Error in the name or identity of the accused should
complete to meet its objectives. be raised on arraignment
i) Its purpose is to enable the court to
Purpose of the rule: acquire jurisdiction over the person of
defendant

c) Verbal motion to correct spelling of name is defective information would allegedly violate his
sufficient constitutional and statutory right to be informed of
d) If he did not raise the error in his name during the the nature and cause of the accusation against him
arraignment, but actively participated in the trial, it is ● This is because the designation of the offense is
deemed waiver of questioning his identity for the only the conclusion of the prosecutor. It is the acts
first time on appeal or omissions alleged in the information that shall be
controlling on which judgment of the court shall be
Designation of the Offense based
When is an information valid

SECTION 8. Designation of the offense. — The complaint or information shall ● An information is valid as long as it directly states
state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or
omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating the statutory designation of the offense and the
circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be acts or omissions constitutive thereof.
made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.
Rationale for the requirement that the allegations of facts

Purpose of the rule: To safeguard the constitutional right of constituting an offense must be alleged therein
the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the ● The allegations of facts constituting the offense
accusation against him charged are substantial matters and the right of an
● Therefore, every element of the offense must be accused to question his conviction based on facts
alleged in the complaint or information so as to not alleged in the information cannot be waived.
enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense
● He is presumed to have no independent knowledge Essential elements inferred from allegation in the
of the facts that constitute the offense information
Test: Whether or not the crime is described in intelligible General rule: An inference in the complaint and conclusion
terms with such particularity as to apprise the accused with cannot be allowed (e.g., grave abuse of confidence)
reasonable certainty of the offense charged
Exceptions:
What must be designated a) “With intent to kill” – Discernment of a minor can be
a) The designation of the offense given by the statute. inferred
If there is no designation of the offense, reference b) “Willful damage” – Includes reckless imprudence
shall be made to the section of the statute c) “Unlawful taking and appropriation” – Intent to gain
punishing it. can be inferred
b) The statement of the acts or omissions constituting
the offense, in ordinary, concise, and particular Rule in case of existence of qualifying and aggravating
words. circumstances
c) The specific qualifying and aggravating ● An information to be sufficient must contain all the
circumstances must be stated in ordinary and elements required by the Rules in Criminal
concise language– which, in its absence, cannot be Procedure.
appreciated even if proved unless alleged in the ● The aggravating as well as the qualifying
information. circumstances must be expressly and specifically
alleged in the complaint or information.
Conflict between designation and facts in information
● If there is conflict between designation or title of the Importance of alleging aggravating circumstances in the
information and the facts recited in the information, information
the actual facts recited shall prevail and determine ● Every aggravating circumstance being alleged must
the nature of the crime and not the designation or be stated in the information and failure to state an
title given in the information aggravating circumstance, even if duly proven at
trial, will not be appreciated as such.
Effect of failure to designate offense given by the statute or
failure to mention the provision No conviction of crime not charged in the information
● The real nature of the crime is determined by the ● The omission is not merely formal in the nature since
facts alleged in the complaint or information, and doctrinally, an accused cannot be held liable for
not by the title. What controls is not the actual facts more than what he is indicted for.
recited in the information; it is the recital of facts of
the commission of the offenses, not the Cause of the Accusation
nomenclature of the offense, that determines the
crime being charged in the information SECTION 9. Cause of the accusation. — The acts or omissions complained of
● The specification in the information of the law as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances
must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the
violated is necessary to enable him to adequately language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of
common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its
prepare for his defense an to convict him under such

qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce
Exception: Unless the particular place where it was
judgment. committed constitutes an essential element of the offense or
is necessary for its identification (e.g., trespass to dwelling,
● If one or more elements of the offense have not been destructive arson, robbery in an inhabited house, violation of
alleged in the information, the accused cannot be domicile).
convicted of the offense charged, even if the
missing elements have been proved during the trial
Crimes where place is essential:
a) Violation of domicile
● Even the accused’s entering a plea of guilty to such
b) Penalty on keeper, watchman, and visitor of an
defective information will not cure the defect nor
opium den
justify his conviction of the offense charged
c) Trespass to dwelling
d) Violation of election law
General rule: An accused cannot be convicted of an offense
unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information
Q: Can there be conviction if it appears that the crime was
must be stated in ordinary and concise language
committed not at the place alleged in the information?
Purpose: A: Yes, provided that the place of actual commission was

1) To enable the Court to pronounce a proper judgment within the jurisdiction of the court. Unless, the particular place
2) To furnish the accused with such a description of of commission is an essential element of the offense charged.
the charge as to enable him to make a defense
3) As a protection against further prosecution for the Date of the Commission of the Offense
same clause
SECTION 11. Date of the commission of the offense. — It is not necessary to
state in the complaint or information the precise date the offense was
Case example: People v Mejia committed except when it is a material ingredient of the offense. The offense
- The qualifying circumstance was not alleged in the may be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the
actual date of its commission.
information. The Court ruled that circumstances
cannot be considered in fixing the penalty because
minority, though proved, was not alleged in the General rule: It is not necessary to state in the complaint or
information information the precise date the offense was committed. The
offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date as
How can sufficiency of the information as to the cause of near as possible to the actual date of its commission.
accusation be determined
● If the offense is stated in such a way that a person of Exception: Except when the date is a material ingredient of
ordinary intelligence may immediately know what is the offense.
meant, and the court can decide the matter
according to law, the inevitable conclusion is that Crimes where date is essential:
the information is valid. a) Infanticide
b) Abortion
How the nature of the criminal charge is determined c) Bigamy
● The real nature of the criminal charge is determined d) Violation of Sunday statute (Election law)
not from the caption or preamble of the information
but by the actual recital of the facts in the complaint Effect of variance between the time alleged in the
or information. information and that established by evidence on trial
● A variance between the time set out in the
indictment and that established by the evidence
Place of the Commission of the Offense
during trial does not constitute an error so serious
as to warrant reversal of a conviction solely on that
SECTION 10. Place of the commission of the offense. — The complaint or
score.
information is sufficient if it can be understood from its allegations that the
offense was committed or some of the essential ingredients occurred at some
place within the jurisdiction of the court, unless the particular place where it Q: Are discrepancies in details as to the exact time of the
was committed constitutes an essential element of the offense or is necessary
for its identification.
commission of the crime a ground for acquittal?
A: No. Discrepancies in details which are irrelevant to the
elements of the crime, such as the exact time of the
Purpose: To show territorial jurisdiction.
commission of the crime, are not grounds for the acquittal.
General rule: The complaint or information is sufficient if it

can be understood from its allegations that the offense was
committed or some of the essential ingredients occurred at Name of the Offended Party
some place within the jurisdiction of the court, Improper venue
means lack of jurisdiction. SECTION 12. Name of the offended party. — The complaint or information
must state the name and surname of the person against whom or against
whose property the offense was committed, or any appellation or nickname by
which such person has been or is known. If there is no better way of identifying

him, he must be described under a fictitious name.
c) Continuous crimes or delicto continuado
a) In offenses against property, if the name of the offended party is d) Crimes susceptible of being committed in various
unknown, the property must be described with such particularity
as to properly identify the offense charged.
modes
b) If the true name of the of the person against whom or against e) Crimes of which another offense is an ingredient
whose properly the offense was committed is thereafter disclosed
or ascertained, the court must cause the true name to be inserted f) When a single act violates different statutes
in the complaint or information and the record.
c) If the offended party is a juridical person, it is sufficient to state its
name, or any name or designation by which it is known or by which Principle of absorption – acts committed in furtherance of
it may be identified, without need of averring that it is a juridical rebellion, though crimes in themselves, are deemed absorbed
person or that it is organized in accordance with law.
in the one single crime of rebellion.
● The test is whether the act was done in furtherance
If against person If against property of a political end. The political motive of the act
should be conclusively demonstrated.
State the name and Property destroyed shall be
surname/appellation/nickn particularly described. In case of duplicity
ame/fictitious name. ● The accused must file a motion to quash of the same
before arraignment, otherwise, he is deemed to have
General rule: The complaint or information must state the waived the objection, and may be found guilty of as
name and surname of the person against whom or against many offenses as those charged and proved during
whose property the offense was committed, or any appellation trial.
or nickname by which such person has been or is known. If ● Test to be applied to determine duplicity is whether
there is no better way of identifying him, he must be described each provision requires proof of a fact which the
under a fictitious name. other does not.
Exception: Crime against property— the property must be When there is no duplicity
a) When in the different act alleged, the sum total of
described with such particularity.
which constitutes a crime, e.g., each act of
Other rules: conspirators.

a) When the offense shall have been described in the b) When a single offense may be committed by the use
complaint with sufficient certainty as to identify the of different means to charge in the alternative, the
act, an erroneous allegation as to the person injured various means by which the crime may have been
shall be deemed immaterial as the same is a mere committed (e.g., violation of medical law, illegal
formal defect which did not tend to prejudice any practice of medicine).
substantial right of the defendant.
b) Even if the names of the offended parties are not Amendment or Substitution
alleged, if the offense belongs to the class of
harmful ones (e.g., illegal practice of medicine), the SECTION 14. Amendment or substitution. — A complaint or information may
be amended, in form or in substance, without leave of court, at any time before
victims of petitioner should be considered as the accused enters his plea. After the plea and during the trial, a formal
offended parties. amendment may only be made with leave of court and when it can be done
without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.
Duplicity of the Offense However, any amendment before plea, which downgrades the nature of the
offense charged in or excludes any accused from the complaint or information,
can be made only upon motion by the prosecutor, with notice to the offended
party and with leave of court. The court shall state its reasons in resolving the
SECTION 13. Duplicity of the offense. — A complaint or information must
motion and copies of its order shall be furnished all parties, especially the
charge but one offense, except when the law prescribes a single punishment
offended party. (n)
for various offenses.
If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been made in
charging the proper offense, the court shall dismiss the original complaint or
Duplicity of offense – when the complaint or information information upon the filing of a new one charging the proper offense in
accordance with section 19, Rule 119, provided the accused shall not be placed
charges two or more distinct or different offenses in one and in double jeopardy. The court may require the witnesses to give bail for their
the same information or complaint. appearance at the trial.
Purpose of the rule: It is to give the defendant the necessary Amendment – correction of an error or an omission in a
knowledge of the charge to enable him to prove his defense, complaint or information. Such is only in form where it neither
so as to not confuse defendant as to which charge will he affects nor alters the nature of the offense charged or where
defend himself with. the charge does not deprive the accused of a fair opportunity
to present his defense or where it does not involve a change in
General rule: A complaint or information must charge only one the basic theory of the prosecution.
offense.
Substitution – if it appears at any time before judgment that a
Exceptions: mistake has been made in charging the proper offense, the
a) Complex crimes court shall dismiss the original complaint or information upon
b) Special complex crimes

the filing of a new one charging the proper offense, provided
the accused shall not be placed in a double jeopardy. General rule: Any amendment, formal or substantial, before
the accused enters his plea may be done without leave of
Kinds of amendment court.
1) Formal amendment – merely states with additional
precision something which is already contained in Exception: Any amendment before plea, which downgrades
the original information, and adds nothing essential the nature of the offense charged or excludes any accused
for the conviction for the crime charged. from the complaint or information can be made only:
a) Upon motion by the prosecutor
Instances where an amendment is in form b) With notice to the offended party
a) Where it neither affects nor alters the c) With leave of court
nature of the offense charged
b) Where the charged does not deprive the Reason: To inform and protect the offended party that there
accused of a fair opportunity to present will be a change in favor of the accused.
his defense
c) Where it does not involve change in the Rules on amendment after the plea
basic theory of the prosecution ● Covers only formal amendment, provided that:
d) Additional allegation of conspiracy is only a a) Leave of court is obtained
formal amendment provided that it does b) Such amendment is not prejudicial to the
not change the theory of the prosecution rights of the accused
2) Substantial amendment – consist of changing the Difference between amendment and substitution
recital of facts constituting the offense charged and
determinative of the jurisdiction of the court.
Amendment Substitution
Instances where an amendment is in substantial May be made before or after arraignment

a) Amended information stating forth a
different manner of committing the felony Involves formal or Substantial change;
b) Including conspiracy where it involves a substantial changes; recourse is to dismiss it
change in the basic theory of the recourse is to amend it then file a new one
prosecution
If made before arraignment, If made before arraignment,
c) Change in the date of the commission of
should be without leave of should be with leave of
the offense that would be prejudicial to the
court court
accused
Refers to same offense or of Refers to different and not
Limitations on amendment any other offense necessarily included
a) It does not deprive the accused of the right to invoke necessarily included therein
prescription. therein
b) It does not affect or alter the nature of the offense
originally charge. Test as to whether it is an amendment or substitution:
c) It does not involve a change in the basic theory of Whether or not the second information involves the same or
the prosecution so as to require the accused to an offense necessarily included in the first information, which
undergo any material change or modification in his constitutes an amendment. Otherwise, it is substitution.
defense.
d) It does not expose the accused to charge which Place where the Action is to be Instituted
would call for a higher penalty
e) It does not cause surprise nor deprive the accused
SECTION 15. Place where action is to be instituted. —
of an opportunity to meet the new averment. a) Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and
tried in the court of the municipality or territory where the offense
was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred.
Limitation on substitution b) Where an offense is committed in a train, aircraft, or other public
a) No judgment has been rendered yet or private vehicle while in the course of its trip, the criminal action
shall be instituted and tried in the court of any municipality or
b) Accused cannot be convicted of the offense territory where such train, aircraft or other vehicle passed during
such its trip, including the place of its departure and arrival.
charged or of any other offense necessarily included
c) Where an offense is committed on board a vessel in the course of
therein its voyage, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the
court of the first port of entry or of any municipality or territory
c) Accused would not be placed in double jeopardy*
where the vessel passed during such voyage, subject to the
generally accepted principles of international law.
*When the title is wrong but the body of the information already charges the d) Crimes committed outside the Philippines but punishable under
accused with the proper one, substitution is not proper for it would amount to Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code shall be cognizable by the
double jeopardy. court where the criminal action is first filed
Rules on amendment before the plea Venue is jurisdictional

● As the court has no jurisdiction to try an offense ● There is an implied institution of civil action with
committed outside its territorial jurisdiction criminal action
● It cannot be waived or changed by agreement of the
parties or by the consent of the defendant Purpose of civil and criminal action
Purpose: The court should not compel the defendant to move Civil action Criminal action
to, and appear in a different court from that of a province
where the crime was committed, as it would cause him great Restitution, reparation of Punish the offender, reform,
inconvenience in looking for his witnesses and other evidence the damage, or and rehabilitate him.
in another place. indemnification.
General rule: Subject to existing laws in all criminal General rule: The offended party has the right to intervene by
prosecutions, the action must be instituted and tried in the counsel in the prosecution of the criminal action, where the
courts of the municipality or territory where the offense was civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in the
omitted or any of its essential ingredient occurred. criminal action pursuant to Rule 111.
Exceptions to the rule on venue: Exceptions:

a) Where from the nature of the crime and the law
defining and punishing it, no civil liability arises in
Crime Venue
favor of the offended party.
Under circumstance Where the criminal action is b) Where the offended party has waived his right to civil
enumerated in Article 2 of first filed indemnity or has expressly reserved his right to
the RPC institute a civil action or has already instituted said
action.
Committed in a train, Court of any municipality or
aircraft, or other public or territory where said vehicle
Reason for allowing the intervention of the offended party
private vehicle passed during its trip, or in
through a private prosecutor
the place or departure or
● The offended party may intervene in the criminal
arrival
action personally or by counsel, who will then act as
On board a vessel in the In the court of first port of private prosecutor for the protection of his interests
course of its voyage entry or where it passed and in the interest of the speedy and inexpensive
during the voyage administration of justice.
Written defamation Filed in the province or city When can the private prosecutor intervene in the trial
where the offended party
● In case private complainant did not waive the civil
held office at the time of
action, nor did she reserve the right to institute it
the commission of the
offense if he is a public separately, not institute the civil action for damages
officer arising from the offense charged she can intervene
in the trial of the criminal.
Bouncing checks Filed in the place where the
check was dishonored or
issued PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE
FOR FELONIES
Piracy No territorial limits and may
be tried anywhere
Treble Division of Persons

Supreme Court constitutional powers Criminally Liable
● Supreme Court can order a change in venue or place
of trial to avoid miscarriage of justice.
ARTICLE 16. Who are criminally liable. — The following are criminally liable for
grave and less grave felonies:
Intervention of the Offended Party 1. Principals.
2. Accomplices.
in Criminal Action 3. Accessories.
The following are criminally liable for light felonies:

SECTION 16. Intervention of the offended party in criminal action. — Where 1. Principals.
the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal action 2. Accomplices.
pursuant to Rule 111, the offended party may intervene by counsel in the
prosecution of the offense.
Treble division of persons criminally liable
● This rests upon the very nature of their participation
● Prosecution of offenses is a public function
in the commission of the crime.

● When a crime is committed by many, without being ● This is because of the highly personal nature of
shared by all, a different degree of responsibility is criminal responsibility.
imposed upon each and every one of them. ● Since a felony is a punishable act or omission which
● They are criminally liable either as principals, produces or tends to produce a change in the
accomplices, or accessories. external world, it follows that only a natural person
can be the active subject, because he alone by his
Kinds of offenders and their corresponding penalty act can set in motion a cause or by his inaction can
make possible the completion of a developing
modification in the external world.
Principal Penalty for the crime
committed is that prescribed
by law. Reasons why only a natural person can be the offender:
a) The RPC requires that the culprit should have acted
Accomplice Penalty for the crime with personal malice or negligence. An artificial or
committed is one degree juridical person cannot act with malice or
lower than that prescribed for negligence.
principal.
b) A juridical person, like a corporation, cannot commit
a crime in which a willful purpose or a malicious
Accessory Penalty for the crime
committed is two degrees intent is required.
lower than that prescribed for c) There is substitution of deprivation of liberty
principal. [subsidiary imprisonment] for pecuniary penalties in
case of solvency of the accused.
Basis of the liability of offenders d) Other penalties consisting in imprisonment and
1. Extent and time of their participation other deprivation of liberty, like destierro, can be
2. Presence of conspiracy and community of design executed only against individuals.
Accessories are not liable for light felonies Officers, not the corporation, are criminally liable.
● In view of the omission of accessories in naming ● If the crime is committed by a corporation or other
those liable for light felonies, the accessories are juridical entity, the directors, officers, employees,
not liable for light felonies. or other officers thereof responsible for the offense
shall be charged and penalized for the crime,
Reason: In the commission of light felonies, the social wrong precisely because of the nature of the crime and the
as well as the individual prejudice is so small that penal penalty therefor.
sanction is deemed not necessary for accessories. ● Since a corporation cannot be proceeded against
criminally because it cannot commit crime in which
Rules relative to light felonies personal violence or malicious intent is required,
1) Light felonies are punishable only when they have criminal action is limited to the corporate agents
been consummated (Article 7). guilty of an act amounting to a crime and never
2) But when light felonies are committed against against the corporation itself.
persons or property, they are punishable even if they
are only in the attempted or frustrated stage of Juridical persons are criminally liable under certain special
execution (Article 7). laws
3) Only principals and accomplices are liable for light ● Under the Corporation Code of the Philippines,
felonies (Article 16). Public Service Law, the Securities Law, and the
4) Accessories are not liable for light felonies, even if Election Code, corporations may be fined for certain
they are committed against persons or property violations of their provisions.
(Article 16).
Only the officers of the corporation who participated as
principals by direct participation, by induction, or by
Active subject and passive subject of crime
cooperation, or as accomplices in the commission of an act
● Two parties in all crimes: (1) active subject; and (2)
punishable by law are liable.
passive subject.
● Article 16 enumerates the active subjects of the Case example: People v. Montilla
crime. - There is no evidence at all that C directly took part or
aided in the careless installation of the electric wire,
Active subject Passive subject a portion of which was negligently left uninsulated
by M and his son.
The criminal The injured party - As a general rule, a director or other officer of a
corporation is criminally liable for his acts, though in
his official capacity, if he participated in the unlawful
Only natural persons can be active subject of crime
act either directly or as an aider, abettor or
accessory, but is not liable criminally for the

corporate acts performed by other officers or agents b) One may be a principal by induction (par.
thereof. 2); and the other a principal by direct
- The effect that criminal actions are restricted or participation; or
limited to the officials of a corporation and never c) One may be a principal by direct
against itself, indicates the procedure to be taken in participation and the other a principal by
a criminal action when an official of a corporation is indispensable cooperation (par. 3).
involved, but does not point his degree of
participation in order to hold him liable for a certain Example: A, by promises of price and reward, induced B to kill C,
criminal act as such corporate official. a person living on an island far from the mainland. D, the owner
of the only motor boat in the place and knowing the criminal
Manager of partnership is liable designs of A and B, offered to transport and actually
● Even in the absence of evidence regarding his direct transported B to the island. Once there, B alone killed C.
participation in the commission of the offense, the
manager of the partnership is criminally liable. Illustration
● Since a corporation or partnership can only act
through its officers and their agents, the president TYPE OF PRINCIPAL AS SHOWN BY
or manager can be held criminally liable for the
violation of a law by the entity. A Principal by induction Allthough he did not
actually participate in the
Case example: People v. Cartesiano killing of C, he directly
- The president and general manager of a corporation induced B to kill C.
which violated the Motor Vehicle was held criminally

B Principal by direct He took direct part in the
liable for the offense imputable to the corporation.
participation execution of the felony by
personally killing C.
Passive subject of crime
● This is the holder of the injured right: the man, the D Principal by He cooperated in the
indispensable commission of the offense
juristic person, the group, and the State.
cooperation by another (transporting
● While a corporation or partnership cannot be the the actual killer to the
active subject, it can be a passive subject of a crime. island) without which the
commission of the offense
would not have been
Corpse or animal cannot be passive subject accomplished.
● The dead and the animals have no rights that may be
injured.
Difference between a principal under any of the three
categories and a co-conspirator
Exception: when dead may be passive subject
● The crime of defamation may be committed if the
imputation tends to blacken the memory of one who Principal (under Article 17) Co-conspirator
is dead.
The criminal liability is Also a principal but his
limited to his own acts. responsibility includes the
Principals acts of his fellow
conspirators.
ARTICLE 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. Principal by Direct Participation
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by
another act without which it would not have been accomplished.
Article 17, Paragraph 1 — Those who take a direct part in the execution of the
act.
Two or more persons participating in the crime
● When a single individual commits a crime, there is no
difficulty in determining his participation in the Principal by direct participation – personally takes part in the
commission thereof. A single individual committing a execution of the act constituting the crime.
crime is always a principal, and one by direct ● One who only orders or induces another to commit a
participation, because he must necessarily take crime is not a principal by direct participation
direct part in the execution of the act. because he does not personally execute the act
● When two or more persons are involved in killing constituting the crime.
another, it is necessary to determine the ● It is the one personally committing the crime in
participation of each. If they are all principals: obedience to that order or because of the
a) All of them may be principals by direct inducement, who is the principal by direct
participation (par. 1); or participation.

Example: One who shoots at and kills another or one who ● Mere knowledge, acquiescence, or approval of the
burns the house of another, personally executes the act of act without cooperation or agreement to cooperate
killing another or the act of burning the house of another. He is is not enough to constitute one a party to a
a principal by direct participation in the crime of homicide conspiracy, but that there must be intentional
(unlawfully killing another) or in the crime of arson (maliciously participation in the transaction with a view to the
burning another’s property). furtherance of the common design and purpose.
Case example: People v. Lao Silence does not make one a conspirator
- A common-law wife who induced the killing of ● Silence is not a circumstance indicating
another common-law wife of her husband by giving participation in the same criminal design.
money to the killer is a principal by induction, while
the killer is a principal by direct participation. Conspiracy transcends companionship
● The fact that two accused may have happened to
Two or more offenders as principals by direct participation leave together, and one of them left a closing
● Two or more persons may take direct part in the warning to the victim, cannot instantly support a
execution of the act, in which case they may be finding of conspiracy.
principals by direct participation.
Existence of conspiracy
Requisites: ● It does not require necessarily an agreement for an
1) They participated in the criminal resolution. appreciable length of time prior to the execution of
2) They carried out their plan and personally took part its purpose.
in its execution by acts which directly tended to the ● From the legal viewpoint, conspiracy exists if, at the
same end. time of the commission of the offense, the accused
had the same purpose and were united in its
Case example: People v. Cagod execution.
- Where the two accused each inflicted a serious ● Conspiracy arises on the very instant the plotters
wound which contributed to the death of the victim, agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the felony
they are co-principals. and forthwith decide to pursue it.
● Once this assent is established, each and everyone
First Requisite: Participation in the Criminal of the conspirators is made criminally liable for the
Resolution crime actually committed by anyone them.
● Two or more persons are said to have participated in Proof of conspiracy

a) The direct evidence of conspiracy may consist in the
the criminal resolution when they were in
interlocking extrajudicial confessions of several
conspiracy at the time of the commission of the
accused and the testimony of one of the accused
crime.
who is discharged and made a witness against his
● A person may be convicted for the criminal act of
co-accused who did not make any confession.
another where, between them, there has been
conspiracy or unity of purpose and intention in the
Case example: People v. Castelo
commission of the crime charged.
- In the absence of collusion among the
declarants, their confessions may form a
Conspiracy – exists when two or more persons come to an
complete picture of the whole situation
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide
and may be considered collectively as
to commit it. The conspiracy contemplated in the first
corroboratice and/or confirmatory of the
requisite is not a felony, but only a manner of incurring criminal
evidence independent therefrom.
liability.
Case example: People v. Bernardo, et al.

How to be a part to a conspiracy
- Two or more extrajudicial confessions
● One must have the intention to participate in the
given separately, untainted by collusion,
transaction with a view to the furtherance of the
and which tally with one another in all
common design and purpose.
material respects, are admissible as
● It must be established that he performed an overt
evidence of the conspiracy of he
act in furtherance of the conspiracy, either by
declarants.
actively participating in the actual commission of the
crime, or by lending a moral assistance to his
b) To establish conspiracy, it is not essential that there
co-conspirators by being present at the scene of the
be proofs as to the previous agreement and decision
crime, or by exerting moral ascendancy over the rest
to commit the crime, it being sufficient that the
of the conspirators as to move them to executing
malefactors shall have acted in concert pursuant to
the conspiracy.
the same objective.

● While conspiracy may be implied from the
Formal agreement or previous acquaintance among several circumstances attending the commission of the
persons not necessary in conspiracy crime, it is nevertheless a rule that conspiracy must
● No formal agreement among the conspirators is be established by positive and conclusive evidence.
necessary, not even previous acquaintance among ● The same degree of proof necessary to establish
themselves; it is sufficient that their minds meet the crime is required to establish a finding of criminal
understandingly so as to bring about an intelligent conspiracy, that is, proof beyond reasonable doubt.
and deliberate agreement to commit the offense ● Mere presence at the scene of the crime at the time
charged. of its commission is not by itself sufficient to
● It is sufficient that at the time of the aggression, all establish conspiracy.
the accused manifested by their acts a common
intent or desire to attack so that the act of one When there is no conspiracy, each of the offenders is liable
accused becomes the act of all. only for the act performed by him
Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence Case example: People v. Castillo
● It need not be shown that the parties actually came - When policeman Machica approached Guarino and
together and agreed in express terms to enter into Terencia who were quarreling and told them to stop
and pursue common design. the fight, Guarino stabbed Machica and ran away.
● The assent of the minds may be and, from the Policeman Campos who pursued Guarino overtook
secrecy of the crime, usually inferred from proof of the latter and took him to the municipal building
facts and circumstances which, taken together, where policeman Boco hit Guarino. Then, Chief of
indicate that they are parts of some complete whole. Police Castillo came and shot to death Guarino in the
● If it is proved that two or more persons aimed, by presence of Machica, Campos, and Boco who had
their acts, at the accomplishment of the same inflicted serious physical injuries on Guarino.
unlawful object, each doing a part so that their acts, - There was no competent proof that Machica,
though apparently independent, were in fact Campos, and Boco wanted or intended to kill
connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness Guarino. There was no previous indication that
of personal association and a concurrence of Castillo intended to kill Guarino. Castillo just drew
sentiment, a conspiracy may be inferred though no out his gun and fired, and Machica, Campos, and
actual meeting among them to concert ways and Boco could not have stopped it even if they wanted
means is proved. to.
- There being no conspiracy or unity of purpose and
Case example: People v. Garduque intention among the four, Machica, Campos, and
- When it is shown that all the accused were already Boco did not participate in the criminal resolution of
armed when they met, and that they went together Castillo.
in a jeep to the place where they robbed the house - Only Castillo who shot Guarino to death was found
of the offended party and raped his maids, their guilty of murder qualified by treachery. Machica,
conspiracy is implied. Campos, and Boco were held liable for serious
- Their conspiracy is implied, notwithstanding the physical injuries.
claim of some of the accused that their participation
therein was only of having accompanied the other Participation in criminal resolution is essential
accused who had requested them to show the ● It is not enough that a person participated in the
house of the offended party. assault made by another in order to consider him a
co-principal in the crime committed. He must also
Case example: People v. Catubig participate in the criminal resolution of the other.
- Conspiracy is shown where the offenders were all
present at the scene of the crime, acted in concert Cooperation – the assistance which is knowingly or
in attacking the victims— assaulting, beating, intentionally given and which is not possible without previous
chasing, and stabbing them, as well as the in knowledge of the criminal purpose.
divesting them of their watches, gold rings, and
money, and after the bloody slayings were done, When unity of purpose and intention in the commission of
they fled from the scene and went their separate the crime is shown:
ways. a) Spontaneous agreement at the moment of the
- By their concerted actions, they showed that they commission of the crime is sufficient to create joint
acted in unison and cooperated with each other responsibility.
towards the accomplishment of a common felonious b) Active cooperation by all the offenders in the
purpose which was to rob and kill the victims. perpetration of the crime will also create joint
responsibility.
Conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive
evidence NOTE: Simultaneity per se is not a badge of conspiracy, absent the
concurrence of wills. It is not sufficient that the attack is joint and

simultaneous; it is necessary that the assailants are animated by one Conspirator is not liable for another’s crime which is not an
and the same purpose. object of the conspiracy or which is not a necessary and
logical consequence thereof
c) Contributing by positive acts to the realization of a
common criminal intent also creates joint Case example: People v. Umali
responsibility. - Where only the Huks, allies of defendant Umali,
d) Presence during the commission of the crime by a committed robbery which was not an object of the
band and lending moral support thereto, also conspiracy, it was held that defendant Umali was not
creates joint responsibility with the material liable therefor, but liable for sedition, arson, and
executive. murder— the objects of the conspiracy.
e) Where one of the accused knew of the plan of the
others to kill the two victims and he accepted the Other defendants not held liable for the killings of persons
role assigned to him, which was to shoot one of the not covered by the conspiracy
victims, and he actually performed that role.
Case example: People v. De la Cerna
- Despite a conspiracy between Sulpicio and
Liability of participants when there is conspiracy
Maquiling, the conspiracy was to kill Rafael only and
● Where there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act
no one else. Hence, appellant Sulpicio cannot be
of all. There is collective criminal responsibility.
held liable for the killing of Cabizares.
● Where conspiracy has been adequately proven, all
- The rule has always been that co-conspirators are
the conspirators are liable as co-principals
liable only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy.
regardless of the extent and character of their
For other acts done outside the contemplation of
participation.
the co-conspirators or which are not necessary and
● The degree of actual participation by each of the
logical consequence of the intended crime, only the
conspirators is immaterial.
actual perpetrators are liable.
● As conspirators, each is equally responsible for the
acts of their conspirators.
Different ruling in Enriquez case and De la cerna case
● The ruling is different in Enriquez case, where the
Case example: U.S. v. Bundal
conspirators are liable for the acts of another
- Where it appears that the defendants, after
conspirator even though such acts differ radically
conspiring to kill the deceased, went to his house for
and substantially from that which they intend to
the purpose of carrying out their common intent and
commit.
prepared to cooperate to that end, and some of
● However, in De la Cerna case, when the conspirators
them actually killed the deceased, while the others
selected a particular individual to be their victim, and
posted themselves around the building ready to
another person was killed by one of them, only that
prevent his escape or render any assistance which
conspirator who killed another person would be
might be necessary, all will be held guilty as
liable therefor.
principals irrespective of the individual participation
of each in the material act of the murder.
Conspiracy may cover persons previously undetermined
● When it appears that there was a general plan to kill
Liability of a conspirator for another conspirator’s acts
which differ from that which they intended to commit anyone who might put up violent resistance, the
● A conspirator should necessarily be liable for the accused are liable for all the natural and inherent
acts of another conspirator even though such acts consequences of such plan.
differ radically and substantially from that which
they intended to commit. Case example: People v. Timbol
- Even if the conspiracy was only against Jose de Leon
and not against Augusto Gonzales and Capt. Olivas
Example: Where three persons conspired to commit robbery
whose intervention was merely accidental and could
only but in the course of the robbery, one of them killed an
not have been foreseen by the accused when they
inmate of the house, it seems that the others must not be held
were preparing their plan. They were all held liable
responsible for the homicide which was not contemplated in
for all the natural and inherent consequnces of such
their conspiracy and in which they did not take part.
plan.
Rationale: Article 293 of the RPC defines the liability of the

A person in conspiracy with other, who had desisted before
offenders in a robbery if committed by a band, that is, any
the crime was committed by the others, is not criminally
member of a band is liable for any assault committed by the
liable
other member of the band, unless it be shown that he ● Although the appellant was a member of the
attempted to prevent the same. Hence, if the robbers are only conspiracy, yet he desisted therefrom before the
three, or even more than three but not more than three are intended crimes were committed.
armed, it cannot be applied and the robber who does not take
part in the assault is not liable therefor.

● Since conspiracy alone, without the execution of its - This provision applies when the element of the
purpose is not a crime punishable by law, except in felony arises from the private relation of the offender
special instances (Article 8). with the offended party.
● The act of a conspirator who, as soon as the
aggression was started by his co-conspirators, ran 2) In the crime of murder where treachery is an
away and called for help of other persons who element of the crime, all the offenders must at
hurriedly responded, is an act of desistance from least have knowledge of the employment of
taking an active part in the aggression which treachery at the time of the execution of the act
removes the case from the operation of the or their cooperation therein.
established rule that when a conspiracy is proved, - The reason is that Article 62(4) provides that the
the act of one is the act of all. circumstances which consist in the material
execution of the act, or in the means employed to
When there is conspiracy, the fact that an element of the accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate the liability of
offense is not present as regards one of the conspirators is those persons only who had knowledge of them at
immaterial the time of the execution of the act or their
cooperation therein.
Case example: U.S. v. Hernandez
- The element of performance of official functions was
No conspiracy to commit an offense through negligence
present as regards one of the accused only; but the
● Since conspiracy presupposes an agreement and a
Court declared the other accused guilty of, and
decision to commit a felony, when it appears that the
sentenced him to the penalty for, the same crime
injuries inflicted on the offended party were due to
complexed with seduction which he actually
the reckless imprudence of two or more persons, it is
committed.
not proper to consider conspiracy between or
among them.
Case example: People v. Padilla
- Lewd designs on the part of the offender is an
Effect of criminal negligence or crimes punishable by
essential element of the crime of abduction. special law allowing or failing to prevent an act to be
- In a case of forcible abduction with rape where performed by another
accused conspired with his co-accused to forcibly ● By allowing or failing to prevent an act to be
abduct Carmen by dragging her out of the house performed by another, it makes one a co-principal.
where she was staying, boxing her, prying loose the
hold of her aunt on her, threatening to kill her if Case example: People v. Santos
anyone comes near, and standing guard to prevent - A professional driver of a passenger truck who
any intrusion as his co-accused raped Carmen. allowed his conductor to drive the truck which, while
- The accused’s claim that he did not direclty being driven by the latter, bumped a jeepney
participate in the abduction nor cooperated in the resulting in the death of one jeepney passenger, was
commision of the rape is belied by such facts. held criminally liable as co-principal of homicide and
- He is a co-principal not only by direct participation damage to property through reckless imprudence.
but also by cooperation.
Case example: U.S. v. Siy Cong Bieng and Co Kong
In multiple rape, each rapist is equally liable for the other - A storeowner was held criminally liable under the
rapes Pure Food and Drugs Act for the act of his employee,
● Each defendant is responsible not only for the rape in selling adulterated coffee, although the
personally committed by him, but also for the rape storeowner did not know that the coffee was sold by
committed by the others, because each of them his employee. Both the storeowner and the
cooperated in the commission of the rape employee were held liable as principals.
perpetrated by the others, by acts without which it
would not have been accomplished. Second Requisite: Principals by “Direct
Participation”*
Exceptions:
1) In the crime of parricide, the element of *That the culprits “carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution, by
relationship must be present as regards all the acts which directly tended to the same end.”
offenders.
The principals by direct participation must be at the scene
- The reason is that Article 62(3) provides that
of the crime, personally taking part in its execution
aggravating circumstances which arise from the
● A principal by direct participation must personally
private relations of the offender with the offended
take part in executing the criminal plan to be carried
party shall serve to aggravate only the liability of the
out.
principals, accomplices, and accessories as to whom
● He must be at the scene of the commission of the
such circumstances are attendant.
crime, personally taking part in its execution.

Case example: People v. Ong Chiat Lay ● There was also no evidence that there was
- One of the accused was not a principal by direct conspiracy between those who pleaded guilty and
participation because he was absent from the scene the present appellants. Mere passive presence at
of the fire when the crime of arson was committed by the scene of another’s crime does not constitute
the other accused. conspiracy.
Exception: Where there was conspiracy to kidnap and kill the When second requisite is lacking, there is only conspiracy
victim and only one of the conspirators kidnapped the victim ● If the second requisite is lacking, at most, there is
and, after turning him over to his co-conspirators for only a conspiracy among the several defendants
execution, left the spot where the victim was killed. The one who participated in the criminal resolution, and if the
who kidnapped the victim was liable for murder committed by crime they agreed and decided to commit is not
the others, because by kidnapping the victim, he already treason, rebellion or sedition, they are not criminally
performed his part and the killing was done by his liable.
co-conspirators in pursuance of the conspiracy.
Case example: People v. TImbol
Acts of each offender must directly tend to the same end ● Timbol, who merely conspired with his co-accused
● While the principals by direct participation to kill the deceased but left the place before his
personally take part in the execution of their co-accused began shooting the deceased, was
common purpose, it is not necessary that each of acquitted of the charge of murder.
them should perform a positive act directly
contributing to the accomplishment of their Principal by Induction
common purpose.
Article 17, Paragraph 2 — Those who directly force or induce others to commit
Case example: People v. Mandagay
it.
- The offenders previously agreed to commit, not only
the one who inflicts the fatal wound is considered a
principal, but also the one who holds down the victim Second class of principals – those who directly force or
and the one who lies in wait at the door to prevent induce others to commit the act; they are called “principals by
any help from being rendered. inducement” or “principals by induction.”
● The acts of each and every one of the offenders are
all directed to the same end, that is, the killing of Inducement – comprises price, promise of reward, command,
their victim. and pacto.
● Criminal responsibility in such a case is collective.
One who planned the crime committed by another is a
principal by inducement
One serving as guard pursuant to the conspiracy is a
principal by direct participation ● The persons who planned the crime committed by
other persons are guilty as authors by inducement.
Case example: People v. Canumay
- The appellants were part of the plot to rob the When does principal by induction become liable
victim. At the time of the robbery, they stood guard ● Principal by induction becomes liable only when the
outside the house, while their co-accused entered principal by direct participation committed the act
the victim’s dwelling. They are equally liable as the induced.
others. ● One cannot be held guilty of having instigated the
commission of the crime without first being shown
Case example: U.S. v. Reogilon that the crime was actually committed by another.
- One who stands guard outside the house for the
purpose of keeping others away, or of warning his Two ways of becoming principal by induction
fellow-conspirators of danger of discovery, while the
1) By directly “forcing” another to commit a crime.
latter are murdering the occupant, takes direct part
in the commission of the crime of murder, and is
guilty as a principal by direct participation.
- He is in fact present, aiding, and abetting in the
Exception (People v. Samano)

● The other accused admitted that they acted as NOTE: In these cases, there is no conspiracy, not even a unity of
guards near the place of the crime, but they did so in criminal purpose and intention. Only the one using force or causing
fear is criminally liable. The material executor is not criminally liable
obedience to superior orders and without knowledge
because of Article 12, pars. 5 and 6 (exempting circumstances of
that the deceased who was then under investigation irresistible force and uncontrollable fear).
would later be killed.
2) By directly “inducing” another to commit a crime.

Thoughtless expression without intention to produce the
result is not an inducement to commit a crime
● A chance word spoken without reflection, a wrong
appreciation of a situation, an ironical phrase, a
thoughtless act, may give birth to a thought of, or
even a resolution to, crime in the mind of one or
some independent reason predisposed thereto
without the one who spoke the word or performed
the act having any expectation that his suggestion
would be followed or any real intention that it
produce the result.
● In such case, while the expression was imprudent
Requisites and the results of it grave in the extreme, the one
1) The inducement be made directly with the intention who spoke the word or performed the act would not
of procuring the commission of the crime. be guilty of the crime committed by the other.
2) Such inducement be the determining cause of the
commission of the crime by the material executor. Case example: U.S. v. Indanan
- A person who advised a married woman whose
How to constitute inducement husband was very stingy and treated her badly that
● There must exist on the part of the inducer the most the only thing for her to do was to rob him, was not
positive resolution and the most persistent effort guilty of the crime of robbery by inducement, for the
to secure the commission of the crime, together reason that imprudent and ill-conceived advice is
with the presentation to the person induced of the not sufficient.
very strongest kind of temptation to commit the - The person who gave the advice did not have the
crime. intention to procure the commission of the crime.
First Requisite: “With intention” Forms of inducement

● The inducement and the commission of a crime
Illustration of the requisites whereby the inducer becomes a principal, to the
same extent and effect as if he had physically
People v. Otadora U.S. v. Alcotin committed the crime, may exist in acts of command,
sometimes of advice, or agreement for a
First When the accused, A married woman consideration, or through an influence so effective
requisite blinded by the grudge suggested to her paramour that it alone determines the commission of the
which she bore against that he kill her husband in
crime.
the deceased, caused her order that thereafter they
co-accused through might live together freely
Words of advice or influence must have actually move the
promise of pecuniary gain and the paramour, acting
hands of the principal by direct participation
to shoot the victims with a upon these suggestions,
● A person who persuaded an inexperienced boy of
gun which she had killed him. It was held that
furnished the latter, it is the proposition of the tender age to steal certain jewels of his grandmother
clear that she had the woman constituted was found guilty of theft by inducement.
intention of procuring the something more than mere ● Minors under 15 years of age are easily susceptible
commission of the crime. counsel or advice which to the suggestion of the inducer, because usually
her co-defendant was
they have no discernment or judgment of their own.
entirely free to accept or
● When induced to commit a crime, the influence of
not. It was coupled with a
the inducer is the determining cause of the
consideration which, in
view of the relations commission of the crime.
existing between them,
furnished a motive strong Case example: People v. Tamayo
enough to induce the man - Words of command of a father may induce his son to
to take the life of her commit a crime.
husband.
- A distinction should be made between the words of
command of a father to his sons, under conditions
Second The promise of pecuniary The proposition of the which determine obedience, and the excited
requisite gain as the determining woman, in view of the exclamations uttered by an individual to whom
cause of the commission relations existing between obedience is not due.
her and the other accused,
of the crime by the - The moral influence of the words of the father may
was the determining cause
principal by direct determine the course of conduct of a son in cases
of the commission of the
participation. crime by the latter. where the same words coming from a stranger would
make no impression.

command that had to be obeyed, does not make the
Case example: People v. Bautista utterer of a principal by inducement.
- The accused, who, exercising dominance and ● In determining whether the utterances of an
ascendancy over his 3-year-old son, compelled the accused are sufficient to make him guilty as
latter to hurl a stone at another boy, causing injury to co-principal by inducement, it must appear that the
the latter’s eye, is clearly a principal by inducement. inducement was of such nature and was made in
such a way as to become the determining cause of
Second Requisite: “Determining cause” the crime and that such inducement was uttered
● It is necessary that the inducement be the with the intention of producing the result.
determining cause of the commission of the crime ● The inciting words must have great dominance and
by the principal by direct participation, that is, influence over the person who acts; they ought to
without such inducement the crime would not have be direct and as efficacious or powerful as physical
been committed. or moral coercion or violence itself.
● Inducement exists if the command or advice is of
such a nature that, without its concurrence, the Requisites to hold liable a person using words of command
crime would not have materialized. as principal:
● If the principal by direct participation had personal
reason to commit the crime so that he would commit 1) The one uttering the words of command must
it just the same even if no inducement was made by have the intention of procuring the commission of
another, this second requisite does not exist. the crime.
Inducement must precede the act induced and must be so 2) The one who made the command must have an
influential in producing the criminal act that without it, the ascendancy or influence over the person who
act would not have been performed acted.
● The price given to the principal by direct
participation after the commission of the crime, Example: A was a poor, ignorant fisherman,
without prior promise to give a price or reward, could dependent upon his uncle B, who was a man of great
not be an inducement. influence in the community. B was the local political
● If the person who actually committed the crime had leader of his party. In the meeting where the plan to
a reason of his own to commit the crime, it cannot be murder the priest was discussed, B was the prime
said that the inducement was influential in mover and the dominant figure, and selected A to
producing the criminal act. commit the crime and directed him to do it. The
● In such a case, the one charged with having induced influence exercised by B over A was so great and
the commission of the crime is not criminally liable. powerful that the latter could not resist.
Case example: People v. Castillo 3) The words used must be so direct, so efficacious,
- Before the commission of the crime, Castillo was so powerful as to amount to physical or moral
slapped on the face by the now-deceased Vargas as coercion.
a result of an altercation between them. Two months
after, while appellant, holding gun, was talking Example:
face-to-face with Vargas, Castillo came from behind a) Efficacious: One who makes the accused
and hacked the latter on the head. believe that the person to be killed was the
- As Castillo was about to strike the victim a second one who had stolen the property of the
blow, appellant: “You kill him.” Castillo, accompanied accused, is guilty as principal by
by appellant, surrendered himself to the authorities. inducement. It would seem that the
- It was held that appellant was armed with a revolver material executor had a reason to kill the
while talking with the deceased, but the firearm was victim, but it was furnished by the inductor
not pointed at the latter. Then, he is alleged to have who made him believe that the deceased
uttered the words “You kill him” only after his son had had stolen his property.
already fatally boloed Vargas on the head. b) Powerful
- Therefore, inducement to commit the crime was no
longer necessary to induce to commit the crime. 4) The words of command must be uttered prior to
Appellant’s guilt has not been established beyond the commission of the crime.
reasonable doubt. ● When the commission of the crime has
already been commenced when the words
By using words of command of inducement are uttered, this requisite is
● Command must be the moving cause of the offense.
lacking.
● “Kill him and we will bury him” as an imprudent
utterance said in the excitement of the hour or in the Case example: People v. Kiichi
heat of anger, and not, rather, in the nature of a

- A father who simply said to his son who - The employee was not criminally liable because he
was at the time engaged in combat with had no knowledge of the falsity of the facts supplied
another, “Hit him,” was not responsible for by the accused.
the injuries inflicted after such advice was
given. Difference between principal by inducement and offender who
made proposal to commit a felony
5) The material executor of the crime has no
personal reason to commit the crime. Principal by inducement Offender who made
● If the principal by direct participation has a proposal to commit felony
personal reason to commit the crime, the
supposed words of inducement cannot be There is an inducement to commit a crime.
the determining cause.
Becomes liable only when The mere proposal to
the crime is committed by commit a felony is
Case example: People v. Tamayo
the principal by direct punishable in treason or
- The question whether a person present upon the
participation. rebellion.
occasion of homicide but who takes no direct part in
the act can be held criminally liable for inciting and The person to whom the
encouraging another with expressions (e.g., “go proposal is made should not
ahead,” “hit him,” “there you have him,” “now is time), commit the crime;
depends upon whether such words are spoken otherwise, the proponent
becomes a principal by
under conditions which give them a direct and
inducement.
determinative influence upon the mind of the
principal actor. The inducement involves The proposal to be
any crime. punishable must involve
Ascendancy or influence as to amount to moral coercion is only treason or rebellion.
not necessary when there is conspiracy
● It is essential to show that the advisor had so great
Effects of acquittal of principal by direct participation upon
an ascendancy or influence that his words were so
the liability of principal by inducement
efficacious and powerful as to amount to moral 1) Conspiracy is negatived by the acquittal of
coercion. Proof of such extremes is usually required co-defendant.
to justify such conclusion. 2) One cannot be held guilty of having instigated the
● But such proof is unnecessary where the principal commission of the crime without first being shown
actor admits having been impelled and says that he that the crime has been actually committed by
acted pursuant to a previous plan or conspiracy to another.
kill and promise to condone his indebtedness.
But if the one charged as principal by direct

Effect when the crime committed is not contemplated in
participation is acquitted because he acted without
the order given
criminal intent or malice, his acquittal is not a ground
● If the crime committed is not contemplated in the
for the acquittal of the principal by inducement.
order given, the inducement is not material and not
the determining cause thereof.
Reason for the rule: In exempting circumstances,
● To hold a person liable as principal by induction, it is
such as when the act is not voluntary because of
necessary (1) that the inducement is material and
lack of intent on the part of the accused, there is a
precedes the commission of the crime, and (2) that
crime committed, only that the accused is not a
such inducement is the determining cause thereof.
criminal. In intentional felonies, the act of a person
does not make him criminal unless his mind be
Principal by inducement in falsification
criminal.
Case example: People v. Po Giok
- While it is true that it was the employee of the office Possessor of recently stolen property is a principal
● Section 5(j), Rule 131, of the Rules of Court, provides
of the treasurer who performed the overt act of
that the possessor of a recently stolen article is
writing the false facts on the residence certificate of
considered a principal, not merely as an accessory or
the accused, it was, however, the accused who
an accomplice, unless he proves in a satisfactory
induced him to do so by supplying him with those
manner that he is but an accessory or an accomplice
facts. The accused was a principal by inducement.
thereto and that another person, from whom the
- The employee was a mere innocent agent of the
article came, is the one who stole it from the owner
accused in the performance of the act constituting
thereof.
the crime.
Principal by Indispensable Cooperation

Article 17, Paragraph 3 — Those who cooperate in the commission of the
- It was held that C cooperated in the perpetration of
offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished. the crime by acts without which its commission
would not have been accomplished.
Cooperate – to desire or wish in common a thing. But that
common will or purpose does not necessarily mean previous
Case example: U.S. v. Lim Buanco
- R, an employee of a bank, had the duty to examine
understanding, for it can be explained or inferred from the
the account of the drawer of a check, to determine
circumstances of each case.
whether or not the drawer of the check had
Requisites sufficient balance to his credit to require the

1) Participation in the criminal resolution, that is, there payment of the check, and to indorse upon the
is either anterior conspiracy or unity of criminal check, if it was entitled to payment, the words
purpose and intention immediately before the
“Corriente, P.O. Luciano de los Reyes.”
- After the check was marked in this manner, it would
commission of the crime charged.
pass to the cashier who, in reliance upon the
2) Cooperation in the commission of the offense by
indorsement, would pay or order the same to be
performing another act, without which it would not
paid. R, in connivance with B, and knowing that the
have been accomplished.
latter had no sufficient funds in the bank, indorsed
upon a check drawn by B the words “Corriente, P.O.
First Requisite: Participation in the criminal resolution
Luciano de los Reyes.”
● This co-delinquency in paragraph 3 requires
- The cashier, relying upon the indorsement, ordered
participation in the criminal resolution, that is, there
the payment of the check, and thus enabling B to
must be conspiracy.
draw the amount of the check. In this case, R was a
● But concurrence with the principal by direct
principal by indispensable cooperation.
participation in the purpose of the latter is sufficient
because the cooperation is indispensable to the
“Another act” as shown in the two cases above
accomplishment of the offense.
Q: May there be cooperation by acts of negligence? Javier case Lim Buanco case
A: One who, by acts of negligence, cooperates in the
The act of cooperation is The act of cooperation of
commission of the estafa through falsification or malversation
the forcible taking of the girl the other offender is the
through falsification, without which negligent acts the
to the place where the rape certification that the check
commission of the crime could not have been accomplished, is was committed by the other was entitled to payment.
a co-principal. But the one who cooperated in the commission accused.
of the crime was held guilty of the same crime through The act of execution of the
reckless imprudence. In rape, the act of execution crime estafa committed by
is the sexual intercourse the principal by direct
with the woman against her participation is the
Second Requisite: Cooperation by another act
will. fraudulent cashing of the
● The cooperation must be indispensable, that is, check which resulted in the
without which the commission of the crime would damage to the bank.
not have been accomplished.
● If the cooperation is not indispensable, the offender
*If the cooperation of one of the accused consists in
is only an accomplice.
performing an act necessary in the execution of the crime
● The act of the principal by indispensable committed, he is a principal by direct participation.
cooperation should be different from the act of the
principal by direct participation. Liability of conspirators who took turns in raping a girl
● The law says “by another act,” which means that it ● Four persons each took turns in having sexual
should not be the act of one who could be classified intercourse with a girl by force. It was held that each
as principal by direct participation. of them is responsible, not only for the act of rape
committed by the others, because while one of them
Case example: U.S. v. Javier was having sexual intercourse with the girl, the
- C seized the hands of a 12-year-old girl, dragged her others were holding her, so that each one of them
by force and violence to a place behind a house cooperated in the consummation of the rape
where there were some trees whence he called to committed by the others by acts without which it
his confederate, J, the person chiefly interested in could not have been accomplished. Four sentences
the perpetration of the crime, with whom C must were imposed on each accused.
have had an agreement beforehand, delivered her to
him upon his arrival at the place, and then went away To be liable as principals, the offender must fall under any
from the scene of the crime so that J might freely of the three concepts defined in Article 17
consummate the pre-arranged rape, as the latter did ● The SC of Spain held that a person who assists one
with violence and intimidation. who commits the crime of arson and who knows the
latter’s purpose, but whose participation in the arson

is not disclosed, may not be considered as a ● The participation or cooperation of the accomplice is
principal because his acts were neither direct nor not any one of those mentioned in Article 17, which
absolutely necessary for the commission of the defines the three concepts of principles. An
offense nor did it induce the said commission. accomplice does not fall under any of such three
● In another decision, it said that where the accused concepts.
accompanied the killer on a road where the victim ● When there is no conspiracy between or among the
was going to pass and with open knife encouraged defendants but they were animated by one and the
him (the killer) with his presence, the former is not same purpose to accomplish the criminal objective,
guilty of the crime as principal because his those who cooperated by previous or simultaneous
participation is neither direct nor does it constitute acts but cannot be held liable as principals are
the inducement necessary to bring about the accomplices.
execution of the crime or that of cooperation as his
acts is not indispensable in the commission of the In case of doubt as to whether principal or accomplice
crime. ● The participation of the offender will be considered
that of an accomplice rather than that of a
Collective criminal responsibility — when the offenders are principal.
criminally liable in the same manner and to the same extent. ● Mere presence at the scene of the incident,
The penalty to be imposed must be the same for all. knowledge of the plan and acquiescence thereto are
not sufficient grounds to hold a person as a
Individual criminal responsibility conspirator.
● In the absence of previous conspiracy, unity of ● Lacking sufficient evidence of conspiracy and there
criminal purpose and intention immediately before being doubt as to whether appellant acted as a
the commission of the crime, or community of principal or just a mere accomplice, the doubt should
criminal design, the criminal responsibility arising be resolved in his favor, and thus held liable only as
from different acts directed against one and the an accomplice.
same person is individual and not collective, and ● Where the quantum of proof required to establish
each of the participants is liable only for the act conspiracy is lacking, the doubt created as to
committed by him. whether the appellant acted as principal or as
accomplice will always be resolved in favor of the
Example: The deceased was the one who assaulted a group of milder form of criminal liability— that of a mere
three individuals with a knife, and in the course of an accomplice.
incomplete self-defense, two of them caused less serious
physical injuries upon the assailant, while the third inflicted Case example: People v. Clemente
the fatal wound. In this case, the party who inflicted the fatal - In the case of Carlos and Pascual Clemente, while
wound would be the only one responsible as principal for the they joined their brother in the pursuit of the fleeing
crime of homicide; the other two would be held liable only for Matnog, and in the attack on him as he fell, yet the
less serious physical injuries. prosecution eyewitness was unable to assert
positively that the two managed to hit the fallen
man.
Accomplices
- There being no showing of conspiracy, and the
extent of their participation in the homicide being
ARTICLE 18. Accomplices. — Accomplices are the persons who, not being uncertain, they should be given the benefit of the
included in Article 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or
simultaneous acts. doubt, and consequently, they are declared to be
mere accomplices in the crime.
Quasi-collective criminal responsibility – that which is

When the participation of an accused is not disclosed, he is
between collective criminal responsibility and individual
only an accomplice
criminal responsibility; some of the offenders in the crime are
● A person who assists one who commits the crime of
principals and the others are accomplices.
arson and who knows the latter’s purpose, but
whose participation in the arson is not disclosed,
Participation of an accomplice presupposes the
may not be considered as a principal, because his
commission of the crime by the principal by direct
acts are neither direct nor absolutely necessary for
participation
● The principal element of every punishable complicity the commission of the offense, nor do they induce
consists in the concurrence of the will of the the said commission.
accomplice with the will of the author of the crime, ● In criminal cases, the participation of the accused
and the accomplice cooperates by previous or must be established by the prosecution by positive
simultaneous acts in the execution of the offense by and competent evidence. It cannot be presumed.
the principal.
Penalty imposed on accomplice
“Not being included in Article 17.”

● An accomplice does not enter into a conspiracy with his role in the penetration of the homicide or murder
the principal by direct participation. He does not was, relatively speaking, of a minor character.
have previous arrangement or understanding with - This ruling failed to distinguish between “community
the principal to commit a crime. But he participates of design” and “participation in the criminal
to a certain point in the common criminal design. resolution” of two or more offenders.
● If there is conspiracy, all the conspirators are equally
liable for the crime actually committed by any one of Difference between “community of design” and “participation
them. The same penalty shall be imposed on each in the criminal resolution”
and everyone of them.
● On the other hand, the accomplice gets a penalty Participation in the Community of design
one degree lower than that provided for the principal criminal resolution
in a consummated felony.
Implies conspiracy. Does not necessarily mean
Difference between accomplice and conspirator that there is conspiracy
(although it may develop
into a conspiracy).
Conspirator Accomplice
If a malefactor entered with If there was no such

They know and agree with the criminal design.
the others into an agreement and decision,
agreement concerning the but knowing the criminal
Knows the criminal Comes to know about it
design of the others, the
intention because they after the principals have commission of a felony and
malefactor merely
themselves have decided reached the decision, and the decision to commit it,
concurred in their criminal
upon such course of action. only then do they agree to the malefactor and the purpose, there is only
cooperate in its execution.
others participated in the community of design.
criminal resolution. Such
Decides that a crime should Merely concurs in it
agreement and decision The malefactor, whose role
be committed.
may be inferred from the in the perpetration of the
They do not decide whether
homicide or murder is of a
the crime should be facts and circumstances of
minor character, may
committed; they merely the case. properly be held liable as
assent to the plan and
accomplice.
cooperate in its
accomplishment.
Requisites for a person to be considered an accomplice
Authors of a crime. Merely instruments who 1) There be community of design; that is, knowing the
perform acts not essential criminal design of the principal by direct
to the perpetration of the
participation, he concurs with the latter in his
offense.
purpose.
2) He cooperates in the execution of the offense by
May a co-conspirator be held liable as an accomplice only? previous or simultaneous acts, with the intention of
supplying material or moral aid in the execution of
Case example
the crime in an efficacious way.
- The Court held that it is true, strictly speaking, that
3) There be a relation between the acts done by the
as co-conspirators, Dablen and Rojas should be
principal and those attributed to the person charged
punished as co-principals.
as accomplice.
- However, since their participation was not absolutely
indispensable to the consummation of the murder,
First Requisite: Concurs with the principal
the rule that the court should favor the milder form
● Before there could be an accomplice, there must be
of liability may be applied to them.
a principal by direct participation. But the principal
originates the criminal design, the accomplice
Case example: People v. Anin
- It was held that if the overt acts of the accused, merely concurs with the principal in his criminal
although done with knowledge of the criminal intent purpose.
of his co-accused was not indispensable to the ● The cooperation which the law punishes is the
homicidal assault, the accused should be held liable assistance which is knowingly or intentionally given
only as an accomplice in the killing of the victim. and which is not possible without previous
knowledge of the criminal purpose.
Case example: People v. Nierra
- In some exceptional situations, having community of Case example: U.S. v. Bello
design with the principal does not prevent a - The sentry improperly permitted certain convicts to
malefactor from being regarded as an accomplice if go out of jail, accompanied by the corporal of the
guards. The convicts committed robbery.

- The sentry is not liable as an accomplice in the crime commission of the crime of theft by his
of robbery committed by the convicts. When the co-defendants. He did not enter into any conspiracy
sentry permitted the convicts to go at large, the or arrangement with them looking to the commission
sentry had no knowledge of their intention to of the crime of theft of the horses. He did not receive
commit any crime. any share of the proceeds of the sale of the horses.
- Limbo was liable only for the theft of the blank
Case example: People v. Lingad certificates, but he was neither a principal, an
- The driver of a taxicab who, knowing that his accomplice, nor an accessory in the crime of theft of
co-accused were going to make a hold-up, permitted the horses committed by other defendants.
them to use the taxicab driven by him in going to a
store where his said co-accused staged the hold-up, Community of design
and waited for them until after the hold-up, is an ● The community of design need not be to commit the
accomplice in the crime of robbery. crime actually committed. It is sufficient if there was
a common purpose to commit a particular crime and
How an accomplice acquires knowledge of the criminal that the crime actually committed was a natural or
design of the principal probable consequence of the intended crime.
1) When the principal informs or tells the accomplice of
the former’s criminal purpose. Case example: People v, Maliao, et al.
2) When the accomplice saw the criminal acts of the - The accused facilitated the commission of the crime
principal. by providing his own house as the venue thereof. His
presence throughout the commission of the heinous
Concurrence with the criminal purpose of another may offense, without him doing anything to prevent the
make one a co-principal malefactors or help the victim, indubitably show
● Even if only one of the offenders originated the
community of design and cooperation, although he
criminal design and the other merely concurred with
had no direct participation in the execution thereof.
him in his criminal purpose, but before the actual
Accused is guilty as accomplice in the crime of rape
commission of the crime both of them agreed and
with homicide.
decided to commit it, the other is not merely an
accomplice.
Second Requisite: Cooperation by previous or
● He is also a principal, because having agreed and
simultaneous acts
decided to commit a felony with another, he
● Like the principal by cooperation under Article 17(3),
becomes a co-conspirator.
the accomplice cooperates with the principal by
direct participation, but the cooperation of an
No knowledge of the criminal design of the principal is not
accomplice is only necessary, not indispensable.
an accomplice
● However, if there is conspiracy between two or
among several persons, even if the cooperation of
Case example: People v. Ibañez
- There is no proof that they pursued Cosme because one offender is only necessary, the latter is also a
they had accepted a challenge coming from him. principal by conspiracy. The nature of the
Apparently, their intention was only to prevent him cooperation becomes immaterial.
from taking from his house a weapon with which to
Cooperation by an accomplice:
carry out an attack. Therefore, they were just
advancing a legitimate defense by preventing an
1) By previous acts
illegitimate aggression.
- Sixto’s act of holding Cosme’s neck from behind is no
Example: The lending of a dagger or pistol to the
proof of intention to kill. At that time, he did not know
murder, knowing the latter’s criminal purpose.
yet what his brother’s intention was. It was not
shown that Sixto knew that his brother was armed.
Example: In the crime of rape, the pharmacist who,
knowing the criminal purpose of another, furnishes
Case example: U.S. v. Flores
him the drug with which he will put his victim to sleep
- Limbo, who was an employee of the Bureau of
in order to rape her, is also an accomplice in the
Printing, stole several bank certificates used for the
crime.
registration of large cattle from the bookbinding
department and sold them to one of his
2) By simultaneous acts
co-defendants, Flores, for the sum of ₱15 each.
These registration certificates were used by Flores
Case example: People v. Escarro
in effecting a sale of the two horses for the theft of
- The defendant who held one of the hands
which they were convicted.
of the victim and tried to take away the
- Limbo took no part, direct or indirect, either in the
latter’s revolver, while his co-defendant
stealing of the horses or in selling them after they
was attacking him, is an accomplice, for he
had been stolen. He had no knowledge of the

cooperated in the execution of the crime sympathy or feeling of camaraderie with the other
by simultaneous acts without any previous accused.
agreement or understanding with his
co-defendant. Wounds inflicted by an accomplice in crimes against
persons should not have caused the death of victim
Case example: People v. Crisostomo ● The person charged as an accomplice should not
- The three persons who actually detained have inflicted a moral wound. If he inflicted a mortal
the offended woman were principals in the wound, he becomes a principal by direct
crime of illegal detention and the three participation.
other accused who held the victim’s
companion, in order to prevent the latter Case example: U.S. v. Zalsos
from rendering any help to the victim, were - When Z cut the deceased on the neck with a bolo
accomplices, there being no conspiracy and afterward R likewise ave the deceased another
among them. blow on the neck, both wounds inflicted being
mortal, even if only R originated the intention to
The cooperation of an accomplice is not due to a assault the deceased while Z did no more than to
conspiracy assist the action of the initiator of the crime, the two
must be considered as co-principals and therefore
Case example: People v. Francisco both are responsible for the crime perpetrated.
- The companions of Francisco (Berganio, Badua,
Dasalla, and Tagasa) cannot be convicted as Rules in such a case where the other accused were held to
principals because of the failure of the prosecution be mere accomplice because the wounds inflicted by them
to prove the existence of conspiracy between them were not the cause of death
and Francisco. 1) The one who had the original criminal design is the
- But they are not entirely free from criminal liability one who committed the resulting crime.
for the reason that they helped Francisco in bringing 2) The accomplice, after concurring in the criminal
Corpus from the municipal building to the PC purpose of the principal, cooperates by previous or
detachment and ultimately to Barrio Raniag. These simultaneous acts.
acts constitute corporation by “simultaneous or 3) The accomplice in crimes against persons does not
previous acts.” inflict the more or most serious wounds.
Case example: People v. Manzano Degree of cooperation

- Once it is postulated that one of the three accused 1) Moral – through advice, encouragement
had conspired with his co-accused to kill the victim, 2) Material – through external acts.
he cannot be regarded only as an accomplice.
Case example: People v. Silvestre and Atienza
Instances when the acts of the accused are not indispensable - There is no evidence of moral or material
in the killing, thus they are merely accomplices: cooperation, and none of an agreement to commit
a) The act of one, blocking people coming to the aid of the crime in question.
the victim while being assailed is undoubtedly one of - Romana’s mere presence and silence, while they are
help and cooperation to the assailants. But, it is not simultaneous acts, do not constitute cooperation,
indispensable to the stabbing of the victim. for it does not appear that they encouraged or
b) One who acted as a look-out or guard and also nerved her co-accused Martin to commit the crime
assisted in taking the stole articles in the crime of of arson; her failure to give alarm, being a
robbery with homicide, absent a conspiracy. subsequent act, does not make her liable as an
accomplice.
Instances when accomplices merely supply the principal with
material or moral aid without conspiracy with the latter: How the responsibility of the accomplice is determined
a) The evidence does not prove that appellant ● It is to be determined by acts of aid and assistance,
conspired with the malefactors, he cannot be either prior to or simultaneous with the commission
considered as a principal. However, in going with of the crime, rendered knowingly for the principal
them, knowing their criminal intention, and in staying therein, and not by the mere fact of having present
outside of the house with them while the others at its execution, unless the object of such presence
went inside the store to rob and kill the victim. was to encourage the principal or to apparently or
b) Act of one of the accused in inflicting wound upon really increase the odds against the victim.
the victim several times with a small knife only after ● Such an intent, concurring with some overt act,
the latter had fallen to the ground seriously must be specifically shown by the evidence of the
wounded, if not already dead, is not necessary and prosecution.
indispensable for the consummation of the criminal ● The advice, encouragement, or agreement should
assault but merely a show-off or expression of not be the determining cause of the commission of
the crime by the principal by direct participation;

otherwise, the one who gave the advice or means employed to accomplish it (among them
encouragement or the one who entered into the being treachery), shall serve to aggravate the
agreement would be a principal by inducement. liability (or qualify the crime) only of those persons
● When the accomplice gives an advice or who had knowledge of them at the time of the
encouragement to, or enters into an agreement with execution of the act or their cooperation therein.
the principal, he knows the principal is going to
commit the crime. Case example: People v. Valdellon
- A, a NARIC guard, asked C to help him (A) remove
Third Requisite: Relation between the criminal act of the from the NARIC warehouse some sacks of rice
principal and the act of the accomplice belonging to the NARIC, and sold them to D.
● It is not enough that a person entertains an identical - The qualifying circumstance of grave abuse of
criminal design as that of the principal. confidence which in the case of A makes the crime
● There must be a relation between the criminal act of qualified theft does not apply to C, who was not in
the principal by direct participation and that of the confidential relations with the NARIC. C is guilty was
person charged as accomplice. accomplice in the commission of the crime of simple
theft only.
Case example: People v. De la Cruz
- A young lady was attacked by Reyes, her suitor, by Case example: People v. Doble
throwing her on the ground and passing his hand - Where the appellants may be said to have joined
over her body. When they learned of the incident, only in the plan to rob, by providing the banca used in
the parents of both parties agreed that the father of the robbery, which makes them accomplices, they
Reyes would punish him. are not liable for the killing committed by the
- The brother of the young lady, not knowing of such principals in the course of the robbery.
agreement, armed himself with a pistol and looked - Having been left in the banca, they could not have
for Reyes to avenge the honor of his sister. In the tried to prevent the killing, as is required of one
house of the young lady, where Reyes was about to seeking relief from liability for assaults committed
be punished, she immediately stabbed him on the during the robbery.
chest with a pen-knife. At the time, the brother of - Article 62(3) provides that aggravating
the young lady was under the house, again with his circumstances which arise from the private relations
pistol, waiting for Reyes to come down in order to kill of the offender with the offended party shall
him. For the death of Reyes, the brother of the young aggravate the liability (or qualify the crime) of the
lady was accused as accomplice. principals, accomplices and accessories as to whom
- There can be no liability by reason of complicity if such circumstances are attendant.
there is no relation between the criminal act of the
principal by direct participation and that of the
person charged as accomplice. Accomplice as distinguished from principal in general
● One who does not take a direct part in the
- The most that could be said against the brother of
commission of the act, who does not force or induce
the young lady, is that he intended to kill the
others to commit it, or who does not cooperate in
deceased but, even then, he did nothing in the commission of the crime by another act without
connection with his sister's act of attacking and which it would not have been accomplished, yet
killing said deceased. cooperates in the execution of the act by previous or
simultaneous actions.
Accomplice may be liable for a crime different from that
which the principal committed Accomplice as distinguished from principal by cooperation
● The participation of the offender in a case of
complicity, although necessary, is not indispensable
Case example: People v. Babiera
as in the case of a co-principal by cooperation.
- A attacked B with treachery, the attack being sudden
and unexpected. When B was mortally wounded, C, Example: If one lends his dagger or pistol to a murderer fully
father of A, appeared, placed himself upon B’s knowing that the latter will commit murder, he undoubtedly
abdomen, and held his hands. Later, D also appeared cooperates in the commission of the crime of murder with a
and held both knees of B, C and D made it possible previous act which, however, cannot be considered
indispensable for the reason that even though the offender
for A to search the body of B for the latter’s revolver.
did not lend his dagger or pistol, the murderer could have
- It was not shown that C and D knew the manner A
obtained it somewhere else or from some other person. The
attacked B. What they knew was that A had participation of the offender is that of an accomplice by virtue
unlawfully attacked and wounded B. It was held that of the provisions of this article.
A was guilty of murder qualified by treachery, and C
and D were guilty as accomplices in the crime of Case example: People v. Templonuevo
- Where the accused struck the deceased on the
homicide.
forehead with a piece of wood, rendering the latter
- Article 62(4) provides that the circumstances which
unconscious, thereby facilitating the subsequent
consist in the material execution of the act or in the slaying of the deceased by the other accused, the

former must be deemed responsible as an c) By assisting in the escape or concealment of the
accomplice in the killing. principal of the crime, provided he acts with abuse of
- The accused who struck the deceased on the his public functions or the principal is guilty of
forehead must have knowledge of the intention of
treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the
the other accused to kill the deceased before he
life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be
struck the deceased.
- If he had no such knowledge, he is not an accomplice habitually guilty of some other crime.
in the killing of the deceased. He is principal by direct
participation in the crime he personally committed, Provision breakdown:
say, physical injuries. “Having knowledge.”
● An accessory must have knowledge of the
Case example: People v. Geronimo commission of the crime, and having that
- While the act of holding the victim by Romeo was
knowledge, he took part subsequent to its
one of help and cooperation, it is not indispensable
for the commission of the offense by the others who commission.
bolo the victim, as the hacking could have been ● In the absence of positive proof, direct or
committed just the same without his holding the circumstantial, of his knowledge that the goods
victim. Romeo is only an accomplice. were of illegal origin or fraudulently acquired by the
- If there was conspiracy between Romeo and the vendors at the time of the transaction, a customer
others, he would be liable as principal,
who purchases such goods cannot be held
notwithstanding the fact that his cooperation was
criminally responsible as accessory.
not indispensable.
Accomplice as distinguished from a principal by direct Example: If A buys a stolen property, not knowing
participation that it was stolen, he is not liable.
Mere possession of stolen property does not make the

Principal by direct Accomplice accused an accessory where the thief was already
participation convicted
● The legal principle that unexplained possession of
There is community of criminal design. stolen articles is sufficient evidence to convict one
of theft is not applicable where the principal or
As to the acts performed, there is no clear-cut distinction author of the robbery has already been convicted
between the acts of the accomplice and those of the
and when there is no proof that the alleged
principal by direct participation. That is why, in case of
accessory knew of the commission of the crime and
doubt, it shall be resolved in favor of lesser responsibility,
that is, that of mere accomplice. that he profited himself by its proceeds.
● It is within the realm of possibilities that he received
There must be conspiracy There is no conspiracy it honestly, in the legal course of transactions
between or among between the principals and without knowing that it was stolen.
principals liable for the the accomplices. ● If there has been no one convicted as the thief, the
same offense.
possessor should be prosecuted as principal of the
crime of theft.
Accessories
Entertaining suspicion that a crime has been committed is
not enough
ARTICLE 19. Accessories. — Accessories are those who, having knowledge of
the commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as ● Entertaining suspicion that something (e.g.,
principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the carabao) is a stolen object, is not of itself proof of
following manners:
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the knowledge that a crime has been committed.
effects of the crime; ● “Knowledge” and “suspicion” are not synonymous
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime or the effects or
instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery; terms.
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the
principal of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of
his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty Suspicion – the imagination of the existence of something
of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the
without proof, or upon very slight evidence, or upon no
Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other
crime. evidence at all.
Case example: People v. Batuampo

Accessory — one which does not participate in the criminal
- If the accused had entertained some suspicion, it
design, nor cooperate in the commission of the felony, but,
was only at that time when the truck driven by him
with the knowledge of the commission of the crime, he
with its load of a carabao had already left the
subsequently takes part in three ways:
camarin and on the way to Lantangan. But his
a) By profiting from the effects of the crime
suspicion was merely the product of his imagination
b) By concealing the body, effects, or instruments of
founded on a fact that of itself, and under ordinary
the crime in order to prevent its discovery
circumstances, will not give rise to a belief that the
carabao was stolen, because transporting at

nighttime is not an uncommon happening in Seeing B fall to the ground as a result of the fatal
everyday life, especially when the trip was done in blow made by A, C, and D hit B with a piece of wood
obedience to an order of his superior which he each was carrying. When B died, A, C, and D buried
the corpse to prevent the authorities from
cannot ignore or disobey.
discovering the crime. A cannot be held liable as
- The suspicion of Batuampo, under the
accessory because he already participated as
circumstances, was but a flickering thought based principal. C and D are also not accessories because
on nothing more than the product of imagination. they already participated as accomplices.
Upon the foregoing facts, it was held that the
appellant is entitled to acquittal. “Take part subsequent to its commission.”
● The accessory takes part after the crime has been
committed.
Knowledge of the commission of crime may be acquired
● Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of Article 19, which describe
subsequent to the acquisition of stolen property
the different acts of the accessory, refer to those
acts performed after the crime had been committed.
Case example: U.S. v. Montano
- The robbers took and carried away carabaos Specific acts of accessories
belonging to another. These animals were found in
the possession of A who acquired them without 1) By profiting themselves or assisting the offender
knowing that they had been illegally taken. When to profit by the effects of the crime.
the owners of the carabaos informed A that they
were illegally deprived of their animals, A demanded
“By profiting Examples:
the payment of one-half of what he had paid for
themselves by a) A person who received any property
them. the effects of from another, and used it, knowing
- The owners promised to come back with the money. the crime.” that the same had been stolen, is
When the owners came back, A informed them that guilty of the crime of theft as an
he had returned the animals to the persons from accessory.
whom he had bought them. b) In murder, one who shared in the
- To declare the accused guilty as accessory, it is not reward given for the commission of
necessary that he should have acquired the the crime profited by the effects of
property, knowing at that time that it had been the crime.
stolen. It is sufficient that after acquiring that Example of not an accessory:
knowledge, he concealed or disposed of the c) One who received ₱200 from the
owner of a stolen jeep, as a reward for
property, thereby depriving the owner thereof.
locating it in possession of someone
who had bought it, is not an
Knowledge of the commission of crime may be established
accessory, because the amount of
by circumstantial evidence
₱200 was in the nature of a reward
and not fruits or effects of the crime.
Case example: People v. Dalena
- When a person knew that his co-accused had no
legitimate business; that some of the goods were Accessory should not take the property without the
taken to him as early as 5:00 to 6:00 AM; and that consent of the principal.
said co-accused was neither a barber nor the owner ● In profiting by the effects of the crime, the
of a sari-sari store such as would induce in him a accessory must receive the property from the
rational belief that the latter’s possession of said principal. He should not take it without the consent
goods (among them barber’s utensils) was of the principal.
legitimate; the conclusion is that he had knowledge ● If he took it without the consent of the principal, he
of their illegal source. is not an accessory but a principal in the crime of
theft.
“Commission of the crime.” ● Theft may be committed by taking with intent to
● The crime committed by the principal must be gain, personal property from one who stole it,
proved beyond reasonable doubt. without the latter’s consent.
Case example: People v. Pardito When punished as an act of principal, not act of accessory
- Where it is doubtful whether a woman killed her
● Profiting by the effects of the crime punished as the
husband maliciously, as it is possible that she might
act of principal when a person knowingly acquired or
have acted in self-defense, the fact that their
servant took part in the burial of the deceased in a received property taken by the brigands.
secluded place would not make the servant an
accessory in parricide, an offense which was not
“Assisting the Examples:
conclusively proven.
offender to a) A person who receives any property
profit by the from another, which he knows to have
“Without having participated therein either as principals or effects of the
accomplices.” been stolen, and sells the same for
crime.”
● For example, A attacked and fatally wounded B.

the thief to whom he gives the Article 19(2).
proceeds of the sale, is guilty of the
crime of theft as an accessory.
There must be an attempt to hide the body of the crime
b) In kidnapping for ransom, those who
acted as runners or couriers in
obtaining the ransom money Case example: People v. De la Cruz
assisted the offenders to profit by - According to A.R.’s affidavit– the only evidence
the effects of the crime. against him– he was merely ordered to board the
jeepney, not knowing, not even suspecting, the
c) One who takes part in cattle rustling
by profiting himself by its effects with reason or purpose of the ride. He did not take part in
knowledge of the crime is only an the killing, neither did he profit by it, nor try to
accessory after the fact. conceal the same from the authorities.
- It is true that he helped his companions in removing
the two dead bodies from the jeepney and throwing
Accessory should not be in conspiracy with the principal
them into the ditch; but there was no attempt to
bury or hide said bodies, not even cover them with
Case example: U.S. v. Tan Tiap Co
grass or bushed.
- A conspired with others to steal certain goods in the
- The evident design and plan of the culprits as
customhouse. A agreed to pay, as in fact he paid
unfolded during the trial was not to hide the bodies,
them, a substantial sum of money upon delivery of
but to just leave them on the roadside so as to make
the stolen goods in his warehouse from the wagons
it appear that the two victims were killed by Huks in
in which his co-conspirators loaded the goods at the
an encounter with th Government forces.
customhouse.
- It was held that A was guilty of the crime of theft as a
Concealing or destroying the effects or instruments of the
principal and not merely as an accessory.
crime to prevent its discovery
● A person who received personal property knowing
2) By concealing or destroying the body of the crime that it had been stolen, for the purpose of
to prevent its discovery. concealing the same, as in fact he concealed it, is
● The crime committed by the principal guilty of the crime of theft as an accessory.
under this paragraph may be any crime, ● He is guilty of the crime of homicide as an accessory,
provided it is not a light felony. under Article 19(2), who received a pistol or a knife,
knowing that it had been used in killing the
“Body of the Definition: same as corpus delicti, which deceased, and concealed it.
crime.” means that a specific offense was in fact ● The stolen property is the effect of the crime. The
committed by someone. pistol or knife is the instrument of the crime.
● A person who destroyed the latter which he knew
Examples:
had been used by another in climbing the wall of the
a) Those who assist in the burial of the
victim of a homicide to prevent the house where the latter had committed robbery, is
discovery of the crime incur the guilty of the same crime as accessory. The ladder is
responsibilities of accessories. an instrument of the crime.
In homicide or murder, it is necessary

to prove that a particular person is “To prevent its Definition: “its” refers to the word crime.
the victim. The victim must be discovery.”
properly identified. Thus, if the body In a case, the Court stated that “such facts
of the victim cannot be found, the also show that her concealment of said
crime cannot be proved. Hence, the articles was for the purpose of preventing
concealing of the body of the victim is and defeating the discovery of the crime.”
in effect concealing the crime itself.
b) Furnishing the means to make it The concealing or destroying of the body of
appear that the deceased was armed, the crime, the effects or instruments
by placing a weapon in his hand when thereof, must be done in order to prevent
already dead, and that it was the discovery of the crime.
necessary to kill him on account of his
resistance to the constabulary men; What is concealed is the body of the crime,
or making it appear that the deceased the effects or instruments thereof, not the
who had been arrested ran away. principal who committed the crime. If the
principal is concealed, Article 19(3) applies.
c) Mere act of a person of carrying the
cadaver of one unlawfully killed, when
it was buried to prevent the discovery Case example: People v. Verzola
of the crime, is sufficient to make him - Simply assisting the principal in bringing the body
responsible as an accessory under down the house to the foot of the stairs and leaving
said body for anyone to see, cannot be classified as

an attempt to conceal or destroy the body of the because the law says “or is known to be habitually
crime. guilty of some other crime.”
- The concealing or destroying of the body of the
crime, the effects or instruments thereof, must be A mayor who refused to prosecute offender is accessory
done to prevent the discovery of the crime.
- The body was left at the foot of the stairs at a place
Case example: U.S. v Yacat
where it was easily visible to the public.
- Abusing his public office, the president of the town
refused to prosecute the crime of homicide and thus
Liability of a person who merely received a property
knowing it to be stolen made it possible for the principal offender to escape.
● A person who receives any property from another, - He refused to make an investigation of the serious
knowing that the same had been stolen, is guilty of occurrence, of which complaint was made to him.
the crime of theft, as an accessory after the fact The municipal president was found guilty as
(encubridor). accessory.
● In the same manner, a person who receives stolen
One who kept silent with regard to the crime he witnessed
property for the purpose of concealing the same, is
is not an accessory
likewise guilty of the crime of theft as an accessory
● A person who saw the commission of the crime (e.g.,
after the fact.
murder), by another whom he knew, kept silent with
regard to it, and did not report it to any of the
3) By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the
authorities is not liable as an accessory.
escape of the principal of the crime.
● The reason for this is that such an omission is not
one of the different acts enumerated in Article 19.
Two classes of accessories under Article 19(3)
● Such omission is not harboring, concealing, or
assisting in the escape of the principal.
a) Public officers who harbor, conceal, or assist in the
escape of the principal of any crime (not light felony)
Case example: U.S. v. Romulo
with abuse of his public functions.
- If the person went to the authorities and
volunteered false information which tended
Requisites:
affirmatively to deceive the prosecuting authorities
1) Accessory is a public officer.
and thus to prevent the detection of the guilty
2) He harbors, conceals, or assists in the
parties and to aid them in escaping discovery and
escape of the principal.
arrest, he is liable as an accessory.
3) Public officer acts with abuse of his public
functions.
Case example: People v. Talingdan
4) The crime committed by the principal is
- Where the accused was present when her husband
any crime, provided it is not a light felony.
was shot, but she did not only enjoin her daughter
not to reveal to anyone what the latter knew, but also
b) Private persons who harbor, conceal, or assist in the
warned her daughter that she would kill her if she
escape of the author of the crime— guilty of treason,
would tell it to somebody, and when the peace
parricide, murder, or an attempt against the life of
officers who repaired to their house to investigate
the President, or who is known to be habitually guilty
what had happened asked her, the accused claimed
of some other crime.
that she had no suspects in mind, the accused
thereby concealed or assisted in the escape of the
Requisites:
principal in the crime, which made her liable as an
1) The accessory is a private person.
accessory under Article 19(3).
2) He harbors, conceals, or assists in the
escape of the author of the crime.
Liability of accessories is subordinate and subsequent
3) The crime committed by the principal is
● Where the alleged incendiary was acquitted, it is
either: (a) treason, (b) parricide, (c) murder,
neither proper nor possible to convict the defendant
(d) an attempt against the life of the
as an accessory.
President, or(e) that the principal is known
● The responsibility of the accessory is subordinate to
to be habitually guilty of some other crime.
that of the principal in a crime, because the
accessory’s participation therein is subsequent to
“Habitually guilty of some other crime.”
its commission, and his guilt is directly related to
● If a person was previously punished three times for
that of the principal delinquent in the punishable
less serious physical injuries and now commits
act.
estafa, the one who helps in his escape is liable as
● If then the facts alleged are not proven in the
an accessory although the accessory is a private
prosecution instituted, or do not constitute a crime,
individual.
no legal grounds exist for convicting a defendant as
● But the accessory must have knowledge of the
an accessory after the fact for a crime not
principal being habitually guilty of some other crime,
perpetrated.

crime, provided that the accessory after the fact
When conviction of accessory is possible even if principal is knew of the perpetration of the offense, because
acquitted under the phraseology of the said paragraphs, it
● Conviction of an accessory is possible seems to us clear enough that the prosecution
notwithstanding the acquittal of the principal, if the prove that a crime was committed, and that the
crime was in fact committed, but the principal was person sought to be held guilty as accessory after
not held criminally liable because of an exempting the fact profited from the effects thereof or
circumstance, such as insanity or minority. concealed the body of the crime or the instruments
● In exempting circumstances, there is a crime used in the commission of thereof in order to impede
committed. Hence there is a basis for convicting the its discovery.
accessory.
Case example: People v. Barlam
Case example: U.S. v. Villaluz - A person, knowing the illegal source of a thing that is
- If a minor, 8 years old, stole a ring worth ₱500 and B, stolen, benefits therefrom, is guilty of as an
knowing that it has been stolen, buys it for ₱200, B is accessory after the fact, even if the author of the
liable as accessory in the crime of theft, even if the theft has not been discovered.
principal (the minor) is exempt from criminal liability. - But Barlam is here charged with having assisted in
the escape of Balisi, not with having profited from, or
Apprehension and conviction of the principal is not having concealed the effects or instruments of the
necessary for the accessory to be held criminally liable
crime.
● Even if the principal is still unknown or at large, the
- The principle the Court stated cannot apply to a
accessory may be held responsible provided the
person who is sought to be implicated as an
requisites prescribed by law for the existence of the
accessory after the fact because he concealed the
crime are present and that someone committed it.
principal of the crime or assisted him in escaping
● The trial of an accessory may proceed without
when the said principal is guilty of treason, parricide,
awaiting the result of the separate charge against
murder, an attempt on the life of the Chief Executive
the principal. The corresponding responsibilities of
or is otherwise habitually known to have committed
the principal, accomplice, and accessory are distinct
another crime.
from each other.
- The Court draws this conclusion from the very
● As long as the commission of the offense can be
wording of the law itself. Thus, not only must the
duly established in evidence, the determination of
crime be proven but as well as the identity of the
the liability of the accomplice or accessory can
author thereof must be established, and both these
proceed independently of that of principal.
in a full-dress criminal trial.
- Balisi was not tried, nor was final judgment rendered
Case example: People v. Billon
against him, because of his death prior to
- Billon was prosecuted, together with Advincula who
arraignment.
was not brought to trial for being at large, in the CFI
for murder.
Reasoning in the Barlam case refuted
- Billon positively testified that it was Advincula who
● As far as the accused who actually stands trial and is
shot De Castro to death. On the other hand, he
found guilty as accessory is concerned, he is given a
admitted that he had harbored him at his house,
full hearing.
after the commission of the crime, which was clearly
● Whether the principal is brought to court or is at
one of murder. He also admitted that he assisted in
large, the prosecution has to prove the commission
the escape of Advincula.
of the crime charged, with the same quantum of
- Billon was found guilty as accessory instead of as
evidence, and the participation in it of all the persons
principal. On appeal, he contended that he could not
named in the information.
be declared as an accessory because Advincula, the
● The accessory is accorded the opportunity to refute
principal was not yet tried and found guilty.
the evidence and the participation of the alleged
- From the reading of the Spanish text, it is not
principal.
necessary that the principal should be first declared
● Upon the evidence adduced by both parties and for
guilty before the accessory can be made liable as
purposes of conviction of the accessory, the court
such.
can make a finding as to whether the crime charged
has been established and the other accused is the
Accused cannot be held liable as accessory under Article
principal thereof, without pronouncing judgment on
19(3), if the principal charged with murder died before trial,
because had he been alive he might have been found guilty him.
only of homicide
● The Court notes that a person may be held guilty as Arraignment, trial, and conviction of accessory during the
an accessory after the fact under pars. 1 and 2 of pendency of a separate case against the principal are null
and void
Article 19, even if the principal of the crime is
unknown or it cannot proven who committed the

● The arraignment, trial, and conviction of an conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other
accessory after the fact without the principal of the manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which
he knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from
crime having first been tried and convicted in the the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
separate case filed and pending at the time of the b) “Fence" includes any person, firm, association corporation or
partnership or other organization who/which commits the act of
arraignment, trial, and decision of the case against fencing.
the accessory, is not proper and violates the legal
SECTION 3. Penalties. — Any person guilty of fencing shall be punished as
system of procedural orderliness. hereunder indicated:
a) The penalty of prision mayor, if the value of the property involved
is more than 12,000 pesos but not exceeding 22,000 pesos; if the
Case example: People v. Gaw Lin value of such property exceeds the latter sum, the penalty
- In view of the foregoing, the arraignment, trial, and provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period,
adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total
conviction of the appellant Gaw Lin are declared null penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In
and void. such cases, the penalty shall be termed reclusion temporal and
the accessory penalty pertaining thereto provided in the Revised
- The case is remanded to the court so that, in the Penal Code shall also be imposed.
event the defendants are tried and convicted by final b) The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods, if the value of the property robbed or stolen is more than
judgment of the crime of qualified theft, the 6,000 pesos but not exceeding 12,000 pesos.
defendant Gaw Lin, who allegedly purchased the c) The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium
periods, if the value of the property involved is more than 200
stolen goods with knowledge of the commission of pesos but not exceeding 6,000 pesos.
d) The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision
the crime, may be arraigned and tried, and the
correccional in its minimum period, if the value of the property
proper judgment rendered by the trial court. involved is over 50 pesos but not exceeding 200 pesos.
e) The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period if such value is
over five (5) pesos but not exceeding 50 pesos.
When the principal is not yet apprehended, the accessory f) The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period if such value
may be prosecuted and convicted does not exceed 5 pesos.
● Appellant may be legally convicted as accessory SECTION 4. Liability of Officials of Juridical Persons. — If the fence is a
after the fact of the crime of qualified theft, when up partnership, firm, corporation or association, the president or the manager or
any officer thereof who knows or should have known the commission of the
to now the principal has not yet been prosecuted for offense shall be liable.
failure to identify and apprehend him.
SECTION 5. Presumption of Fencing. — Mere possession of any good, article,
● The crime of qualified theft has been proven; the item, object, or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or
thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.
non-prosecution of the principal for the reason that
his identity has not as yet been discovered, cannot SECTION 6. Clearance/Permit to Sell/Used Second Hand Articles. — For
purposes of this Act, all stores, establishments or entities dealing in the buy
serve as basis to free appellant from the liability
and sell of any good, article item, object of anything of value obtained from an
incurred by him as an accessory after the fact. unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof, shall before offering the same for sale to
the public, secure the necessary clearance or permit from the station
commander of the Integrated National Police in the town or city where such
Case example: Inovero v. Coronel store, establishment or entity is located. The Chief of Constabulary/Director
General, Integrated National Police shall promulgate such rules and regulations
- For one to be found guilty and punished as an
to carry out the provisions of this section. Any person who fails to secure the
accessory, it is not necessary that there be a clearance or permit required by this section or who violates any of the
provisions of the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder shall upon
principal duly convicted. Neither the letter nor the
conviction be punished as a fence.
spirit of the law requires that the principal be
SECTION 7. Repealing Clause. — All laws or parts thereof, which are
convicted before one may punished as an accessory. inconsistent with the provisions of this Decree are hereby repealed or modified
- As long as the corpus delicti is proved and the accordingly.
accessory’s participation as such shown, he can be SECTION 8. Effectivity. — This Decree shall take effect upon approval.
criminally responsible and meted out the
Done in the City of Manila, this 2nd day of March, in the year of Our Lord,
corresponding penalty. nineteen hundred and seventy-nine.
Q: Can there be an accessory even after the principal was

Accessory in robbery and theft is a principal in fencing
convicted?
● Before PD No. 1612, a fence could only be prosecuted
A: Yes, By presenting oneself to serve out the sentence in lieu
for and held liable as an accessory, as the term is
of the real culprit. But the crime be committed by the real
defined in Article 19.
culprit must be treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to
● The penalty applicable to an accessory is obviously
take the life of the President, that he is known to be habitually
light under the rules prescribed in Articles 53, 55,
guilty of some other crime, because this is possible only when
and 57 of the RPC, subject to the qualification set
the accessory is a private individual.
forth in Article 60 thereof.
● However, noting the reports from law enforcement
Heavy penalties for accessory in robbery and theft
agencies that “there is rampant robbery and thievery
of government and private properties” and that
Presidential Decree No. 1612 “such robbery and thievery have become profitable
Anti-Fencing Law of 1979
on the part of the lawless elements because of the
SECTION 1. Title. — This decree shall be known as the Anti-Fencing Law.
existence of ready buyers, commonly known as
SECTION 2. Definition of Terms. — The following terms shall mean as follows: fence, of stolen properties, PD No. 1612 was enacted
a) "Fencing" is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for
to impose heavy penalties on persons who profit by
himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire,
the effects of the crimes of robbery and theft.

● The accessory in the crime of robbery and theft
could be prosecuted as such under the RPC or under In case of relationship by affinity between surviving spouse
PD No. 1612. However, in the latter case, he ceases to and blood relatives of deceased spouse
be a mere accessory but becomes a principal in the ● The relationship by affinity created between the
crime of fencing. Elsewise stated, the crime of surviving spouse and the blood relatives of the
robbery and theft, on the one hand, and fencing, on deceased spouse survives the death of either party
the other, are separate and distinct offenses. to the marriage which created the affinity.
● The state may thus choose to prosecute him either
under the RPC or PD No. 1612, although the Nephew or niece not included among such relatives
● A nephew, who had witnessed the killing by his uncle
preference for the latter would seem inevitable
of the deceased and helped in burying the dead
considering that fencing is a malum prohibitum, and
body, is held criminally liable as an accessory.
PD No. 1612 creates a presumption of fencing and
● The relationship between uncle and niece does not
prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of
come within any of the degrees of relationship of
the property.
spouse, or ascendant, descendant, legitimate,
Accessory as distinguished from principal and from natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by
accomplice affinity in the same degree.
1) The accessory does not take direct part or
cooperate in, or induce, the commission of the Exception to the exception: when accessory is not exempt
crime. from criminal liability even if the principal is related to him
1) If such accessory profited by the effects of the
2) The accessory does not cooperate in the
crime.
commission of the offense by acts either prior
2) If such accessory assisted the offender to profit by
thereto or simultaneous therewith,
the effects of the crime.
3) The participation of the accessory in all cases
always takes place after the commission of the
Case example: U.S. v. Deuda
crime.
- The mother is an accessory for although she had no
part in stealing the earrings, she took steps to obtain
Accessories Exempt from gain and profit from the effects of the crime.
Criminal Liability - The relationship does not exempt her from liability,
because she assisted in obtaining profit from the
theft.
ARTICLE 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, Only accessories under paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 19 are
natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the
exempt from criminal liability if they are related to the
same degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling within the
provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding article. principals
● A son who helps his father bury the body of a person
whom the latter has murdered, to prevent its
Ground for exemption: Based on the ties of blood and the
discovery; a grandson who, having knowledge of the
preservation of the cleanliness of one’s name, which compels
commission of robbery by his grandfather, conceals
one to conceal crimes committed by relatives so near as those
or destroys the body of the crime, or the effects or
mentioned in this article.
instruments thereof, to prevent its discovery; and a
person who harbors, conceals, or assists in the
Principals related to accessories exempt from criminal
liability escape of his brother who committed treason, do
1) Spouse not incur any liability, because the acts of the
2) Ascendant accessories in those cases are covered by Article 19
3) Descendant (2) and (3).
4) Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother, sister or ● Not one of them falls under Article 19 (1) because
relative by affinity within the same degree. none of those accessories profits or assists the
offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
Case example: U.S. v. Abanzado
- Even if only two of the principals guilty of murder are Does the concealing of the effects of the crime, not to
the brothers of the accessory and the others are not prevent its discovery, but to obtain gain, fall under par. 2 of
Article 19?
related to him, such accessory is exempt from
● Par. 2 of Article 19 requires that the purpose of the
criminal liability.
concealment is to prevent the discovery of the
- It appeared that some time after the crime was
crime.
committed, the accused (accessory) accompanied
● On the other hand, par. 1 says, “by profiting
some of the other accused to the place where the
themselves by the effects of the crime.” This seems
bodies of the victims were concealed on the night of
to mean that the accessory should actually profit
the murder, and helped them to remove and bury
from the effects of the crime.
these bodies at another and more remote spot.

Example: If a husband conceals the property stolen by his wife
in order to profit from it later, he may be held liable as
accessory, because his said act is prompted not by affection
but by a detestable greed. In that case, his purpose in
concealing the stolen property is not to prevent the discovery
of the crime.
Example: A, who committed parricide by killing his wife, went to

his adopted brother to hide in the latter’s house and his
adopted brother harbored and concealed A because he gave
his adopted brother ₱1,000. The adopted brother is an
accessory, because knowing that A committed parricide, he
harbored and concealed him. But he is not criminally liable,
because he did not profit by the effects of the crime. The
₱1,000 received by him from A was not the effect of the crime
of parricide.
Liability of a public officer when related to the principal

● A public officer who, with evident abuse of his office,
furnished the means of escape to his brother who
had committed murder criminally, does not incur any
criminal liability.
● Ties of blood or relationship constitutes a more
powerful incentive than the call of duty.

Rule on criminal liability and civil liability as regards death
TOTAL EXTINCTION OF of the convict
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Death of convict occurs Both criminal and civil or
How Criminal Liability is Totally before final judgment liability (or pecuniary
Extinguished penalties) are extinguished.
Death of convict occurs Criminal liability is

ARTICLE 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. — Criminal liability after final judgment extinguished; however,
is totally extinguished: pecuniary penalties are not
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to
pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when
extinguished.
the death of the offender occurs before judgment;
2. By service of the sentence;
3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its Example: Where a person is charged with homicide, the civil
effects;
4. By absolute pardon; liability for indemnity is based solely on the finding of guilt. If
5. By prescription of the crime; he is acquitted because of self-defense, the heirs of the
6. By prescription of the penalty;
7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Article 344 deceased have no right to indemnity. Should the offender die
of this Code. before final judgment, their right to indemnity is likewise
extinguished as there is no basis for civil liability.
Q: Does the extinction of criminal liability automatically
extinguish civil liability? Case example: People v. Alison
A: NO. Extinction of criminal liability does not necessarily mean - When the accused died while the judgment of
that civil liability is also extinguished. conviction against him was pending appeal, his civil
liability and criminal liability was extinguished by his
Difference between causes of extinction of criminal liability death.
and causes of justification or exemption from criminal liability
Case example: People v. Jose
- In view of the death of the accused during the
Causes of extinction of Causes of justification or
pendency of the case, he is relieved of all personal
criminal liability exemption from criminal
liability and pecuniary penalties attendant to his crime, his
death occurring before rendition of final judgment.
Arise after the commission Arise from circumstances
of the offense. existing either before the Final judgment – judgment beyond recall.
commission of the crime or ● As long as a judgment has not become executory, it
at the moment of its cannot be truthfully said that defendant is definitely
commission.
guilty of the felony charged against him.
Total extinction of criminal liability is ground for motion to When does a judgment in criminal case become final
quash a) After the lapse of the period for perfecting an
● Under Section 3(g) of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules appeal;
of Criminal Procedure, one of the grounds for motion b) When the sentence has been partially or totally
to quash* is that the criminal action has been satisfied or served; or
extinguished. c) The defendant has expressly waived in writing his
● The order sustaining a motion to quash on this right to appeal.
ground constitutes a bar to another prosecution for
the same offense. Effect of the death of the accused pending appeal on his
criminal and civil liability
*Motion to quash – a request to a court or other tribunal to render a previous
decision or proceeding null or invalid.
General rule: Death of the accused pending appeal of his
conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil
By the Death of the Convict
liability based solely on the offense committed.
Article 89, Paragraph 1 — By the death of the convict, as to the personal Exception: The claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding
penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only
when the death of the offender occurs before judgment. the death of the accused, if the same is predicated on a
source of obligation other than delict (i.e., law, contracts,
quasi-contracts, and quasi-delicts).
● The death of the convict, whether before or after
final judgment, extinguishes criminal liability,
Examples:
because one of the juridical conditions of penalty is
a) Claim for civil liability based on law may also be
that it is personal.
made— in the offense of physical injuries, since
Article 33, NCC, establishes a civil action for

damages on account of physical injuries, entirely ● Service of sentence does not extinguish the civil
separate and distinct from the criminal action. liability.
b) Claim for civil liability based on contract may also be
made— in the offense of estafa when the civil liability By Amnesty
springs neither solely nor originally from the crime
itself but from a civil contract of purchase and sale
Article 89, Paragraph 3 — By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the
(as when the accused had swindled the vendees of penalty and all its effects.
the property subject matter of the contract of sale).
Amnesty – act of the sovereign power granting oblivion or a

Where action for recovery of damages must be filed when
civil liability survives general pardon for a past offense, and is, rarely, if ever,
● If the private offended party, upon extinction, of the exercised in favor of a single individual, and is usually exerted
civil liability ex delicto,* desires to recover damages on behalf of certain classes of persons, who are subject to trial
from the same act or omission complained of, he but have not yet been convicted.
must file a separate civil action, this time predicated
not on the felony previously charged but on the Amnesty completely extinguishes the penalty and all its
effects
sources of obligation.
● The clause in Article 89(3) provides that “which
● The source of obligation upon which the separate
completely extinguishes the penalty and all its
civil action is premised determines against whom
effects.”
the same shall be enforced. Thus—
Amnesty may be granted after conviction

a) If the same act or omission complained of
● Amnesty proclamation is applicable to those already
also arises from quasi-delict or may, by
undergoing sentence upon the date of its
provision of law, result in an injury to
promulgation.
person or property (real or personal), the
separate civil action must be filed against
Examples:
the executor or administrator of the estate a) Proclamation No. 51, dated Jan 28, 1948, by President
of the accused. Roxas, granting amnesty to those who collaborated
b) If the same act or omission complained of with the enemy during WW2.
also arises from contract, the separate civil b) Proclamation No. 76, dated June 21, 1948, by
action must be filed against the estate of President Quirino, extending amnesty to the Huks
the accused. and Pambansang Kaisahan ng mga Magbubukid),
who committed rebellion, sedition, illegal
Right of offended party to file separate civil action not lost
association, etc.
by prescription when accused dies pending appeal
c) Proclamation No. 80, dated Feb 28, 1987, by
● The private offended party need not fear a forfeiture
President Aquino, extending amnesty to those who,
of his right to file the separate civil action by
in the furtherance of their political beliefs, may have
prescription, in cases where during the prosecution
committed treason, conspiracy or proposal to
of the criminal action and prior to its extinction, the
commit the crime of treason, misprision of treason,
private offended party instituted together therewith
espionage, rebellion or insurrection, conspiracy and
the civil action.
proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection, inciting
● In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil
to rebellion or insurrection, sedition, conspiracy to
liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency
commit sedition, inciting to sedition, illegal
of the criminal case.
assemblies, illegal associations, direct assault,
indirect assault, resistance and disobedience to a
Death of the offended party does not extinguish the
criminal liability of the offender person in authority or agent of such person or
● This is because the offense is committed against the persons, subversion, and illegal possession of
State. firearms and explosives.
Civil liability not extinguished by amnesty

By Service of Sentence
● While amnesty wipes out all traces and vestiges of
the crime, it does not extinguish the civil liability of
Article 89, Paragraph 2 — By service of sentence. the offender.
● Crime is a debt incurred by the offender as a By Absolute Pardon

consequence of his wrongful act and the penalty is
the amount of his debt. When payment is made, the
Article 89, Paragraph 4 — By absolute pardon.
debt is extinguished.

Pardon – act of grace proceeding from the power entrusted - A was convicted of murder. Subsequently, A evaded
with the execution of the laws which exempts the individual on the service of sentence. A was prosecuted for and
whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for convicted of evasion. The President thereafter
the crime he has committed. pardoned A of the murder.
● An act of forgiveness, and thus, it relieves the - The pardon refers only to the crime of murder and
person pardoned from the penal consequences of does not have the effect of remitting the penalty for
the crime but it does not erase or blot out the crime evasion of the service of the sentence committed
itself. prior to said pardon.
● It does not make the person innocent of the crime
from which he was convicted. Difference between amnesty and pardon
● As far as the law is concerned, a person pardoned is
still a convicted criminal although he will not suffer
Pardon Amnesty
the penal consequences of his criminal act.
● The very act of forgiveness implies the commission Both does not extinguish civil liability of the offender.
of wrong, and that wrong has been established by
the most complete method known to modern Includes any crime and is Blanket pardon to classes of
civilization. exercised individually by the persons or communities
President. who may be guilty of
political offenses.
Constitutional limitations to the pardoning power
1) Impeachment cases
Exercised when the person May be exercised even
2) Cases that have not yet resulted in a final conviction is already convicted. before trial or investigation
3) Cases involving violations of election laws, rules and is had.
regulations in which there was no favorable
recommendations coming from the Comelec Looks forward and relieves Amnesty looks backward
the offender from the and abolishes and puts into
Kinds of pardon consequences of an oblivion the offense itself; it
offense of which he has so overlooks and obliterates
1) Absolute pardon
been convicted, that is, it the offense with which he is
2) Conditional pardon
abolishes or forgives the charged that the person
punishment, and for that released by amnesty stands
● A pardon, whether absolute or conditional, is in the reason it does “not work the before the law precisely as
nature of a deed, for the validity of which delivery is restoration of the rights to though he had committed
an indispensable requisite. hold public office or the no offense.
● Until accepted, all that may have been done is a right of suffrage, unless
such rights be expressly
matter of intended favor and may be canceled. But
restored by the terms of the
once accepted by the grantee, the pardon already pardon.
delivered cannot be revoked by the authority which
granted it. Example: Pardon does not Example: Amnesty makes
alter the fact that the an ex-convict no longer a
Pardon in adultery case accused is a recidivist recidivist because it
because it produces the obliterates the last vestige
Case example: U.S. v. Guarin extinction only of the of the crime.
- A was charged with the crime of adultery with a personal effects of the
married woman. The married woman, after penalty.
conviction of both accused, was pardoned by the
Being a private act of the Being by Proclamation of
Chief Executive.
President, must be pleaded the President with the
- The pardon of the married woman does not have the and proved by the person concurrence of Congress, is
effect of extinguishing the criminal liability of A pardoned. a public act of which the
because (1) the power to extend executive courts should take judicial
clemency is unlimited, and (2) that the exercise of notice.
that power lies in the absolute and uncontrolled
discretion of the Chief Executive.
By Prescription of Crime and
Case example: People v. Infante By Prescription of Penalty
- If the one giving the pardon is the offended spouse
in adultery, both offenders must be pardoned by the Article 89, Paragraph 5 — By prescription of the crime.
offended party if said pardon is to be effective.
Paragraph 6 — By prescription of the penalty.
Pardon of murder after evasion of service of sentence

Prescription of the crime – forfeiture or loss of the right of
Case example: Alvarez v. Director of Prisons the State to prosecute the offender after the lapse of a certain
time.

years.
Prescription of the penalty – loss or forfeiture of the right of
The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year.
Government to execute the final sentence after the lapse of a
certain time. The offenses of oral defamation and slander by deed shall prescribe in six
months.
Conditions necessary in prescription of penalty: Light offenses prescribe in two months.
a) There be final judgment When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the highest penalty shall be
b) The period of time prescribed by law for its made the basis of the application of the rules contained in the first, second,
and third paragraphs of this article. (As amended by R.A. No. 4661)
enforcement has elapsed.
R.A.No. 4661 not applicable to cases already filed in court

By the Marriage of the Offended Woman
prior to June 18, 1966
● The provision of this amendatory Act (reducing the
Article 89, Paragraph 7 — By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided prescriptive period of the crime of libel or or other
in Article 344 of this Code.
similar offenses, from two years to one year) shall
not apply to cases of libel already filed in court at the
ARTICLE 344, RPC. x x x In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness
time of approval of this amendatory Act (June 18,
and rape, the marriage of the offender with the offended party shall extinguish the
criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him. The provisions of 1966).
this paragraph shall also be applicable to the co-principals, accomplices and
accessories after the fact of the abovementioned crimes.
First day excluded and last day included in computing the
period of prescription
● Marriage of the offender with the offended woman
after the commission of any of the crimes of rape,
Case example: People v. Del Rosario
seduction, abduction, or acts of lasciviousness, as
- The accused committed slight physical injuries on
provided in Article 344, must be contracted by the
May 28, 1953. An information was filed on July 27,
offender in good faith.
1953. This crime, being a light offense, prescribes in
● Marriage contracted only to avoid criminal liability is
two months.
devoid of legal effects.
- The MTC sustained the motion to quash and
dismissed the case, holding that the information
Probation was filed on the 61st day, not on the 60th day from
May 28, 1953— the day on which the crime is
Probation – mode of extinguishing criminal liability under P.D. discovered by the offended party.
No. 968 as amended by R.A. No. 10707. It is a disposition under - It was held that the information should be
which a defendant, after conviction and sentence, is released considered as filed on the 60th day. In the
subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the computation of a period of time within which an act
supervision of a probation officer. is to be done, the law in this jurisdiction has always
directed that the first day be excluded and the last
Purpose: Reformative in nature and not preventive and is to
included.
be exercised primarily for the benefit of the accused.
- A month is computed as the regular 30-day month.
The running of the prescriptive period should
Basis: The philosophy that individuals can change and
commence from the day following the day on which
deserve a second chance, and that it is for the greater good of
the crime was committed.
society that offenders not be summarily eliminated from
productive life but brought back to its fold in the quickest and
Case example: Namarco v. Tuazon
least traumatic way possible. - As regards the month of February of a leap year,
February 28 and 29 should be counted as separate
Final discharge of probationer
days in computing periods of prescription.
● The final discharge of probationer shall operate to
- Thus, where the prescriptive period was supposed
restore to him all civil rights lost or suspended as a
to commence on December 21, 1955, the filing of the
result of his conviction and to totally extinguish his
action on December 21, 1965, was done after the
criminal liability as to the offense for which probation
10-year period elapsed— since 1960 and 1964 were
was granted.
both leap years, and the case was thus filed two
days too late.
Prescription of Crimes
Rule where the last day of the prescriptive period falls on a
Sunday or legal holiday
ARTICLE 90. Prescription of crimes. — Crimes punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua or reclusion temporal shall prescribe in twenty years. ● Where the last day of the prescriptive period for
filing an information falls on a Sunday or legal
Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in fifteen years.
holiday, the information can no longer be filed on the
Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten years; with the
next day as the crime has already prescribed.
exception of those punishable by arresto mayor, which shall prescribe in five

Prescription of oral defamation and slander by deed - Pursuant to the last paragraph of Article 90, the
● Distinction should be made between simple and penalty for the crime of perjury being a compound
grave slander. one, the higher of which is correctional, said crime
prescribes in 10 years.
Simple slander Grave slander

When fine is an alternative penalty higher than the other
Prescribes in 2 months Prescribes in 6 months penalty which is by imprisonment— prescription of the
crime is based on the fine.
Crimes punishable by arresto menor or a fine not exceeding Case example: People v. Basolo
P40,000 prescribe in two months - The accused sold 80 cavans of palay with a value of
P30, which he had mortgaged to the PNB, without
Case example: People v. Canson
the knowledge and consent of the mortgagee.
- The lower court ruled that the offense charged was a
- The period of prescription applicable is 10 years,
light felony under par. 3 of Article 9, which, as
instead of 5 years, for the reason that under Article
provided in Article 90, prescribes in two months. The
319, the penalty for the offense is arresto mayor or a
Solicitor cites Article 26 and contends that inasmuch
fine double the value of the property involved.
as the penalty imposable under Article 195 is arresto
- When said imposable penalty is either correctional
menor, or a fine not exceeding P40,000 (then P200),
or afflictive, it should be made basis for determining
then a fine of P40,000, imposable as a single or as an
the period of prescription.
alternative penalty, may be considered as a
correctional penalty and so under Article 90, the
Ruling in Basalo case applies even if the penalty is arresto
offense charged prescribes in 10 years and not two mayor and fine
months.
● It was ruled that a violation of Article 195, punishable Case example: People v. Crisostomo
with arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P40,000 - When the penalty prescribed by the Code is arresto
is a light felony under Article 9 and prescribes in two mayor and fine, and the fine is afflictive (exceeds
months, according to Article 90(6), which means P1,200,000), the fine should be the basis of the
sixty days. application of the rules in Article 90.
Penalty for attempted bribery is destierro, which prescribes Prescription of violations penalized by special laws and
in 10 years, being a correctional penalty ordinances— when it begins to run
● The period of prescription of the offense of bribery, ● Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the
penalized with destierro, is 10 years because commission of the violation of the law, and if the
destierro is classified as a correctional penalty. same be not known at the time, from the discovery
thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings
Prescription of crimes punishable by fines according to its for its investigation and punishment.
classification
When interrupted
Fines classified as Crimes punishable by fines shall ● The prescription shall be interrupted when
afflictive penalty prescribe in 15 years proceedings are instituted against the guilty person,
and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are
Fines classified as In 10 years dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy.
correctional penalty
Defense of prescription may be raised during the trial or
Fines classified as In 2 months during the appeal
light penalty ● If the accused failed to move to quash before
pleading, he must be deemed to have waived all
Nonpayment of the fine objections, which are grounds of a motion to quash,
● Subsidiary penalty for nonpayment of the fine cannot apply to the defense of prescription, which
should not be considered in determining the period under Article 89 extinguishes criminal liability.
of prescription of such crimes. ● Prescription, although not invoked in the trial, may
be invoked on appeal.
When the penalty is a compound one, the highest penalty is
the basis of the application of the rules in Article 90 Accused cannot be convicted of an offense lesser than that
charged if the lesser offense had already prescribed at the
Case example: People v. Cruz time the information was filed
- There is no merit in the contention that the crime of ● WhereA an accused has been found to have
perjury, which is punishable by arresto mayor in its committed a lesser offense includible within the
maximum period to prision correccional in its offense charged, he cannot be convicted of the
minimum period, has already prescribed. lesser offense, if it has already been prescribed.

● To hold otherwise would be to sanction the the period of prescription commenced to run again.
circumvention of the law on prescription by the The proceedings terminated without the accused
simple expedient of accusing the defendant of the being convicted or acquitted.
graver offense.
Period of prescription commences to run from the date of
Prescription does not divest court of jurisdiction; it is a commission of crime if it is known at the time of its
ground for acquittal of the accused commission
● When there is a plea of prescription by the defense
and the same appears from the allegation of the Case example: People v. Dinsay
information or is established, the court must - If there is nothing that was concealed or needed to
exercise jurisdiction, not inhibit itself, holding the be discovered, because the entire series of
action to have prescribed and absolving the transactions was by public instruments, duly
defendant. recorded, the crime of estafa committed in
connection with said transactions was known to the
offended party when it was committed and the
Computation of Prescription of Offenses
period of prescription commenced to run from the
date of its commission.
ARTICLE 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. — The period of
prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is
discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be
Case example: Cabral v. Puno
interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall commence to - The offended party had constructive notice of the
run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being
convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not
forgery after the deed of sale, where his signature
imputable to him. had been falsified, was registered in the Office of the
The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the
Register of Deeds on August 26, 1948.
Philippine Archipelago.
From the date of commission or from the date of discovery

Outline of the provisions: ● The period of prescription of crime commences to
1. The period of prescription shall commence to run run from the commission of the offense or its
from the day on which the crime is discovered by discovery, if the commission of the same was
the offended party, the authorities, or their agents. unknown.
2. It is interrupted by the filing of the complaint or
information. Case example: People v. Monteiro
- The period of prescription for the offense of failure
3. It commences to run again when such proceedings
to register with SSS shall begin from the day of the
terminate without the accused being convicted or
discovery of the violation if this was not known at the
acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any
time of its commission.
reason not imputable to him.
- A contrary view would be dangerous as the
4. The term of prescription shall not run when the
successful concealment of an offense during the
offender is absent from the Philippine
period fixed for its prescription would be the very
Archipelago.
means by which the offender may escape
punishment.
Illustration of the above rules:
- A committed serious oral defamation against K in
It is discovery of crime, not discovery of offender
March 1935. As K came to know of the act
● The discovery of the crime should not be confused
complained of only on March 4, 1936, K filed the
with the discovery of the offender. The fact that the
complaint on that date.
culprit is unknown will not prevent the period of
- Because his official duties needed him to be in
prescription from commencing to run.
Mindanao, K was not able to attend the hearing of
● It is not necessary that the accused be arrested.
the case. Upon motion of defendant A, the case was
dismissed on Jan 21, 1937, without prejudice to the
Period of prescription of continuing crime never runs
fiscal filing again the same action.
● The prescriptive period of continuing crime cannot
- On Feb 13, 1937, the case was revived by the fiscal by
begin to run because there could be no termination
filing a new information. Serious oral defamation
of continuity and the crime does not end.
prescribes in six months. The date of the six-month
period must be counted from Jan 21, 1937.
The crime is discovered by the offended party, the
- It cannot be counted from March 1935, when the authorities, or their agents
crime was committed, because it was discovered by
the offended party only on March 4, 1936, and the Example: A saw the killing with treachery of B by C. After the
running of the period of prescription stopped on that commission of the crime, C threw the dead body of B into the
date by the filing of the complaint in court. river. The dead body of B was never seen again or found. A was
- Hence, it must be counted from Jan 21, 1937, neither an authority nor an agent of an authority, nor a relative
because when the case was dismissed on that date, of B. A kept silent as to what he witnessed, and only after 25

years, A revealed to the authorities that C murdered B. C may c) It is unjust to deprive the injured party of the right to
be prosecuted for murder even if 25 years already elapsed, as obtain vindication on account of delays that are not
the period of prescription did not commence to run. The under his control. All that the victim of the offense
commission of the crime was known only to A, who was not the may do on his part to initiate the prosecution is to
offended party, an authority or an agent of an authority. It was file the requisite complaint.
discovered by the authorities only when A revealed to them
the commission of the crime. Complaint or information that will interrupt the period of
prescription must be the proper information or complaint
Period of prescription was interrupted when preliminary corresponding to the offense
examination was made by municipal mayor but accused
could not be arrested because he was in hiding Case example: People v. Abuy
- On April 1, 1959, Abuy was charged in the Municipal
Case example: People v. Parao Court of Zamboanga CIty with the crime of trespass
- The accused killed a man on June 19, 1911. The to dwelling against Carpio, which was dismissed on
municipal president, who began the preliminary the ground that the evidence so far presented would
investigation because the justice of the peace was not sustain accused’s conviction.
absent, issued a warrant of arrest. - On Nov 13, 1959, Abuy was charged before the same
- The accused could not be arrested because they court with the crime of unjust vexation committed
fled to an unknown place. The information for on the person of Magadia. Abuy filed a motion to
homicide was filed on June 29, 1927. Accused Isidro quash the information on the ground of prescription.
was captured in July 1927. - The complaint or information that will interrupt the
- The offense did not prescribe. The preliminary period must be the proper information or complaint
investigation conducted by the municipal president, corresponding to the offense.
in the absence of the justice of the peace or auxiliary - Here, the first Information was for trespass to
justice of the peace, partakes of the nature of a dwelling, the elements of which are entirely different
judicial proceeding. from the elements of the offense of unjust vexation.
- Judicial proceedings having been taken against the There is nothing to show that the two offenses are
accused and his arrest having been ordered, which related to each other. Consequently, the filing of one
could not be carried into effect on account of his does not interrupt the prescriptive period as to the
default, the crime has not prescribed. other.
- In the old Penal Coe, the crime of homicide
prescribed in 15 years. The proceedings in this case Effect of filing amended complaint or information upon
were stopped for reasons imputable to the accused, period of prescription
that is, they fled to an unknown place, making it ● If the original complaint or information is filed within
difficult to arrest them for further proceedings. the prescriptive period and the amendment was
made after said period, a distinction should be made
Filing of complaint with the prosecutor’s office interrupts between a new and different act of complained of
running of period of prescription of offense charged and mere correction or new specification to amplify
● Pursuant to Section 1, Rule 110, of the Revised Rules and give greater precision to the allegations in
of Criminal Procedure, the institution of the criminal support of the cause originally presented.
action shall interrupt the period of the offense ● If it is merely a correction of a defect, the date of the
charged unless otherwise provided in special laws. original complaint or information should be
considered.
Effect of filing of the complain in the municipal court to the
period of prescription “Proceedings terminate without the accused being
● The filing of the complaint in the municipal court, convicted or acquitted.”
even if it merely for the purposes of preliminary
examination or investigation, interrupts the period Case example: People v. Aquino
- When the case was dismissed upon the petition of
of prescription.
accused Aquino, the proceeding was terminated
Reason for such rule: without the accused being convicted nor acquitted.
a) The text of Article 91, in declaring that the period of The period of prescription commenced to run again.
prescription “shall be interrupted by the filing of the - Suppose the case was dismissed without the
complaint or information” without distinguishing consent or objection of the accused who had
whether the complaint is filed in the court for already been arraigned. In such case, the dismissal is
preliminary examination or investigation merely, or final. A cannot be prosecuted anymore of the same
for action on the merits. offense, even within the prescriptive period, on the
b) Even if the court where the complaint or information ground of double jeopardy.
is filed may only proceed to investigate the case, its
actuation already represents the initial step of the Termination of a criminal case contemplated in Article 91 on
prescription of crimes
proceedings against the offender.

● The termination of a criminal case on prescription of principal case is finally decided. And before an act
crimes refers to a termination that is final as to becomes a punishable offense, it cannot possibly be
amount to a jeopardy that would bar a subsequent discovered as such by the offended party, the
prosecution. authorities or their agents.
● If the termination refers to termination that is final, ● This is true only when the false testimony is agaisnt
as in the cases of an unappealed conviction or an the defefendant.
acquittal, there would be no occasion to speak of ● As regards false testimony in favor of the defendant,
prescription of offenses, no matter how long a time there is a specific penalty which does not depend on
has elapsed, because the accused is already the conviction or acquittal of the defendndant.
convicted (and he does not appeal) or acquitted.
When and How Penalties Prescribe
“Or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable
to him.”
● If the proceedings are stopped for a reason ARTICLE 92. When and how penalties prescribe. — The penalties imposed by
final sentence prescribes as follows:
imputable to the accused, the period of prescription 1. Death and reclusion perpetua, in twenty years;
does not commence to run again. 2. Other afflictive penalties, in fifteen years;
3. Correctional penalties, in ten years, with the exception of the
penalty of arresto mayor, which prescribes in five years;
Example: When the accused has evaded arrest and the case 4. Light penalties, in one year.
has to be archived by the court, the proceedings are stopped

because of the fault of the accused. The case cannot be tried Penalties must be imposed by final sentence
if he is not present. ● If the convict appealed and thereafter fled to the
mountains, the penalty imposed upon him would
Term of prescription does not run when the offender is never prescribe, because pending the appeal, the
absent from the Philippines sentence is not final.
Example: A published a libel in newspaper and immediately left In prescription of crimes, it is the penalty prescribed by law
for Hongkong where he remained for 3 years. Later, he that should be considered; in prescription of penalties, it is
returned to the Philippines. A can still be prosecuted for libel the penalty imposed that should be considered
upon his return because the crime of libel did not prescribe. A
was absent from the Philippines during the period when the Difference between prescription of crimes and prescription of
penalty as to what to consider
crime would have prescribed.
Prescription of election offenses— Prescription of crimes Prescription of penalties

1) If discovery is incidental to judicial proceedings,
prescription begins when such preceding The penalty prescribed by The penalty imposed should
terminates; otherwise, law should be considered. be considered.
2) From date of commission of offense.
Example: A committed the crime of falsification punishable by
Case example: People v. Carino prision mayor. Twelve years elapsed since the crime was
- If the falsification committed by the inspectors in discovered by the authorities. Then, the fiscal filed an
connection with the counting of votes and the information for falsification. A was arrested and prosecuted.
preparation of election returns was known to the During the trial, A proved two mitigating circumstances
protestants and their election watchers before the without any aggravating circumstance. The crime did not
filing of the election protests, the period of prescribe. Although the proper penalty to be imposed is
prescription began from the date of the commission prision correccional, the penalty one degree lower, in view of
of the offense. the privileged mitigating circumstance, is the penalty of
prision mayor, which is prescribed by the law for the crime that
When Article 91 may apply to a special law should be considered. Article 90 uses the words, “crimes
● Article 91 may apply when a special law, while
punishable by.” Hence, the crime did not prescribe, because
providing a prescriptive period, does not prescribe
the time that elapsed is not more than 15 years.
any rule for the application of that period, pursuant
to Article 10 of the RPC.
Example: Suppose that in the same problem above, A
commenced to serve the sentence and after a month, he
Prescription of the offense of false testimony— from time
escaped and remained at large for 12 years, in case he is
principal case is finally decided
captured thereafter, he cannot be required to serve the
● With regard to the crime of false testimony against
remaining period of his sentence because the penalty of
the defendant, considering that the penalties
prision correccional already prescribed. Article 93 uses the
provided therefor are made to depend upon the
words “the penalties imposed by final sentence.”
conviction or acquittal of the defendant in the
principal case, the act of testifying falsely does not
Fine as a light penalty
therefore constitute an actionable offense until the

1) The period of prescription of penalties commences
to run from the date when the culprit evaded the
Under Article 26 A fine less than P40,000 is a light
service of his sentence.
penalty, and if not less than
2) It is interrupted if the convict—
P40,000, it is a correctional
a) Gives himself up
penalty.
b) Be captured
c) Goes to a foreign country with which we
Under Article 9, par. 3 A light felony is punishable by a
have no extradition treaty, or
light penalty, whose fine does not
d) Commits another crime before the
exceed P40,000.
expiration of the period of prescription.
Under Article 90 Light offenses prescribe in two
months. The period of prescription of penalties
shall commence to run again when the
convict escapes again, after having been
Q: If the fine imposed be exactly P40,000, should it
captured and returned to prison.
prescribe in two months as a light penalty or in 10 years as
correctional penalty?
Elements:
A: It was held that where the question at issue is the
1) The penalty is imposed by final sentence.
prescription of a crime and not the prescription of a penalty,
2) The convict evaded the service of the sentence by
Article 9 should prevail over Article 26. Article 26 has nothing
escaping during the term of his sentence.
to do with the definition of offenses but merely classifies fine
3) The convict who escaped from prison has not given
when imposed as a principal penalty.
himself up, or been captured, or gone to a foreign
country with which we have no extradition treaty, or
Examples:
committed another crime.
a) A committed a crime for which the law provides a fine
4) The penalty has prescribed, because of the lapse of
of P40,000. The prescriptive period of the crime is in
time from the date of the evasion of the service of
two months. Since there is no final sentence and A
the sentence by the convict.
has not evaded sentence, the issue here is not the
prescription of penalty. Article 9 shall prevail. The
Evasion of the service of the sentence is an essential
crime committed is a light felony, as the fine does
element of prescription of penalties
not exceed P40,000. ● The period of prescription of penalties commences
b) Suppose A was convicted, he could not pay the fine to run from the date when the culprit should evade
of P40,000; and was made to serve subsidiary the service of his sentence.
imprisonment. Then while serving subsidiary
imprisonment, he escaped, thereby vading the Case example: Infante v. Warden
service of his sentence. The prescriptive period is in - The accused was convicted of murder and
ten years. The issue here is prescription of penalty. sentenced to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of
Article 26 prevails. Since the fine is not less than reclusion temporal. After serving 15 years, 7 months
P40,000, it is a correctional penalty. and 11 days, on March 6, 1939, he was granted a
conditional pardon. The condition of his pardon was
Subsidiary penalty for nonpayment of the fine is immaterial that he should not commit any crime in the future.
- On April 25, 1949, he was found guilty of driving
Case example: People v. Salazar
without license. He was committed to prison for
- A fine of P525 being a correctional penalty,
violation of said conditional pardon. Between March
prescribes in 10 years. That the subsidiary
6, 1939 and April 25, 1949, more than 10 years
imprisonment could not exceed six months is
elapsed.
immaterial.
- The accused interposed the defense of prescription,
contending that since the remitted portion of his
Computation of the Prescription of original penalty was less than 6 years (like prision
Penalties correccional), the prescriptive period of that penalty
was only 10 years.
- The defense of prescription will not prosper because
ARTICLE 93. Computation of the prescription of penalties. — The period of
prescription of penalties shall commence to run from the date when the culprit
there was no evasion of the service of the sentence.
should evade the service of his sentence, and it shall be interrupted if the There was no evasion of the service of the sentence
defendant should give himself up, be captured, should go to some foreign
country with which this Government has no extradition treaty, or should
because such evasion presupposes escaping during
commit another crime before the expiration of the period of prescription. the service of the sentence consisting in deprivation
of liberty.
Outline of the provisions:
Period of prescription that ran during the time the convict
evaded service of sentence is not forfeited upon his
capture

● The period of prescription that ran during the ● Article 93 specifically provides that “the period of
evasion is not forfeited, so that if the culprit is prescription of penalties shall commence to run from
captured and evades again the service of his the date when the culprit should evade the service
sentence, the period of prescription that has run in of his sentence.”
his favor should be taken into account. ● Hence, this evasion of the service of the sentence,
which is a requisite in the prescription of penalties,
Example: A committed a crime punishable by prision must necessarily take place before the running of
correccional. He was convicted after trial. While serving the period of prescription and cannot interrupt it.
sentence for one month, A escaped and remained at large for 5
years. Then, he was captured. After staying in prison for 2 Acceptance of conditional pardon interrupts the
months, he escaped again and remained at large for 6 years. In prescriptive period
this case, if captured again, A cannot be required to serve the ● The acceptance of a conditional pardon also
remaining portion of his sentence because the penalty of interrupts the prescriptive period, likening such
prision correccional prescribes in 10 years. On two occasions, acceptance to the cause of one who flees from
A evaded the service of his sentence for a total of 11 years. jurisdiction.
“Should go to some foreign country with which this Reason why evasion of service of sentence is taken in favor
Government has no extradition treaty.” of the convict in prescription of penalties
● Suppose the Government has extradition treaty with ● If a convict under confinement, at the risk of being
the country to which the offender escaped, but the killed, succeeds in breaking jail and also succeeds in
crime committed is not included in the treaty, it is evading re-arrest for a certain period of time which
believed that it would interrupt the running of the by no means is short, despite the efforts of all the
prescriptive period. instrumentalities of the Government including
sometimes the setting of a prize or reward on his
“Should commit another crime before the expiration of the head, which thereby enlists the aid of the citizenry,
period of prescription.” the law calls off the search for him, and condones
the penalty.
Example: If A, sentenced to suffer 4 months and 11 days of ● But during that period of prescription the escaped
arresto mayor, escaped from jail and remained at large for 4 convict lives a life of a hunted animal, hiding
years, 11 months and 28 days, but on the next day he mostly in the mountains and forests in constant
committed theft and was arrested six months after, A can be mortal fear of being caught.
required to serve the remaining period of his sentence of 4 ● His life far from being happy, comfortable, and
months and 11 days, because A committed a crime before the peaceful is reduced to a mere existence filled with
expiration of 5 years, the period of prescription of the penalty fear, discomfort, loneliness, and misery.
of arresto mayor. ● The convict who evades sentence is sometimes
sufficiently punished by his voluntary and
Where accused was never placed in confinement, the self-imposed banishment, and at times, that
period for prescription never started to run in his favor voluntary exile is more grievous that the sentence
he was trying to avoid.
Case example: Pangan v. Hon. Gatbalite ● All the time he has to utilize every ingenuity and
- Prescription of penalties found in Article 93 applies
means to outwit the Government extends to him a
only to those who are convicted by final judgment
sort of condonation or amnesty.
and are serving sentence which consists in
deprivation of liberty.
- The period of prescription of penalties begins only PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL
when the convict evades service of sentence by LIABILITY
escaping during the term of his sentence.
- Since petitioner never suffered deprivation of liberty ARTICLE 94. Partial extinction of criminal liability. — Criminal liability is
before his arrest on Jan 20, 2000 and as a extinguished partially:
1. By conditional pardon;
consequence never evaded sentence by escaping 2. By commutation of the sentence; and
during the term of his service, the period for 3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he
is undergoing preventive imprisonment or serving his sentence.
prescription never began.
Evading the service of the sentence is not committing a Conditional pardon — the exemption of an individual, within
crime before the expiration of the period of prescription of certain limits or conditions, from the punishment which the
penalties law inflicts for the offense he had committed resulting in the
● The clause “should commit another crime before the partial extinction of his criminal liability.
expiration of the period of prescription” refers to
crime committed when the period of prescription Nature of conditional pardon
has already commenced to run. ● Conditional pardon delivered and accepted is
considered a contract between the sovereign power

of the executive and the convict that the former will 1) A Progress Report should be submitted by the
release the latter upon compliance with the Probation and Parole Officer to the Board of Pardons
condition. and Parole when a parolee/pardonee commits
another offense during the period of his parole
Usual condition imposed upon the convict in conditional surveillance, and the case filed against him has not
pardon: “He shall not again violate any of the penal laws of the yet been decided by the court.
Philippines.” 2) An Infraction Report should be submitted by the
Probation and Parole Officer on violations committed
Commutation of sentence — the reduction of the duration of by a parolee/pardonee of the conditions of his
a prison sentence of a prisoner. It is a change of the decision of release on parole or conditional pardon while under
the court made by the Chief of Executive by reducing the supervision.
degree of the penalty inflicted upon the convict, or by
decreasing the length of the imprisonment or the amount of ● Any violation of the terms and conditions appearing
the fine. in the Release Document or any serious deviation or
non-observance of the obligations set forth imn the
Specific cases where commutation is provided for by the parole supervison program shall be immediately
Code reported by his Probation and Parole Officer to the
1) When the convict sentenced to death is over 70
Board.
years of age (Article 83).
● The report shall be called Infraction Report when the
2) When eight justices of the Supreme Court fail to
parolle/pardonee has been subsequently convicted
reach a decision for the affirmance of the death
of another crime.
penalty.
When parolee or pardonee may be may be ordered arrested

● In either case, the degree of the penalty is reduced or recommitted
from death to reclusion perpetua. ● Upon receipt of an Infraction Report, the Board may
● In commutation of sentence, consent of the order the arrest or recommitment of the convict.
offender is not necessary. The public welfare, not his ● If recommitted, he shall be made to serve the
consent, determines what shall be done. remaining unexpired portion of the maximum
sentence for which he was originally committed to
Allowances for good conduct – deductions from the term of prison.
the sentence for good behavior.
● This is different from that provided in Article 29 Conviction not necessary to revoke parole
which is an extraordinary reduction of full time or ● Mere commission, not conviction by court, of any
fourf-fifths of the preventive imprisonment from the crime is sufficient to warrant parolee’s arrest and
term of the sentence. reincarceration.
Parole should be added as No. 4 in the enumeration of Case example: Fortunato v, Director
causes of partial extinction of criminal liability - In a petition for habeas corpus, it was contended
● Parole granted to a convict by the Board of Pardons that the recommitment order was premature,
and Parole should be added. because it came down before his convictions of the
● A parole may be granted to a prisoner after serving series of estafa committed by him during the period
the minimum penalty under the Indeterminate of the parole.
Sentence Law. - It was held that it now rather academic, even
assuming that final conviction is necessary in order
Parole – the conditional release of an offender from a to constitute a violation of the condition of the
correctional institution after he has served the minimum of his parole.
prison sentence.
● Consists in the suspension of the sentence of a Difference between conditional pardon and parole
convict after serving the minimum term of the
indeterminate penalty, without granting a pardon,
Conditional pardon Parole
prescribing the terms upon which the sentence shall
be suspended. May be given at any time May be given after the
● If the convict fails to observe the conditions of the after final judgment, prisoner has served the
parole, the Board of Pardons and Parole is authorized granted by the Chief minimum penalty, granted
to direct his arrest and return to custody and Executive under the by the Board of Pardons and
thereafter to carry out his sentence without provisions of the Parole under the provision
Administrative Code. of the Indeterminate
deduction of the time that has elapsed between the
Sentence Law.
date of the parole and the subsequent arrest.
For violation of conditional For violation of the terms of
Reports to be submitted on parolee or pardonee pardon, the convict may be parole, the convict cannot

ordered rearrested or be prosecuted under Article 1. During the first two years of imprisonment, he shall be allowed a
deduction of twenty days for each month of good behavior during
reincarcerated by the Chief 159. He can be arrested or detention;
Executive, or may be reincarcerated to serve the 2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he
prosecuted under Article unserved portion of his shall be allowed a reduction of twenty-three days for each month
of good behavior during detention;
159. original penalty. 3. During the following years until the tenth year, inclusive, of his
imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of twenty five days
for each month of good behavior during detention;
Obligation Incurred by a Person Granted 4. During the eleventh and successive years of his imprisonment, he
shall be allowed a deduction of thirty days for each month of good
Conditional Pardon behavior during his detention.
5. At any time during the period of imprisonment, he shall be allowed
another deduction of fifteen days, in addition to numbers one to
four hereof, for each month of study, teaching or mentoring
ARTICLE 95. Obligation incurred by a person granted conditional pardon. — serving time rendered.
Any person who has been granted conditional pardon shall incur the obligation
of complying strictly with the conditions imposed therein, otherwise, his An appeal by the accused shall not deprive him of entitlement to the above
noncompliance with any of the conditions specified shall result in the allowances for good conduct. (As amended by R.A. No. 10592).
revocation of the pardon and the provisions of Article 159 shall be applied to
him.
Amendments introduced by R.A. No. 10592 to Article 97:
Outline of the provisions:

1) Allowance for good conduct also granted to
1) He must comply strictly with the conditions imposed
detention prisoners.
in the pardon.
● Prior to its amendment, allowance for good conduct
2) Failure to comply with the conditions shall result in
was not granted to detention prisoners. Thus, in the
the revocation of the pardon. Under Section 64(i),
evaluation of their petition for parole or executive
R.A.C, the Chief Executive may order his arrest and
clemency where eligibility depends on the period of
reincarceration.
time served, the release of a detention prison is
3) He becomes liable under Article 159. This is the
correspondingly delayed for a period equal to the
judicial remedy.
good time allowance he could have earned had he
Condition of pardon is limited to the unserved portion of been under confinement by virtue of conviction by
his sentence, unless an intention to extend it beyond that final judgment.
time is manifest
● The duration of the conditions subsequent, annexed 2) Increase in deduction from period of sentence.
to a pardon, would be limited to the period of the ● The deduction from the period of a prisoner’s
prisoner’s sentence, unless an intention to extend it sentence was increased from—
beyond the term of his sentence was manifest from
the nature of the condition or language in which it
5-20 days For first 2 years of imprisonment
was imposed.
8-23 days From 3rd to 5th year of

Example: If a convict was sentenced to 12 years and one day of imprisonment
reclusion temporal, as the maximum term of the indeterminate
penalty, and after serving 5 years, he was granted a conditional 10-25 days From 6th to 10th year of
pardon, the condition being that he should not commit any imprisonment
crime in the future, that condition must be complied with by
15-30 days For 11th and successive years of
him until the end of the seven years from the grant of the
imprisonment
conditional pardon, it being the unserved portion of his
sentence. If he commits a crime after the expiration of the 7
years, he is not liable for violation of the conditional pardon. 3) Additional deduction of 15 days granted.
The condition of the pardon is no longer operative when he ● Aside from the deduction of from 20 to 30 days per
commits a new offense. But if he commits a crime before the month of good behavior, an additional deduction of
expiration of the 7 years, he is liable for violation of the 15 days is granted for each month of study, teaching
conditional pardon. or mentoring rendered.
4) Effect of appeal.
Effect of Commutation of Sentence &
● An appeal by the accused shall not deprive him of
Allowance for Good Conduct entitlement to the aboce allowances for good
conduct.
ARTICLE 96. Effect of commutation of sentence. — The commutation of the

original sentence for another of a different length and nature shall have the Application of the provisions of Article 97
legal effect of substituting the latter in the place of the former.
ARTICLE 97. Allowance for good conduct. — The good conduct of any Case example: People v. Tan
offender qualified for credit for preventive imprisonment pursuant to Article 20 - The release of appellee Tan by the provincial warden,
of this Code, or of any prisoner in any penal institution, rehabilitation or
detention center or any other local jail shall entitle him to the following after imprisonment of only two years, eight months
deductions from the period of his sentence: and 21 days, was premature.

- Under par. 1 of Article 97, he may be allowed a prisoner who, having evaded the service of his
deduction of five days for each month of good sentence, gives himself up to the authorities within
behavior during his first two years of imprisonment, 48 hours after the issuance of a proclamation
which would be 24 months multiplied by five, or 120 announcing the passing away of the calamity or
days; under par. 2, he may be allowed a deduction of catastrophe.
eight days a month for the next three years. For the ● Prior to the amendment of Article 98, only those who
balance of eight months, multiplied by eight, we evaded service of their sentence was granted
have 64 days, equivalent to 6 months and 4 days. special time allowance to encourage them to
- The prisoner’s actual confinement of two years, surrender. Since prisoners who, despite having all
eight months and 21 days, plus his possible total the chances to escape, chose instead to remain in
credit of 6 month and 4 days, would give result of their prison cells, have shown more convincingly
three years, two months, and 25 days. their loyalty than those who escaped and then
- Since the maximum term of his sentence is four eventually gave themselves up, they are given a
years and two months, appellant Tan has an higher special time allowance for loyalty.
unserved portion of 11 months and five days.
Deduction is based on the original sentence
No allowance for good conduct while prisoner is released ● While this article mentions “the period of his
under conditional pardon sentence,” it should be understood that the convict
● The reason is that the good conduct time allowance is to be credited for loyalty with 2/5 or 1/5 of his
is given in consideration of the good conduct original sentence, not of the unexpired portion of his
observed by the prisoner while serving his sentence. sentence.
● If the accused was enjoying liberty under a
conditional pardon, he was not serving the remitted Deduction applies to all prisoners
penalty in prison. ● Special time allowance for loyalty shall apply to any
● By a consideration of the terms of Article 97 alone, prisoenr, whether undergoing preventive
and also in conjunction with other parts of the RPC, imprisonment or serving sentence.
the phrase “any prisoner” in Article 97 thereof is o be
regarded as referring only to a prisoner serving Article 158 provides for increased penalty
sentence. ● A convict who evaded the service of his sentence by
leaving the penal institution where he had been
confined, on the occasion of disorder resulting from
Special Time Allowance for Loyalty
a conflagration, earthquake, explosion or similar
catstrophe or during a mutiny in which he did not
ARTICLE 98. Special time allowance for loyalty. — A deduction of one fifth of the participate, is liable to an increased penalty (1/5 of
period of his sentence shall be granted to any prsioner who, having evaded his
preventive imprisonment or the service of his sentence under the circumstances the time still remaining to be served— not to exceed
mentioned in Article 158 of this Code, gives himself up to the authorities within 48 6 months), if he fails to give himselp up to the
hours following the issuance of a proclamation announcing the passing away of the
calamity or catastrophe referred to in said article. A deduction of ⅖ of the period of authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of
his sentence shall be granted in case siad prisoner chose to stay in the place of his
a proclamation by the Chief Executive announcing
confinement notwithstanding the existence of a calamity or catasttophe
enumerated in Article 158 of this Code. the passing away of the calamity.
This Article shall apply to any prisoner whether undergoing preventive imprisonment
or serving sentence. (As amended by R.A. No. 10592)
Who Grants Time Allowance
Special time allowance for loyalty of prisoner

ARTICLE 99. Who grants time allowance. — Whenever lawfully justified, the
● It is a deduction in the period of the sentence of a Director of the Bureau of Corrections, the Chief of the Bureau of Jail
prisoner who, having evaded the service of his Management and Penology and/or the Warden of a provincial district, municipal
or city jail shall grant allowances for good conduct. Such allowances once
sentence during the calamity or catastrophe granted shall not be revoked. (As amended by R.A. No. 10592)
mentioned in Article 158, gives himself up to the
authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of
Good conduct allowance may be granted by the Director of
a proclamation announcing the passing away of the the Bureau of Corrections, the Chief of the BJMP, and the
calamity or catastrophe, or who chose to stay in the warden of provincial, district, municipal, or city jails
place of confinement notwithstanding the existence ● Prior to the amendement of Article 99 by R.A. No.
of the calamity or catastrophe enumerated in Article 10592, only the Director of Prisons (now Director of
158. the Bureau of Corrections) was allowed to grant time
allowance for good conduct.
A higher special time allowance is given to those who chose
to stay in the place of confinement Government agencies that have supervision over prisoners
● A deduction of 2/5 of the period of his sentence shall and jails:
be granted to a prisoner who chose to stay in the 1) Bureau of Corrections, under the Department of
place of his confinement while a deduction of 1/5 of Justice (DOG) which has supervision and control
the period of his sentence shall be granted to a over their prison facilities that house national

prisoners or those serving prison terms of more than ● A crime has a dual character: (!) as an offense
three years. against the state because of the disturbance of the
2) Provincial governments, which has supervision and social order; and (2) as an offense against the
control over provincial jails that house provincial privatre person injured by the crime unless it
prisoners or those serving prison terms of more than involves the crime of treason, rebellion, espionage,
six months up to three years. contempt, and others wherein no civil liability arises
3) Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) on the part of the offender either because there are
under the Department of Interior and Local no damages to compensated or there is no private
Government (DILG), which has jurisdiction over all person injured by the crime.
city, municipal, and district jails that house municipal ● What gives rise to civil liability is reallt the obligation
prisoners or those serving prison terms of one day to of everyone to repair or make whole the damage
not more than six months in municipal jails and not caused to another by reason of his act or omission,
more than three years in city jails. whether done intentionally or negligently and
whether or not punishable by law.
Exclusion of city and municipal prisoners from the
jurisdiction of the Director of the Bureau of Corrections
● Since city and municipal prisoners are not under the
jurisdiction of the Director of the Bureau of
Corrections, the amendment to Article 99 seeks to
fast-track the application and grant of good conduct
time allowance by likewise granting to the Chief of
the BJMP and or the warden of a provincial, district,
municipal, or city jail, the authority to grant time
allowance for good conduct.
Allowance for good conduct is NOT automatic; it cannot be

revoked once granted
● It must be granted by either Director of the Bureau of
Corrections, the Chief of the BJMP, and or the
warden of a provincial, district, municipal, or city jail.
● Allowances for good conduct, once granted, cannot
be revoked.
PERSONS CIVILLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES
Civil Liability of a Person Guilty of Felony
ARTICLE 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. —

Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
Civil liability arising from offenses

● Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or
negligently causes damage to another, shall
indemnify the latter for the same.
● Civil obligations arising from criminal offenses shall
be governed by the penal laws.
● Civil liability arising from negligence under the RPC is
entirely separate and distinct from the responsibility
for fault or negligence called quasi-delict. But the
party claiming payment for the damage done cannot
recover twice for the same act or omission of the
defendant.
Civil liability under the RPC includes:

1) Restitution
2) Reparation of the damage caused
3) Indemnification for consequential damages
Basis of civil liability

CRIM1 | LJM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIM1 | LJM

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

CRIM1 | LJM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTRODUCTION TO

Leisha Jane Medollar

Constitutional limitations to the power of Congress to

CRIM1 – Reviewer 1 2ALM-LJMEDOLLAR

Case example: People v. Galagac

CRIM1 – Reviewer 2 2ALM-LJMEDOLLAR

Extent of Philippine territory for purposes of Criminal Law

CRIM1 – Reviewer 3 2ALM-LJMEDOLLAR

omission is decriminalized. the courts to try, convict, and sentence offenders

is no more crime for which he should be in the old law.

is to continue. - The accused was prosecuted for neglecting to make

a) No retroactive effect (first law will govern) return of sales.

retroactivity. penalized as an offense in the old law.

b) There is retroactive effect (second law will

CRIM1 – Reviewer 4 2ALM-LJMEDOLLAR

Interpretation in case of Doubt Basic principles affecting Definition of felonies with

- Such rule may be invoked only where the

CRIM1 – Reviewer 5 2ALM-LJMEDOLLAR

CRIM1 – Reviewer 6 2ALM-LJMEDOLLAR

CRIM1 – Reviewer 7 2ALM-LJMEDOLLAR

CRIM1 – Reviewer 8 2ALM-LJMEDOLLAR

the inhabitants of the country against the

our territorial limits, even aboard a foreign merchant

CRIM1 – Reviewer 9 2ALM-LJMEDOLLAR

whom he finds in an uninhabited place wounded or in

3) Every person owing allegiance to the Philippines, 2) Culpable felonies

without being a foreigner, and having knowledge of

does not report to the authorities the commission of a crime

CRIM1 – Reviewer 10 2ALM-LJMEDOLLAR

Imprudence Negligence Voluntary acts or omissions — the omission of the word

Example: Imprudence or Lack of skill

CRIM1 – Reviewer 11 2ALM-LJMEDOLLAR

Requisites of voluntariness in intentional felony

CRIM1 – Reviewer 12 2ALM-LJMEDOLLAR

Kinds of intent Example: Intent to kill in attempted, frustrated, or

not expressly reveal the specific criminal threaten B.

intent). its attempted and frustrated stages that it can be

Consummation of crime Intent Motive

- Failure to actually receive ransom because of the commission thereof.

c) Rebellion - public and armed uprising for purpose of perpetrator of a felony.

CRIM1 – Reviewer 13 2ALM-LJMEDOLLAR

Case example: US v. Go Foo Suy Case example: US v Peñalosa

Case example: People v. Taneo person making the defense.

CRIM1 – Reviewer 14 2ALM-LJMEDOLLAR

Mala in se & Mala prohibita

Intent governs Only inquiry is– “has the law

Case example: US v. Bautista Refers to felonies defined Refers generally to acts

3) Mistake must be without fault or carelessness on

CRIM1 – Reviewer 15 2ALM-LJMEDOLLAR

Purpose of classifying crimes

imposed. responsible for all the consequences which may

impose penalties the degrees of which are in foreseen or intended or not.

accused. causa es causa del mal causado,” which translates

punished under special laws. the evil caused.

● Because of this legal set-up, a basic rule was

CRIM1 – Reviewer 16 2ALM-LJMEDOLLAR

CRIM1 – Reviewer 17 2ALM-LJMEDOLLAR

CRIM1 – Reviewer 18 2ALM-LJMEDOLLAR

CRIM1 – Reviewer 19 2ALM-LJMEDOLLAR

CRIM1 – Reviewer 20 2ALM-LJMEDOLLAR