UP Criminal Law Reviewer PDF

UP
L
AW
BAR REVIEWER
2012
CRIMINAL
Criminal Law 1
Criminal Law 2
LAW
Dean Danilo L. Concepcion
Dean, UP College of Law
Prof. Concepcion L. Jardeleza

Associate Dean, UP College of Law
Prof. Ma. Gisella D. Reyes
Secretary, UP College of Law
Prof. Florin T. Hilbay
Faculty Adviser, UP Law Bar Operations
Commission 2012
Ramon Carlo F. Marcaida
Commissioner
Eleanor Balaquiao
Mark Xavier Oyales
Academics Committee Heads
Camille Umali
Charmaine Sto. Domingo
Criminal Law Subject Heads
Graciello Timothy Reyes
Layout
UP LAW BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
UP
L
AW
BAR REVIEWER
2012
CRIMINAL
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION 2012
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Ramon Carlo Marcaida |Commissioner
Raymond Velasco Mara Kriska Chen |Deputy Commissioners
Barbie Kaye Perez |Secretary
Carmen Cecilia Veneracion |Treasurer
Hazel Angeline Abenoja|Auditor
COMMITTEE HEADS
Eleanor Balaquiao Mark Xavier Oyales | Acads
Monique Morales Katleya Kate Belderol Kathleen Mae
Tuason (D) Rachel Miranda (D) |Special Lectures
Patricia Madarang Marinella Felizmenio |Secretariat
Victoria Caranay |Publicity and Promotions
Loraine Saguinsin Ma. Luz Baldueza |Marketing
Benjamin Joseph Geronimo Jose Lacas |Logistics
Angelo Bernard Ngo Annalee Toda|HR
Anne Janelle Yu Alyssa Carmelli Castillo |Merchandise
Graciello Timothy Reyes |Layout
Charmaine Sto. Domingo Katrina Maniquis |Mock Bar
Krizel Malabanan Karren de Chavez |Bar Candidates Welfare
Karina Kirstie Paola Ayco Ma. Ara Garcia |Events
LAW
CRIMINAL LAW TEAM 2012

Faculty Editor | Prof. Jay Batongbacal
Subject Heads | Camille Umali
Charmaine Sto. Domingo
LAYOUT TEAM 2012

Layout Artists | Alyanna Apacible Noel
Luciano RM Meneses Jenin Velasquez
Mara Villegas Naomi Quimpo Leslie
Octaviano Yas Refran Cris Bernardino
Layout Head| Graciello Timothy Reyes
OPERATIONS HEADS
Charles Icasiano Katrina Rivera |Hotel Operations
Marijo Alcala Marian Salanguit |Day-Operations
Jauhari Azis |Night-Operations
Vivienne Villanueva Charlaine Latorre |Food
Kris Francisco Rimban Elvin Salindo |Transpo
Paula Plaza |Linkages
CRIMINAL
2012 UP Law Bar Reviewer
Copyright and all other relevant rights over this

material are owned jointly by the University of the
Philippines College of Law and the Student Editorial
Team.
The ownership of the work belongs to the University of
the Philippines College of Law. No part of this book
shall be reproduced or distributed without the consent
of the University of the Philippines College of Law.
All Rights reserved.
LAW
Criminal Law 1
CHAPTER I. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
OF CRIMINAL LAW .......................... 14
A. Definition of Criminal Law ........ 14
1. Difference between Mala in Se and
Mala Prohibita .......................... 14
B. Scope
of
Application
and
Characteristics of the Philippine Criminal
Law 16
0. Generality ........................ 16
1. Territoriality ..................... 17
2. Prospectivity ..................... 19
3. Legality (nullum crimen nulla
poena sine lege) ....................... 20
4. Strict Construction of Penal Laws
Against State: The Doctrine of Pro
Reo ..................................... 20
C. Constitutional limitations on the
power of Congress to enact penal laws in
the Bill of Rights .......................... 20
1. Equal protection ................. 20
2. Due process ....................... 20
3. Non-imposition of cruel and
unusual punishment or excessive fines
20
4. Bill of attainder .................. 20
5. Ex post facto law ................ 20
CHAPTER II. FELONIES ..................... 22
A. Preliminary matters ................ 22
1. Differentiating Felonies, Offense,
Misdemeanor and Crime .............. 22
1. Felonies: How Committed ......... 22
2. How
is
Criminal
Liability
Incurred? ................................ 22
3. Discussion of Article 5........... 23
4. Wrongful Act Different from that
Intended ................................ 23
5. Omission .......................... 25
B. Classifications of Felonies ......... 25
1. According to the Manner of Their
Commission ............................. 26
2. According to the Stages of Their
Execution ............................... 26
3. According to Their Gravity ..... 26
4. As to Count ....................... 27
5. As to Nature ...................... 27
C. Elements of Criminal Liability .... 27
1. Elements of Felonies ............ 27
Intentional Felonies ................... 27
D. Impossible Crimes .................. 31
E.
F.
G.
Stages of Execution ................. 32

Conspiracy and Proposal ........... 36
Multiple Offenders .................. 39
1. Recidivism......................... 40
2. Habituality (Reiteracion) ....... 40
3. Quasi-Recidivism ................. 40
4. Habitual Delinquency ............ 40
H. Complex
Crimes
and
Special
Complex Crimes ........................... 40
1. Complex Crimes .................. 41
2. Special
Complex/Composite
crimes ................................... 42
3. Continued and Continuing Crimes
(Delito Continuado) ................... 42
CHAPTER III. CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH
AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY .............. 44
A.
Justifying Circumstances .......... 44

1. Self Defense ...................... 44
2. Defense of Relatives ............. 46
3. Defense of Strangers ............ 46
4. Avoidance of a Greater Evil .... 46
5. Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful
Exercise of Right or office ............ 47
6. Obedience to an order issued for
some lawful purpose .................. 47
B.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
C.
Exempting Circumstances ......... 48

Insanity and Imbecility .......... 49
Minority............................ 49
Accident ........................... 50
Irresistible Force ................. 50
Uncontrollable Fear ............. 51
Insuperable or Lawful Causes .. 51
Mitigating Circumstances .......... 51

1. Incomplete
Justification
and
Exemption .............................. 52
2. Under 18 Or Over 70 Years Of Age
53
3. No Intention to Commit So Grave
A Wrong (Praeter Intentionem) ...... 53
4. Sufficient Provocation or Threat
54
5. Immediate Vindication of A Grave
Offense .................................. 54
6. Passion or obfuscation (Arrebato
y Obsecacion) .......................... 55
7. Voluntary Surrender ............. 56
8. Plea Of Guilt ...................... 57
9. Plea to a Lesser Offense ........ 57
10.
Physical Defects ............... 57
11.
Illness ........................... 57
CRIMINAL
LAW
12.
Analogous
Mitigating
Circumstances.......................... 58
D.
1.
1.
E.
1.
2.
3.
F.
1.
Aggravating Circumstances ........ 58

Generic ............................ 59
Taking Advantage of Public Office
59
2. In Contempt of or With Insult
to Public Authorities ............... 59
3. With Insult or Lack of Regard
Due to Offended Party by Reason of
Rank, Age or Sex .................... 60
4. Abuse of Confidence and
Obvious Ungratefulness ............ 61
5. Crime in Palace or in Presence
of the Chief Executive ............. 62
6. Nighttime
(Nocturnidad);
Uninhabited Place (Despoblado);
With a Band (Cuadrilla)............ 62
7. On Occasion of a Calamity .. 63
8. Aid of Armed Men or Means to
Ensure Impunity (Auxilio de Gente
Armada) .............................. 63
9. Recidivism (Reincidencia) ... 64
10.
Reiteracion/Habituality ... 65
11.
Prize, Reward or Promise . 66
12.
lInundation, Fire, Poison.. 66
13.
Evident
Premeditation
(Premeditacion Conocida) ......... 66
14.
Craft
(Astucia),
Fraud
(Fraude) or Disguise (Disfraz)..... 67
15.
Superior Strength or Means
to Weaken Defense ................. 68
16.
Treachery (Alevosia) ...... 69
17.
Ignominy .................... 70
18.
Unlawful Entry ............. 71
19.
Breaking Wall, Floor, Roof 71
20.
With Aid of Persons Under
15; By Motor Vehicle ............... 71
21.
Cruelty ...................... 71
Alternative Circumstances ........ 75
Relationship ...................... 75
Intoxication ....................... 76
Degree of Instruction/ Education
76
Absolutory Causes .................. 76
Instigation ........................ 76
2. Pardon ............................. 77
3. Other Absolutory Causes ........ 77
4. Acts Not Covered By Law And In
Case Of Excessive Punishment ....... 77
CHAPTER IV.PERSONS
CRIMINALLY
LIABLE/DEGREE OF PARTICIPATION ..... 78
A. PrincipalsError!
Bookmark
not
defined.
1. By Direct Participation .......... 78
2. By Inducement ................... 79
3. By Indispensable Cooperation .. 79
B. Accomplices ......................... 79
C. Accessories........................... 80
CHAPTER V. PENALTIES .................... 83
A.
1.
2.
3.
General Principles .................. 83

Purposes ........................... 84
Classification ..................... 84
Duration and Effect .............. 84
1.
2.
Penalties which may be imposed . 84

Scale of Principal Penalties .... 84
Scale of Accessory Penalties ... 85
B.
C. Specific Principal And Accessory

Penalties ................................... 86
1. Afflictive penalties .............. 86
1. Reclusion Perpetua .............. 86
2. Reclusion Temporal ........... 87
3. Prision mayor .................. 87
1. Correctional penalties........... 87
1. Prision Correccional ............. 87
2. Arresto Mayor .................. 87
3. Light penalties ................... 89
1. Arresto Menor .................... 89
2. Public Censure................. 89
4. Penalties common to afflictive,
correctional, and light penalties .... 89
1. Fine ................................ 89
2. Bond to Keep the Peace ........ 89
D.
Accessory penalties ................. 90

1. Perpetual or Temporary Absolute
Disqualification ........................ 90
2. Perpetual
or
Temporary
Special Disqualification ............ 91
3. Suspension from Public Office,

the Right to Vote and Be Voted for,
the Right to Practice a Profession or
Calling ................................... 91
4. Civil Interdiction .............. 91
5. Indemnification or Confiscation
of Instruments or Proceeds of the
Offense ............................... 91
6. Payment of Costs ............. 91
Perpetual
or
Temporary
Special
Disqualification ........................... 92
E.
Measures not considered penalty 92
F.
Application .......................... 93
1. Indeterminate Sentence Law
(R.A. 4013, as amended) ............. 94
2. The Three-fold rule ............. 96
3. Subsidiary imprisonment........ 97
G.
H.
Special rules for certain situations

104
1. Complex Crimes ................. 104
2. Crimes Different from That
Intended ............................... 105
3. Where the Offender Is Below 18
Years ................................... 106
Execution and Service ............ 107
1. Probation Law (P.D. 968, as
amended) .............................. 108
CHAPTER
VI.
MODIFICATION
AND
EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY .. 113
A. Prescription of crimes (Art. 90) . 113
B. Prescription of penalties (Art. 92)
114
C. Pardon by the offended party ... 115
D. Pardon by the Chief Executive... 115
E. Amnesty ............................. 115
Criminal Law 2
Title I. Crimes against National Security
and the Law of Nations .................. 155
A.
Crimes against Security ........... 155

1. Article 114 Treason ........... 155
2. Article 115 - Conspiracy and
Proposal to Commit Treason ........ 156
3. Article 116 - Misprision of

Treason .................................156
4. Article 117 Espionage .........157
B.
Crimes against the Law of Nations

157
1. Article 118 - Inciting to War or
Giving Motives for Reprisals .........157
2. Article 119 - Violation of
Neutrality ..............................157
3. Article 120 - Correspondence
with Hostile Country .................157
4. Article 121 - Flight to Enemy's
Country .................................157
5. Article 122 - Piracy in General
and Mutiny on the High Seas or in
Philippine Waters .....................157
6. Article 123 - Qualified Piracy.158
Title II. Crimes against Fundamental Laws

of the State ................................ 158
1.
Article 124 - Arbitrary Detention

158
2. Article 125 - Delay in the Delivery
of Detained Persons to the Proper
Judicial Authorities ...................159
3. Article 126 - Delaying Release 159
4. Article 127 Expulsion .........160
5. Article 128 - Violation of Domicile
160
6. Article 129 - Search Warrants
Maliciously Obtained, and Abuse in the
Service of Those Legally Obtained .160
7. Article 130 - Searching Domicile
without Witnesses ....................161
8. Article
131
Prohibition,
Interruption
and
Dissolution
of
Peaceful Meetings ....................161
9. Article 132 - Interruption of
Religious Worship .....................161
10.
Article 133 - Offending the
Religious Feelings .....................162
Title III. Crimes against Public Order . 162
A. Chapter I Rebellion, Coup detat,
Sedition and Disloyalty ..................162
1. Article
134
Rebellion
/Insurrection ..........................162
2. Article 134-A - Coup d tat ...163
3. Article 135 - Penalty for
Rebellion, Insurrection or Coup d tat
163
CRIMINAL
4. Article 136 - Conspiracy and
Proposal to Commit Coup d tat,
Rebellion or Insurrection ............ 164
5. Article 137 - Disloyalty of Public
Officers or Employees................ 164
6. Article 138 - Inciting to Rebellion
or Insurrection ........................ 164
7. Article 139 - Sedition........... 164
8. Article 140 - Persons Liable for
Sedition ................................ 165
9. Article 141 - Conspiracy to
Commit Sedition ...................... 165
10.
Article 142 Inciting to
Sedition ................................ 165
B. Chapter II - Crimes against Popular
Representation ........................... 166
1. Article 143 - Acts Tending to
Prevent the Meeting of the Congress
of the Philippines and Similar Bodies
166
2. Article 144 - Disturbance of
Proceedings............................ 166
3. Article 145 - Violation of
Parliamentary Immunity ............. 166
C. Chapter III Illegal Assemblies and
Associations .............................. 166
1. Article 146 - Illegal Assemblies
166
2. Article 147 - Illegal Associations
167
D. Chapter IV - Assault upon and
Resistance and Disobedience to, Persons
in Authority and Their Agents ......... 167
1. Article 148 - Direct Assault .... 167
2. Article 152 - Persons in Authority
and Agents of Persons in Authority 168
3. Article 149 - Indirect Assault .. 168
4. Article 150 - Disobedience to
Summons Issued by Congress, Its
Committees or Subcommittees, by the
Constitutional
Commissions,
Its
Committees,
Subcommittees
or
Divisions ................................ 168
5. Article 151 - Resistance and
Disobedience to a Person in Authority
or the Agents of Such Persons ...... 168
LAW
E.
Chapter V - Public Disorders .....169

1. Article 153 - Tumults and Other
Disturbances of Public Order ........169
2. Article 154 - Unlawful Use of
Means of Publication and Unlawful
Utterances .............................169
3. Article 155 - Alarms and Scandals
169
4. Article 156 - Delivering Persons
from Jail ...............................170
F. Chapter VI - Evasion of Service of

Sentence ..................................170
1. Article 157 - Evasion of Service of
Sentence ...............................170
2. Article 158 - Evasion of Service of
Sentence on the Occasion of
Disorders,
Conflagrations,
Earthquakes, or Other Calamities ..171
3. Article 159 - Other Cases of
Evasion of Service of Sentence .....171
G. Chapter VII - Commission of Another
Crime during Service of Penalty Imposed
for Another Previous Offense ..........171
1. Article 160 - Quasi Recidivism 171
H. Title IV. Crimes against Public
Interest ....................................171
1. Acts of Counterfeitin ...........172
1. Article 161 - Counterfeiting the
Great Seal of the Government of the
Philippine
Islands,
Forging
the
Signature or Stamp of the Chief
Executive...............................172
2. Article 162 - Using Forged
Signature or Counterfeit Seal or
Stamp ................................172
3. Article 163 - Making and
Importing and Uttering False Coins
172
4. Article 164 - Mutilation of
Coins .................................173
5. Article 165 - Selling of False or
Mutilated Coin, Without Connivance
173
6. Article 166 - Forging Treasury

or Bank Notes or Other Documents
Payable to Bearer; Importing and
Uttering Such False or Forged Notes
and Documents ..................... 173
7. Article 167 - Counterfeiting,
Importing, and Uttering Instruments
Not Payable to Bearer ............ 174
7. Article 183 - False Testimony

in Other Cases and Perjury in
Solemn Affirmation ................180
8. Article 184 - Offering False
Testimony in Evidence ............181
9. Article 185 - Machinations in
Public Auctions .....................181
10.
Article 186 Monopolies and
Combinations in Restraint of Trade
181
11.
Article 187 Importation and
Disposition of Falsely Marked
Articles or Merchandise Made of
Gold, Silver, or other Precious
Metals or their Alloys ..............182
2. Acts of Forgery .................. 174

1. Article 168 - Illegal Possession
and Use of False Treasury or Bank
Notes and Other Instruments of Credit
174
2. Article 169 - How Forgery is
Committed............................. 174
3. Acts of Falsification ............ 174
1. Article 170 - Falsification of
Legislative Documents ............... 174
2. Article 171 - Falsification by
Public Officer, Employee or Notary
or Ecclesiastical Minister ......... 175
3. Article 172 - Falsification by
Private Individual and Use of
Falsified Documents ............... 177
4. Article 173 - Falsification of
Wireless, Cable, Telegraph and
Telephone Messages, and Use of
Said Falsified Messages ........... 178
5. Article 174 - False Medical
Certificates, False Certificates of
Merits or Service, etc. ............ 178
6. Article 175 - Using False
Certificates ......................... 178
7. Article 176 - Manufacturing and
Possession
of
Instruments
or
Implements for Falsification ..... 179
4. OTHER FALSITIES ................ 179
1. Article 177 - Usurpation of
Authority or Official Functions ..... 179
2. Article 178 - Using Fictitious
and Concealing True Name ....... 179
3. Article 179 - Illegal Use of
Uniforms and Insignia ............. 179
Against a Defendant ............... 180
Favorable to the Defendant ...... 180
in Civil Cases ....................... 180
Title V. Crimes Relative to Opium and

Other Prohibited Drugs .................. 182
A. Acts Punished: ......................182
B. Penalties for Unlawful Acts: .....182
C. Definition of Important Terms ...183
D. Other Important Points ...........183
Title VI. Crimes against Public Morals 184
CHAPTER I: Gambling and Betting .....184
A.
Chapter I - Gambling and Betting

184
1. Article 195 - What Acts Are
Punishable in Gambling ..............184
2. Article 196 - Importation, Sale
and Possession of Lottery Tickets or
Advertisements........................185
3. Article 197 Betting in Sports
contents ................................185
4. Article 198 - Illegal Betting on
Horse Race .............................185
5. Article 199 (as amended by PD
449) 186
B. Chapter
II.
Offenses
against
Decency and Good Customs ............186
0. ........................................186
1. Article 200 - Grave Scandal ...186
2. Article 201 - Immoral Doctrines,
Obscene Publications and Exhibitions
and Indecent Shows ..................186
3. Article 202 - Vagrancy and
Prostitution ............................187
Title VII. Crimes Committed by Public
Officers ..................................... 188
CRIMINAL
A.
Chapter I: Preliminary Provisions 189
B. Chapter
II:
Malfeasance
and
Misfeasance in Office ................... 189
1. Article 204 - Knowingly Rendering
Unjust Judgment ..................... 189
2. Article 205 - Judgment Rendered
Through Negligence .................. 189
3. Article 206 - Unjust Interlocutory
Order ................................... 190
4. Article 207 - Malicious Delay in
the Administration of Justice ....... 190
5. Article 208 - Prosecution of
Offenses; Negligence and Tolerance
190
6. Article 209 Betrayal of Trust by
an Attorney or a Solicitor Revelation
of Secrets .............................. 190
7. Article 210 - Direct Bribery.... 191
8. Article 211 - Indirect Bribery . 191
9. Article 211-A - Qualified Bribery
192
10.
Article 212 - Corruption of
Public Officials ........................ 192
C. Chapter III: Frauds and Illegal
Exactions and Transactions ............ 192
1. Article 213 - Fraud against the
Public Treasury and Similar Offenses
192
2. Article 214 - Other Frauds ..... 193
3. Article
215
Prohibited
Transactions ........................... 193
4. Article 216 - Possession of
Prohibited Interest by a Public Officer
194
D. Chapter IV: Malversation of Public
Funds or Property ....................... 194
1. Article 217 - Malversation of
Public
Funds
or
Property
Presumption of Malversation ........ 194
2. Article
218
Failure
of
Accountable
Officer
to
Render
Accounts ............................... 195
3. Article 219 - Failure of a
Responsible Public Officer to Render
Accounts Before Leaving the Country
195
LAW
4. Article 220 - Illegal Use of Public

Funds or Property .....................195
5. Article 221 - Failure to Make
Delivery of Public Funds or Property
196
6. Article 222 - Officers Included in
the Preceding Provisions .............196
E. Chapter V: Infidelity of Public

Officers ....................................196
1. Article 223 - Conniving With or
Consenting to Evasion ................196
2. Article 224 - Evasion through
Negligence .............................196
3. Article 225 - Escape of Prisoner
under the Custody of a Person Not a
Public Officer..........................196
4. Article
226
Removal,
Concealment, or Destruction of
Documents .............................197
5. Article 227 - Officer Breaking
Seal 197
6. Article 228 - Opening of Closed
Documents .............................197
7. Article 229 - Revelation of
Secrets by an Officer .................197
8. Article 230 - Public Officers
Revealing
Secrets
of
Private
Individuals .............................198
F. Chapter VI: Other Offenses or
Irregularities by Public Officers .......198
1. Article 231 - Open Disobedience
198
2. Article 232 - Disobedience to the
Order of Superior Officer When Said
Order Was Suspended by Inferior
Officer ..................................198
3. Article 233 - Refusal of Assistance
198
4. Article 234 - Refusal to Discharge
Elective Office ........................198
5. Article 235 - Maltreatment of
Prisoners ...............................199
6. Article 236 - Anticipation of
Duties of a Public Officer ............199
7. Article
237
Prolonging
Performance of Duties and Powers .199

8. Article 238 - Abandonment of
Office or Position ..................... 199
9. Article 239 - Usurpation of
Legislative Powers .................... 199
10.
Article 240 - Usurpation of
Executive Functions .................. 200
11.
Article 241 - Usurpation of
Judicial Functions .................... 200
12.
Article 242 - Disobeying
Request for Disqualification ........ 200
13.
Article 243 - Orders or Request
by Executive Officer to Any Judicial
Authority ............................... 200
14.
Article
244
Unlawful
Appointments ......................... 200
15.
Article 245 - Abuses against
Chastity ................................ 200
10
B.
Title IX. Crimes against Personal Liberty

and Security ............................... 212
A.
Chapter I: Crimes against Liberty

212
1. Article 267 - Kidnapping and
Serious Illegal Detention .............212
2. Article 268 - Slight Illegal
Detention ..............................214
3. Article 269 - Unlawful Arrest ..214
4. Article 270 - Kidnapping and
Failure to Return a Minor ............214
5. Article 271 - Inducing a Minor to
Abandon His Home ....................215
6. Article 272 - Slavery ............215
7. Article 273 - Exploitation of Child
Labor ...................................215
8. Article 274 - Services Rendered
Under Compulsion in Payment of Debt
215
B.
Chapter II: Crimes against Security

216
Persons in Danger and Abandonment
of Own Victim .........................216
2. Article 276 - Abandoning a Minor
216
Minor by Person Entrusted With
Custody; Indifference of Parents ...216
4. Article 278 - Exploitation of
Minors ..................................216
5. Article 280 - Qualified Trespass to
Dwelling ................................217
6. Article 281 - Other Forms of
Trespass ................................218
7. Article 282 - Grave Threats....218
8. Article 283 - Light Threats .....218
9. Article 284 - Bond for Good
Behavior ................................219
Title VIII. Crimes against Persons ...... 201

A.
Chapter I: Destruction of Life.... 201

1. Article 246 - Parricide ......... 201
2. Article 247 - Death or Physical
Injuries
Under
Exceptional
Circumstances......................... 202
3. Article 248 - Murder ............ 202
4. Article 249 - Homicide ......... 203
5. Article 250 - Penalty for
Frustrated Parricide, Murder or
Homicide ............................... 204
6. Article 251 - Death Caused in
Tumultuous Affray .................... 204
7. Article 252 - Physical Injuries
Caused in Tumultuous Affray ....... 204
8. Article 253 - Giving Assistance to
Suicide ................................. 204
9. Article 254 - Discharge of
Firearms ............................... 204
10.
Article 255 - Infanticide .... 205
11.
Article 256 - Intentional
Abortion ................................ 205
12.
Article 257 - Unintentional
Abortion ................................ 205
13.
Article
258
Abortion
Practiced by the Woman Herself or by
Parents ................................. 206
14.
Article 259 - Abortion by a
Physician or Midwife and Dispensing of
Abortives ............................... 206
15.
Article 260 - Responsibility of
Participants in a Duel ................ 206
16.
Article 261 - Challenging to a
Duel 206
Chapter II: Physical Injuries ......207

1. Article 262 - Mutilation ........207
2. Article 263 - Serious Physical
Injuries .................................207
3. Article 264 - Administering
Injurious Substances or Beverages .207
4. Article 265 - Less Serious Physical
Injuries .................................208
5. Article 266 - Slight Physical
Injuries and Maltreatment ...........208
6. Article 266-A - Rape (amended by
RA 8353)................................208
CRIMINAL
10.
Article 285 Other Light
Threats ................................. 219
11.
Article 286 - Grave Coercions
219
12.
Article 287 - Light Coercions
219
13.
Article 288 - Other Similar
Coercions .............................. 220
14.
Article 289 - Formation,
Maintenance, and Prohibition of
Combination of Capital or Labor
through Violence or Threats ........ 220
C. Chapter
III:
Discovery
and
Revelation of Secrets ................... 220
1. Article 290 - Discovering Secrets
through Seizure of Correspondence 220
2. Article 291 - Revealing Secrets
with Abuse of Office ................. 221
3. Article 292 - Revelation of
Industrial Secrets ..................... 221
LAW
11.
Article 304 - Possession of
Picklock or Similar Tools .............226
12.
Article 305 - Defines False Keys
226
B. Chapter 2: Brigandage (Articles 306307) 226

1. Article 306 - Who Are Brigands226
2. Article 307 - Aiding and Abetting
a Band of Brigands ....................227
C.
Chapter 3: Theft ...................227

1. Article 308 - Who Are Liable for
Theft ....................................227
2. Article 309 - Penalties..........228
3. Article 310 - Qualified Theft ..228
4. Article 311 - Theft of the
Property of the National Library and
National Museum ......................230
D.
Chapter 4: Usurpation .............230

1. Article 312 - Occupation of Real
Property or Usurpation of Real Rights
in Property .............................230
2. Article 313 - Altering Boundaries
or Landmarks ..........................230
E.
Chapter 5: Culpable Insolvency ..230

1. Article
314
Fraudulent
Insolvency ..............................230
Title X. Crimes against Property ....... 222

A.
Chapter I: Robbery in General ... 222

1. Article 293 - Who Are Guilty of
Robbery ................................ 222
2. Article 294 - With Violence or
Intimidation of Persons .............. 223
3. Article 295 - Robbery with
Physical Injuries, in an Uninhabited
Place and by a Band .................. 223
4. Article 296 - Definition of a Band
and Penalty Incurred by the Members
Thereof................................. 224
5. Article 297 - Attempted and
Frustrated Robbery with Homicide 224
6. Article 298 - Execution of Deeds
through Violence or Intimidation ... 224
7. Article 299 - Robbery in an
Inhabited House or Public Building or
Edifice Devoted to Worship ......... 224
8. Article 300 Robbery in an
Uninhabited Place and by a Band .. 226
9. Article 302 - In an Uninhabited
Place or Private Building ............ 226
10.
Article 303 - Robbery of
Cereals, Fruits or Firewood in an
Inhabited Place or Private Building 226
F. Chapter 6: Swindling and Other

Deceits ....................................230
1. Article 315 - Estafa .............230
a. With Unfaithfulness or Abuse of
Confidence (315 par. 1(a) (b) (c)) ..231
b. Estafa by Means of False Pretenses
or Fraudulent Acts (315 par. 2(a) (b)
(c) (d) (e); BP22): .....................233
c. Through Other Fraudulent Means
(315 Par 3 (a) (b) (c)) ................235
2. Article 316 - Other Forms of
Swindling and Deceits ................236
3. Article 317 - Swindling of a Minor
237
4. Article 318 - Other Deceits ....237
G.
Chapter 7: Chattel Mortgage .....237

1. Article 319 - Removal, Sale, or
Pledge of Mortgaged Property ...... 237
12
14.
Article 346 Liability of
ascendants, guardians, teachers and
other persons entrusted with the
custody of the offended party ......249
H. Chapter 8: Arson and Other Crimes

Involving Destruction.................... 238
I.
Chapter 9: Malicious Mischief .... 239

1. Article 327 - Who Are Responsible
239
2. Article 328 - Special Cases of
Malicious Mischief .................... 239
3. Article 329 - Other Mischiefs .. 239
4. Article 330 - Damage and
Obstruction
to
Means
of
Communication ....................... 239
5. Article 331 Destroying or
Damaging Statues, Public Monuments
or Paintings ............................ 239
Title XII. Crimes against the Civil Status

of Persons .................................. 250
1. Article 349 - Bigamy ............251
2. Article 350 - Marriage Contracted
against Provisions of Laws ...........251
3. Article 351 - Premature Marriage
251
4. Article 352 - Performance of
Illegal Marriage Ceremony ...........251
Title XIII. Crimes against Honor ........ 253
A.
Chapter I: Libel ....................253

Article 353 - Definition of Libel
253
2. Article 354 - Requirement for
Publicity ................................254
3. Article 355 - Libel by Writing or
Similar Means ..........................254
4. Article 356 - Threatening to
Publish and Offer to Prevent Such
Publication for a Compensation ....254
5. Article
357
Prohibited
Publication of Acts Referred to in the
Course of Official Proceedings (Gag
Law) 255
6. Article 358 - Slander............255
7. Article 359 - Slander by Deed .255
8. Article 360 - Persons Responsible
for Libel ................................255
9. Article 361 - Proof of Truth ...256
10.
Article 362 - Libelous Remarks
256
1.
J. Chapter
10:
Exemption from
Criminal Liability ........................ 239
1. Article 332 - Exemption from
Criminal Liability in Crimes Against
Property................................ 239
Title XI. Crimes against Chastity ....... 242
1. Article 333 - Adultery .......... 242
2. Article 334 - Concubinage ..... 242
3. Article 335 Rape .............. 243
4. Article
336
Acts
of
Lasciviousness ......................... 243
5. Article 337 - Qualified Seduction
244
6. Article 338 - Simple Seduction 245
7. Article
339
Acts
of
Lasciviousness with the Consent of the
Offended Party........................ 245
8. Article 340 - Corruption of Minors
246
9. Article 341 - White Slave Trade
246
10.
Article
342
Forcible
Abduction .............................. 246
11.
Article
343
Consented
Abduction .............................. 247
12.
Article 344 - Prosecution of
Private Offenses ...................... 248
13.
Article 345: Civil Liability .. 249
B. Chapter
II:
Incriminatory
Machinations..............................256
1. Article 363 - Incriminating
innocent person .......................256
2. Article 364 - Intriguing against
Honor ...................................256
Title XIV. Quasi-Offenses ................ 259
1. Article 365 - Imprudence and
Negligence .............................259
13
UP
L
AW
BAR REVIEWER
2012
CRIMINAL
Criminal Law 1
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION 2012
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Ramon Carlo Marcaida |Commissioner
Raymond Velasco Mara Kriska Chen |Deputy Commissioners
Barbie Kaye Perez |Secretary
Carmen Cecilia Veneracion |Treasurer
Hazel Angeline Abenoja|Auditor
COMMITTEE HEADS
Eleanor Balaquiao Mark Xavier Oyales | Acads
Monique Morales Katleya Kate Belderol Kathleen Mae Tuason (D) Rachel
Miranda (D) |Special Lectures
Patricia Madarang Marinella Felizmenio |Secretariat
Victoria Caranay |Publicity and Promotions
Loraine Saguinsin Ma. Luz Baldueza |Marketing
Benjamin Joseph Geronimo Jose Lacas |Logistics
Angelo Bernard Ngo Annalee Toda|HR
Anne Janelle Yu Alyssa Carmelli Castillo |Merchandise
Graciello Timothy Reyes |Layout
Charmaine Sto. Domingo Katrina Maniquis |Mock Bar
Krizel Malabanan Karren de Chavez |Bar Candidates Welfare
Karina Kirstie Paola Ayco Ma. Ara Garcia |Events
OPERATIONS HEADS
Charles Icasiano Katrina Rivera |Hotel Operations
Marijo Alcala Marian Salanguit |Day-Operations
Jauhari Azis |Night-Operations
Vivienne Villanueva Charlaine Latorre |Food
Kris Francisco Rimban Elvin Salindo |Transpo
Paula Plaza |Linkages
LAW
CRIMINAL LAW TEAM 2012
Faculty Editor | Prof. Jay
Batongbacal
Subject Heads | Camille
Umali Charmaine Sto.
Domingo
LAYOUT TEAM 2012
Layout Artists | Alyanna
Apacible Noel Luciano RM
Meneses Jenin Velasquez
Mara Villegas Naomi
Quimpo Leslie Octaviano
Yas Refran Cris Bernardino
Layout Head| Graciello
Timothy Reyes
Criminal Law 1
Criminal Law 1
Criminal Law 2
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
CRIMINAL LAW
Fundamental Principles of Criminal
Law
Felonies
Circumstances
which
affect
criminal liability
Persons criminally liable/Degree of
participation
Penalties
Modification and extinction of
criminal
REVISED PENAL CODE/SPECIAL

LAWS, PRESIDENTIAL DECREES,
AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS
A. Book 1 (Articles 1-99, RPC,
excluding provisions on civil
liability), including related Special
Laws
of crime
ment is taken
into account
for the
punishment.
As to mitigating
and aggravating
circumstances
They are
taken into
account in
imposing
penalty
When there is
more than
one offender,
the degree of
participation
of each in the
commission is
taken into
account.
As to degree of
participation
As to stage of
accomplishment
CHAPTER I. FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
A. DEFINITION OF CRIMINAL LAW
B. SCOPE OF APPLICATION AND
CHARACTERISTICS
C. CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS
As to what laws
are violated
A. Definition of Criminal Law

Criminal law is that branch of public substantive law
which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and
provides for their punishment.
1. Difference between Mala in Se and

Mala Prohibita (ASKED TWICE IN BAR
EXAMS)
As to nature
As to use of
good faith as
defense
As to WON
criminal intent
is an element
As to degree of
accomplishment
Mala in Se
Wrong from
its very
nature.
GF a valid
defense,
unless the
crime is the
result of
culpa
Criminal
intent is an
element.
Degree of
accomplish
Mala Prohibita
Wrong because
it is prohibited
by law
GF is not a
defense.
Criminal intent
is immaterial,
BUT still
requires
intelligence &
voluntariness
0. The
Penalty is
computed on
the basis of
whether he is
a principal
offender or
merely an
accomplice or
accessory
Generally,
the RPC.
act
gives
rise
to a
crime
only
when
consu
mmat
ed.
They are not
taken into
account.
Degree of
participation is
generally not
taken into
account. All
who
participated in
the act are
punished to the
same extent.
Penalty on
offenders is
same whether
they acted as
mere
accomplices or
accessories
Generally,
special laws.
Note:
Dolo is not required in crimes mala prohibita.
In those crimes which are mala prohibita, the

act alone irrespective of its motives, constitutes
the offense.
Good faith and absence of criminal intent are

not valid defenses in crimes mala prohibita.
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (2001): Estrada is
challenging the plunder law. One of the issues he
raised is whether plunder is a malum prohibitum
or malum in se.
Held: Plunder is a malum in se which requires
proof of criminal intent.
Precisely because the crimes constituting plunder
are mala in se the element of mens rea must be
proven in a prosecution for plunder.
i. While intentional felonies are always mala in se,
it does not follow that prohibited acts done in
violation of special laws are always mala
prohibita.
ii. Even if the crime is punished under a special
law, if the act punished is one which is inherently
wrong, the same is malum in se, and, therefore,

good faith and the lack of criminal intent are valid
defenses; unless it is the product of criminal
negligence or culpa.
Likewise when the special laws require that the
punished act be committed knowingly and
willfully, criminal intent is required to be proved
before criminal liability may arise.
(1) Utilitarian Theory

Primary purpose: Protection of society from actual or
potential wrongdoers.
(2) Classical Theory
Primary purpose: Retribution.
Note: Where malice is a factor, good faith is a

defense.
Basis of criminal liability: Human free will.

Endeavored to establish a mechanical and direct
proportion between crime and penalty; there is
scant regard to human element.
CRIMINAL LAW VS. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure
It is substantive.
It is remedial.
(3) Positivist Theory

Primary purpose: Reformation; prevention/ correction.
Prospective
application.
Basis of criminal liability: The sum of the social,

natural and economic phenomena to which the actor
is exposed.
Exception:
favorable
accused.
in
If it is
to
the
Retroactive in
application.
Crimes that are economic and social by nature

should be dealt with in a positivist manner; thus,
the law is more compassionate.
Exception
To
The
Exception:
1. When the accused is a
habitual delinquent.
(Art. 22)
2. Where the new law
expressly
made
inapplicable
to
pending actions or
existing causes of
actions. (Tavera v.
Valdez)
Statutory; it is passed by
the Legislature.
Heinous crimes should be dealt with in a classical

manner; thus, capital punishment.
May be promulgated by
the
Legislature
(e.g.
jurisdiction of courts) or
the Judiciary (e.g. Rules
of Court)
STATE AUTHORITY TO PUNISH CRIME (ASKED ONCE

IN BAR EXAMS)
Art. II, Sec. 5 (1987 Constitution) Declaration of
Principles and State Policies. The maintenance of
peace and order, the protection of life, liberty and
property, and promotion of the general welfare are
essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the
blessings of democracy.
SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW
a.
b.
The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) Created pursuant to Administrative Order
No. 94; enacted January 1, 1932; based on
the Spanish Penal Code, US Penal Code, and
Phil. Supreme Court decisions.
Special penal laws and penal Presidential
Decrees issued during Martial Law.
PENAL LEGISLATION
a.
(4) Eclectic/Mixed
Combines both positivist and classical thinking.
Schools of Thought (ASKED ONCE IN BAR

EXAMS) (PUCE)
Note: The Revised Penal Code today follows the

mixed or eclectic philosophy. For example:
Intoxication of the offender is considered to

mitigate his criminal liability, unless it is
intentional or habitual;
Age of the offender is considered;
A woman who killed her child to conceal her

dishonor has in her favor a mitigating
circumstance.
RELATION OF RPC TO SPECIAL LAWS: SUPPLETORY
APPLICATION OF RPC
Art. 10, RPC. Offenses not subject to the provisions
of this Code. Offenses which are or in the future
may be punishable under special laws are not
subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code
shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the
latter should specially provide the contrary.
General Rule: RPC provisions
provisions of special laws.
supplement
the
Exceptions:
(1) Where the special law provides otherwise
(Art.10)
(2) When the provisions of the Code are impossible
of application, either by express provision or by
necessary implication, as in those instances
where the provisions in question are peculiar to
the Code. (Regalado, Criminal Law Prospectus)
Ladonga v People (2005):
Spouses Ladonga were convicted by the RTC for
15
16
violation of B.P. Blg. 22 (3 counts). The husband

applied for probation while the wife appealed
arguing that the RTC erred in finding her
criminally liable for conspiring with her husband
as the principle of conspiracy is inapplicable to
B.P. Blg. 22 which is a special law.
Held:
1. B.P. Blg. 22 does not expressly prescribe the
suppletory application of the provisions of
the RPC.
2. Thus, in the absence of contrary provision in
B.P. Blg. 22, the general provisions of the
RPC which, by their nature, are necessarily
applicable, may be applied suppletorily.
3. The court cited the case of Yu vs. People,
where
the
provisions
on
subsidiary
imprisonment under Art. 39 of the RPC to
B.P. Blg. 22 was applied suppletorily.
People vs. Rodriguez (1960):
It was held that a violation of a special law can
never absorb a crime punishable under the
Revised Penal Code, because violations of the
Revised Penal Code are more serious than a
violation of a special law.
1. Generality
General Rule:
Art. 14, NCC. The penal law of the country is
binding on all persons who live or sojourn in
Philippine territory, subject to the principles of
public international law and to treaty stipulations.
Limitations:
Art. 2, RPC. Except as provided in the treaties or
laws of preferential application xxx
a. Treaty Stipulations
Examples:
Bases Agreement entered into by the

Philippines and the US on Mar. 14, 1947 and
expired on Sept. 16, 1991.
Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA)2 signed on

Feb. 10, 1998.
Article V
Criminal Jurisdiction
1. Subject to the provisions of this article:
(a) Philippine authorities shall have jurisdiction
over United States personnel with respect to
offenses committed within the Philippines and
punishable under the law of the Philippines.
But a crime in the Revised Penal Code can absorb

a crime punishable by a special law if it is a
necessary ingredient of the felony defined in the
Code.
(b) United States military authorities shall have the

right to exercise within the Philippines all criminal
and disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by
the military law of the United States over United
States personnel in the Philippines.
People vs. Martinada:

The crime of cattle-rustling is not malum
prohibitum but a modification of the crime of
theft of large cattle.
2. (a) Philippine authorities exercise exclusive

jurisdiction over United States personnel with
respect to offenses, including offenses relating to
the security of the Philippines, punishable under
the laws of the Philippines, but not under the laws
of the United States.
So Presidential Decree No. 533, punishing cattlerustling, is not a special law, but a law amending
provisions of the RPC (Arts. 309 and 310).
It can absorb the crime of murder. If in the
course of cattle rustling, murder was committed,
the offender cannot be prosecuted for murder.
(b) United States authorities exercise exclusive

jurisdiction over United States personnel with
respect to offenses, including offenses relating to
the security of the United States, punishable under
the laws of the United States, but not under the
laws of the Philippines.
Note: Murder would be a qualifying circumstance in

the crime of qualified cattle rustling.1
B. Scope of Application and

Characteristics of the
Philippine Criminal Law
(c) For the purposes of this paragraph and

paragraph 3 of this article, an offense relating to
security means:
1. GENERALITY (WHO?)
2. TERRITORIALITY (WHERE?)
3. PROSPECTIVITY (WHEN?)
(1) treason;
(2) sabotage, espionage or violation of any law
relating to national defense.
Criminal law has three (3) characteristics: General,

Territorial, and Prospective.
3. In cases where the right to exercise jurisdiction

is concurrent, the following rules shall apply:
Sec. 8, P.D. No. 533
Take note of Art. V, which defines criminal jurisdiction over

United States military and civilian personnel temporarily in
the Philippines in connection with activities approved by the
Philippine Government.

(a) Philippine authorities shall have the primary
right to exercise jurisdiction over all offenses
committed by United States personnel, except in
cases provided for in paragraphs l (b), 2 (b), and 3
(b) of this Article.
(b) United States military authorities shall have the
primary right to exercise jurisdiction over United
States personnel subject to the military law of the
United States in relation to:
(1) offenses solely against the property or security
of the United States or offenses solely against the
property or person of United States personnel; and
(2) offenses arising out of any act or omission done
in performance of official duty.
(c) The authorities of either government may
request the authorities of the other government to
waive their primary right to exercise jurisdiction in
a particular case.
(d) Recognizing the responsibility of the United
States military authorities to maintain good order
and discipline among their forces, Philippine
authorities will, upon request by the United States,
waive their primary right to exercise jurisdiction
except in cases of particular importance to the
Philippines. If the Government of the Philippines
determines that the case is of particular
importance,
it
shall
communicate
such
determination to the United States authorities
within twenty (20) days after the Philippine
authorities receive the United States request.
(e) When the United States military commander
determines that an offense charged by authorities
of the Philippines against United States personnel
arises out of an act or omission done in the
performance of official duty, the commander will
issue a certificate setting forth such determination.
This certificate will be transmitted to the
appropriate authorities of the Philippines and will
constitute sufficient proof of performance of
official duty for the purposes of paragraph 3(b)(2)
of this article. In those cases where the
Government of the Philippines believes the
circumstances of the case require a review of the
duty certificate, United States military authorities
and
Philippine
authorities
shall
consult
immediately. Philippine authorities at the highest
levels may also present any information bearing on
its validity. United States military authorities shall
take full account of the Philippine position. Where
appropriate, United States military authorities will
take disciplinary or other action against offenders
in official duty cases, and notify the Government of
the Philippines of the actions taken.
(f) If the government having the primary right does
not exercise jurisdiction, it shall notify the
authorities of the other government as soon as
possible.
(g) The authorities of the Philippines and the
United States shall notify each other of the

disposition of all cases in which both the
authorities of the Philippines and the United States
have the right to exercise jurisdiction.
b. Laws of Preferential Application

Examples:
Members of Congress are not liable for libel or

slander for any speech in Congress or in any
committee thereof. (Sec. 11, Art. VI, 1987
Constitution)
Any ambassador or public minister of any

foreign State, authorized and received as such
by the President, or any domestic or domestic
servant of any such ambassador or minister are
exempt from arrest and imprisonment and
whose properties are exempt from distraint,
seizure and attachment.3 (R.A. No. 75)
Warship Rule A warship of another country,

even though docked in the Philippines, is
considered an extension of the territory of its
respective country. This also applies to
embassies.
c. Principles of Public International Law

Art. 14, NCC. xxx subject to the principles of
public international law and to treaty stipulations.
The following persons are exempt from the
provisions of the RPC:
(1) Sovereigns and other heads of state
(2) Ambassadors,
ministers,
plenipotentiary,
minister resident and charges d affaires.
(Article 31, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations)
Note: Consuls and consular officers are NOT
exempt from local prosecution. (See Article 41,
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations)
Public vessels of a friendly foreign power are not
subject to local jurisdiction.
Note: Generality has NO reference to territoriality.
2. Territoriality
GENERAL RULE: Penal laws of the country have
force and effect only within its territory.
It cannot penalize crimes committed outside its

territory.
The territory of the country is not limited to the
land where its sovereignty resides but includes
also its maritime and interior waters as well as
its atmosphere. (Art. 2, RPC)
R.A. No. 75 penalizes acts which would impair the proper

observance by the Republic and inhabitants of the
Philippines of the immunities, rights, and privileges of duly
accredited foreign diplomatic representatives in the
Philippines
17
18
(1) Terrestrial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction

exercised over land.
(2) Fluvial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised
over maritime and interior waters.
(3) Aerial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised
over the atmosphere.
i. Free Zone Theory

The atmosphere over the country is
free and not subject to the jurisdiction
of the subjacent state, except for the
protection of its national security and
public order.
ii. Relative Theory
The
subjacent
state
exercises
jurisdiction over the atmosphere only
to the extent that it can effectively
exercise control thereof.
EXCEPTIONS
(1) Extraterritorial crimes, which are punishable
even if committed outside the Philippine
territory (Art. 2, RPC) (ASKED 4 TIMES IN BAR
EXAMS)
iii. Absolute Theory

The subjacent state has complete
jurisdiction over the atmosphere above
it subject only to the innocent passage
by aircraft of a foreign country.
Art. 2 embraces two scopes of applications:

General rule - Intraterritorial refers to the
application of the RPC within the Philippine territory
(land, air and water).
Under this theory, if the crime is

committed in an aircraft, no matter
how high, as long as it can be
established that it is within the
Philippine
atmosphere,
Philippine
criminal law6 will govern.
Exception - Extraterritorial4 refers to the application

of the Revised Penal Code outside the Philippine
territory.
(a) Par. 1: Crimes committed aboard
Philippine ship or airship:
The RPC is applied to Philippine vessels5 if the
crime is committed while the ship is treading:
i. Philippine waters (intraterritorial), or
ii. The high seas i.e. waters NOT under the
jurisdiction of any State (extraterritorial)
Note: The Philippines adopts this theory.

(b) Par. 2: Forging/Counterfeiting and Coins
or Currency Notes in the Philippines
i. Forgery is committed abroad, and
ii. It refers only to Philippine
currency
note,
obligations
securities.
Two rules as to jurisdiction over crimes

committed aboard merchant vessels while in the
territorial waters of another country (i.e. a
foreign vessel treading Philippine waters OR
Philippine vessels treading foreign waters):
i.
ii.
(c) Par. 3: Should introduce into the country

the above-mentioned obligations and
securities.
FRENCH RULE: It is the flag or

nationality of the vessel which
determines jurisdiction UNLESS the
crime violates the peace and order of
the host country.
ENGLISH RULE: the location or situs of
the crime determines jurisdiction
UNLESS the crime merely relates to
internal management of the vessel.
i.
When the crime is committed in a war vessel of

a foreign country, the nationality of the vessel
will always determine jurisdiction because war
vessels are part of the sovereignty of the
country to whose naval force they belong.
The reason for this provision is that the

introduction of forged or counterfeited
obligations and securities into the
Philippines is as dangerous as the forging
or counterfeiting of the same, to the
economical interest of the country.
(d) Par. 4: When public officers or employees

commit an offense in the exercise of their
functions.
The Philippines adheres to the ENGLISH RULE.

However, these rules are NOT applicable if the
vessel is on the high seas when the crime was
committed. In these cases, the laws of the
nationality of the ship will always apply.
coin,
and
Crime committed pertains to the exercise of the

public officials functions:
The crimes
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
International Theories on Aerial Jurisdiction
vi.
vii.
R.A. 9327 (The Human Security Act) contains provisions

for extraterritorial application.
5
The country of registry determines the nationality of the
vessel, NOT ITS OWNERSHIP. A Filipino-owned vessel
registered in China must fly the Chinese flag.
viii.
which may be committed are:

Direct bribery (A.210)
Qualified Bribery (A. 211-A)
Indirect bribery (A.211)
Corruption (A.212)
Frauds against the public treasury
(A.213)
Possession of prohibited interest (A.216)
Malversation of public funds or property
(A. 217)
Failure to render accounts (A.218)
See Anti-Hijacking Law, (Other part of the reviewer)

ix.
x.
xi.
xii.
Illegal use of public funds or property

(A.220)
Failure to make delivery of public funds
or property (A.221)
Falsification by a public officer or
employee committed with abuse of his
official position (A.171)
Those having to do with the discharge of
their duties in a foreign country.
The functions contemplated are those, which are,

under the law:
i.
to be performed by the public officer;
ii.
in the foreign service of the Phil.
government;
iii.
in a foreign country.
(e) Par. 5: Commit any of the crimes against
national security and the law of nations,
(Title One, Book 2, RPC)
Crimes against national security:
i.
Treason (A.114)
ii.
Conspiracy and proposal to commit
treason (A.115)
iii.
Misprision of treason (A.116)
iv.
Espionage (A.117)
Crimes against the law of nations:
i.
Inciting to war or giving motives for
reprisals (A.118)
ii.
Violation of neutrality (A.119)
iii.
Correspondence with hostile country
(A.120)
iv.
Flight to enemys country (A.121)
v. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high
seas or in Philippine waters (A.122)
Note:
Crimes against public order (e.g., rebellion, coup
detat, sedition) committed abroad is under the
jurisdiction of the host country.
Terrorism is now classified as a crime against
national security and the law of nations. (See R.A.
9372, otherwise known as Human Security Act of
2007).
3. Prospectivity
GENERAL RULE: Acts or omissions will only be
subject to a penal law if they are committed AFTER
a penal law has taken effect.
Conversely, acts or omissions which have been
committed before the effectivity of a penal law
could not be penalized by such penal law.
EXCEPTION:
Art. 22 RPC. Penal laws shall have a retroactive
effect, insofar as they favor the person guilty of a
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 same.
Art. 62(5) RPC. xxx For the purpose of this article, a

person shall be deemed to be a habitual delinquent,
if within a period of 10 years from the date of his
release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or
less serious physical injuries, robo(robbery),
hurto(theft), estafa, or falsification, he is found
guilty of any crimes a third time or oftener.
EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION:
(1) The new law is expressly made inapplicable to
pending actions or existing cause of actions; or
(2) The offender is a habitual criminal.
Effects of repeal of penal law
(1) If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in the
new law,
(a) The new law shall be applied,
(b) EXCEPT when the offender is a habitual
delinquent or when the new law is made
not applicable to pending action or existing
causes of action.
(2) If the new law imposes a heavier penalty
(a) Law in force at the time of the commission
of the offense shall be applied.
(3) If the new law totally repeals the existing law so
that the act which was penalized under the old
law is no longer punishable,
(a) The crime is obliterated.
(b) Pending cases are dismissed.
(c) Unserved penalties imposed are remitted.
(4) Rule of prospectivity also applies to judicial
decisions,7 administrative rulings and circulars.
Co vs. CA, (1993): In this case, Circular No. 4 of
the Ministry of Justice, dated December, 15,
1981, provided that where the check is issued as
part of an arrangement to guarantee or secure
the payment of an obligation, whether preexisting or not, the drawer is not criminally liable
for either estafa or violation of B.P. 22.
Subsequently, the administrative interpretation was
reversed in Circular No. 12, issued on August 8,
1984, such that the claim that the check was issued
as a guarantee or part of an arrangement to secure
an obligation or to facilitate collection, is no longer
a valid defense for the prosecution under B.P. 22.
Hence, it was ruled that under the new circular, a
check issued merely to guarantee the performance
of an obligation is covered by B.P. 22 [Que vs.
People].
However, consistent with the principle of
prospectivity, the new doctrine should not apply to
parties who had relied on the old Circular and acted
on the faith thereof. No retrospective effect.
Art. 8, Civil Code
19
20
Rationale
for
the
prospectivity
rule:
the
punishability of an act must be reasonably known for
the guidance of society [citing Peo v. Jabinal].
[NOTE: The SC outline does not include the next
two characteristics.]
4. Legality
(nullum
poena sine lege)
crimen
nulla
Art. 21. No felony shall be punishable by any penalty

not prescribed by law prior to its commission.
There is no crime when there is no law punishing the
same.
Limitation:
Not every law punishing an act or omission may be
valid as a criminal law. If the law punishing an act is
ambiguous, it is null and void.
5. Strict Construction of Penal Laws

Against State: The Doctrine of
Pro Reo
Pro reo doctrine: Whenever a penal law is to be

construed or applied and the law admits of two
interpretations - one lenient to the offender and one
strict to the offender, that interpretation which is
lenient or favorable to the offender will be adopted.
Basis: The fundamental rule that all doubts shall be
construed in favor of the accused and presumption
of innocence of the accused.
Art. III, Sec. 14(2), 1987 Const. In all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved.
Note: This is peculiar only to criminal law.
EQUIPOISE RULE:
When the evidence of the prosecution and the
defense are equally balanced, the scale should be
tilted in favor of the accused in obedience to the
constitutional presumption of innocence.8
C. Constitutional limitations on
the power of Congress to enact
penal laws in the Bill of Rights
(i) Equal protection
(ii) Due process
(iii)Non-imposition of cruel and unusual
punishment or excessive fines
(iv) Bill of attainder
(v) Ex post facto law
Ursua v. CA (1996); Corpuz v. People (1991)
1. Equal protection
Article III, Section 1, 1987 Const. No person shall
be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law, nor shall any person be denied the
equal protection of the laws.
2. Due process
Art. III, Sec. 14 (1), 1987 Const. No person shall be
held to answer for a criminal offense without due
process of law.
Must be general in application.
3. Non-imposition
of cruel and
unusual punishment or excessive
fines
Art III, Sec. 19, 1987 Const. Excessive fines shall

not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman
punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be
imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving
heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for
it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be
reduced to reclusion perpetua.
a. Act Prohibiting the Imposition of

Death Penalty in the Philippines (R.A.
9346)
Republic Act 9346
An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death
Penalty.
Repealed the law imposing lethal injection (R.A.
8177) and the law imposing the death penalty (R.A.
7659) (Sec. 1).
This Act also imposes the punishment of reclusion
perpetua for offenses under any act using the
nomenclature of the RPC (Sec. 2 (a)) and the
punishment of life imprisonment for offenses under
any act which does not use the nomenclature of the
RPC (Sec. 2(b))
4. Bill of attainder
Art III, Sec. 22, 1987 Const. No ex post facto law or
bill of attainder shall be enacted.
Bill of attainder - a legislative act that inflicts
punishment without trial, its essence being the
substitution of legislative fiat for a judicial
determination of guilt.
5. Ex post facto law

Art III, Sec. 22, 1987 Const. No ex post facto law or
bill of attainder shall be enacted.
Ex post facto law is one which:
(1) Makes criminal an act done before the passage
of the law and which was innocent when done,
and punishes such an act.
(2) Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it
was, when committed;

(3) Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater
punishment than the law annexed to the crime
when committed;
(4) Alters the legal rules of evidence, and
authorizes conviction upon less or different
testimony than the law required at the time of
the commission of the offense;
(5) Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies
only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation
of a right for something which when done was
lawful; and
(6) Deprives a person accused of a crime some
lawful protection to which he has become
entitled, such as the protection of a former
conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of
amnesty. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code
citing In re: Kay Villegas Kami, Inc.)
Other constitutional limitations
Must not provide imprisonment for non-payment
of debts or poll tax. [1987 Const. Art. III, Sec. 19
(1)]
Must not restrict other constitutional freedoms,
e.g. due process, religion, free speech, and
assembly.
Basic Maxims in Criminal Law
a. Actus Non Facit Reum, Nisi Mens Sit Rea
The act cannot be criminal where the mind is not
criminal.
U.S. vs. Catolico (18 Phil. 504, 508)
Facts: Accused was a justice of the peace who
rendered decisions for damages based on breach
of contract. The defendants failed to pay the
bonds required on time, so upon petition of the
plaintiffs, the accursed dismissed the appeals and
ordered the sums attached and delivered to
plaintiffs in satisfaction of the judgment. Accused
was prosecuted for malversation.
Held: The general rule is that, if it is proved that
the accused committed the criminal act charged,
it will be presumed that the act was done with
criminal intention. However, it must be borne in
mind that the act from which such presumption
springs must be a criminal act. In this case, the
act of the accused was not unlawful. Everything
he did was done in good faith under the belief
that he was acting judiciously and correctly. The
act of a person does not make him a criminal,
unless his mind be criminal.
b. Actus Me Invito Factus Non Est Meus Actus
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
c.
El Que Es Causa De La Causa Es Causa Del Mal

Causado
He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the
evil caused.
This is the rationale in par. 1 of Art. 4 which

enunciates the doctrine of proximate cause.
He who commits an intentional felony is responsible

for all the consequences which may naturally and
logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or
intended or not.
21
CHAPTER II. FELONIES

22
A. PRELIMINARY MATTERS
B. CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES
C. ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
D. IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
E. STAGES OF EXECUTION
F. CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL
G MULTIPLE OFFENDERS
H. COMPLEX CRIME AND SPECIAL COMPLEX
CRIMES
A. Preliminary matters
Intentional Felony v. Culpable Felony

Intentional
Act is malicious.
Culpable
Not malicious.
With deliberate intent.
Injury
caused
is
unintentional, being just
an incident of another act
performed
without
malice.
Wrongful act results from
imprudence, negligence,
lack of foresight, or lack
of skill.
Has intention to cause

an injury.
1. Differentiating Felonies, Offense,

Misdemeanor and Crime
Felony: refers only to violations of the Revised Penal
Code.
A crime punishable under a special law is not

referred to as a felony. Crime or offense
are the proper terms. (ASKED 3 TIMES IN BAR
EXAMS)
Importance: There are certain provisions in the
Revised Penal Code where the term felony is used,
which means that the provision is not extended to
crimes under special laws.
Example:
Art. 160. Quasi-Recidivism: A person who shall
commit a felony after having been convicted by final
judgment, before beginning to serve sentence or
while serving the same, shall be punished under the
maximum period of the penalty.
Note that the word felony is used.
Offense: A crime punished under a special law is
called a statutory offense.
Misdemeanor: A minor infraction of the law, such as
a violation of an ordinance.
Crime: Whether the wrongdoing is punished under
the Revised Penal Code or under a special law, the
generic word crime can be used.
1. Felonies: How Committed
Art. 3. Definitions (RPC) Acts and omissions
punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit
(dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).
There is deceit when the act is performed with
deliberate intent; and there is fault when the
wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence,
lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
2. How is Criminal Liability Incurred?

Art. 3 describes the manner of incurring criminal
liability under the Revised Penal Code.
Intentional felony v. Culpable Felony. It means

performing or failing to do an act, when either
is punished by law, by means of deceit (with
dolo) or fault (with culpa)
It is important to note that if the criminal

liability arises from an omission, such as
misprision of treason or abandonment of
helpless persons, there must be a law requiring
the performance of such act.
In Par. 1 of Art. 4, the law uses the word

felony, that whoever commits a felony incurs
criminal liability.
Par. 2 of Art. 4 makes a person liable even if the

accomplishment of his crime is inherently
impossible.
Art. 6 also provides for liability for the

incomplete elements of a crime.
There are certain felonies committed by

conspiring in or proposing the commission of
certain acts, the principle behind this can be
found in Art. 8.
Plural crimes on the other hand are discussed

under Art. 48.
Requisites of Dolo or Malice
(1) He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or
omitting to do an act.
(2) He
must
have
INTELLIGENCE
while
doing/omitting an act.
(3) He must have INTENT while doing/omitting the
act.
(a) Intent which is a mental process
presupposes the exercise of freedom and
the use of intelligence.
(b) If an act is proven to be unlawful, then
intent will be presumed prima facie. (U.S.
v. Apostol)
(c) An honest mistake of fact destroys the
presumption of criminal intent which arises
from the commission of a felonious act.
(People v. Oanis)
General v. Specific Intent
In some particular felonies, proof of specific intent is
required. In certain crimes against property, there

must be intent to gain (Art. 293 robbery, Art 308
theft). Intent to kill is essential in attempted and
frustrated homicide (Art 6 in relation to Art 249), as
well as in murder. In forcible abduction (Art. 342),
specific intent of lewd designs must be proved.
Requisites of Culpa
(1) He must have FREEDOM while doing/omitting to
do an act
(2) He must have INTELLIGENCE while doing the
act/omitting to do an act
(3) He is IMPRUDENT, NEGLIGENT, or LACKS
FORESIGHT or SKILL while doing the
act/omitting to do an act.
3. Discussion of Article 5
Art. 5 RPC. Duty of the court in connection with
acts which should be repressed but which are not
covered by the law, and in cases of excessive
penalties.
1) Whenever a court has knowledge of any act
which it may deem proper to repress and which
is not punishable by law,
2) it shall render the proper decision, and shall
report to the Chief Executive, through the
Department of Justice, the reasons which induce
the court to believe that said act should be
made the subject of legislation.
3) 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 suspending the execution of the
sentence,
4) when a strict enforcement of the provisions of
this Code would result in the imposition of a
clearly
excessive
penalty,
taking
into
consideration the degree of malice and the
injury caused by the offense.
Art. 5 covers two situations:
a. Where the court cannot convict the accused
because the act he committed is not punishable
under the law, but the court deems it proper to
repress such act.
The proper judgment is acquittal.
The judge must report to the Chief

Executive that said act be made subject of
penal legislation and the reasons therefore.
b.
Where the court after trial finds the accused

guilty, and the penalty prescribed for the crime
appears too harsh considering the conditions
surrounding the commission of the crime,
The judge should impose the law (not

suspend the execution of the sentence).
The most that he could do is recommend to

the Chief Executive to grant executive
clemency.
4. Wrongful Act Different from that

Intended
When a person commits a felony with malice, he

intends the consequences of his felonious act.
Art. 4. RPC. Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito)
although the wrongful act done be different from
that which he intended. xxx xxx xxx
Rationale: el que es causa de la causa es causa del
mal causado (he who is the cause of the cause is the
cause of the evil caused).
Requisites:
(1) An intentional felony has been committed.
(a) The felony committed should be one
committed by means of dolo (with malice)
because Art. 4, Par. 1 speaks of wrongful
act done different from that which he
intended.
(b) The act should not be punished by a special
law because the offender violating a special
law may not have the intent to do an injury
to another.
(c) No felony is committed when:
i. the act or omission is not punishable by
the RPC,
ii. the act is covered by any of the justifying
circumstances enumerated in Art. 11.
(2) The wrong done to the aggrieved party be the
direct, natural and logical consequence of the
felony committed by the offender.
(a) Proximate Cause - That cause, which, in a
natural and continuous sequence, unbroken
by any efficient intervening cause, produces
the injury without which the result would
not have occurred.
Criminal liability exists from the concurrence of the
mens rea and the actus reus.
Illustration:
Dave and JR are supposed to meet in Audreys home
but when JR arrived Dave was not home. JR received
an SMS from Dave telling the former to get the house
key from under the doormat. Dave lets himself in
and saw an iPod on the table. JR took the iPod.
What is JRs criminal liability? He is liable only for
theft and not robbery because the intent to gain
concurred only with the act of taking BUT NOT with
the act of using the owners keys to enter the house.
Note: Criminal liability for some felonies arises only
upon a specific resulting harm:
(1) HOMICIDE AND ITS QUALIFIED FORMS requires
DEATH of the victim to be consummated.
(2) ESTAFA: requires that the victim incur damage
for criminal liability for the consummated felony
to arise
Vda. De Bataclan v. Medina (1957):
SC laid down the definition of proximate cause:
that cause, which, in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening
cause, produces the injury, and without which the
result would not have occurred. And more
23
24
comprehensively, 'the proximate legal cause is that

acting first and producing the injury, either
immediately or by setting other events in motion, all
constituting a natural and continuous chain of
events, each having a close causal connection with
its immediate predecessor, the final event in the
chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural
and probable result of the cause which first acted,
under such circumstances that the person
responsible for the first event should, as an ordinary
prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable
ground to expect at the moment of his act or default
that an injury to some person might probably result
therefrom.
GENERAL RULE: The offender is CRIMINALLY LIABLE
for ALL the natural and logical consequences of his
felonious act, although not intended, if the felonious
act is the proximate cause of the resulting harm.
Thus, the person is still criminally liable although
the wrongful act done be different from that which
he intended in the following cases:
(1) Error in personae - mistake in the identity of
the victim; injuring one person mistaken for
another (Art. 49 penalty for lesser crime in its
maximum period)
(a) At least two subjects
(b) A has intent to kill B, but kills C
(c) Under Art. 3, if A hits C, he should have no
criminal liability. But because of Art. 4, his
act is a felony.
(2) Aberratio ictus - mistake in the blow; when
offender intending to do an injury to one person
actually inflicts it on another (Art. 48 on
complex crimes penalty for graver offense in
its maximum period)
(a) There is only one subject.
(b) The intended subject is a different subject,
but the felony is still the same.
(3) Praeter intentionem - injurious result is greater
than that intended (Art. 13 mitigating
circumstance)
(a) If As act constitutes sufficient means to
carry out the graver felony, he cannot claim
praeter intentionem.
Proximate Cause v. Immediate Cause v. Remote
Cause
C, then C hit the car of B, then, finally, B hit the car

of A.
In this case, the immediate cause of the damage to
the car of A is the car of B, but that is not the
proximate cause.
The proximate cause is the negligence of E (using
his cellphone while driving) because it sets into
motion the collision of all the cars.
US v. Valdez (1921):
The deceased is a member of the crew of a vessel.
Accused is in charge of the crew members engaged
in the loading of cargo in the vessel.
Because the offended party was slow in his work, the
accused shouted at him. The offended party replied
that they would be better if he would not insult
them.
The accused resented this, and rising in rage, he
moved towards the victim, with a big knife in hand
threatening to kill him.
The victim believing himself to be in immediate peril
threw himself into the water. The victim died of
drowning. The accused was prosecuted for homicide.
His contention that his liability should be only for
grave threats since he did not even stab the victim,
that the victim died of drowning, and this can be
considered as a supervening cause.
Held:
The deceased, in throwing himself into the river,
acted solely in obedience to the instinct of selfpreservation, and was in no sense legally responsible
for his own death. As to him, it was but the exercise
of a choice between two evils, and any reasonable
person under the same circumstance might have
done the same.
This case illustrates that proximate cause does not
require that the offender needs to actually touch the
body of the offended party.
It is enough that the offender generated in the mind
of the offended party an immediate sense of danger
that made him place his life at risk. In this case, the
accused must, therefore, be considered the author
of the death of the victim.
Illustrations:
A, B, C, D, and E were driving their vehicles along
Ortigas Ave. As car was ahead, followed by those of
B, C, D, and E.
Urbano v. IAC (1988):

A and B had a quarrel and A started to hack B with a
bolo. B was wounded at the back.
When As car reached the intersection of EDSA and

Ortigas Avenue, the traffic light turned red so A
immediately stepped on his brakes, followed by B,
C, and D.
Upon intervention, the two settled their differences.

A agreed to shoulder all the expenses for the
treatment of the wound of B, and to pay him also
whatever loss of income B may have suffered.
However, E was using his cellphone and therefore

was not aware that the traffic light had turned to
red, so he bumped the car of D, then D hit the car of
B, on the other hand, signed a statement of his

forgiveness towards A and on that condition, he
withdrew the complaint that he filed against A.

After so many weeks of treatment in a clinic, the
doctor pronounced that the wound was already
healed. Thereafter, B went back to his farm.
A month later, B came home and was chilling. Before
midnight, he died out of tetanus poisoning.
The heirs of B filed a case of homicide against A.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that A is not liable. A, if at
all, is only liable for the physical injuries inflicted
upon B.
The Court took into account the incubation period of
tetanus toxic. Medical evidence was presented, that
tetanus toxic is good only for two weeks. If, indeed,
the victim had incurred tetanus poisoning out of the
wound inflicted by A, he would not have lasted for
around a month (22 days).
What brought about the tetanus to infect his body
was his work in the farm using his bare hands.
The rule is that the death of the victim must be
the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the
wounds inflicted upon him by the accused. However,
the act of B working in his farm where the soil is
filthy, using his own hands, is an efficient
supervening cause which relieves A of any liability
for the death of B.
There is a likelihood that the wound was but
the remote cause and its subsequent infection, for
failure to take necessary precautions, with tetanus
may have been the proximate cause of Javier's death
with which the petitioner had nothing to do.
The felony committed is not the proximate cause
of the resulting injury when:
(1) There is an active force that intervened
between the felony committed and the
resulting injury, and the active force is a
distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the
felonious act of the accused; or
(2) The resulting injury is due to the intentional act
of the victim.
The following are not efficient intervening cause:
(1) The weak or diseased physical condition of the
victim, as when one is suffering from
tuberculosis or heart disease. (People v.
Illustre).
(2) The nervousness or temperament of the victim,
as when a person dies in consequence of an
internal hemorrhage brought on by moving
about against the doctors orders, because of
his nervous condition due to the wound
inflicted on the accused. (People v. Almonte).
(3) Causes which are inherent in the victim, such
(a) the victim not knowing to swim and (b) the
victim being addicted to tuba drinking. (People

v. Buhay and People v. Valdez).
(4) Neglect of the victim or third person, such as
the refusal by the injured party of medical
attendance or surgical operation, or the failure
of the doctor to give anti-tetanus injection to
the injured person. (U.S. v. Marasigan).
(5) Erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical
treatment, as when the assault took place in
anu outlaying barrio where proper modern
surgical service was not available. (People v.
Moldes).
5. Omission
It is inaction, the failure to perform a positive duty
which a person is bound to do.
There must be a law requiring the doing or
performing of an act.
Punishable omissions in the RPC:
(1) Art. 116: Misprision of treason.
(2) Art. 137: Disloyalty of public officers or
employees.
(3) Art. 208: Negligence and tolerance in
prosecution of offenses.
(4) Art. 223: Conniving with or consenting to
evasion.
(5) Art. 275: Abandonment of person in danger and
abandonment of ones own victim.
(6) Art. 276: Abandoning a minor.
B. Classifications of Felonies
FELONIES ARE CLASSIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
1. According to the manner of their commission
2. According to the stages of their execution
(ASKED 9 TIMES IN BAR EXAMS)
3. According to their gravity
OTHER CLASSIFICATIONS:
4. As to count
5. As to nature
This question was asked in the bar examination: How
do you classify felonies and how are felonies
defined?
TIP: What the examiner had in mind was Articles

3, 6 and 9. Do not write the classification of
felonies under Book 2 of the Revised Penal
Code.
The question does not require the candidate to

classify but also to define.
The purpose of classifying penalties is to bring

about a proportionate penalty and equitable
punishment.
The penalties are graduated according to their

degree of severity.
The stages (Art. 6) may not apply to all

kinds of felonies.
There are felonies which do not admit of

division.
25
26
1. According to the Manner of Their

Commission
Under Art. 3, they are classified as:

a. Intentional felonies or those committed with
deliberate intent; and
b. Culpable felonies or those resulting from
negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of
foresight or lack of skill.
2. According to the Stages of Their

Execution
Under Art. 6, they are classified as:

a. Attempted
b. Frustrated
c. Consummated
Note: The classification of stages of a felony in
Article 6 are true only to crimes under the Revised
Penal Code. It does NOT apply to crimes punished
under special laws.
However, even certain crimes which are punished
under the Revised Penal Code do not admit of these
stages.
Related to this, classification of felonies as to:
a. Formal Crimes: Crimes which are consummated
in one instance.
Example: ILLEGAL EXACTION under Art. 213
Mere demanding of an amount different

from what the law authorizes him to collect
will already consummate a crime, whether
the taxpayer pays the amount being
demanded or not.
b. Material Felonies: crimes that have various
stages of execution
c. Felonies by omission: Crimes which have no
attempted stage.
d. Crimes which have NO FRUSTRATED STAGE:
the essence of the crime is the act itself.
Example: in rape, the slightest penetration
already consummates the crime; the same is
true for arson where the slightest burning
already renders the crime complete.
Valenzuela vs. People (2007):
No crime of frustrated theft.
Facts: A grocery boy was caught trying to abscond a
box of Tide Ultrabar laundry soap from the Super
Sale Club. The guards apprehended him at the store
parking lot while trying to board a taxi. He claimed
the theft was merely frustrated for he was not able
to dispose of the goods.
Held: The Revised Penal Code provisions on theft
have not been designed in such fashion as to
accommodate the Adiao, Dino and Empelis rulings.
Again, there is no language in Article 308 that
expressly or impliedly allows that the free
disposition of the items stolen is in any way
determinative of whether the crime of theft has

been produced. We thus conclude that under the
Revised Penal Code, there is no crime of frustrated
theft.
3. According to Their Gravity

Under Art. 9, felonies are classified as:
a. Grave felonies or those to which the law
attaches
(1) the capital punishment or
(2) penalties which in any of their periods are
afflictive;
(a) Reclusion perpetua
(b) Reclusion temporal
(c) Perpetual or Absolute DQ
(d) Perpetual or Temporary Special DQ
(e) Prision mayor
(f) Fine more than P6,000
b. Less grave felonies or those to which the law
punishes
(1) with penalties which in their maximum
period is correctional;
(a) Prision correccional
(b) Arresto mayor
(c) Suspension
(d) Destierro
(e) Fines equal to or more than P200
c. Light felonies or those infractions of law for the
commission of which
(1) the penalty is arresto menor, or a fine not
exceeding P200, or both. (ASKED 4 TIMES IN
BAR EXAMS)
Why is it necessary to determine whether the crime
is grave, less grave or light?
(1) To determine
whether these felonies can be

complexed or not;
the prescription of the crime and
the prescription of the penalty.

(2) In other words, these are felonies classified
according to their gravity, stages and the
penalty attached to them.
Take note that when the Revised Penal Code speaks
of grave and less grave felonies, the definition
makes a reference specifically to Art. 25 of the
Revised Penal Code.
Do not omit the phrase In accordance with Art. 25
because there is also a classification of penalties
under Art. 26 that was not applied.
This classification of felony according to gravity is
important with respect to the question of
prescription of crimes.
(3)
Ex. If the penalty is a fine and exactly
P200.00, it is only considered a light felony
under Art. 9. If the fine is imposed as an
alternative penalty or as a single penalty, the
fine of P200.00 is considered a correctional
penalty under Art. 26, hence a less grave
penalty.

If the penalty is exactly P200.00, apply Art. 26
(with respect to prescription of penalties). It is
considered as a correctional penalty and it
prescribes in 10 years. If the offender is
apprehended at any time within ten years, he
can be made to suffer the fine.
For an act to be punishable, there must be a

CONCURRENCE BETWEEN THE ACT and the INTENT.
b. That the act or omission must be

punishable by the RPC;
c. That the act is performed or the
omission incurred by means of dolo or
culpa.
4. As to Count
Plurality of crimes may be in the form of:
a. Compound Crime,
b. Complex crime; and
c. Composite crime.
5. As to Nature
a.
b.
Dolo is DELIBERATE INTENT otherwise referred to as

criminal intent, and must be coupled with freedom
of action and intelligence on the part of the
offender as to the act done by him.
Liability even in the absence of criminal intent
There are two exceptions to the requirement of
criminal intent:
(a) Felonies committed by CULPA. (infra)
(b) Offenses MALA PROHIBITA. (infra)
Mala in se
Mala prohibita
Art. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of

this Code. - Offenses which are or in the future may
be punishable under special laws are not subject to
the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be
supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should
specially provide the contrary.
NOTE: Please refer to p. [1] for the table comparing
mala in se and mala prohibita
C. Elements of Criminal Liability

1. Elements of Felonies
a. There must be an act or omission
ACTUS REUS/PHYSICAL ACT to be considered as a
felony, there must be an act or omission;
Act: Any kind of body movement which tends to

produce some effect in the external world;
includes possession.
Omission: The failure to perform a positive duty

which one is bound to do under the law.
It is important that there is a law requiring the
performance of an act; if there is no positive duty,
there is no liability.
9
Intentional Felonies
The act or omission is performed or incurred with
deliberate intent (with malice) to cause an injury to
another.
Requisites
i. Freedom
Voluntariness on the part of the person who commits
the act or omission.
If there is lack of freedom, the offender is exempt
from liability (i.e., presence of irresistible force or
uncontrollable fear)
ii.
Intelligence
Capacity to know and understand the consequences

of ones act.
This power is necessary to determine the morality of
human acts, the lack of which leads to non-existence
of a crime.
If there is lack of intelligence, the offender is
exempt from liability. (i.e., offender is an imbecile,
insane or under 15 years of age)
iii.
Criminal intent
Examples: Failure to render assistance, failure to

issue receipt or non-disclosure of knowledge of
conspiracy against the government.10
The purpose to use a particular means to effect a

result.
Mens rea: "A guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful

purpose or criminal intent."11
The intent to commit an act with malice, being

purely a mental state, is presumed (but only if the
act committed is unlawful). Such presumption arises
from the proof of commission of an unlawful act.
Sometimes referred to in common parlance as the

gravamen of the offense (bullseye of the crime), or
criminal or deliberate intent.
Art. 275. Abandonment of person in danger and

abandonment of one's own victim.
10
Art. 116. Misprision of treason.
11
Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., p. 889
However, in some crimes, intent cannot be

presumed being an integral element thereof; so it
has to be proven.
Example: In frustrated homicide, specific intent to
kill is not presumed but must be proven, otherwise it
is merely physical injuries.
27

(due to lack of discernment) or there was a mistake
of fact (infra).
28
Recuerdo v. People (2006):
General criminal intent is an element of all

crimes but malice is properly applied only to
deliberate acts done on purpose and with
design.
Evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for

there to be a felony. A deliberate and unlawful
act gives rise to a presumption of malice by
intent.
On the other hand, specific intent is a definite

and actual purpose to accomplish some
particular thing.
The general criminal intent is presumed from the
criminal act and in the absence of any general intent
is relied upon as a defense, such absence must be
proved by the accused.
Generally, a specific intent is not presumed. Its
existence, as a matter of fact, must be proved by
the State just as any other essential element.
This may be shown, however, by the nature of the
act, the circumstances under which it was
committed, the means employed and the motive of
the accused
If he is successful, then the presumption that he

intended to do something wrong is overcome along
with the need to determine specific intent.
However, the result of Ernies act will now
determine his liability. Was his act justified that he
incurs no liability? Is he entitled to any exemption?
Or is his liability only mitigated?
DISTINCTION Between Intent, Discernment and
Motive (ASKED 4 TIMES IN BAR EXAMS)
INTENT
Determination
to
do
a
certain thing,
an aim or
purpose
of
the mind.
Establish the
nature
and
extent
of
culpability in
intentional
felonies.
DISCERNMENT
The
mental
capacity to tell
right
from
wrong.
MOTIVE
It is the moving
power
which
impels one to
do an act (ex.
vengeance).
Integral to the
element
of
intelligence,
NOT intent.
Generally, it is
not an essential
element of a
crime, hence, it
need not be
proved
for
purposes
of
conviction
(except
in
certain
cases
enumerated
below)
Note: If any of the elements is absent, there is no

dolo. If there is no dolo, there could be no
intentional felony.12
Categories of Intent
General Criminal Intent
The intention to do
something wrong.
Specific Criminal Intent

The intention to commit
a definite act.
Presumed from the

mere doing of a wrong
act.
The burden is upon the
wrong doer to prove
that he acted without
such criminal intent.
Existence
presumed.
is
When Motive Becomes Material in Determining

Criminal Liability (ASKED ONCE IN BAR EXAMS)
i.
not
Since the specific intent

is an element of the
crime, the burden is
upon the prosecution to
establish its existence.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
Illustration:
Ernie, without any provocation, stabbed Bert.
vi.
The very act of stabbing is the quantum of proof
needed to establish the fact that Ernie intended to
do something wrong. This is the GENERAL CRIMINAL
INTENT.
However, Ernie can be liable for more than one
crime; thus, prosecution must establish Ernies
SPECIFIC INTENT in order to determine whether he
planned to kill Bert or merely to inflict a whole lot
of pain.
Ernie can overturn the presumption of general
criminal intent by proving that he was justified
(infra), entitled to any exempting circumstances
Illustration:
Ernie came home and found his wife in a pleasant
conversation with Bert, former suitor. Thereupon, he
went to the kitchen, opened a drawer and pulled out
a knife. He then stabbed Bert.
The moving force is jealousy.
13
12
Visbal vs. Buban (2003)
When the act brings about variant crimes (e.g.

kidnapping v. robbery13)
When there is doubt as to the identity of the
assailant.
When there is the need to ascertain the truth
between two antagonistic versions of the crime.
When the identification of the accused proceeds
from an unreliable source and the testimony is
inconclusive and not free from doubt.
When there are no eyewitnesses to the crime,
and when suspicion is likely to fall upon a
number of persons.
When the evidence on the commission of the
crime is purely circumstantial.
Lack of motive can aid in achieving

acquittal of the accused, especially where
there is doubt as to the identity of the
accused.14
14
People v. Puno (1993)

People vs Hassan, 1988

The intent is presumed from the resort to the knife,
so that means he desires to kill Bert, the former
suitor.
Ernies deliberate choice of something as lethal as
the knife shows the presence of intelligence because
it is his very awareness of the danger which
prompted his choice. This only means that he knew
what is right from wrong and deliberately chose to
do what is wrong.
Note: Discernment does not indicate the presence of
intent, merely intelligence.15 Thus, discernment is
necessary whether the crime is dolo or culpa.
People v. Delos Santos (2003):
Delos Santos stabs Flores with a kitchen knife hitting
him on the different parts of his body, inflicting
upon him mortal wounds which directly caused his
death.
Requisites:
(a) That the act done would have been lawful had
the facts been as the accused believed them to
be;
(b) That the intention of the accused in performing
the act should be lawful;
(c) That the mistake must be without fault or
carelessness on the part of the accused. When
the accused is negligent, mistake of fact is not a
defense.16
US v. Ah Chong (1910):
A cook who stabs his roommate in the dark, honestly
mistaking the latter to be a robber responsible for a
series of break-ins in the area, and after crying out
sufficient warnings and believing himself to be under
attack, cannot be held criminally liable for
homicide.
1)
He then argues that since the prosecution witnesses

testified that there was no altercation between him
and Flores, it follows that no motive to kill can be
attributed to him.
Held:
The court held that the argument of Delos Santos is
inconsequential.
Proof of motive is not indispensable for a conviction,
particularly where the accused is positively
identified by an eyewitness and his participation is
adequately established.
In People vs. Galano, the court ruled that in the
crime of murder, motive is not an element of the
offense, it becomes material only when the evidence
is circumstantial or inconclusive and there is some
doubt on whether the accused had committed it.
In this case, the court finds that no such doubt
exists, as witnesses De Leon and Tablate positively
identified Delos Santos.
(1) Mistake of Fact (ignorantia facti excusat)

(ASKED ONCE IN BAR EXAMS)
It is a reasonable misapprehension of fact on the
part of the person causing injury to another. Such
person is NOT criminally liable as he acted without
criminal intent.
Under this principle, what is involved is the lack of
intent on the part of the accused. Therefore, the
defense of mistake of fact is an untenable defense
in culpable felonies, where there is no intent to
consider.
An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption
of criminal intent which arises upon the commission
of a felonious act.
15
People v. Cordova 1993
2)
3)
Would the stabbing be lawful if the facts were

really what the houseboy believed? Yes. If it was
really the robber and not the roommate then
the houseboy was justified.
Was the houseboys intention lawful? Yes. He
was acting out of self-preservation.
Was the houseboy without fault or negligence?
Yes. His deliberate intent to defend himself
with the knife can be determined by the fact
that he cried out sufficient warnings prior to the
act.
Stabbing the victim whom the accused believed to

be an intruder showed a mistake of fact on his part
which led him to take the facts as they appear to
him and was pressed to take immediate action.
However, mistake of fact is NOT availing in People

v. Oanis (74 Phil. 257), because the police officers
were at fault when they shot the escaped convict
who was sleeping, without first ascertaining his
identity. (It is only when the fugitive is determined
to fight the officers of law trying to catch him that
killing the former would be justified)
(2) Culpa (CONSTRUCTIVE INTENT)
Although there is no intentional felony, there could
be culpable felony.
The act or omission is not malicious; the injury
caused being simply the incident of another act
performed without malice.
The element of criminal intent is replaced by
negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of
skill.
Is culpa merely a mode of committing a crime or a
crime in itself?
(a) AS A MODE
16
People v. Oanis, 1988
29

Under Art. 3, it is clear that culpa is just a modality
by which a felony may be committed.
30
Act of Dolo
Act of Culpa
OR
Accused claimed that he was placed in twice in

jeopardy.
FELONY
People vs. Faller (1939):

It was stated indirectly that criminal negligence or
culpa is just a mode of incurring criminal liability.
In this case, the accused was charged with malicious
mischief.
Malicious mischief is an intentional negligence under
Article 327. Thus, there is no malicious mischief
through simple negligence or reckless imprudence
because it requires deliberateness.
The Supreme Court pointed out that although the
allegation in the information charged the accused
with an intentional felony, yet the words feloniously
and unlawfully, which are standard languages in an
information, covers not only dolo but also culpa
because culpa is just a mode of committing a felony.
(b) AS A CRIME
In Art. 365, criminal negligence is an omission which
the article specifically penalizes.
The concept of criminal negligence is the
inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the
person performing or failing to perform an act.
Art. 365 creates a distinction between imprudence
and negligence; simple or reckless, one might think
that criminal negligence is the one being punished.
Act of Dolo
INTENTIONAL
OR
physical injuries through reckless imprudence for

which he was tried and acquitted.
Prior to his acquittal, a case for serious physical
injuries and damage to property through reckless
imprudence was filed.
Act of Culpa
Negligence - Indicates deficiency of perception,

failure to pay proper attention, and to use diligence
in foreseeing the injury or damage impending to be
caused. Usually involves lack of foresight.
Imprudence - Indicates deficiency of action, failure
to take the necessary precaution to avoid injury to
person or damage to property. Usually involves lack
of skill.
Reason for punishing acts of negligence or
imprudence: A man must use his common sense and
exercise due reflection in all his acts; it is his duty to
be cautious, careful and prudent.
DOCTRINES CONCERNING CULPABLE CRIMES
(a) Emergency Rule
A person who is confronted with a sudden

emergency may be left no time for thought so
he must make a speedy decision based largely
upon impulse or instinct.
Importance: cannot be held to the same conduct as
one who has had an opportunity to reflect, even
though it later appears that he made the wrong
decision.
CRIMINAL
NEGLIGENCE
(ART 365)
Requisites:
FELONIES
(a) Freedom
(b) Intelligence
(c) Negligence, reckless imprudence,
foresight or lack of skill;
Held:
The second case must be dismissed.
Once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of

reckless imprudence, the accused may not be
prosecuted again for the same act.
For the essence of the quasi-offense under Art.

365 of the RPC lies in the execution of an
imprudent act which would be punishable as a
felony.
The law penalizes the negligent act and not the

result.
The gravity of the consequences is only taken

into account to determine the penalty. It does
not qualify the substance of the offense.
As the careless act is single, whether the

injurious result should affect one person or
several persons, the offense remains one and
the same, and cannot be split into different
crimes and prosecutions.
(b) Doctrine Of Last Clear Chance

lack
of
People v. Buan (1968):

The accused was driving a passenger bus. Allegedly
because of his recklessness, the bus collided with a
jeep injuring the passengers of the latter.
A case was filed against the accused for slight
The contributory negligence of the party injured will

NOT defeat the action if it be shown that the
accused might, by the exercise of reasonable care
and prudence, have avoided the consequences of the
negligence of the injured party.
But: The doctrine is not applicable in criminal cases:
Anuran v. Buno (1966):
The principle about the "last clear chance"

would call for application in a suit between the
owners and drivers of the two colliding vehicles.
It does not arise where a passenger demands
responsibility from the carrier to enforce its
contractual obligation. For it would be
inequitable to exempt the negligent driver of
the jeepney and its owners on the ground that
the other driver was likewise guilty of
negligence.
Last Clear Chance is a defense by the defendant
in a damage suit against liability by transferring
it to the plaintiff.
These dynamics cannot be replicated in a
criminal case because:
i. the liability is penal in nature and thus
cannot be transferred within the same case
It is not a case between two parties involved in an

incident but rather between an individual and the
State.
(c) Rule Of Negative Ingredient
This is related to the doctrine of proximate cause
and applicable when certain causes leading to the
result are not identifiable.
This rule states that:
i. The prosecution must first identify what
the accused failed to do.
ii. Once this is done, the burden of evidence
shifts to the accused.
iii. The accused must show that the failure did
not set in motion the chain of events
leading to the injury.17
D. Impossible Crimes
Purpose of punishing impossible crimes: To suppress
criminal propensity or criminal tendencies.
Objectively, the offender has not committed a
felony, but subjectively, he is a criminal.
Requisites:
(1) That the act performed would be an offense
against persons or property.
(2) That the act was done with evil intent.
The offender intends to commit a

felony against persons or against
property, and the act performed would
have been an offense against persons or
property.
It must be shown that the actor
performed the act with the intent to do
an injury to another.
However, it should not be actually
performed, for otherwise, he would be
liable for that felony.
(3) That
its
accomplishment
is
inherently
impossible, or that the means employed is
either inadequate or ineffectual.
17
Carillo vs People, 1994
Inherent impossibility: The act intended by the

offender is by its nature one of impossible
accomplishment.
There must be either (1) legal impossibility or (2)
physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended
act.
Legal impossibility: The intended acts, even if
completed, would not amount to a crime. Legal
impossibility would apply to those circumstances
where:
a. the motive, desire and expectation is to
perform an act in violation of the law;
b. there is intention to perform the physical
act;
c. there is a performance of the intended
physical act; and
d. the consequence resulting from the
intended act does not amount to a crime.
(Intod v. CA)
Physical or factual impossibility: Extraneous
circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his
control prevent the consummation of the intended
crime.
Note: In the Philippines, impossibility of
accomplishing the criminal intent is not merely
a defense but an act penalized by itself.
(4) That the act performed should not constitute a
violation of another provision of the RPC.
Illustration:
The victim was tortured to death. He was later shot
in the back to make it appear that he was killed
while trying to escape. The accused is not a
principal to an impossible crime but an accessory to
the killing committed by the principal (People v.
Saladino).
Note: Since the offender in an impossible crime has
already performed the acts for the execution of the
same, there could be no attempted impossible
crime. There is no frustrated impossible crime
either, because the acts performed by the offender
are considered as constituting a consummated
offense.
Felonies against persons:
(a) Parricide (Art. 246)
(b) Murder (Art. 248)
(c) Homicide (Art. 249)
(d) Infanticide (Art. 255)
(e) Abortion (Arts. 256, 257, 258 and 259)
(f) Duel (Arts. 260 and 261)
(g) Physical injuries (Arts. 262, 263, 264, 265 and
266)
(h) Rape (Art. 266- A)
Felonies against property:
(a) Robbery (Arts. 294, 297, 298, 299, 300, 302 and
303)
(b) Brigandage (Arts. 306 and 307)
31
32
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Theft (Arts. 308, 310 and 311)

Usurpation (Arts. 312 and 313)
Culpable Insolvency (Art. 314)
Swindling and other deceits (Art. 315, 316, 317
and 318)
(g) Chattel Mortgage (Art. 319)
(h) Arson and other crimes involving destruction
(Arts. 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325 and 326)
(i) Malicious mischief (Arts. 327, 328, 329, 330 and
331)
As a result, petitioner-accused was sentenced to

imprisonment of only six months of arresto
mayor for the felonious act he committed with
intent to kill: this despite the destruction done
to the intended victims house.
E. Stages of Execution
Classification Under Art. 6
a. Consummated Felony
When all the elements necessary for its execution
and accomplishment are present; the felony is
produced.
Modified concept of impossible crime

Intod v. CA (1992):
In this case, four culprits, all armed with

firearms and with intent to kill, went to the
intended victims house and after having
pinpointed the latters bedroom, all four fired
at and riddled the said room with bullets,
thinking that the intended victim was already
there as it was about 10:00 in the evening.
It so happened that the intended victim did not

come home that evening and so was not in her
bedroom at that time.
Eventually the culprits were prosecuted and

convicted by the trial court for attempted
murder.
CA affirmed the judgment but the SC modified

the same and held the petitioner liable only for
the so-called impossible crime.
b. Frustrated Felony
When the offender performs all the acts of execution
which would produce the felony as a consequence
but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason
of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
c. Attempted Felony
When the offender commences the commission of a
felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform
all the acts of execution which should produce the
felony by reason of some cause or accident other
than his own spontaneous desistance.
Development of a Crime
ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
Actus Reus
Mens Rea
Concurrence
Result
Causation
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
Lacking due to:
i. inherent
impossibility
ii. employment
of
inadequate means
a. Overt act
A commission of the felony is deemed commenced
when the following are present:
(1) There are external acts.
(2) Such external acts have a direct connection with
the crime intended to be committed.
Overt act: Some physical activity or deed (but not
necessarily physical, depending on the nature of the
felony) indicating the intention to commit a
particular crime, more than a mere planning or
preparation, which if carried to its complete
termination following its natural course, without
being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the
voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will
logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete
offense.
Rait v. People (2008):
The Court found that the petitioners acts of
successfully removing victims clothing and inserting
ATTEMPTED
Intervention
other
than own desistance;
some but not all acts
of execution
FRUSTRATED
CONSUMMATED
his finger to the victims vagina were overt or

external acts in the crime of rape.
The acts were clearly the first or some subsequent
step in a direct movement towards the commission
of the offense after the preparations are made. Had
it not been for the victims strong physical
resistance, petitioners next step would, logically,
be having carnal knowledge of the victim.
b.
Development of a crime
(1) Internal acts
Intent, ideas and plans; generally not punishable.

The intention and act must concur.
Illustration: Ernie plans to kill Bert
(2) External acts

(a) Preparatory Acts
Acts tending toward the crime.
Ordinarily not punished except when considered

by law as independent crimes (i.e. Art. 304
possession of picklocks)
Proposal and conspiracy to commit a felony are

not punishable except when the law provides for
their punishment in certain felonies.
These acts do not yet constitute even the first

stage of the acts of execution.
Intent not yet disclosed.

Illustration: Ernie goes to the kitchen to get a knife.
(b) Acts of Execution
Usually overt acts with a logical relation to a
particular concrete offense.
Punishable under the RPC.
Attempted Felony
Illustration: Ernie stabs Bert

Indeterminate offense
It is one where the purpose of the offender in
performing an act is not certain. Its nature in
relation to its objective is ambiguous. The intention
of the accused must be viewed from the nature of
the acts executed by him, and not from his
admission.
Attempted and Frustrated Felonies
The difference between the attempted stage and
the frustrated stage lies in: whether the offender
has performed all the acts of execution for the
accomplishment of a felony.
Frustrated Felony
Acts Performed
Overt acts of execution are started

BUT
Not all acts of execution are present
All acts of execution are finished

BUT
Crime sought to be committed is not
achieved
Why
Due to reasons other than the

spontaneous desistance of the
perpetrator
Due to intervening causes independent of

the will of the perpetrator
Position in the Timeline
Offender still in subjective phase

because he still has control of his
acts, including their natural cause.
Offender is already in the objective

phase because all acts of execution are
already present and the cause of its nonaccomplishment is other than the
offenders will
a.
Attempted Stage
Elements:
(1) The offender commences the commission of the
felony directly by overt acts;
(2) He does not perform all the acts of execution
which should produce the felony;
(3) The non-performance of all acts of execution
was due to cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance.
Marks the commencement of the subjective phase:
Subjective phase - That portion of the acts
constituting a crime, starting from the point where
the offender begins the commission of the crime to
that point where he still has control over his acts
including their (acts) natural course
If between those two points, the offender is stopped
by reason of any cause outside of his own voluntary
desistance, the subjective phase has not been
passed and it is merely an attempt.
Illustration: The subjective phase for Ernie was from
the moment he swung his arm to stab Bert up until
he finished his stroke. This is the interim where he
still has control of his actions.
Desistance is an absolutory cause which negates
criminal liability because the law encourages a
person to desist from committing a crime.
But, it does not negate all criminal liability, if the

desistance was made when acts done by him already
resulted in a felony,
The offender will still be criminally liable for the
felony brought about by his act.
What is negated is only the attempted stage, but
there may be other felonies arising from his act.
Note: Desistance is true only in the attempted stage
of the felony.
If the felony is already in its frustrated stage,
desistance will NOT negate criminal liability.
Illustration: Supposing Ernie (because he thought
killing Bert was too easy a revenge) desisted midstroke. However, Bert felt the movement and
turned. He was so shocked that he suddenly backed
away and tripped over his own feet. As Bert went
down, his left eye caught the sharp corner of a table
causing a puncture on his eyeball rendering him
completely blind on the left side.
Ernie would not be liable for attempted

murder because of his desistance (regardless
of his reason for doing so)
His liability would now be for serious physical

injuries because his act of raising the knife was
the proximate cause for Bert losing an eye.
33
34
In the attempted stage, the definition uses the word

directly.
There was only a shelling of the castle but no

bombardment of the drawbridge yet.
The word directly emphasizes the requirement

that the attempted felony is that which is directly
linked to the overt act performed by the offender,
not the felony he has in his mind.
b.
Frustrated Stage
People v. Lamahang (1935):

The accused was arrested while he was detaching
some of the wood panels of a store. He was already
able to detach two panels.
Held: In criminal law, since the act of removing the
panel indicates only at most the intention to enter,
he can only be prosecuted for trespass. There is
nothing in the record to justify a concrete finding
that his final objective, once he succeeded in
entering the store, was to rob, to cause physical
injury to the inmates, or to commit any other
offense. The removal of the paneling is just an
attempt to trespass, not an attempt to rob. Although
Lamahang was charged with attempted robbery, the
Supreme Court held that he is only liable for
attempted trespass because that is the crime that
can be directly linked to his act of removing the
wood panel.
There are some acts which are ingredients of a
certain crime, but which are, by themselves, already
criminal offenses.
People v. Campuhan (2000):
The mother of the 4-year-old victim caught the
houseboy Campuhan in the act of almost raping her
daughter.
The hymen of the victim was still intact. However,
since it was decided in People v. Orita that entry
into labia is considered rape even without rupture
and full penetration of the hymen, a question arises
whether what transpired was attempted or
consummated rape.
Held:
There was only attempted rape.
Mere touching of external genitalia by the penis

is already rape.
Touching should be understood as inherently

part of entry of penis penetration and not mere
touching, in the ordinary sense, of the
pudendum.
Requires entry into the labia, even if there be

no rupture of the hymen or laceration of the
vagina,
to
warrant
a
conviction
for
consummated rape.
Where entry into the labia has not been

established, the crime amounts to an attempted
rape.
The prosecution did not prove that Campuhans

penis was able to penetrate victims vagina
because the kneeling position of the accused
obstructed the mothers view of the alleged
sexual contact. The testimony of the victim
herself claimed that penis grazed but did not
penetrate her organ.
Elements
(1) The offender performs all the acts of execution;
(2) All the acts performed would produce the felony
as a consequence;
(3) But the felony is not produced;
(4) By reason of causes independent of the will of
the perpetrator.
The end of the subjective phase and the beginning of
the objective phase.
Objective phase the result of the acts of
execution, that is, the accomplishment of the crime.
If the subjective and objective phases have been
passed there is a consummated felony.
People v. Listerio (2000):
Brothers Jeonito and Marlon were walking when they
met a group composed of men who blocked their
path and attacked them with lead pipes and bladed
weapons. One stabbed Jeonito from behind.
Jeonitos brother, Marlon, was hit on the head.
Held:
1) The SC held that the crime is a frustrated felony
not an attempted offense considering that after
being stabbed and clubbed twice in the head as
a result of which he lost consciousness and fell.
Marlon's attackers apparently thought he was
already dead and fled.
2) A crime cannot be held to be attempted unless
the offender, after beginning the commission of
the crime by overt acts, is prevented, against
his will, by some outside cause from performing
all of the acts which should produce the crime.
3) In other words, to be an attempted crime, the
purpose of the offender must be thwarted by a
foreign force or agency which intervenes and
compels him to stop prior to the moment when
he has performed all of the acts which should
produce the crime as a consequence, which acts
it is his intention to perform.
4) If he has performed all the acts which should
result in the consummation of the crime and
voluntarily desists from proceeding further, it
cannot be an attempt.
Crimes which do not admit of frustrated stage
(a) Rape
The essence of the crime is carnal

knowledge.
No matter what the offender may do to

accomplish a penetration, if there was no
penetration yet, it cannot be said that the
offender has performed all the acts of
execution.
We can only say that the offender in rape

has performed all the acts of execution
when he has effected a penetration.
Once there is penetration, no matter how
slight it is, the offense is consummated.
People v. Orita (1990):

For this reason, rape admits only of the attempted
and consummated stages, no frustrated stage. (see
the previously cited case of People v. Campuhan for
the most recent doctrine on penetration).
(b) Arson
One cannot say that the offender, in the

crime of arson, has already performed all
the acts of execution which could produce
the destruction of the premises through the
use of fire, unless a part of the premises
has begun to burn.
The
crime
of
arson
is
therefore
consummated even if only a portion of the
wall or any part of the house is burned. The
consummation of the crime of arson does
not depend upon the extent of the damage
caused. (People v. Hernandez)
(c) Bribery and Corruption of Public Officers
The manner of committing the crime

requires the meeting of the minds between
the giver and the receiver.
If there is a meeting of the minds, there is

consummated bribery or consummated
corruption.
If there is none, it is only attempted.

(d) Adultery
This requires the sexual contact between

two participants.
If that link is present, the crime is

consummated;
(e) Physical Injuries
Under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of

physical injuries is penalized on the basis of
the gravity of the injuries.
There is no simple crime of physical

injuries. There is the need to categorize
because there are specific articles that
apply whether the physical injuries are
serious, less serious or slight.
Thus, one could not punish the attempted

or frustrated stage because one does not
know what degree of physical injury was
committed unless it is consummated.
Illustration:
When Bert lost his left eye, Ernies liability was
automatically for serious physical injuries. He would
have no liability if the eye was intact.
If the eye suffered damage due to the impact, the
crime would not be frustrated nor attempted
physical injuries because the RPC still considers this
as a consummated physical injury, its gravity
depending on the duration that it took for the

damage to heal.
(f) Theft
Once there is unlawful taking, theft is

consummated.
Either the thing was taken or not.
Disposition of the stolen goods is not an

element of theft under the RPC.
Rule of thumb: Felonies that do not require any
result do not have a frustrated stage.
Factors in Determining the Stage of Execution of a
Felony
a. The manner of committing the crime;
b. The elements of the crime; and
c. The nature of the crime itself.
These three factors are helpful in trying to pinpoint
whether the crime is still in its attempted,
frustrated or consummated stage.
a.
The Manner of Committing the Crime

(1) Formal Crimes - consummated in one
instant, no attempt.
(a) Ex. Slander and false testimony
(b) There can be no attempt, because
between the thought and the deed,
there is no chain of acts that can be
severed.
(2) Crimes consummated by mere attempt or
proposal by overt act.
(a) Ex. Flight to enemys country (Art. 121)
and corruption of minors (Art. 340)
(3) Felony by omission
(a) There can be no attempted stage when
the felony is by omission, because the
offender does not execute acts, he
omits to perform an act which the law
requires him to do.
(4) Crimes requiring the intervention of two
persons to commit them are consummated
by mere agreement.
(a) In bribery, the manner of committing
the crime requires the meeting of the
minds between the giver and the
receiver.
(b) When the giver delivers the money to
the supposed receiver, but there is no
meeting of the minds, the only act
done by the giver is an attempt.
(5) Material Crimes have three stages of
execution
Thus, in determining the stage of some
crimes, the manner of execution becomes
pivotal in determining the end of the
subjective phase, i.e. once the offender
performs the act in the manner provided for
in the law, HE IS ALREADY DEEMED TO HAVE
PERFORMED EVERY ACT FOR ITS EXECUTION.
35
36
b.
The Elements of the Crime
(1) Along with the manner of execution, there are

crimes wherein the existence of certain
elements becomes the factor in determining its
consummation.
(2) In the crime of estafa, the element of damage
is essential before the crime could be
consummated. If there is no damage, even if the
offender succeeded in carting away the personal
property involved, estafa cannot be considered
as consummated.
(3) On the other hand, if it were a crime of theft,
damage or intent to cause damage is not an
element of theft.
(4) What is necessary only is intent to gain, not
even gain is important.
(5) In the crime of abduction, the crucial element
is the taking away of the woman with lewd
designs.
c.
The Nature of the Crime Itself
In defining of the frustrated stage of crimes involving

the taking of human life (parricide, homicide, and
murder), it is indispensable that the victim be
mortally wounded.
Hence, the general rule is that there must be a fatal
injury inflicted, because it is only then that death
will follow.
F. Conspiracy and Proposal

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come
to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it. (Article 8, RPC).
Requisites of conspiracy:
(1) Two or more persons come to an agreement.
Agreement presupposes meeting of the

minds of two or more persons
(2) The agreement pertains to a commission of a
felony.
Agreement to effect what has been

conceived and determined.
(3) The execution of the felony was decided upon.
Note: There must be participation in the criminal
resolution because simple knowledge thereof by a
person may only make him liable as an accomplice.
GENERAL RULE: Conspiracy and proposal to commit
a felony are not punishable.
EXCEPTION: They are punishable only in the cases in
which the law specially provides a penalty therefore.
Conspiracy to commit (1) Treason (Art. 115)
(2) Rebellion (Art. 136)
(3) Insurrection (Art. 136)
(4) Coup dtat, (Art. 136)

(5) Sedition (Art. 141)
(6) Monopolies and combinations in restraint of
trade, espionage (Art. 186)
(7) Illegal association (Art. 147)
(8) Highway Robbery (P.D. 532)
(9) Espionage (Sec. 3, C.A. 616)
(10) Selected acts under the Dangerous Drugs Acts
(11) Arson
(12) Terrorism (R.A. 9372)
Proposal to commit
(1) Treason (Art. 115)
(2) Coup d etat (Art. 136)
(3) Rebellion (Art. 136)
(4) Inducement not to answer summons, appear or
be sworn in Congress, etc. (Art. 150)
Rationale: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a
crime are only preparatory acts and the law regards
them as innocent or at least permissible except in
rare and exceptional cases.
Conspiracy as a felony, distinguished from
conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal
liability:
As a felony, conspirators do not need to actually

commit treason, rebellion, insurrection, etc., it
being sufficient that two or more persons agree
and decide to commit it.
As a manner of incurring criminal liability, if

they commit treason, rebellion, etc., they will
be held liable for it, and the conspiracy which
they had before committing the crime is only a
manner of incurring criminal liability, not a
separate offense.
In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.
GENERAL RULE: When the conspiracy is established,
all who participated therein, irrespective of the
quantity or quality of his participation is liable
equally, whether conspiracy is pre-planned or
instantaneous.
EXCEPTION: Unless one or some of the conspirators
committed some other crime which is not part of the
conspiracy.
EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION: When the act
constitutes a single indivisible offense.
Proposal to commit a felony - when the person who
has decided to commit a felony proposes its
execution to some other person or persons. (Art. 8,
RPC)
Examples: Proposal to commit treason (Art. 115)
and proposal to commit coup dtat, rebellion or
insurrection (Art. 136).
Requisites:
(1) That a person has decided to commit a felony;
and
(2) That he proposes its execution to some other
person or persons.

There is no criminal proposal when:
(1) The person who proposes is not determined to
commit the felony;
(2) There is no decided, concrete and formal
proposal;
(3) It is not the execution of a felony that is
proposed.
Note: It is not necessary that the person to whom
the proposal is made agrees to commit treason or
rebellion.
People v. Laurio (1991): It must be established by
positive and conclusive evidence, not by
conjectures or speculations.
People v. Bello (2004): Conspiracy is predominantly
a state of mind as it involves the meeting of the
minds and intent of the malefactors. Consequently,
direct proof is not essential to establish it.
People v. Comadre (2004):
To establish conspiracy, evidence of actual

cooperation rather than mere cognizance or
approval of an illegal act is required.
Conspiracy is never presumed; it must be shown

to exist as clearly and convincingly as the
commission of the crime itself.
Mere presence of a person at the scene of the

crime does not make him a conspirator for
conspiracy transcends companionship.
People v. Cenahonon (2007):
While it is mandatory to prove conspiracy by
competent evidence, direct proof is not essential to
show it it may be deduced from the mode, method,
and manner by which the offense was perpetrated,
or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves
when such acts point to a joint purpose and design,
concerted action and community of interest.
The accused herein were shown to have clearly
acted towards a common goal.
People v. Talaogan (2008):
Direct proof is not required, as conspiracy may be
proved by circumstantial evidence. It may be
established through the collective acts of the
accused before, during and after the commission
of a felony that all the accused aimed at the same
object, one performing one part and the other
performing another for the attainment of the same
objective; and that their acts, though apparently
independent, were in fact concerted and
cooperative, indicating closeness of personal
association, concerted action and concurrence of
sentiments.
People v. Pangilinan (2003):
Doctrine of Implied Conspiracy (ASKED 1 TIME IN
BAR EXAMS) Conspiracy need not be direct but may
be inferred from the conduct of the parties, their
joint purpose, community of interest and in the

mode and manner of commission of the offense.
Legal effects of implied conspiracy are:
Not all those present at the crime scene will be

considered conspirators;
Only those who participated in the criminal acts

during the commission of the crime will be
considered co-conspirators;
Mere acquiescence to or approval of the

commission of the crime, without any act of
criminal participation, shall not render one
criminally liable as co-conspirator.
In the absence of any previous plan or

agreement to commit a crime, the criminal
responsibility arising from different acts
directed against one and the same person is
individual and not collective, and that each of
the participants is liable only for his own acts.
(People v. Bagano)
A conspiracy is possible even when participants are
not known to each other. When several persons who
do not know each other simultaneously attack the
victim, the act of one is the act of all, regardless of
the degree of injury inflicted by any one of them.
Everyone will be liable for the consequences.
One who desisted is not criminally liable. As pointed
out earlier, desistance is true only in the attempted
stage. Before this stage, there is only a preparatory
stage. Conspiracy is only in the preparatory stage.
Illustration: A thought of having her husband killed
because the latter was maltreating her. She hired
some persons to kill him. The goons got hold of her
husband and started mauling him. The wife took pity
and shouted for them to stop but the goons
continued. The wife ran away. The wife was
prosecuted for parricide. But the Supreme Court said
that there was desistance, so she is not criminally
liable.
Do not search for an agreement among participants.
If they acted simultaneously to bring about their
common intention, conspiracy exists. And when
conspiracy exists, do not consider the degree of
participation of each conspiracy because the act of
one is the act of all. As a general rule, they have
equal responsibility.
Illustration:
A, B and C have been courting the same lady for
several years. On several occasions, they even
visited the lady on intervening hours. Because of
this, A, B and C became hostile with one another.
One day, D invited the young lady to go out with him
and she accepted the invitation. Eventually, the
young lady agreed to marry D.
When A, B and C learned about this, they all stood
up to leave the house of the young lady feeling
disappointed. When A looked back at the young lady
with D, he saw D laughing menacingly. At that
37

instance, A stabbed D. C and B followed. In this
case, it was held that conspiracy was present.
38
In some exceptional situations, having community of

design with the principal does not prevent a
malefactor from being regarded as an accomplice if
his role in the perpetration of the homicide or
murder was, relatively speaking, of a minor
character. (People v. Nierra)
Illustration:
There was a planned robbery, and the taxi driver
was present during the planning.
The taxi driver agreed for the use of his cab but
said, I will bring you there, and after committing
the robbery I will return later. The taxi driver
brought the conspirators where the robbery would
be committed. After the robbery was finished, he
took the conspirators back to his taxi and brought
them away.
It was held that the taxi driver was liable only as an
accomplice. His cooperation was not really
indispensable. The robbers could have engaged
another taxi. The taxi driver did not really stay
during the commission of the robbery. At most, what
he only extended was his cooperation.
Siton v. CA, (1991):
The idea of a conspiracy is incompatible with the
idea of a free-for-all. It is not enough that the attack
be joint and simultaneous; it is necessary that the
assailants be animated by one and the same
purpose. A conspiracy must be shown to exist as
clearly and convincingly as the crime itself.
There is no definite opponent or definite intent as
when a basketball crowd beats a referee to death.
Distinctions between the liability of a conspirator
and that of a member of a band where the crime
committed is robbery which is attended by other
crimes.
(1) A conspirator is liable only for such other crimes
which could be foreseen and which are the
natural and logical consequences of the
conspiracy. Thus, if the conspiracy is only to rob
the victim, rape is not a foreseeable
consequence. (People v. Castillo)
(2) A member of a band in a robbery cuadrilla, on
the other hand, is liable for all assaults,
inclusive of rape and homicide, where he was
present when these crimes were being
committed but he did not attempt to prevent
the same. (Art. 296 (2), RPC).
(3)
If both conspiracy to rob and cuadrilla are

present, both rules may apply, in this manner:
(a) If a homicide was committed, the lookout is
liable therefore under the conspiracy theory; (b)
if a rape was committed and the lookout was
present but did not try to prevent it, he will be
liable under the cuadrilla rule; and (c) if the
lookout was not present when the homicide was
committed, he will not be liable for the rape
but he will still be liable for the homicide under

the conspiracy theory.

2 Concepts of
Conspiracy
AS A FELONY
IN ITSELF
AS A
BASIS
FOR
LIABILITY
Stage
Preparatory
acts
Executory
acts
How
incurred
Legal requirements
Illustration
Mere
agreement
The RPC must specifically punish the

act of conspiring (and proposing)
The
act
MUST
NOT
BE
ACCOMPLISHED, else the conspiracy
is obliterated and the ACT ITSELF IS
PUNISHED.
QUANTUM OF PROOF: Conspiracy
as a crime must be established
beyond reasonable doubt
A, B, C and D came to an
agreement
to
commit
rebellion. Their agreement
was to ring about the
rebellion on a certain
date.
Even if none of them has
performed the act of
rebellion, there is already
criminal liability arising
from the conspiracy to
commit the rebellion.
But if anyone of them has
committed the overt act of
rebellion, the crime of all
is no longer conspiracy but
rebellion itself.
This subsists even though
the other co-conspirators
do not know that one of
them had already done the
act of rebellion.
Commission
of
overt act
Participants acted in concert or

simultaneously or IN ANY WAY which
is indicative of a meeting of the
minds towards a common criminal
goal or criminal objective.
The act of meeting together is not
necessary as long as a common
objective can be discerned from the
overt acts.
THE ACT MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED, if
there is only conspiracy or proposal,
THERE IS NO CRIME TO BE PUNISHED.
QUANTUM OF PROOF: Reasonably
inferred from the acts of the
offenders when such acts disclose or
show a common pursuit of the
criminal objective. (People v. Pinto)
Three persons plan to rob

a bank. For as long as the
conspirators
merely
entered the bank there is
no crime yet. But when
one of them draws a gun
and disarms the security
guard, all of them shall be
held liable, unless a coconspirator was absent
from the scene of the
crime or he showed up,
but he tried to prevent the
commission of the crime.
G. Multiple Offenders
Recidivism/Reincindencia; Habituality/Reiteracion/
Art. 14 (9)
Repetition; Art. 14 (10)
Crimes
committed
Period
of
time
the
crimes are
committed
Number of
crimes
committed
Sufficient
that
the
offender
have
been
previously convicted by
final judgment for another
crime embraced in the
same title of the Code on
the date of his trial
Necessary
that
the
offender shall have served
out his sentence for the
first offense
No period of time
The second conviction for The
previous
and
an offense embraced in subsequent offenses must
the same title of RPC
NOT be embraced in the
Quasi-Recidivism;
Art. 160
Before serving or
while
serving
sentence,
the
offender commits
a felony (NOT a
crime)
Before serving or
while
serving
sentence
Offender commits
a felony
Habitual
Delinquency;
Art. 62 (5)
Specified:
1. less serious or
serious physical
injuries
2. robbery
3. theft
4. estafa
5. falsification
Within 10 years
from
his
last
release
or
conviction
Guilty the third
time or oftener
39

same title of the RPC
40
Their
effects
If not offset by any

mitigating circumstance, Not always an aggravating
increase the penalty only circumstance
to the maximum
1. Recidivism
Basis: the greater perversity of the offender, as shown
by his inclination to commit crimes
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one
crime, shall have been previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime embraced in the same title
of the Revised Penal Code. (People v. Lagarto, 1991)
Requisites
(1) Offender is on trial for an offense
(2) He was previously convicted by final judgment of
another crime
(3) Both the first and second offenses are embraced
in the same title of the RPC
(4) Offender is convicted of the new offense
Note: What is controlling is the time of trial, not the
time of commission of the crime. (Reyes, Revised
Penal Code)
2. Habituality (Reiteracion)
Basis: same as recidivism
Requisites
(1)
Accused is on trial for an offense
(2)
He previously served sentence
a. for another offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty, OR
b. for two or more crimes to which it attaches
lighter penalty than that for the new offense
(3)
He is convicted of the new offense
3. Quasi-Recidivism
Art. 160. Commission of another crime during
service of penalty imposed for another offense;
Penalty. Besides the provisions of Rule 5 of
Article 62, any person who shall commit a felony
after having been convicted by final judgment,
before beginning to serve such sentence, or while
serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum
period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new
felony.
4. Habitual Delinquency
Art. 62, last par. For the purpose of this article, a
person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, if
within a period of ten years from the date of his
release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or
less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto estafa or
falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes
a third time or oftener.
Imposes
the
maximum of the
penalty for the
new offense, and
cannot be offset
by any mitigating
circumstance
An
additional
penalty shall be
imposed
Requisites
(1) Offender had been convicted of any of the crimes
of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery,
theft, estafa, or falsification
(2) After that conviction or after serving his sentence,
he again committed, and, within 10 years from his
release or first conviction, he was again convicted
of any of the said crimes for the second time
(3) After his conviction of, or after serving sentence
for, the second offense, he again committed, and,
within 10 years from his last release or last
conviction, he was again convicted of any of said
offenses, the third time or oftener
Purpose of the law in imposing additional penalty
To render more effective social defense and the
reformation of habitual delinquents (REYES, quoting
People v. Abuyen)
See also: Aggravating circumstances
H. Complex Crimes and Special

Complex Crimes
Plurality of Crimes (Concursu de delitos)
(1) Consists of the successive execution
(2) by the same individual
(3) of different criminal acts
(4) for any of which no conviction has yet been
declared.
Philosophy behind plural crimes
Through the concept of plural crimes, several crimes
are treated as one. The purpose of this is to allow
leniency towards the offender, who, instead of being
made to suffer distinct penalties for every resulting
crime is made to suffer one penalty only, although it
is the penalty for the most serious one and is
imposed in its maximum period.
Note: If by complexing the crime, the penalty
would turn out to be higher, do not complex
anymore.
PLURALITY OF
CRIMES
There is no conviction
for any of the crimes
committed.
RECIDIVISM
There must be conviction
by final judgment of the
first or prior offense.
A Complex crime is not just a matter of penalty, but

of substance under the Revised Penal Code.
Kinds of Plurality of Crimes
a. Real or Material Plurality

(1) There are different crimes in law as well as
in the conscience of the offender.
(2) In such cases, the offender shall be
punished for each and every offense that he
committed.
Illustration:
A stabbed B. Then, A also stabbed C. There are two
crimes committed.
b.
Formal or Ideal Plurality

(1) There is but one criminal liability in this
kind of plurality.
(2) Divided into 3 groups:
(a) Complex Crimes - When the offender
commits either of the complex crimes
defined in Art. 48 of the Code.
(b) Special Complex Crimes - When the
law specifically fixes a single penalty
for 2 or more offenses committed.
(c) Continuing and Continued Crimes - A
single crime consisting of a series of
acts but all arising from one criminal
resolution.
1. Complex Crimes
a. Compound Crime (Delito Compuesto)

A single act results in two or more grave or less
grave felonies.
Requisites:
(1) That only a single act is performed by the
offender
Single Act
Throwing a hand
grenade
A single bullet
killing two person
Several Acts
Submachine gun because of
the number of bullets released
Firing of the revolver twice in
succession
(2) That the single acts produces:

i. 2 or more grave felonies, or
ii. 1 or more grave and 1 or more less grave
felonies, or
iii. 2 or more less grave felonies
Light felonies produced by the same act should be
treated and punished as separate offenses or may be
absorbed by the grave felony.
Illustration:
When the crime is committed by force or violence,
slight physical injuries are absorbed.

Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes.
When a single act constitutes two or more grave or
less grave felonies, or when an offense is a
necessary means for committing the other, the
penalty for the most serious crime shall be
imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum
period.
So that when an offender performed more than one

act, although similar, if they result in separate
crimes,
i. there is no complex crime at all,
ii. instead, the offender shall be prosecuted for
as many crimes as are committed under
separate information.
Art. 48 requires the commission of at least 2 crimes.

But the two or more GRAVE or LESS GRAVE felonies
must be
(1) the result of a single act, or
(2) an offense must be a necessary means for
committing the other.
Compound crimes under Art. 48 is also applicable to

crimes through negligence. Thus, a municipal mayor
who accidentally discharged his revolver, killing a
girl and injuring a boy was found guilty of complex
crime of homicide with less serious physical injuries
through reckless imprudence. (People v. Castro)
Nature of complex crimes

Although two or more crimes are actually
committed, they constitute only one crime, in the
eyes of the law; and in the conscience of the
offender.
Example of a compound crime:

The victim was killed while discharging his duty as
barangay captain to protect life and property and
enforce law and order in his barrio.
Even in the case where an offense is a necessary

means for committing the other, the evil intent of
the offender is only one. Hence, there is only one
penalty imposed for the commission of a complex
crime.
Monteverde vs. People (2002): No complex crime
when:
1. Two or more crimes are committed, but not by a
single act;
2. Committing one crime is not a necessary means
for committing the other (or others)
Two kinds of complex crimes

The crime is a complex crime of homicide with

assault upon a person in authority.
When in obedience to an order several accused
simultaneously shot many persons, without evidence
how many each killed, there is only a single offense,
there being a single criminal impulse.
b. Complex Crime Proper (Delito Complejo)

An offense is a necessary means for committing the
other.
In complex crime, when the offender executes
various acts, he must have a single purpose.
But: When there are several acts performed, the
assumption is that each act is impelled by a distinct
41

criminal impulse, hence each will have a separate
penalty.
42
Requisites:
(1) That at least two offenses are committed
(2) That one or some of the offenses must be
necessary to commit the other
(3) That both or all the offenses must be
punished under the same statute.
Note: The phrase necessary means does not mean
indispensable means
People vs. Comadre (2004):
The single act by appellant of detonating a hand
grenade may quantitatively constitute a cluster of
several separate and distinct offenses, yet these
component criminal offenses should be considered
only as a single crime in law on which a single
penalty is imposed because the offender was
impelled by a single criminal impulse which shows
his lesser degree of perversity.
No complex crime proper:
(a) Subsequent acts of intercourse, after forcible
abduction with rape, are separate acts of rape.
(b) Not complex crime when trespass to dwelling is
a direct means to commit a grave offense.
(c) No complex crime, when one offense is
committed to conceal the other.
(d) When the offender already had in his possession
the funds which he misappropriated, the
subsequent falsification of a public or official
document involving said offense is a separate
offense.
(e) No complex crime where one of the offenses is
penalized by a special law.
(f) There is no complex crime of rebellion with
murder, arson, robbery, or other common
crimes (People v. Hernandez; Enrile v. Salazar).
(g) In case of continuous crimes.
(h) When the other crime is an indispensable
element of the other offense.
General rules in complexing crimes:
(a) When two crimes produced by a single act are
respectively within the exclusive jurisdiction of
two courts of different jurisdiction, the court of
higher jurisdiction shall try the complex
crime.
(b) The penalty for complex crime is the penalty
for the most serious crime, the same to be
applied in its maximum period.
(c) When two felonies constituting a complex crime
are punishable by imprisonment and fine,
respectively, only the penalty of imprisonment
should be imposed.
(d) Art. 48 applies only to cases where the Code
does not provide a definite specific penalty for a
complex crime.
(e) One information should be filed when a complex
crime is committed.
(f) When a complex crime is charged and one
offense is not proven, the accused can be
convicted of the other.
(g) Art. 48 also applies in cases when out of a single
act of negligence or imprudence, two or more
grave or less grave felonies resulted, but only

the first part is applicable, i.e. compound
crime. The second part of Art. 48 does not
apply, referring to the complex crime proper
because this applies or refers only to a
deliberate commission of one offense to commit
another offense.
2. Special Complex/Composite crimes

The substance is made up of more than one crime
but which in the eyes of the law is only
(1) a single indivisible offense.
(2) all those acts done in pursuance of the crime
agreed upon are acts which constitute a
single crime.
Special Complex Crimes
(1) Robbery with Homicide (Art. 294 (1))
(2) Robbery with Rape (Art. 294 (2))
(3) Robbery with Arson
(4) Kidnapping with serious physical injuries (Art.
267 (3))
(5) Kidnapping with rape
(6) Rape with Homicide (Art. 335)
(7) Arson with homicide
When crimes involved cannot be legally
complexed, viz:
(1) Malicious obtention or abusive service of
search warrant (Art. 129) with perjury;
(2) Bribery (Art. 210) with infidelity in the
custody of prisoners;
(3) Maltreatment of prisoners (Art. 235) with
serious physical injuries;
(4) Usurpation of real rights (Art. 312) with
serious physical injuries; and
(5) Abandonment of persons in danger (Art. 275)
and crimes against minors (Art. 276 to 278)
with any other felony.
3. Continued and Continuing Crimes

(Delito Continuado)
Continued crime (continuous or continuing) - A
single crime, consisting of a series of acts but all
arising from one criminal resolution.
Cuello Calon explains the delito continuado in this
way: When the actor , there being unity of purpose
and of right violated, commits diverse acts, each one
of which, although of a delictual character, merely
constitutes a partial execution of a single particular
delict, such delictual acts is called delito
continuado. Example: One who on several occasions
steals wheat deposited in a granary. Each
abstraction constitutes theft, but instead of
imposing on the culprit different penalties for each
theft committed, he is punished for only one hurto
continuado for the total sum or value abstracted.
Continuing offense - A continuous, unlawful act or
series of acts set on foot by a single impulse and
operated by an unintermittent force, however long a
time it may occupy.

Although there is a series of acts, there is only one
crime committed. Hence, only one penalty shall be
imposed.
Real
or
material
Continued Crime
plurality
There is a series of acts performed by the offender.
The
different
acts
Each act performed
constitute
only
one
constitutes a separate
crime because all of the
crime because each act
acts performed arise
is generated by a
from
one
criminal
criminal impulse
resolution.
People v. De Leon (1926): a thief who took from a
yard of a house two game roosters belonging to two
different persons was ruled to have committed only
one crime of theft, because there is a unity of
thought in the criminal purpose of the offender. The
accused was animated by a single criminal impulse.
A continued crime is not a complex crime.
The offender here does not perform a single act,

but a series of acts, and one offense is not a
necessary means for continuing the other.
Hence, the penalty is not to be imposed in its

maximum period.
A continued crime is different from a transitory
crime (moving crime.) in criminal procedure for
purposes of determining venue.
When a transitory crime is committed, the criminal
action may be instituted and tried in the court of the
municipality, city or province wherein any of the
essential ingredients thereof took place.
(ASKED TWICE IN BAR EXAMS)
While Article 48 speaks of a complex crime where a
single act constitutes two or more grave or less
grave offenses, those cases involving a series of acts
resulting to two or more grave and less grave
felonies, were considered by the Supreme Court as a
complex crime when it is shown that the act is the
product of one single criminal impulse.
TIP: If confronted with a problem, the Supreme
Court has extended this class of complex crime to
those cases when the offender performed not a
single act but a series of acts as long as it is the
product of a single criminal impulse
People v. Garcia (1980):
The accused were convicts who were members

of a certain gang and they conspired to kill the
other gang.
Some of the accused killed their victims in one

place within the same penitentiary, some killed
the others in another place within the same
penitentiary.
The Supreme Court ruled that all accused should

be punished under one information because they
acted in conspiracy.
The act of one is the act of all.
Because there were several victims killed and
some were mortally wounded, the accused

should be held for the complex crime of
multiple homicide with multiple frustrated
homicide.
There is a complex crime not only when there is

a single act but a series of acts.
It is correct that when the offender acted in

conspiracy, this crime is considered as one and
prosecuted under one information.
Although in this case, the offenders did not only kill
one person but killed different persons, the Supreme
Court considered this as complex.
Whenever the Supreme Court concludes that the

criminals should be punished only once, because
they acted in conspiracy or under the same criminal
impulse:
it is necessary to embody these crimes under

one single information.
It is necessary to consider them as complex

crimes even if the essence of the crime does not
fit the definition of Art 48, because there is no
other provision in the RPC.
Applying the concept of the continued crime,
the following cases have been treated as
constituting one crime only:
i. People v. Tumlos, (1939): The theft of 13 cows
belonging to two different persons committed
by the accused at the same place and period of
time;
ii. People v. Jaranilla, (1974): The theft of six
roosters belonging to two different owners from
the same coop and at the same period of time;
iii. People v. Sabbun, (1964): The illegal charging of
fees for service rendered by a lawyer every time
he collected veterans benefits on behalf of a
client who agreed that attorneys fees shall be
paid out of such benefits. The collections of
legal fees were impelled by the same motive,
that of collecting fees for services rendered,
and all acts of collection were made under the
same criminal impulse.
The Supreme Court declined to apply the concept
in the following cases:
i. People v. Dichupa, (1961): Two estafa cases,
one which was committed during the period
from January 19 to December, 1955 and the
other from January 1956 to July 1956. Said acts
were committed on two different occasions;
ii. People v. CIV: Several malversations committed
in May, June and July 1936 and falsifications to
conceal said offenses committed in August and
October, 1936.
The malversations and
falsifications were not the result of one
resolution to embezzle and falsity;
In the THEFT cases:
The trend is to follow the single larceny doctrine:
i. taking of several things,
ii. whether belonging to the same or different
owners,
43

iii. at the same time and place, constitutes one
larceny only.
44
Abandoned is the doctrine that the government has

the discretion to prosecute the accused for one
offense or for as many distinct offenses as there are
victims.
Note: The concept of delito continuado has been

applied to crimes under special laws since in Art. 10,
the RPC shall be supplementary to special laws,
unless the latter provides the contrary.
CHAPTER III. CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY

A. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
B. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
C. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
D. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
E. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
F. ABSOLUTORY CAUSE
JUSTIFYING
EXEMPTING
MITIGATING
AGGRAVATING
ALTERNATIVE
NO WRONG
THERE IS A WRONG
THERE IS A FELONY
THERE IS A FELONY
THERE IS A FELONY
No
criminal
liability
With civil liability
Except:
accident;
insuperable cause
Decreased criminal
liability
Increased
liability
Increased or decreased
liability
No
liability
criminal
No civil liability
Except:
state of necessity
Imputability is the quality by which an act may be

ascribed to a person as it author or owner. It implies
that the act committed has been freely and
consciously done and may, therefore, be put down
to th doer as his very own
Responsibility is the obligation of suffering the
consequences of crime. It is the obligation of taking
the penal and civil consequences of the crime.
Imputability distinguished from responsibility
while imputability implies that a deed may be
imputed to a person, responsibility implies that the
person must take the consequences of such a deed.
Guilt is an element of responsibility, for a man
cannot be made to answer for the consequences of a
crime unless he is guilty. (Reyes, Revised Penal
Code)
FIVE TYPES of justifying circumstances:

1. Self defense
2. Defense of relatives
3. Defense of strangers
4. Avoidance of a greater evil
5. Fulfillment of duty
6. Obedience to an order issued for some
lawful purpose
Justifying Circumstances those where the act of a
person is said to be in accordance with law, so that
such person is deemed not to have transgressed the
law and is free from both criminal and civil liability.
There is no civil liability except in par. 4, Art. 11,
where the civil liability is borne by the persons
benefited by the act.
An affirmative defense, hence, the burden of

evidence rests on the accused who must prove the
circumstance by clear and convincing evidence.
There is NO crime committed, the act being
justified. Thus, such persons cannot be considered
criminals.
Basis: Lack of criminal intent
1. Self Defense
Includes not only the defense of the person or body
of the one assaulted but also that of his rights, the
enjoyment of which is protected by law. It includes:
a.
The right to honor. Hence, a slap on the face is

considered as unlawful aggression since the face
represents a person and his dignity. (Rugas vs,
People)
b.
The defense of property rights can be invoked if

there is an attack upon the property although it
is not coupled with an attack upon the person of
the owner of the premises. All the elements for
justification must however be present. (People
v. Narvaez)
A. Justifying Circumstances
criminal
Elements:
a.
Unlawful aggression
(1) Equivalent to an actual physical assault; OR
threatened assault of an immediate and
imminent kind which is offensive and
positively strong, showing the wrongful
intent to cause harm.
(2) The aggression must constitute a violation
of the law. When the aggression ceased to
exist, there is no longer a necessity to
defend ones self. EXCEPT: when the

aggressor retreats to obtain a more
advantageous position to ensure the success
of the initial attack, unlawful aggression is
deemed to continue.
(3) Must come from the person attacked by the
accused.
(4) Unlawful aggression must also be a
continuing circumstance or must have been
existing at the time the defense is made.
Once the unlawful aggression is found to
have ceased, the one making the defense of
a stranger would likewise cease to have any
justification for killing, or even just
wounding, the former aggressor. [People vs.
Dijan (2002)]
Note: No unlawful aggression when there was an
agreement to fight and the challenge to fight
was accepted. BUT aggression which is ahead of
an agreed time or place is unlawful aggression.
b.
Reasonable necessity of means employed to

prevent or repel it.
Test of reasonableness
The means employed depends upon:
(1) nature and quality of the weapon used by
the aggressor
(2) aggressors physical condition, character,
size, and other circumstances
(3) and those of the person defending himself
(4) the place and occasion of the assault.
c.
Lack of sufficient provocation on part of

defender
(1) In case there was a provocation on the part
of the person attacked, the attack should
not immediately precede the provocation
for defense to be valid.
(2) Never confuse unlawful aggression with
provocation.
(3) Mere provocation is not enough. It must be
real and imminent. Unlawful aggression is
an indispensable requisite.
(4) If there is unlawful aggression but one of
the other requisites is lacking, it is
considered an incomplete self-defense
which mitigates liability.
(5) Self-defense includes the defense of ones
rights, that is, those rights the enjoyment
of which is protected by law.
(6) Retaliation is different from an act of selfdefense.
Marzonia v. People (2006): Held: As the Court

previously held, mortally wounding an assailant with
a penknife is not a reasonably necessary means to
repel fist blows.
a.
Defense of Honor:
People v. Dela Cruz (1935): Accused was found

guilty of homicide for stabbing and killing Rivera.
Prosecution claimed that Dela Cruz and Rivera had a

relationship and that the accused was madly in love
with the deceased and was extremely jealous of
another woman with whom Rivera also had a
relationship. Dela Cruz claimed, on the other hand,
that on her way home one evening, Rivera followed
her, embraced and kissed her and touched her
private parts. She didnt know that it was Rivera and
that she was unable to resist the strength of Rivera
so she got a knife from her pocket and stabbed him
in defense of her honor.
Held: She is justified in using the pocketknife in
repelling what she believed to be an attack upon her
honor. It was a dark night and she could not have
identified Rivera. There being no other means of
self-defense.
People v. Juarigue (1946): Amado (deceased) has
been courting the accused Avelina in vain. On the
day of the crime, Avelina and Amado were in
Church. Amado sat beside Avelina and placed his
hand on her thigh. Thereafter, Avelina took out her
knife and stabbed Amado in the neck, causing the
death of Amado.
Held: Although the defense of ones honor exempts
one from criminal liability, it must be proved that
there is actual danger of being raped. In this case, 1)
the church was well-lit, 2) there were several people
in the church, including the father of the accused
and other town officials. In light of these
circumstances, accused could not have possibly been
raped. The means employed in defense of her honor
was evidently excessive.
b.
Defense of Property:
People vs. Apolinar: This can only be invoked as

justifying circumstance if
(1) Life and limb of the person making the defense
is also the subject of unlawful aggression
(2) Life cannot be equal to property.
People v. Narvaez (1983): Narvaez was taking his
rest inside his house when he heard that the wall of
his house was being chiseled. He saw that Fleischer
and Rubia, were fencing the land of the father of the
deceased Fleischer. He asked the group to stop but
they refused. The accused got mad so he got his
shotgun and shot Fleischer. Rubia ran towards the
jeep and knowing there is a gun on the jeep, the
accused fired at Rubia as well. Narvaez claimed he
acted in defense of his person and rights.
Held: There was aggression by the deceased not on
the person of the accused but on his property rights
when Fleischer angrily ordered the continuance of
the fencing. The third element of self-defense is also
present because there was no sufficient provocation
on the part of Narvaez since he was sleeping when
the deceased where fencing.
However, the second element was lacking. Shooting
the victims from the window of his house is
disproportionate to the physical aggression by the
45

victims. Thus, there is incomplete self-defense.
46
(3) The person defending be not induced by

revenge, resentment or other evil motive.
Note: If the person being defended is a second
cousin, it will be defense of stranger.
2. Defense of Relatives
Elements:
(1) Unlawful aggression
Unlawful aggression may not exist as a matter of
fact, it can be made to depend upon the honest
belief of the one making the defense. Reason: The
law acknowledges the possibility that a relative, by
virtue of blood, will instinctively come to the aid of
their relatives.
(2) Reasonable necessity of means employed to
prevent or repel it
(3) In case person attacked provoked attacker
defender must have no part therein
Reason: Although the provocation prejudices the
person who gave it, its effects do not reach the
defender who took no part therein, because the
latter was prompted by some noble or generous
sentiment in protecting and saving a relative
Relatives entitled to defense:
i. Spouse
ii. Ascendants
iii. Descendants
iv. legitimate, natural or adopted Brothers/Sisters
v. Relatives by affinity in the same degree
vi. Relatives by consanguinity w/in the 4th civil
degree
Illustration:
The sons of A honestly believe that their father was
the victim of an unlawful aggression when in fact it
was their father who attacked B. If they killed B
under such circumstances, they are justified.
Balunueco v. CA (2003):
Held: Of the three (3) requisites of defense of
relatives, unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua
non, for without it any defense is not possible or
justified. In order to consider that an unlawful
aggression was actually committed, it is necessary
that an attack or material aggression, an offensive
act positively determining the intent of the
aggressor to cause an injury shall have been made;a
mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not
sufficient to justify the commission of an act which
is punishable per se, and allow a claim of exemption
from liability on the ground that it was committed in
self-defense or defense of a relative.
3. Defense of Strangers
Elements:
(1) Unlawful aggression;
(2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed
to prevent or repel it;
Basis: What one may do in his defense, another may

do for him. The ordinary man would not stand idly
by and see his companion killed without attempting
to save his life
4. Avoidance of a Greater Evil

Requisites:
(1) Evil sought to be avoided actually exists
(2) Injury feared be greater than that done to
avoid it
(3) There is no other practical & less harmful
means of preventing it
The evil or injury sought to be avoided must not
have been produced by the one invoking the
justifying circumstances.
GENERAL RULE: No civil liability in justifying
circumstances because there is no crime.
EXCEPTION: There is CIVIL LIABILITY under this
paragraph. Persons benefited shall be liable in
proportion to the benefit which they have received.
Illustration:
A drove his car beyond the speed limit so much so
that when he reached the curve, his vehicle skidded
towards a ravine. He swerved his car towards a
house, destroying it and killing the occupant therein.
A cannot be justified because the state of necessity
was brought about by his own felonious act.
Ty v. People (2004): Ty's mother and sister were
confined at the Manila Doctors' Hospital. Ty signed
the "Acknowledgment of Responsibility for Payment"
in the Contract of Admission. The total hospital bills
of the two patients amounted to P1,075,592.95. Ty
executed a promissory note wherein she assumed
payment of the obligation in installments. To assure
payment of the obligation, she drew 7 postdated
checks against Metrobank payable to the hospital
which were all dishonored by the drawee bank due
to insufficiency of funds. As defense, Ty claimed
that she issued the checks because of an
uncontrollable fear of a greater injury. She
averred that she was forced to issue the checks to
obtain release for her mother who was being
inhumanely treated by the hospital. She alleged
that her mother has contemplated suicide if she
would not be discharged from the hospital. Ty was
found guilty by the lower courts of 7 counts of
violation of BP22.
Held: The court sustained the findings of the lower
courts. The evil sought to be avoided is merely
expected or anticipated. So the defense of an
uncontrollable fear of a greater injury is not
applicable. Ty could have taken advantage of an
available option to avoid committing a crime. By her
own admission, she had the choice to give jewelry or

other forms of security instead of postdated checks
to secure her obligation.
Moreover, for the defense of state of necessity to
be availing, the greater injury feared should not
have been brought about by the negligence or
imprudence, more so, the willful inaction of the
actor. In this case, the issuance of the bounced
checks was brought about by Ty's own failure to pay
her mother's hospital bills.
5. Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful

Exercise of Right or office
Requisites:
(1) Offender acted in performance of duty or
lawful exercise of a rig ht/office
(2) The resulting felony is the unavoidable
consequence of the due fulfillment of the duty
or the lawful exercise of the right or office.
Note: If the first condition is present, but the second
is not because the offender acted with culpa, the
offender will be entitled to a privileged mitigating
circumstance. The penalty would be reduced by one
or two degrees.
People v. Ulep (2000): Accused-appellant and the
other police officers involved originally set out to
restore peace and order at Mundog Subdivision
where the victim was then running amuck. The
victim threatened the safety of the police officers
despite accused-appellant's previous warning shot
and verbal admonition to the victim to lay down his
weapon.
Held: As a police officer, it is to be expected that
accused-appellant would stand his ground. Up to
that point, his decision to respond with a barrage of
gunfire to halt the victim's further advance was
justified under the circumstances. A police officer is
not required to afford the victim the opportunity to
fight back. Neither is he expected when hard
pressed and in the heat of such an encounter at
close quarters to pause for a long moment and
reflect coolly at his peril, or to wait after each blow
to determine the effects thereof. But he cannot be
exonerated from overdoing his duty when he fatally
shot the victim in the head, even after the latter
slumped to the ground due to multiple gunshot
wounds sustained while charging at the police
officers. Sound discretion and restraint dictated
that a veteran policeman should have ceased firing
at the victim the moment he saw the latter fall to
the ground. The victim at that point no longer posed
a threat. Shooting him in the head was obviously
unnecessary.
The law does not clothe police officers with
authority to arbitrarily judge the necessity to kill- it
must be stressed that their judgment and discretion
as police officers in the performance of their duties
must be exercised neither capriciously nor
oppressively, but within reasonable limits.
Mamagun vs. People (2007): A policeman in pursuit

of a snatcher accidentally shot one of the
bystanders who was actually helping him chase the
snatcher.
Held: To be sure, acts in the fulfillment of a duty,
without more, do not completely justify the
petitioners firing the fetal gunshot at the victim.
True, petitioner, as one of the policemen
responding to a reported robbery then in progress,
was performing his duty as a police officer as well
as when he was trying to effect the arrest of the
suspected robber and in the process, fatally shoot
said suspect, albeit the wrong man. However, in
the absence of the equally necessary justifying
circumstance that the injury of offense committed
be the necessary consequence if the due
performance of such duty, there can only be
incomplete justification, a privilege mitigating
circumstance under Art. 13 and 69 of the RPC. There
can be no quibbling that there was no rational
necessity for the killing of Contreras. Petitioner
could have first fired a warning shot before pulling
the trigger against Contreras who was one of the
residents chasing the suspected robber.
People v. Delima (1922): Napilon escaped from the

jail where he was serving sentence. Some days
afterwards the policeman, Delima, who was looking
for him found him in the house of Alegria, armed
with a pointed piece of bamboo in the shape of a
lance. Delima demanded the surrender of the
weapon but Napilon refused. Delima fired his
revolver to impose his authority but the bullet did
not hit him. The criminal ran away and Delima went
after him and fired again his revolver this time
hitting and killing him.
Held: The killing was done in the performance of a
duty. The deceased was under the obligation to
surrender and had no right, after evading service of
his sentence, to commit assault and disobedience
with a weapon in his hand, which compelled the
policeman to resort to such extreme means, which,
although it proved to be fatal, was justified by the
circumstance.
6. Obedience to an order issued for

some lawful purpose
Requisites:
(1) Order must have been issued by a superior
(2) The order is for some lawful purpose
(3) The means used to carry it out must be lawful
Note: A subordinate is not liable for carrying out an
illegal order of his superior if he is not aware of the
illegality of the order and he is not negligent.
People v. Oanis (1943): Although an officer in
making a lawful arrest is justified in using such
force as is reasonably necessary to secure and detain
the offender, overcome his resistance, prevent his
47
48
escape, recapture him if he escapes, and protect

himself from bodily harm, yet he is never justified
in using unnecessary force or in treating him with
wanton violence or in resorting to dangerous means
when the arrest could be effected otherwise.
People v. Beronilla (1955):
Held: Where the accused acted upon orders of
superior officers that the, as military subordinates,
could not question, and obeyed in good faith,
without being aware of their illegality, without any
fault or negligence on their part, the act is not
accompanied by criminal intent. A crime is not
committed if the mind of the person performing the
act be innocent.
Justifying vs. Exempting Circumstance
JUSTIFYING
EXEMPTING
CIRCUMSTANCE
CIRCUMSTANCE
It affects the act, not It affects the actor, not
the actor.
the act.
The act is considered to
have been done within
The act complained of is
the bounds of law;
actually wrongful, but
hence, legitimate and
the actor is not liable.
lawful in the eyes of the
law.
Since
the
act
complained
of
is
Since
the
act
is actually wrong, there is
considered lawful, there a crime but since the
is no liability.
actor acted without
voluntariness, there is
no dolo or culpa.
There is a crime,
although there is no
criminal, so there is
There is no criminal or
civil liability (Except:
civil liability.
Art. 12, par. 4 and 7
where there is no civil
liability.
Anti-Violence against Women and Their

Children Act of 2004 (R.A. 9262)
Battered Woman Syndrome- refers to a
scientifically
defined
pattern
of
psychological and behavioral symptoms
found in women living in battering
relationships as a result of cumulative
abuse.
Battered Woman Syndrome as a Defense.
Victim-survivors who are found by the
courts to be suffering from battered woman
syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil
liability notwithstanding the absence of any
of the elements for justifying circumstances
of self-defense under the Revised Penal
Code.
In the determination of the state 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
expert
psychiatrists/
psychologists [SECTION 26, RA 9262]
In People Vs. Genosa, the Court ruled that the

battered woman syndrome is characterized by a
CYCLE OF VIOLENCE, which is made up of three
phases.
i.
First Phase: Tension Building Phase
(1) Where minor battering occurs, it could be a

verbal or slight physical abuse or another form
of hostile behavior.
(2) The woman tries to pacify the batterer through
a show of kind, nurturing behavior, or by simply
staying out of the way.
(3) But this proves to be unsuccessful as it only
gives the batterer the notion that he has the
right to abuse her.
ii.
Second Phase: Acute Battering Incident
(1) Characterized by brutality, destructiveness, and

sometimes death.
(2) The battered woman has no control; only the
batterer can stop the violence.
(3) The battered woman realizes that she cannot
reason with him and resistance would only
worsen her condition.
iii. Third Phase: Tranquil Period
(1) Characterized by guilt on the part of the
batterer and forgiveness on the part of the
woman.
(2) The batterer may show a tender and nurturing
behavior towards his partner and the woman
also tries to convince herself that the battery
will never happen again and that her partner
will change for the better.
Four Characteristics of the Syndrome:
(1) The woman believes that the violence was her
fault;
(2) She has an inability to place the responsibility
for the violence elsewhere;
(3) She fears for her life and/or her childrens life
(4) She has an irrational belief that the abuser is
omnipresent and omniscient.
B. Exempting Circumstances
SIX
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
TYPES of exempting circumstances:

Imbecility/Insanity
Minority
Accident
Compulsion of irresistible force
Impulse of uncontrollable fear
Insuperable or lawful cause
IMPORTANT POINTS:
The reason for the exemption lies in the
involuntariness or lack of knowledge of the act:
(1) one or some of the ingredients of criminal
liability such as criminal intent, intelligence, or
freedom of action on the part of the offender is
missing
(2) In case it is a culpable felony, there is absence
of freedom of action or intelligence, or absence

of negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight or
lack of skill.
1. Insanity and Imbecility

Imbecile - One who, while advanced in age, has a
mental development comparable to that of a child
between 2 and 7 years of age. Exempt in all cases
from criminal liability
Insane - There is a complete deprivation of
intelligence in committing the act but capable of
having lucid intervals. During a lucid interval, the
insane acts with intelligence and thus, is not exempt
from criminal liability
Insanity is a defense in the nature of confession and
avoidance and must be proved beyond reasonable
doubt
Note: There is another school of thought that
believes that insanity, as with other such defenses,
need only be proved to a degree sufficient to raise a
reasonable doubt of guilt.
Evidence of insanity must refer to:
a. the time preceding the act under prosecution or
b. at the very moment of its execution.
Insanity subsequent to commission of crime is not
exempting
Feeblemindedness is not imbecility. It is necessary
that there is a complete deprivation of intelligence
in committing the act, that is, the accused be
deprived of reason, that there is no responsibility for
his own acts; that he acts without the least
discernment; that there be complete absence of the
power to discern, or that there be a complete
deprivation of the freedom of the will. (People vs.
Formigones).
Cases covered under this article:
(1) Dementia praecox
Note: Cited in OLD cases, but is a term no
longer used by mental health practitioners
(2) Kleptomania: if found by a competent
psychiatrist as irresistible
(3) Epilepsy
(4) Somnambulism: sleep-walking (People vs.
Taneo)
(5) Malignant malaria: which affects the nervous
system
People vs. Dungo: The insanity that is exempting is
limited only to mental aberration or disease of the
mind and must completely impair the intelligence of
the accused.
Two tests of insanity:
(1) The test of cognition, or whether the accused
acted with complete deprivation of intelligence
in committing the said crime;
(2) The test of volition, or whether the accused

acted in total deprivation of freedom of will.
(People vs. Rafanan)
Juridical Effects of Insanity
(1) If present at the time of the commission of the
crime EXEMPT from liability.
(2) If present during trial proceedings will be
SUSPENDED and accused is committed to a
hospital.
(3) After judgment or while serving sentence
Execution of judgment is SUSPENDED, the
accused is committed to a hospital. The period
of confinement in the hospital is counted for
the purpose of the prescription of the penalty.
2. Minority
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006
(R.A. 9344); also refer to Child and Youth
Welfare Code (P.D. 603, as amended)
a. Definition of child in conflict with the law
Section 4 (e). "Child in conflict with the law" a
child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as,
having committed an offense under Philippine laws.
b. Minimum age of criminal responsibility

RA 9344, SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal
Responsibility. - A child fifteen (15) years of age or
under at the time of the commission of the offense
shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the
child shall be subjected to an intervention program
pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen
(18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from
criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention
program, unless he/she has acted with discernment,
in which case, such child shall be subjected to the
appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.
The exemption from criminal liability herein
established does not include exemption from civil
liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with
existing laws.
What is the Juvenile Justice and Welfare System?
"Juvenile Justice and Welfare System" refers to a
system dealing with children at risk and children in
conflict with the law, which provides childappropriate proceedings, including programs and
services for prevention, diversion, rehabilitation, reintegration and aftercare to ensure their normal
growth and development. (See Title V: Juvenile
Justice and Welfare System of RA 9344).
c. Determination of age (Sec. 7, RA 9344)

PRESUMPTION: Minority of child in conflict with the
law. S/he shall enjoy all the rights of a child in
49

conflict with the law until s/he is proven to be 18
years old or older.
50
The
age of a child may be determined from:

The childs birth certificate,
Baptismal certificate, or
Any other pertinent documents.
In the absence of these documents, age may be

based on:
information from the child himself/herself,
testimonies of other persons,
the physical appearance of the child, and
other relevant evidence.

In case of doubt as to the childs age, it shall be
resolved in his/her favor.
d. Exemption from criminal liability

(1) 15 yrs old or below at the time of commission
of offense: absolutely exempt from criminal
liability but subject to intervention program
(2) Over 15 yrs old but below 18: exempt from
criminal liability & subject to intervention
program
If acted w/ discernment subject to

diversion program
(3) Below 18 yrs are exempt from:
(1) Status offense
(2) Vagrancy and Prostitution
(3) Mendicancy (PD1563)
(4) Sniffing of Rugby (PD 1619)
Discernment mental capacity to understand the

difference between right and wrong as determined
by the childs appearance , attitude, comportment
and behavior not only before and during the
commission of the offense but also after and during
the trial. It is manifested through:
(1) Manner of committing a crime Thus, when
the minor committed the crime during
nighttime to avoid detection or took the loot
to another town to avoid discovery, he
manifested discernment.
(2) Conduct of the offender The accused shot the
victim with his sling shot and shouted Putang
ina mo.
Note: The exemption from criminal liability shall not
include exemption from civil liability.
Automatic Suspension of Sentence Once the child
who is under eighteen (18) years of age at the time
of the commission of the offense is found guilty of
the offense charged, the court shall determine and
ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted
from the offense committed. However, instead of
pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court
shall place the child in conflict with the law under
suspended sentence, without need of application:
Provided, however, That suspension of sentence
shall still be applied even if the juvenile is already
eighteen years (18) of age or more at the time of the
pronouncement of his/her guilt.
Upon suspension of sentence and after considering

the various chcumstances of the child, the court
shall impose the appropriate disposition measures as
provided in the Supreme Court Rule on Juveniles in
Conflict with the Law. (Sec. 38)
Discharge of the Child in Conflict with the Law. Upon the recommendation of the social worker who
has custody of the child, the court shall dismiss the
case against the child whose sentence has been
suspended and against whom disposition measures
have been issued, and shall order the final discharge
of the child if it finds that the objective of the
disposition measures have been fulfilled.
The discharge of the child in conflict with the law
shall not affect the civil liability resulting from the
commission of the offense, which shall be enforced
in accordance with law. (Sec. 39)
3. Accident
(Damnum Absque Injuria)
Requisites:
(1) A person performing a lawful act;
(2) With due care;
(3) He causes an injury to another by mere
accident;
(4) Without fault or intention of causing it.
Accident - something that happens outside the sway
of our will and, although coming about through some
act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly
foreseeable consequences.
Under Article 12, paragraph 4, the offender is
exempt not only from criminal but also from civil
liability.
Illustration:
A person who is driving his car within the speed

limit, while considering the condition of the
traffic and the pedestrians at that time, tripped
on a stone with one of his car tires. The stone
flew hitting a pedestrian on the head. The
pedestrian suffered profuse bleeding. There is
no civil liability under paragraph 4 of Article 12.
Although this is just an exempting circumstance,
where generally there is civil liability, yet, in
paragraph 4 of Article 12, there is no civil
liability as well as criminal liability. The driver
is not under obligation to defray the medical
expenses.
4. Irresistible Force
Elements:
(1) That the compulsion is by means of physical
force.
(2) That the physical force must be irresistible.
(3) That the physical force must come from a third
person
Note: Before a force can be considered to be an
irresistible one, it must produce such an effect on
the individual that, in spite of all resistance, it

reduces him to a mere instrument and, as such,
incapable of committing the crime. (Aquino, Revised
Penal Code)
People v. Lising (1998)
Held: To be exempt from criminal liability, a person
invoking irresistible force must show that the force
exerted was such that it reduced him to a mere
instrument who acted not only without will but
against his will.
5. Uncontrollable Fear
Requisites:
(1) That the threat which causes the fear is of an
evil greater than or at least equal to, that which
he is forced to commit;
(2) That it promises an evil of such gravity and
imminence that the ordinary man would have
succumbed to it.
A threat of future injury is not enough. The
compulsion must be of such a character as to leave
no opportunity to the accused for escape or selfdefense in equal combat.
6. Insuperable or Lawful Causes

Requisites:
(1) That an act is required by law to be done;
(2) That a person fails to perform such act;
(3) That his failure to perform such act was due to
some lawful or insuperable cause
Insuperable means insurmountable.
Illustration:
Person was arrested for direct assault at 5:00 pm
after government offices close. Art 125 RPC requires
that a person arrested be delivered to judicial
authorities within prescribed number of hours
according to the gravity of offense. But complaint
may only be filed the next day when offices open.
The circumstance of time of arrest may be
considered as an insuperable cause.
People v. Bandian (1936): A woman cannot be held
liable for infanticide when she left her newborn
child in the bushes without being aware that she
had given birth at all. Severe dizziness and extreme
debility made it physically impossible for Bandian to
take home the child plus the assertion that she
didnt know that she had given birth.
Illustration:
A is forced at gun point to forge the signature of B.
See Part F for absolutory causes
US v. Exaltacion (1905): Exaltacion and Tanchico
were convicted w/ rebellion based on documents
found in the house of Contreras, a so-called general
of bandits, containing signatures of defendants
swearing allegiance to the Katipunan. Defendants
aver that these documents were signed under duress
and fear of death. They allege further that they
were abducted by thieves and that these men forced
the defendants to sign the documents
Held: The duress under which the defendants acted
relieved them from criminal liability . Prosecution
was unable to prove the guilt of the accused and
testimonies of witnesses for the accused further
corroborated their defense.
Irresistible Force
Irresistible force must
operate directly upon
the
person
of
the
accused and the injury
feared may be a lesser
degree than the damage
caused by the accused.
Offender uses physical
force or violence to
compel another person
to commit a crime.
Uncontrollable Fear
Uncontrollable fear may
be generated by a
threatened act directly
to a third person such as
the wife of the accused,
but the evil feared must
be greater or at least
equal to the damage
caused to avoid it.
Offender
employs
intimidation or threat in
compelling another to
commit a crime.
C. Mitigating Circumstances
TWELVE TYPES of mitigating circumstances:
1. Incomplete Justification and Exemption
2. Under 18 or Over 70 years of age
3. No intention to commit so grave a wrong
5. Immediate vindication of a grave offense
6. Passion or obfuscation
7. Voluntary surrender
8. Voluntary plea of guilt
9. Plea to a lower offense
10. Physical defect
11. Illness
12. Analogous Circumstances
Mitigating circumstances or causas attenuates are
those which, if present in the commission of the
crime, do not entirely free the actor from criminal
liability, but serve only to reduce the penalty.
Basis: They are based on the diminution of either
freedom of action, intelligence or intent or on the
lesser perversity of the offender. However, voluntary
surrender and plea of guilt which, being
circumstances that occur after the commission of
the offense, show the accuseds respect for the law
(voluntary surrender) and remorse and acceptance
of punishment (plea of guilt), thereby necessitating
a lesser penalty to effect his rehabilitation (based on
the Positivist School)
51
52
The circumstances under Article 13 are generally

ordinary mitigating. However, paragraph 1, is
treated as a privileged mitigating circumstance if
majority of the requisites concurred, otherwise, it
will be treated as an ordinary mitigating
circumstance. (Reyes, citing Art. 69).
Correlate Article 13 with Articles 63 and 64. Article
13 is meaningless without knowing the rules of
imposing penalties under Articles 63 and 64.
TIP: In bar problems, when you are given
indeterminate sentences, these articles are very
important.
Distinctions
Ordinary MC
Can be offset by any
aggravating circumstance
If not offset by aggravating
circumstance,
produces
the effect of applying the
penalty provided by law
for the crime in its min
period in case of divisible
penalty
1. Incomplete
Privileged MC
Cannot be offset by
aggravating
circumstance
The
effect
of
imposing upon the
offender the penalty
lower by one or two
degrees than that
provided by law for
the crime.
Justification
and
Exemption
The circumstances of justification or exemption

which may give place to mitigation, because not all
the requisites necessary to justify the act or to
exempt from criminal liability in the respective
cases are attendant, are the following:
(1) Self-defense (Art. 11, par. 1)
(2) Defense of relatives (Art. 11, par. 2)
(3) Defense of strangers (Art. 11, par. 3)
(4) State of necessity (Art. 11, par. 4)
(5) Performance of duty (Art. 11, par. 5)
(6) Obedience to the order of superiors (Art. 11,
par. 6)
(7) Minority over 15 years of age but below 18
years of age (Art. 12, par. 3)
(8) Causing injury by mere accident (Art. 12,
par.4)
(9) Uncontrollable fear (Art. 12 par. 6)
Incomplete justifying circumstances:

a.
Incomplete self-defense, defense of relatives,

defense of stranger
In these 3 classes of defense, UNLAWFUL

AGGRESSION must always be present. It is an
indispensable requisite.
Par. 1 of Art. 13 is applicable only when
unlawful aggression is present
but one or both of the other 2 requisites are not

present in any of the cases referred to in
circumstances number 1, 2 and 3 or Art. 11.
Example: When the one making defense against

unlawful aggression used unreasonable means to
prevent or repel it, he is entitled to a privileged
mitigating circumstance.
Note: When two of the three requisites mentioned
therein are present, the case must be considered as
a privileged mitigating circumstance referred to in
Art. 69 of this Code. (Article 69 requires that a
majority of the conditions required must be
present.)
b.
Incomplete
justifying
circumstance
avoidance of greater evil or injury
of
Requisites under par. 4 of Art. 11:

(1) That the evil sought to be avoided actually
exists;
(2) That the injury feared be greater than that
done to avoid it;
(3) That there be no other practical and less
harmful means of preventing it.
Avoidance of greater evil or injury is a justifying
circumstance if all the three requisites mentioned in
par. 4 of Art. 11 are present.
But if any of the last two requisites is lacking, there
is only a mitigating circumstance. The first element
is indispensable.
c.
Incomplete
justifying
performance of duty
circumstance
of
Requisites under par.5, Art. 11

(1) That the accused acted in the performance
of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right
or office; and
(2) That the injury caused or offense
committed be the necessary consequence of
the due performance of such duty or the
lawful exercise of such right or office.
In the case of People v. Oanis (1943), where only
one of the requisites was present, Article 69 was
applied.
People v. Oanis (1943): The SC considered one of
the 2 requisites as constituting the majority. It
seems that there is no ordinary mitigating
circumstance under Art. 13 par. 1 when the
justifying or exempting circumstance has 2
requisites only.
Incomplete exempting circumstances:

(1) Incomplete
accident
exempting
circumstance
of

(1) A person is performing a lawful act
(2) With due care
(3) He causes an injury to another by mere
accident
(4) Without fault or intention of causing it
There is NO SUCH MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
because:
If the 2nd requisite and 1st part of the 4th

requisite are absent, the case will fall under
Art.
365
which
punishes
reckless
imprudence.
If the 1st requisite and 2nd part of the 4th
requisite are absent, it will be an
intentional felony (Art. 4, par. 1).
(2) Incomplete
exempting
uncontrollable fear.
circumstance
of

(1) That the threat which caused the fear was
of an evil greater than, or at least equal to,
that which he was required to commit;
(2) That it promised an evil of such gravity and
imminence that an ordinary person would
have succumbed to it.
Note: If only one of these requisites is present, there
is only a mitigating circumstance.
2. Under 18 Or Over 70 Years Of Age

a. In lowering the penalty:
Based on age of the offender at the time of the
commission of the crime not the age when sentence
is imposed
b. In suspension of the sentence:
Based on age of the offender (under 18) at the time
the sentence is to be promulgated (See Art. 80,
RPC)
c.
Par. 2 contemplates the ff:

(1) An offender over 9 but under 15 of age who
acted with discernment.
(2) An offender fifteen or over but under 18
years of age.
(3) An offender over 70 years old
Legal effects of various ages of offenders:

1. 15 and below - Exempting
2. Above 15 but under 18 years of age, also an
exempting circumstance, unless he acted with
discernment (Art. 12, par. 3 as amended by RA
9344).
3. Minor delinquent under 18 years of age, the
sentence may be suspended. (Art. 192, PD No.
603 as amended by PD 1179)
4. 18 years or over, full criminal responsibility.
5. 70 years or over mitigating, no imposition of
death penalty; if already imposed. Execution of
death penalty is suspended and commuted.
Determination of Age The child in conflict with
the law shall enjoy the presumption of minority.
He/She shall enjoy all the rights of a child in conflict
with the law until he/she is proven to be eighteen
(18) years old or older. The age of a child may be
determined from the child's birth certificate,
baptismal certificate or any other pertinent
documents. In the absence of these documents, age
may be based on information from the child
himself/herself, testimonies of other persons, the
physical appearance of the child and other relevant

evidence. In case of doubt as to the age of the child,
it shall be resolved in his/her favor.
Any person contesting the age of the child in conflict
with the law prior to the filing of the information in
any appropriate court may file a case in a summary
proceeding for the determination of age before the
Family Court which shall decide the case within
twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the
appropriate pleadings of all interested parties.
If a case has been fiied against the child in conflict
with the law and is pending in the appropriate court,
the person shall file a motion to determine the age
of the child in the same court where the case is
pending. Pending hearing on the said motion,
proceedings on the main case shall be suspended.
In all proceedings, law enforcement officers,
prosecutors, judges and other government officials
concerned shall exert all efforts at determining the
age of the child in conflict with the law. (Sec. 7, RA
9344).
Basis: Diminution of intelligence
3. No Intention to Commit So Grave A

Wrong (Praeter Intentionem)
There must be a notable disproportion between

the means employed by the offender and the
resulting harm.
The intention, as an internal act, is judged
o not only by the proportion of the means
employed by him to the evil produced by his
act,
o but also by the fact that the blow was or
was not aimed at a vital part of the body;
o this includes: the weapon used, the injury
inflicted and his attitude of the mind when
the accused attacked the deceased.
The lack of intention to commit so grave a
wrong can also be inferred from the subsequent
acts of the accused immediately after
committing the offense, such as when the
accused helped his victim to secure medical
treatment.
This circumstance does not apply when the
crime results from criminal negligence or culpa.
Only applicable to offense resulting in death,
physical injuries, or material harm (including
property damage). It is not applicable to
defamation or slander.
This mitigating circumstance is not applicable
when the offender employed brute force.
Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong is not
appreciated where the offense committed is
characterized by treachery.
When the victim does not die as a result of the
assault in cases of crimes against persons, the
absence of the intent to kill reduces the felony
to mere physical injuries, but it does not
53

constitute a mitigating circumstance under Art.
13(3).
54
People v. Calleto (2002):
Held: The lack of "intent" to commit a wrong so
grave is an internal state. It is weighed based on the
weapon used, the part of the body injured, the
injury inflicted and the manner it is inflicted. The
fact that the accused used a 9-inch hunting knife in
attacking the victim from behind, without giving
him an opportunity to defend himself, clearly shows
that he intended to do what he actually did, and he
must be held responsible therefor, without the
benefit of this mitigating circumstance.
People v. Ural (1974):
Held: The intention, as an internal act, is judged
not only by the proportion of the means employed
by him to the evil produced by his act, but also by
the fact that the blow was or was not aimed at a
vital part of the body. Thus, it may be deduced
from the proven facts that the accused had no
intent to kill the victim, his design being only to
maltreat him, such that when he realized the
fearful consequences of his felonious act, he
allowed the victim to secure medical treatment
at the municipal dispensary.

Elements:
(1) That the provocation must be sufficient
(2) That it must originate from the offended party
(3) That the provocation must be immediate to
the act, i.e., to the commission of the crime
by the person who is provoked
Provocation - Any unjust or improper conduct or act
of the offended part capable of exciting, inciting, or
irritating anyone.
Provocation in order to be mitigating must be
SUFFICIENT and IMMEDIATELY preceding the act.
(People v. Pagal)
Sufficient means adequate to excite a

person to commit a wrong and must
accordingly be proportionate to its gravity.
(People v. Nabora).
Sufficiency depends upon:

a. the act constituting provocation
b. the social standing of the person
provoked
c. the place and time when the
provocation is made.
Between the provocation by the offended

party and the commission of the crime,
there should not be any interval in time.
Reason: When there is an interval of time
between
the
provocation
and
the
commission of the crime, the perpetrator
has time to regain his reason.
Sufficient provocation as
a requisite of incomplete
self-defense
It pertains to its absence
Provocation
as
a
mitigating circumstance
It
pertains
to
its
on the part of the person

defending
himself.
(People v. CA, G.R. No.
103613, 2001)
presence on the part of

the offended party.
TIP: The common set-up given in a bar problem is

that of provocation given by somebody against whom
the person provoked cannot retaliate; thus the
person provoked retaliated on a younger brother or
on the father. Although in fact, there is sufficient
provocation, it is not mitigating because the one
who gave the provocation is not the one against
whom the crime was committed.
You have to look at two criteria:
a. If from the element of time,
(1) there is a material lapse of time stated in
the problem and
(2) there is nothing stated in the problem that
the effect of the threat of provocation had
prolonged and affected the offender at the
time he committed the crime
(3) then you use the criterion based on the
time element.
b. If there is that time element and at the same
time,
(1) facts are given indicating that at the time
the offender committed the crime, he is
still suffering from outrage of the threat or
provocation done to him
(2) then he will still get the benefit of this
mitigating circumstance.
Romera v. People (2004: Provocation and passion
or obfuscation are not 2 separate mitigating
circumstances. It is well-settled that if these 2
circumstances are based on the same facts, they
should be treated together as one mitigating
circumstance. It is clear that both circumstances
arose from the same set of facts. Hence, they
should not be treated as two separate mitigating
circumstances.
5. Immediate Vindication of A Grave

Offense
Elements:
(1) That there be a grave offense done to the one
committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted
brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity
within the same degree.
(2) That the felony is committed in vindication of
such grave offense. A lapse of time is allowed
between the vindication and the doing of the
grave offense.
(3) The vindication need not be done by the
person upon whom the grave offense was
committed
Note: Lapse of time is allowed. The word
immediate used in the English text is not the
correct translation. The Spanish text uses
proxima. Although the grave offense (slapping of
the accused in front of many persons hours before

the killing), which engendered the perturbation of
mind, was not so immediate, it was held that the
influence thereof, by reason of its gravity, lasted
until the moment the crime was committed. (People
v. Parana).
The question whether or not a certain personal
offense is grave must be decided by the court,
having in mind
a. the social standing of the person,
b. the place and
c. the time when the insult was made.
Vindication of a grave offense and passion or
obfuscation cannot be counted separately and
independently.
People v. Torpio (2004: The mitigating
circumstance of sufficient provocation cannot be
considered apart from the circumstance of
vindication of a grave offense. These two
circumstances arose from one and the same
incident, i.e., the attack on the appellant by
Anthony, so that they should be considered as only
one mitigating circumstance.
Provocation
It is made directly only
to
the
person
committing the felony.
The offense need not be
a grave offense.
The
provocation
or
threat must immediately
precede the act.
It is a mere spite against

the one giving the
provocation or threat.
Vindication
The grave offense may
be committed against
the offenders relatives
mentioned by law.
The offended party must
have done a grave
offense to the offender
or his relatives.
The grave offense may
be proximate, which
admits of an interval of
time between the grave
offense done by the
offended party and the
commission of the crime
by the accused.
It concerns the honor of
the person.
6. Passion or obfuscation (Arrebato y

Obsecacion)
Elements:
(1) The accused acted upon an impulse
(2) The impulse must be so powerful that it
naturally produces passion or obfuscation in
him.
Requisites:
(1) That there be an act, both unlawful and
sufficient to produce such condition of mind;
and
(2) That said act which produced the obfuscation
was not far removed from the commission of
the crime by a considerable length of time,
during which the perpetrator might recover his

normal equanimity. (People v. Alanguilang)
Note: Passion or obfuscation must arise from lawful
sentiments.
Passion or obfuscation not applicable when:
a. The act committed in a spirit of LAWLESSNESS.
b. The act is committed in a spirit of REVENGE.
The mitigating circumstance of obfuscation arising
from jealousy cannot be invoked in favor of the
accused whose relationship with the woman was
illegitimate.
Also, the act must be sufficient to produce such a
condition of mind. If the cause of loss of self-control
is trivial and slight, obfuscation is not mitigating.
Moreover, the defense must prove that the act
which produced the passion or obfuscation took
place at a time not far removed from the
commission of the crime. (People v. Gervacio, 1968)
Passion and obfuscation may lawfully arise from
causes existing only in the honest belief of the
offender.
US v. De la Cruz (1912): De la Cruz, in the heat of
passion, killed the deceased who was his querida
(lover) upon discovering her in the act of carnal
communication with a mutual acquaintance. He
claims that he is entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of passion or obfuscation and that the
doctrine in Hicks is inapplicable.
Held: US v. Hicks is not applicable to the case. In
Hicks, the cause of the alleged passion and
obfuscation of the aggressor was the convict's
vexation, disappointment and deliberate anger
engendered by the refusal of the woman to continue
to live in illicit relations with him, which she had a
perfect reason to do. In this case, the impulse upon
which the defendant acted was the sudden
revelation that his paramour was untrue to him and
his discovery of her in flagrante in the arms of
another. This was a sufficient impulse in the
ordinary and natural course of things to produce
the passion and obfuscation which the law declares
to be one of the mitigating circumstances to be
taken into the consideration of the court.
Passion and Obfuscation cannot co-exist with:
(1) Vindication of grave offense
Exception: When there are other facts
closely connected. Thus, where the
deceased, had eloped with the daughter of
the accused, and later when the deceased
saw the accused coming, the deceased ran
upstairs, there are 2 facts which are
closely connected, namely: (1) elopement,
which is a grave offense for the family of
old customs, and (2) refusal to deal with
him, a stimulus strong enough to produce
55
56
passion. The court in People v. Diokno

(G.R. No. L-45100), considered both
mitigating circumstances in favor of the
accused.
(2) Treachery (People v. Wong)
Passion/Obfuscation v. Irresistible Force (Reyes,
Revised Penal Code)
Passion/Obfuscation
Irresistible force
Mitigating Circumstance
Exempting circumstance
Cannot give rise to Physical force is a
physical force because it condition sine qua non.
does
not
involves
physical force.
Passion/obfuscation
Irresistible force comes
comes from the offender from a third person.
himself.
Must arise from lawful Irresistible
force
is
sentiments
to
be unlawful.
mitigating.
Passion/Obfuscation v. Provocation (Reyes, Revised
Penal Code)
Passion/Obfuscation
Provocation
Passion/obfuscation
is Provocation comes from
produced by an impulse the injured party.
which may be caused by
provocation.
The
offense
which Must
immediately
engenders
the precede the commission
perturbation of mind of the crime.
need not be immediate.
It is only required that
the influence thereof
lasts until the moment
the crime is committed.
In both, the effect of the loss of reason and selfcontrol on the part of the offender.
7. Voluntary Surrender
Requisites:
(1) That the offender had not been actually
arrested
(2) That the offender surrendered himself to a
person in authority or to the latters agent
(3) That the surrender was voluntary.
Two Mitigating Circumstances Under This
Paragraph:
(1) Voluntary surrender to a person in authority or
his agents;
(2) Voluntary confession of guilt before the court
prior to the presentation of evidence for the
prosecution.
Whether or not a warrant of arrest had been issued
is immaterial and irrelevant.
Criterion is whether or not
a. the offender had gone into hiding
b. and the law enforcers do not know of his
whereabouts.
Note: For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the
surrender must be spontaneous, made in such a
manner that it shows the interest of the accused to

surrender unconditionally to the authorities, either
because (1) he acknowledges his guilt or (2) wishes
to save them the trouble and expenses that would
be necessarily incurred in his search and capture.
(Andrada v. People). If none of these two reasons
impelled the accused to surrender, the surrender is
not spontaneous and therefore not voluntary.
(People v. Laurel).
The accused must actually surrender his own

person to the authorities, admitting complicity
of the crime. Merely requesting a policeman to
accompany the accused to the police
headquarters is not voluntary surrender.
(People v. Flores)
Effect of Arrest
General Rule: Not mitigating when defendant was in
fact arrested. (People v. Conwi)
Exceptions:
(1) But where a person, after committing the
offense and having opportunity to escape,
voluntarily waited for the agents of the
authorities and voluntarily gave up, he is
entitled to the benefit of the circumstance,
even if he was placed under arrest by a
policeman then and there. (People v. Parana)
(2) Where the arrest of the offender was after his
voluntary surrender or after his doing an act
amounting to a voluntary surrender to the agent
of a person in authority. (People v. Babiera;
People v. Parana)
Person in Authority and his Agent
Person in authority is one directly vested with
jurisdiction, that is, a public officer who has the
power to govern and execute the laws whether as an
individual or as a member of some court or
governmental corporation, board or commission. A
barrio captain and a barangay chairman are also
persons in authority. (Art. 152, RPC, as amended by
PD No. 299).
Agent of a person in authority is a person, who,
by direct provision of law, or by election or by
competent authority, is charged with the
maintenance of public order and the protection and
security of life and property and any person who
comes to the aid of persons in authority. (Art. 152,
as amended by RA 1978).
Time of Surrender
The RPC does not distinguish among the various
moments when the surrender may occur. (Reyes,
Revised Penal Code). The fact that a warrant of
arrest had already been issued is no bar to the
consideration of that circumstance because the law
does not require that the surrender be prior the
arrest. (People v. Yecla and Cahilig). What is
important is that the surrender be spontaneous.
8. Plea Of Guilt
Requisites:
(1) That the offender spontaneously confessed his
guilt.
(2) That the confession of guilt was made in open
court, that is, before the competent court that
is to try the case; and
The extrajudicial confession made by the

accused is not voluntary confession
because it was made outside the court.
(People v. Pardo)
(3) That the confession of guilt was made prior to

the presentation of evidence for the
prosecution.
The change of plea should be made at the

first opportunity when his arraignment was
first set.
A conditional plea of guilty is not mitigating.
Plea of guilt on appeal is not mitigating.
Withdrawal of plea of not guilty before

presentation of evidence by prosecution is
still mitigating. All that the law requires is
voluntary plea of guilty prior to the
presentation of the evidence by the
prosecution.
A plea of guilty on an amended information

will be considered as an attenuating
circumstance if no evidence was presented
in connection with the charges made
therein. (People v. Ortiz)
9. Plea to a Lesser Offense

Rule 116, sec. 2, ROC:
At arraignment, the accused, with the consent of
the offended party and prosecutor, may be allowed
by the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense
which is necessarily included in the offense charged.
After arraignment but before trial, the accused may
still be allowed to plead guilty to said lesser offense
after withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No
amendment of the complaint or information is
necessary.
People v. Dawaton (2002): Information for murder
was filed against Dawaton. When first arraigned he
pleaded not guilty, but during the pre-trial he
offered to plead guilty to the lesser offense of
homicide but was rejected by the prosecution. The
trial court sentenced him to death. He avers that he
is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of plea of
guilty.
Held: While the accused offered to plead guilty to
the lesser offense of homicide, he was charged with
murder for which he had already entered a plea of
not guilty. We have ruled that an offer to enter a
plea of guilty to a lesser offense cannot be
considered as an attenuating circumstance under
the provisions of Art. 13 of RPC because to be
voluntary the plea of guilty must be to the offense
charged.
Also, Sec. 2, Rule 116, of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure requires the consent of the
offended party and the prosecutor before an
accused may be allowed to plead guilty to a lesser
offense necessarily included in the offense charged.
The prosecution rejected the offer of the accused.
10.
Physical Defects
This paragraph does not distinguish between

educated and uneducated deaf-mute or blind
persons.
Physical defect referred to in this paragraph is such
as being armless, cripple, or a stutterer, whereby his
means to act, defend himself or communicate with
his fellow beings are limited.
The physical defect that a person may have must
have a relation to the commission of the crime.
Where the offender is deaf and dumb, personal
property was entrusted to him and he
misappropriated the same. The crime committed
was estafa. The fact that he was deaf and dumb is
not mitigating since that does not bear any relation
to the crime committed.
If a person is deaf and dumb and he has been
slandered, he cannot talk so what he did was he got
a piece of wood and struck the fellow on the head.
The crime committed was physical injuries. The
Supreme Court held that being a deaf and dumb is
mitigating because the only way is to use his force
because he cannot strike back in any other way.
11.
Illness
Elements:
(1) That the illness of the offender must diminish
the exercise of his will-power
(2) That such illness should not deprive the
offender of consciousness of his acts.
When the offender completely lost the exercise of
will-power, it may be an exempting circumstance.
It is said that this paragraph refers only to diseases
of pathological state that trouble the conscience or
will.
A mother who, under the influence of a puerperal
fever, killed her child the day following her delivery.
People v. Javier (1999): Javier was married to the
deceased for 41 years. He killed the deceased and
then stabbed himself in the abdomen. Javier was
found guilty of parricide. In his appeal, he claims
that he killed his wife because he was suffering
from insomnia for a month and at the time of the
killing, his mind went totally blank and he did not
know what he was doing. He also claims that he was
insane then.
57
58
Held: No sufficient evidence or medical finding was

offered to support his claim. The court also took
note of the fact that the defense, during the trial,
never alleged the mitigating circumstance of illness.
The alleged mitigating circumstance was a mere
afterthought to lessen the criminal liability of the
accused.
12.
Analogous
Circumstances
Mitigating
Any other circumstance of similar nature and

analogous to the nine mitigating circumstances
enumerated in art. 513 may be mitigating.
(1) The act of the offender of leading the law
enforcers to the place where he buried the
instrument of the crime has been considered as
equivalent to voluntary surrender.
(2) Stealing by a person who is driven to do so out
of extreme poverty is considered as analogous
to incomplete state of necessity.
Canta v. People: Canta stole a cow but alleges that
he mistook the cow for his missing cow. He made a
calf suckle the cow he found and when it did, Canta
thought that the cow he found was really his.
However, he falsified a document describing the
said cows cowlicks and markings. After getting
caught, he surrendered the cow to the custody of
the authorities in the municipal hall.
Held: Cantas act of voluntarily taking the cow to
the municipal hall to place it in the custody of
authorities (to save them the time and effort of
having to recover the cow) was an analogous
circumstance to voluntary surrender.
(3) Over 60 years old with failing sight, similar to
over 70 years of age mentioned in par. 2.
(People v. Reantillo).
(4) Voluntary restitution of stolen goods similar to
voluntary surrender (People v. Luntao).
(5) Impulse of jealous feelings, similar to passion
and obfuscation. (People v. Libria).
(6) Extreme poverty and necessity, similar to
incomplete justification based on state of
necessity. (People v. Macbul).
(7) Testifying for the prosecution, without previous
discharge, analogous to a plea of guilty. (People
v. Narvasca).
D. Aggravating Circumstances
Those circumstances which raise the penalty for a
crime in its maximum period provided by law
applicable to that crime or change the nature of the
crime.
Note: The list in this Article is EXCLUSIVE there are
no analogous aggravating circumstances.
The aggravating circumstances must be established

with moral certainty, with the same degree of proof
required to establish the crime itself.
According to the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, BOTH generic and qualifying aggravating
circumstances must be alleged in the Information in
order to be considered by the Court in imposing the
sentence. (Rule 110, Sec. 9)
Basis
1. the motivating power behind the act
2. the place where the act was committed
3. the means and ways used
4. the time
5. the personal circumstance of the offender
and/or of the victim
Kinds
1. GENERIC Those that can generally apply to all
crimes. Nos. 1, 2, 3 (dwelling), 4, 5, 6, 9, 10,
14, 18, 19, and 20 except by means of motor
vehicles. A generic aggravating circumstance
may be offset by a generic mitigating
circumstance.
2. SPECIFIC Those that apply only to particular
crimes. Nos. 3 (except dwelling), 15, 16, 17 and
21.
3. QUALIFYING Those that change the nature of
the crime. Art. 248 enumerates the qualifying
AC which qualify the killing of person to murder.
If two or more possible qualifying circumstances
were alleged and proven, only one would qualify
the offense and the others would be generic
aggravating. (ASKED TWICE BAR EXAMS)
4. INHERENT Those that must accompany the
commission of the crime and is therefore not
considered in increasing the penalty to be
imposed such as evident premeditation in theft,
robbery, estafa, adultery and concubinage.
5. SPECIAL Those which arise under special
conditions to increase the penalty of the offense
and
cannot
be
offset
by
mitigating
circumstances such as:
a. quasi-recidivism (Art. 160)
b. complex crimes (Art. 48)
c. error in personae (Art. 49)
d. taking advantage of public position and
membership in an organized/syndicated
crime group (Art. 62)
Generic aggravating
circumstances
The effect of a generic
AC, not offset by any
mitigating
circumstance, is to
increase the penalty
which
should
be
imposed
upon
the
accused
to
the
MAXIMUM PERIOD.
It is not an ingredient
of the crime. It only
affects the penalty to
be imposed but the
Qualifying aggravating
circumstances
The effect of a qualifying
AC is not only to give the
crime its proper and
exclusive name but also
to place the author
thereof in such a situation
as to deserve no other
penalty
than
that
specially prescribed by
law for said crime.
The circumstance affects
the nature of the crime
itself such that the
offender shall be liable

UP Criminal Law Reviewer PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

UP Criminal Law Reviewer PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

UP

Prof. Concepcion L. Jardeleza

UP LAW BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW TEAM 2012

LAYOUT TEAM 2012

UP LAW BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

2012 UP Law Bar Reviewer

Copyright and all other relevant rights over this

UP LAW BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

Stages of Execution ................. 32

Justifying Circumstances .......... 44

Exempting Circumstances ......... 48

Mitigating Circumstances .......... 51

Aggravating Circumstances ........ 58

General Principles .................. 83

Penalties which may be imposed . 84

C. Specific Principal And Accessory

Accessory penalties ................. 90

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

3. Suspension from Public Office,

Measures not considered penalty 92

Special rules for certain situations

Crimes against Security ........... 155

3. Article 116 - Misprision of

Crimes against the Law of Nations

Title II. Crimes against Fundamental Laws

Article 124 - Arbitrary Detention

Chapter V - Public Disorders .....169

F. Chapter VI - Evasion of Service of

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

6. Article 166 - Forging Treasury

7. Article 183 - False Testimony

2. Acts of Forgery .................. 174

Title V. Crimes Relative to Opium and

Chapter I - Gambling and Betting

Chapter I: Preliminary Provisions 189

4. Article 220 - Illegal Use of Public

E. Chapter V: Infidelity of Public

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

Title IX. Crimes against Personal Liberty

Chapter I: Crimes against Liberty

Chapter II: Crimes against Security

Title VIII. Crimes against Persons ...... 201

Chapter I: Destruction of Life.... 201

Chapter II: Physical Injuries ......207

B. Chapter 2: Brigandage (Articles 306307) 226

Chapter 3: Theft ...................227

Chapter 4: Usurpation .............230

Chapter 5: Culpable Insolvency ..230

Title X. Crimes against Property ....... 222

Chapter I: Robbery in General ... 222

F. Chapter 6: Swindling and Other

Chapter 7: Chattel Mortgage .....237

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

H. Chapter 8: Arson and Other Crimes

Chapter 9: Malicious Mischief .... 239

Title XII. Crimes against the Civil Status

Chapter I: Libel ....................253

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

UP LAW BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

REVISED PENAL CODE/SPECIAL