P. 1
Criminal Law Reviewer

Criminal Law Reviewer

|Views: 102|Likes:
Publicado porSherick Saquing

More info:

Published by: Sherick Saquing on Oct 27, 2011
Direitos Autorais:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/06/2013

pdf

text

original

Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes

)

Vena V. Verga

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
I. History of the Revised Penal Law Codification Movement -- sought to have all laws codified or written in a single body of aw. Spanish Codigo Penal which, without expressly prohibiting certain acts, impose a penalty on their commission. Note: Non-payment of taxes is merely a civil liability/indemnity. The tax code as it exists today which carries punishments may be considered penal provisions. People vs. Moran Facts: The accused violated the election code and was sentenced by the lower court. He was asking for reconsideration and filed a special motion alleging that the crime complained of had prescribed under the provision of section 71 of Act 3030, enacted by the Legislature on March 9, 1922. Issue: W/N penal laws provide for not only penalty but also prescription. Decision: Yes. Decision: The court found the crime to have prescribed (in accordance with the new law) and set aside the decision. The Election law contained in the Administrative Code and Act 3030 which amended and modified the former, it is evident that the provision declaring that offenses resulting from the violations of said Act shall prescribe one year after their commission must have retroactive effect, the same being favorable to the accused. An exception- to give them retroactive effect when favorable to accused. The exception applies to a law dealing with prescription of crime: Art 22 applies to a law dealing with prescription of an offense which is intimately connected with that of the penalty, for the length of time for prescription depends upon the gravity of the offense. Penal laws not only provide for penalties but also prescriptions. III. Rationale of Penal Laws

A. B.

The royal order dated December 17, 1886, directing the execution of the royal decree of September 4, 1884, wherein it was ordered that the Penal Code in force in the Peninsula, as amended in accordance with the recommendations of the code committee, be published and applied in the Philippine Islands, as well as the Provisional Law of Criminal Procedure which accompanied it. These two laws, having been published in the Official Gazette of Manila on March 13 and 14, 1887, became effective in July 14, 1876. (US. vs. Tamparong)

C. D.

Codigo Penal ng Pilipinas – modified the Spanish Penal Code. US Period – they tried to translate the Penal code but certain areas were defectively translated Definition of Penal Law and Criminal Law

II.

A. B. C. D. E. F.

Penal laws – laws which relates to penalties Criminal laws – laws which relates to crimes Felony -- A crime under the Revised Penal Code is referred to as a felony. Do not use this term in reference to a violation of special law. Offense -- A crimes punished under a special law is called as statutory offense. Misdemeanor --A minor infraction of the law, such as a violation of an ordinance, is referred to as a misdemeanor. Crime -- Whether the wrongdoing is punished under the Revised Penal Code or under a special law, the generic word crime can be used.

US vs. Sotto Facts: Vicente Sotto is the director, editor, publisher and printer of a weekly paper. On May 1915, he edited the paper with the intention of attacking them reputation of Lope K. Santos and two other principals of a labor group. He was found guilty of libel. Issue: W/N Sotto was guilty Decision: Yes. Penalties are used to deter people from doing the same crime. A deterrent effect upon others is one of the purposes of the infliction of a penalty for the violation of the criminal law (Exemplarity). People vs. Carillo and Raquenio

Lorenzo vs. Posadas Issue: W/N Art. 3606 of a tax law is a penal law thus can be applied retroactively in conformity with the provisions of Art. 22 of RPC. Decision: A statute is penal when it imposes punishment for an offense committed against the state. “Penal Statutes” are statutes, which command or prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their violation, and even those,

/vvverga

Page 1 of 100

Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Facts: Carillo was sentenced with death penalty for the crimes of robbery, attempted rape and homicide. His accomplice was only charged for robbing Emma Abaya and Marcelino Lontok. Issue: W/N the penalty for Carillo was justified. Decision: The accused is a dangerous enemy of the society thus, imposition of the highest penalty if justified. Carillo has proved himself to be a dangerous enemy of society. The latter must protect itself from such enemy by taking his life in retribution for his offense and as an example and warning to others. In these days of rampant criminality it should have a salutary effect upon the criminally minded to know that the courts do not shirk their disagreeable duty to impose the death penalty in cases where the law so requires. People vs. Young Facts: Jimmy Young is a hired killer who committed a crime of murder under Art 248 of the RPC. He refused to plea guilty because according to him, his guilt is lighter than those who ordered the killing of Alfonso Liongto. He was sentenced with death penalty in accordance with Art 248 in relation to Art 64 of the RPC. However, RA 296, which was approved 17 June 1948, provides that for a penalty of death is imposed, all justices of the Supreme Court must first concur. Said law is procedural thus can be applied to cases pending at the time of its approval. Issue: W/N Young should be charged with the crime of murder. Decision: One of the justices dissented, thus death penalty was not imposed. The killing in question was attended by evident premeditation which qualified the crime as murder: (a) it was committed in consideration of a price reward or promise and (b) with treachery. This case also provides the notion of aggravating circumstances (acts that would provide for higher penalties – art 14) and mitigating circumstances (provides for lighter penalties – art 13). Death penalty was imposed to rationalize the concept of Exemplarity: making a person example to serve as a deterrent) People vs. Revilla Facts: The accused was charged for the crime of infidelity in the custody of the prisoners. Nicasio Junio, the prisoner, was only sentenced to suffer six days of arresto menor only, a penalty that may be served in the house of the offender because of the condition of his health. The municipality also could not feed him Nicasio for lack of appropriation, Revilla then believed that this act in permitting Nicasio to sleep in his own house was not grave in nature, being at most a mere relaxation of the rules prescribed for the care and custody of municipal prisoners. Revilla was charged under Art 223 for his actions.

Vena V. Verga

Issue: W/N the charge against Revilla is proportionate to the act he committed. Decision: No. His action then was due to a mistaken conception of his duty, hence it is obvious that the penalty imposed against him is notoriously excessive to the extent of being cruel for being out of proportion with the crime committed. The penalty was not proportionate to the evil to be curbed. Retribution, the penalty should be commensurate with the gravity of the offense. The penalty imposed upon the accused for infidelity in the custody of a prisoner sentenced to only six days of arresto menor being excessive, such fact should be brought to the attention of His Excellency, the President of the Philippines for him to decide whether or not it would be convenient to recommend to the national assembly the amendment of art 223 of RPC (conniving with or consenting to evasion) so as to make it more in consonance with the amplitude of the matters that a court must consider in meting out punishment to whoever may have the misfortune f infringing the precept regarding infidelity in the custody of prisoners or detained prisoners. People vs. Galano Facts: Galano was accused of falsification of one peso bill, which he used to purchase four eggs. He was found guilty and was sentenced to suffer intermediate penalty ranging from 10 years and 1 day to 12 years and 10 months. The Solicitor General believes that the punishment is too harsh. Issue: W/N the penalty if too harsh Decisions: The punishment is too harsh and it may not actually serve the purpose of the legislator. Imprisonment may change an individual but it can also expose the person to hardened criminal. Thus, punishments should be applied with care. A copy of the decision was sent to the president for the exercise of executive clemency. IV. Two theories in Criminal Law Classical Theory Basis of criminal liability is human free will and purpose of penalty is retribution “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” – Oculo pro oculo, dente pro dente.] Man is a moral creature with absolute free will to choose between good and evil, thereby placing more stress upon the effect or result of felonious act than upon the man. Endeavored to establish a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and penalty

A.

1. 2. 3. 4.

/vvverga

Page 2 of 100

Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
5. The purpose of penalty is retribution. The offender is made to suffer for the wrong he has done. There is scant regard to the human element.

Vena V. Verga

provisions of a municipal ordinance. The petitioner was criminally convicted by the trial court for not paying the surcharge. Issue: W/N the petitioner can be prosecuted criminally of her non-payment of the rental. Decision: No. The surcharge for non-payment if not a penalty under criminal law but only an amount added to the usual charge. It is more of an administrative penalty, which can be recovered only by civil action. VI. Common Law Crimes definition: body of principles, usages and rules of action which do not rest for their authority upon any express or positive declaration of the will of the legislature common law crimes are not recognized in the country the codification movement provided for all crimes to be codified, thus, a crime not punishable by law is not a crime at all. Power to define and punish crimes

B.

Positivist theory 1. Man is occasionally subdued by a strange and morbid phenomenal which pushes him to do wrong in spite or contrary to his volition 2. Crime is a social and natural phenomenon, it cannot be created and checked by application of abstract principle of law and jurisprudence nor by imposition of penalties, fixed and determined a priori. 3. Rehabilitation by means of individual measures on case to case basis. Advocates personal and individual investigation, conducted by competent body of psychiatrist and social scientist.

A. B. C.

V.

Crimes Definition 1. Felony 2. Offense 3. Infraction of Ordinance (a) When penalty imposed is not an exercise of sovereign power to define crimes and provide punishment.

A.

VII.

People vs. Santiago Facts: Defendant was found guilty of killing a seven-year-old boy. He is now appealing the decision stating that Act 2886 of the Philippine Legislature, which provides that “all prosecution for offenses shall be in the name of the People of the Philippines” is unconstitutional for amending General Order No. 58 which has a character of a constitutional law. Issue: W/N Act 2886 is unconstitutional. Decision: The procedure in criminal matters is not incorporated in the constitution but is left in the hands of the legislature so that it falls within the real of public statutory law. The state has the authority, under its police power, to define and punish crimes and to lay down the rules of criminal procedure. States, as a part of their police power, have a large measure of discretion in creating and defining criminal offenses. People vs. Taylor Facts: The defendant, being the acting editor and proprietor, manager, printer and publisher of Manila Bulletin was accused of committing libel against a member of the Philippine bar. Issue: W/N the defendant is guilty of libel.

De Guzman vs. Subido Facts: de Guzman who is a civil service eligible for passing the civil service exam was disqualified from any appointment for having violated the Jaywalking laws and ordinance concerning cocheros, which according to the lower court constitutes a crime. Issue: W/N said acts constitute a crime Decision: No. A penalty imposed for breach of a municipal regulation does not necessarily constitute a criminal offense. A violation of a municipal ordinance to qualify as a crime must involve a least a certain degree of evil doing, immoral conduct, corruption, malice or want of principles reasonably related to the requirements of the public office. A crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of public laws. Ordinances are not public laws. Criminal acts, in its commission, have some immoral intention. Conde vs. Mamenta Facts: Petitioner refused to pay the new rates of the stall she was holding stating that the increased rate was excessive. The increase is based on the

/vvverga

Page 3 of 100

Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Decision: In the Philippines, there exist no crimes called “common law crimes” No act constitutes a crime here unless it is made so by law. Libel is made a crime here by Act 277 of the US Philippine Commission. However, in order to prove that the defendant is Guilty of the crime, it must be proven that he is the ‘auditor, editor, or proprietor’ of the said newspaper. There was no proof of this because evidence shows that he is merely the manager. Petition was dismissed. People vs. Pomar Facts: The manager of La Flor granted a maternity leave to Macaria but refused to pay Php 80.00 to which the employee is entitled as her regular wage as stated in Sec. 13 of Act 3071. Issue: W/N Act 3071 us unlawful exercise of police power. Decision: The police power is the power vested in the legislature of the state to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances, either with penalties or without, which are not repugnant to the constitution as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and of the subjects of the state US vs. Pablo Facts: Andres Pablo, a policeman, reported that he saw Rodrigo and Malicsi in the jueteng arena and then testified on the contrary during the trial. He was charged with perjury and convicted under Act. 1697 which was said to have repealed articles 318 and 324 of the penal code. Issue: Can the defendant be punished? Decision: The right of prosecution and punishment for a crime is one of the attributes that by a natural law belongs to the sovereign power instinctively charged by the common will of the members of society to look after, guard and defend the interests of the community as well as rights of each individual. Imposing punishments should be the last resort: our laws do not merely provide for retribution but it also provides for laws that are in favor of the offender. US vs. Gustillo Facts: Gustillo was already convicted of a crime for illegal possession of firearms. However, another information was filed against him for the same crime but for a different ammunition which he already possessed at the same time and same place the first information was filed against him. Issue: W/N Gustillo may be prosecuted for the second time for the same violation.

Vena V. Verga

Decision: The prosecution violated the Philippines Bill and Act No. 89 which embody the principle that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense because this rule covers as nearly as possible every single criminal act born of a single criminal intent even though more than one crime is committed by said act. People vs. Chong Hong Facts: The defendants were convicted for violation of Ordinance No. 394, which prohibits the playing of jueteng. The court ordered for the dismissal of the case on the ground that said ordinance is null and void for it conflicts with Art 195 of the RPC, which provides for lesser penalties than the ordinance. Issue W/N Ordinance 394 conflicts with the law. Decision: It is admitted that jueteng is already prohibited and penalized in article 195 of the Revised Penal Code. But the fact that an act is already prohibited and penalized by a general law does not preclude the enactment of a municipal ordinance covering the same matter. The rule is well settled that the same act may constitute an offense against both the state and a political subdivision thereof and both jurisdictions may punish the act, without. infringing any constitutional principle. As a general rule, additional regulation to that of the state law does not constitute a conflict therewith. The fact that an ordinance enlarges upon the provisions of a statute by requiring more than the statute requires creates no conflict therewith, unless the statute limits the requirement for all cases to its own prescription. Both the ordinance and RPC prohibit and penalize the same act and the distinction in penalties is necessary because of the peculiar conditions of the locality. Ngo Yao Tit and Chia Eng Cheng vs. Sheriff of Manila Facts: Before the court is an application for the writ of habeas corpus. Petitioners were charged of visiting a house where opium was smoked. They now claimed that the court erred in their decision because it does not have jurisdiction over the case. Issue: W/N the court has jurisdiction to try the case. Decision: It is not a jurisdictional defect and one which deprives the trial court of its authority to try, convict, and pass sentence, that a criminal action is brought in the name of the city of Manila instead of the United States. That fact constitutes a mere defect or error curable at any stage of the action does not deprive the court of the power to pronounce a valid judgment and impose a valid sentence. Offenses committed in the Philippines are crimes against the people of the Philippines.

/vvverga

Page 4 of 100

Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
1. (a) (b)

Vena V. Verga
Persons subject to Military Law (Art. 2 of the Commonwealth Act No. 408, articles of war) are not immune from suit but are covered by the articles of war. Officers, members of nurse corps and soldiers belonging to the regular forces of the Philippine Army All reservist from the date of theor call to active duty and while on such active duty All trainees undergoing military duty All persons lawfully called/drafted Cades. Flying cadets and probationary third lieutenants Retainers to the camp All persons under sentence adjudged by courts martial As provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application. Example: Bases agreements between US and Philippines and RP-US Visiting Forces Accord. RA No. 75 – law of preferential application in favor of diplomatic representatives. It extends the diplomatic privilege to the members of the household and domestic servants that were registered with the DFA The constitution is a law of preferential operation By virtue of principles of Pubic international law – these people possess immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the country of their sojourn and cannot be sued, arrested or punished by the law of that country: Absolute Exemptions (a) Sovereigns and other chiefs of state (b) Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident, and charges d’affaires, ambassadors extraordinary (Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and Protocol) Relative Exemptions (c) consuls and vice consuls: honorary consuls not exempted.

VIII.

Characteristics of criminal law

A.

GENERAL -- criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine territory (art 14, New Civil Code).

People vs. Galacgac Facts: Enrique Galacgac was a naturalized US citizen. He arrived in the Philippines to visit his wife and in his possession is a gun, which is gift to the said spouse. Upon reaching his in-law’s home, he and his wife had a fight, which caused his brother in law to beat him on the head. In retaliation, he fired indiscriminately wounding his wife’s brothers and sisters. He was accused of attempted parricide but retorted that the Philippines has no jurisdiction over him since he is an American Citizen. Issue: W/N Galagcac enjoys extra-territoriality rights Decision: No. No foreigner enjoys in this country extra-territorial right to be exempted from its laws and jurisdiction, with exception of heads of states and diplomatic representatives who, by virtue of customary law of nations, are not subject to the Philippine territorial jurisdiction. Note: As a general rule, the jurisdiction of the civil courts is not affected by the military character of the accused US vs. Sweet Facts: Sweet was an employee of the US Army in the Philippines. He assaulted a prisoner of war for which he was charged with the crime of physical injuries. Sweet interposed the defense that the fact that he was an employee of the US military authorities deprived the court if the jurisdiction to try and punish him. Issue: W/N Philippine courts have jurisdiction to try Sweet Decision: An assault committed by a military employee upon a prisoner of war is a violation of the general penal law, and as such it imposes criminal responsibility. Jurisdiction of the civil tribunals is unaffected by the military or other special character of the person brought before them for trial, unless controlled by express legislation to the contrary. Exemptions to the Principle of Generality 3. 2.

(c) (d) (e) (f) (g)

(a) (b)

(c)

Note: a) b) Public International Law and treaties are deemed part of the law of the land. For a person to be immune, he/she must be able to invoke a provision of public international law/treaty; law of preferential application or customary international law.

Schneckenburger vs. Moran Facts: Petitioners is a honorary consul of Uruguay in manila charged with falsification of private documents. He objected on the jurisdiction of the Courts

/vvverga

Page 5 of 100

Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
of First Instance on the ground that under the Philippine an US constitution, lower courts have no jurisdiction to try him Issue: W/N the lower courts have jurisdiction to try the consul. Decision: It is well settled that a consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of an ambassador or minister, but is subject to the laws and regulations of the country to which he is accredited. A consul is not exempt from criminal prosecution for violations of the laws of the country where he resides. Courts of First Instance were vested with original jurisdiction over all criminal cases in which a penalty of more than six months' imprisonment or a fine exceeding one hundred dollars might be imposed. Such jurisdiction included the trial of criminal actions brought against consuls. Time Inc. vs. Reyes Facts: Enrile and Villegas filed a suit against Time Inc for an article regarding corruption in Asia where the two were featured. RA 4363 provides that public officials should file their petitions in the place where they are rendering their service. Villegas filed his petition in Rizal and not in Manila. Issue: W/N the case will prosper and W/N corporations may be sued Decision: The rule is that where a statute creates a right and provides a remedy for its enforcement, the remedy is exclusive; and where it confers jurisdiction upon a particular court, that jurisdiction is likewise exclusive, unless otherwise provided. Hence, the venue provisions of Republic Act No. 4363 should be deemed mandatory for the party bringing the action, unless the question of venue should be waived by the defendant which was not the case here. A corporation is immune from suit but it may, by writ of prohibition, seek relief against the wrongful assumption of jurisdiction. And a foreign corporation seeking a writ of prohibition against further maintenance of a suit, on the ground of want of jurisdiction, is not bound by the ruling of the court in which the suit was brought. WHO vs. Aquino Facts: Respondent judge issued a search warrant for the search and seizure of the personal effects of the petitioner, an official of the WHO. Despite intervention of the Solicitor General and the DFA that Mr. Verstuyft is covered with diplomatic immunity, the judge refused to withdraw the search warrant. Issue: W/N the action of the judge is a violation of RA 75 and thus an abuse of discretion. Decision: Yes. It is a recognized principle of international law and under our system of separation of powers that diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question and courts should refuse to look beyond a determination by 1. 2. 3. 4.

Vena V. Verga

the executive branch of the government, and where the plea of diplomatic immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive branch of government as, in the case at bar, it is then the duty of the courts to accept the claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion by the principal law officer of the government, the Solicitor General in this case, or other officer acting under his direction. Hence, in adherence to the settled principle that courts may not so exercise their jurisdiction by seizure and detention of property, as to embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting foreign relations, it is accepted doctrine that "in such cases the judicial department of (this) government follows the action of the political branch and will not embarrass the latter by assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction."

B.

PRINCIPLE OF TERRITORIALITY -- As a rule. Penal laws of the Philippines are enforceable only within its territory. If the power to define crimes is the power of the sovereign, it must be followed that such sovereign can only exercise such power within its jurisdiction/territory. Territory Atmosphere Interior Waters Maritime zone

Note: Limits of the territorial sea (by UNCLOS) is only 3 miles from the seashore. What is followed now is the 12-mile rule plus the 12-mile contiguous zone. But for purposes of criminal law, our jurisdiction only extends to the territorial sea. Classification of Vessels: 1. Foreign public vessels – war vessels/war ships (ex. Lawton Ship in US vs. Fowler). War vessels are considered to be an extension of the nationality of the owner of said vessel and cannot be subjected to the laws of the state (a) US vs. Fowler Facts: Theft was committed on board a transport while navigating the high seas. The accused were brought to trial and defendants contends that the Court of First Instance have no jurisdiction over the case because the crime was committed in a foreign public vessel and on high seas. Issue: W/N the court has jurisdiction to try the case. Decision: No. Courts of First Instance of the Philippines have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of crimes committed on the high seas on board of a transport or other vessel not registered or licensed in the Philippines. Warships are Foreign Public Vessels

/vvverga

Page 6 of 100

failed to provide suitable means for securing animas while they are in transit. He was on board the steamship Errol. French Rule – such crimes are not triable in the courts of that country. we observe the English rule (a) US vs. Vena V. which makes it a Philippine ship or airship. because that fact alone does not constitute a breach of public order. which was of English nationality. It is not necessary that the opium be discharged or taken from the ship (US vs. Foreign Merchant Vessels not in transit Note: The state is not obligated to give immunity on crimes done in foreign public vessels. Defendant brought eight cans of opium and upon inspection. 2. (b) Foreign Merchant Vessel In Transit Foreign Merchant Vessels Note: A Philippine vessel or aircraft must be understood as that which is registered in the Philippine Bureau of Customs. Verga US vs. Issue: W/N the Philippines has jurisdiction over this case. which docked at the port of Cebu. Ah Sing Facts: Defendant is a fireman of the steamship Shun Chang. Bull) English Rule –The English only exercise their jurisdiction on issues that involve the internal management of vessel. Bull Facts: H. not the citizenship of its owner. the vessel is within the territorial waters and thus. the person in possession of opium on board the vessel is liable. Bull) 5. Look Chaw Facts: The defendant was charged with unlawful possession and sale of opium. Foreign merchant vessels – more or less subjected to the territorial laws. authorities found said substances. unless their commission affects the peace and security of the territory or the safety of the state is endangered. Decision: Mere possession of opium aboard a foreign merchant vessel in transit is not triable in the Philippines. without being used in our territory. The mere possession of opium on such a ship. This is just a matter of comity. otherwise. Decision: When a foreign merchant vessel is not in transit because the Philippines is its terminal port. Decision: When a vessel comes within 3 miles from the headland which embrace the entrance of Manila Bay. such crimes are triable in that country where they were committed. (c) US vs. Note: In the Philippines. /vvverga Page 7 of 100 . A charge of illegal importation was served against him. Importation is complete when the ship anchored in the Philippine port. because he may be held guilty of illegal importation of opium. a foreign steamer. which came from Hong Kong and was bound to Mexico via the ports of Manila. (US vs. It is the registration of the vessel or aircraft in accordance with the laws of the Philippines. No. The defense moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the courts have no jurisdiction since the act does not constitute a crime. (US vs. Rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessels while in the territorial waters of another country 1.N Bull. carabao and other animals from Formosa to Manila. But our courts acquire jurisdiction when the tunes of opium are landed from the vessel on Philippine sol. 275 of the Philippine Commission. regardless of the fact that the same conditions existed when the ship sailed from the foreign port and while it was on the high seas. does not bring about in this country those disastrous effects that our law contemplates on avoiding. Issue: W/N the courts have jurisdiction over a foreign vessel in transit. Such neglect was a violation of Act. A US Army transport is considered a warship.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) always reputed to be the territory of the country to which they belong an cannot be subjected to the laws of another state. A continuing crime committed on board a Norwegian merchant vessel sailing to the Philippines is within the jurisdiction of the courts of the Philippine when the forbidden conditions existed during the time the ship was within the territorial waters. Jose). French courts therefore claim exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed on board French merchant vessels in foreign ports by one member of the crew against another. Bull contends that the Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over his offense. who was the master of a vessel transporting cattle. Landing or using opium is an open violation of the Philippine laws. the laws of the Philippines shall apply. Issue: W/N the crime of illegal importation of opium in to the Philippines was proven. Exemptions to the territorial application of criminal law Article 2 of RPC provides that its provisions shall be forced outside of the jurisdiction of the Philippines against those who: 1) Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship.

C. 3) When the offender should be liable for acts connected with the introduction to the Philippines of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number. even in abroad.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. He was sentenced to pay a fine and was also sentenced to imprisonment in case of insolvency with respect to the fine imposed. Decision: Yes. or other offense. but not to common law countries. it should be substituted by the words "United States" and wherever "Spaniards" are mentioned. Defendants contend that the provisions of the penal code dealing with piracy are no longer in force. the word should be substituted by the expression. It is logical for laws to look forward and not backward. Note: Counterfeiting or forging Philippine coins or bank notes in a foreign country may be prosecuted before Philippine civil courts. (2) aggravates a crime. The jurisdiction of piracy unlike all other crimes has no territorial limits. By virtue of the Treaty of Paris. Inasmuch as Act No. Spain ceded the Philippine Islands to the US. subsidiary imprisonment can not be lawfully imposed. piracy and mutiny on the high seas. Issue: W/N Act. People vs.There is no crime when there is no law punishing the same. Issue: W/N the provisions of the penal code dealing with the crime of piracy are still in force. Note: crimes that may be committed. 4) When the offender. violation of neutrality. nulla poena sine lege -. which took effect two months after the trial. and punishes such in act. conspiracy and proposal to commit treason. espionage. /vvverga Page 8 of 100 ." Piracy is a crime not against any particular State but against all mankind. "citizens of the United States and citizens of the Philippine Islands. Note: This include. The judge imposed a sentence with heavier penalty in accordance with a new law. It may be punished in the competent tribunal of any country where the offender may be found or into which lie may be carried. flight to enemy’s country. An ex post facto law is one which: (1) makes criminal in act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done. US vs. unless they are favorable to the person accused. Note: This case is an exception to the exception. Decision: No. while being a public officer or employee. At 366 of RPC provide that crimes are punished under the laws in force at the time of their commission. Macasaet Facts: The defendant was proven guilty of selling native wine at retail without the license required by law. It is but a logical construction that wherever "Spain" is mentioned in the Penal Code. Penal statutes cannot be made retroactive with respect to a crime. Nullum crimen. When the offender should commit any of the crimes against the national security and law of nations. when committed. inciting was and giving motives for reprisals. correspondence with hostile country. treason. should commit an offense in the exercise of his functions. in the exercise of public functions are: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) 5) direct bribery indirect bribery frauds against the public treasury possession of prohibited interest malversation of public funds or property failure of accountable officer to render accounts illegal use of public funds or property failure to make delivery of public funds or property falsification by a public officer or employee committed with abuse of his official position. No. 1732 did not go into force until after the commission of the offense. 1732 which imposed both the fine and the imprisonment should be applied on this case. Ex post facto laws Rule: No ex post facto laws shall be enacted. or makes it greater than it was. LOL-LO and SARAW Facts: The defendants were charged of the crime of piracy for pirating two Dutch boats as well as raping two of the women. Note: Introducing fake currency in the Philippine is as dangerous as forging or counterfeiting of the same. This is true to civil law countries. to the economical interest of the country. Verga 2) When the offender should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippines or obligations and securities by the Government. PRINCIPLE OF IRRESTROSPECTIVITY OR PROSPECTIVITY – penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when it was not committed.

The principle of the retroactivity of penal laws in so far as it is favorable to the defendant is sanctioned by the Revised Penal Code. (4) alters the legal rules of evidence. as long as he is not a habitual delinquent.A. Exceptions to the prospective application of criminal laws (When penal law apply retroactively) 1. he can avail of the amended. (a) Degree of Imposable Penalty is reduced People vs. 6132 saying that it is an ex post facto law. Mayor Arsenio Lacson in the sum of 10. in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful. The prohibition against ex post facto laws applies only to criminal or penal matters. Considering that Art. Ferrer Facts: The defendants assail the constitutionality of RA No. 39 of the RPC. Decision: No. which concern civil matters. the same should be made applicable to him. he has not yet been released. become or remain members of the Communist Party of the Philippines and/or its successors or of any subversive association" after June 20. willfully and by overt acts affiliate themselves with. and so he filed a third party claim enjoining the sheriff to proceed with the sale. 22 of the RPC. Sheriff then attached whatever rights. The petitioner. which inflicts punishment without trial. not to laws. 39. interest of accused in the twostorey building. or a proclamation of amnesty. After 3 years. Santos Facts: Petitioner was convicted for the crime of estafa and was sentenced to serve for 2 years and 11 months imprisonment to indemnify the offended party. It is so provided in Art. Issue: W/N the law is unconstitutional Decision: A bill of attainder is a legislative act. in case of insolvency to pay his civil liability. even if the same was not stated in the decision of CA. Although section 18 penalizes a violation of any of the provision of RA 1632." Only those who "knowingly. Inc. He is petitioning for habeas corpus. and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense. Appellant said that he could not be required to serve the amount of fine and indemnity in the form of subsidiary imprisonment because said judgment did not expressly provide that.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) (3) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed. to pay a fine of 500 pesos. Verga People vs. Decision: Yes. Accused-appellant is favored by the retroactive force of Art. Applying Art. This was denied. 1700 or the Anti Subversion Act on the ground that is a bill of attainder. 8 (a) and 18 of RA No. Section 4 of the Anti-Subversion Act expressly states that the prohibition therein applies only to acts committed "After the approval of this Act. Lower court issued a writ of injunction. (5) assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only. /vvverga Page 9 of 100 . such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal. are punished. 5465 which exempts an accused person from subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency to pay his civil liability. Bill of Attainder as Ex Post Facto Law People vs.000 pesos only. Facts: The petitioners are assailing the constitutionality of Sec. Issue: W/N the petition is justified. The said law prohibits the petitioner’s nominee to be nominated in the constitutional convention since he represents a part. the penalty is imposed only for acts committed after the approval of the law and not those perpetuated prior thereto. he cannot also be required to serve his civil liability to the offended party in form of subsidiary imprisonment because this is no longer required by the aforesaid article. 1957. Decision: No. 22 of the penal code. to indemnify the offended party. Issue: W/N Subido be required to suffer subsidiary imprisonment. and (6) deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled. Issue: W/N the said law is an ex post facto law and thus unconstitutional. 39 as amended. having already served for more than three years is entitled to be discharged under the provisions of Art. as amended by R. In re: Kay Villegas Kami. but the same was registered in the name of Agapito Subido. Lower court states that he should suffer subsidiary imprisonment. Appealed to the Court of Appeals. Its essence is the substitution of a legislative for a judicial determination of guilt. as amended is favorable to the accused. Macasaet Escalante vs.000 pesos with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The CA ordered the accused to pay a fine of 500 pesos and indemnity is reduced to 5. Even if the accused is serving final judgment. Subido Facts: CFI of Manila found the accused guilty of libel and is hereby sentenced to 3 months of arresto mayor with accessory penalties of the law. lighter penalty. When favorable to the accused Vena V.

With Nicolas Lachica. 3815. Basic Maxims in Criminal Law E. article 344. felonies and misdemeanors. Decision: It is believed that the Revised Penal Code." If it was not the intention of the Legislature to make the new Code retroactive. all crimes must be so defined and penalized under the law (art. under section 366 of the New Penal Code. he had been prosecuted. That nothing herein contained shall operate as a repeal of existing laws in so far as they are applicable to pending actions or existing causes of action. prays the court to set him at liberty through the writ of habeas corpus. pleading that there is no sufficient legal ground for continuing his imprisonment any longer. and hence. Santos Facts: The petitioner. the penalty. no liability if felonious act is committed without free will Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith Limitations on the power of the lawmaking body to enact penal legislation No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted No person shall be held to answer for criminal offenses without due process of law – criminal laws must be of general application and must clearly define the acts and omissions punished as crimes. found guilty. Verga Facts: The accused was charged with offense of injurias graves under articles of the RPC. Principle of Pro Reo -. and sentenced to commitment for the crime of rape. Valdez A." The general rule that penal laws shall be retroactive in so far as they favor the accused has no application where the later law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of action. PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY: Nullum crimen.Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of two interpretations – one lenient to the /vvverga Page 10 of 100 . Laceste vs. A. Nicola Lachica married the victim. has clearly intended to give retroactive effect to article 22. 22) (b) Accused Disregards Later law and invokes prior statute under which he was prosecuted. X. F. Section 13 of the new act provides as follows: "All laws and parts of laws now in force. This is true to civil law countries.There is no crime when there is no law punishing the same. nulla poena sine lege -. which provided that such a marriage extinguished penal liability. are hereby repealed: Provided. B. And the Legislature. Clemente Laceste." The principle of retroactivity of penal laws in so far as they favor the defendant. but as to such causes of action or pending actions existing laws shall remain in full force and effect. instead of "without prejudice. Magdalena de Ocampo. IX. A. Issue: W/N the new law can apply to the accused. (c) Later Statute Precludes Application to Existing Actions or Pending Cases Tavera vs. applies to the case of the herein petitioner. committed prior to the date of effectiveness of this Code. 1773. But the petitioner herein continued serving his sentence. 21) PERSONAL – Penal laws does not allow anyone to assume another’s criminal liability PRINCIPLE OF CERTAINTY – every act made punishable by law must be so defined as to leave no penumbra of doubt or uncertainty as to its applicability to a given case. Act No. it would have used the words "notwithstanding" or "in spite of". has been sanctioned in the Revised Penal Code. shall be punished in accordance with the Code or Acts in force at the time of their commission. Issue: W/N Laceste should be freed. People vs. and was accordingly relieved from the criminal prosecution by virtue of section 2. XI. (c) Providing for Prescription of offenses D. so far as the same may be in conflict herewith. B. All penal laws have been declared retroactive by the Honorable Supreme Court. as it was in the Code that preceded it. Other fundamental Assumptions of Penal Law Free-will or freedom to choose between right and wrong. and article 448 of the Penal Code then in force. last paragraph. Act No.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Note: Removal of subsidiary imprisonment to pay civil liability (b) Prescribing Grounds for Mitigation or Extinction of Criminal Liability Vena V. Moran Exceptions to retroactivity of laws (a) Accused is a habitual criminal (Art. which was not affected by the marriage of his coaccused and the offended party. but not to common law countries. because section 366 provides: "Without prejudice to the provisions contained in article 22 of this Code. and that he should be discharged from prison. Decision: No.

This maxim is not an absolute one because it is not applied to culpable felonies. This kind of construction is very much open to police extortion thus must be avoided.The act cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal. Issue: W/N the evidences were enough to warrant a charge of guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Issue: W/N the Alzaga should be charged beyond reasonable doubt. There were two witnesses with contradicting testimonies. People vs. /vvverga Page 11 of 100 . then we have to sustain the interpretation. There were also testimonies which were inconsistent to the guilt of the accused. No person should be brought within their terms who is not clearly within them nor should any act be pronounced criminal which is not made clearly so be a statute. RTC convicted the defendant but he appealed contending that evidences were not enough to warrant a conviction. accused pleaded not guilty. 9. Penal statues must be construed strictly against the state and liberally in favor of the accused. blunt or pointed weapon – but it failed to include the second element. The courts of first instances issued an order quashing the in formations filed alleging that the facts failed to state one essential element of the crime Issue: W/N the informations filed by the people were sufficient in form and substance to constitute an offence of ‘illegal possession of deadly weapon’ penalized under PD No. Penal laws are strictly construed against the Government and liberally in favor of the accused (US vs. there is no room for the application of this rule (People vs. Decision: No. The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt calls for moral certainty of guilt -. Decision: No. Verga XII. People vs.a certainty that convinces and satisfies the reason and the conscience of those who are to act upon it. Where inculpatory facts are susceptible of two interpretations. Vena V. The court agrees with the accused that where facts are susceptible of two interpretations. or those that result from negligence. The accused maintained his innocence saying that tit was the victim who accidentally shot himself while they were battling for the gun. Construction of penal laws Liberal Construction In Favor of the Offender (a) Reason Note: Ambiguity – occurs when an act falls under more than one law or when the law is susceptible to more than one interpretation People vs. Abad Santos). Decision: No. Alzaga Facts: Roy Alzaga was found guilty by the RTC for the crime of murder. Ng Facts: The defendant was charged with the crime of forcible abduction with rape. The case at bar falls short to the quantum of evidence required to sustain a conviction of rape thereby creating reasonable doubt as to appellant's guilt. which leads to acquittal. but not a felony resulting from culpa. See: Principle of Pro-reo B. The purpose is not to enable the guilty person to escape punishment through technicality but to provide precise definition of forbidden acts. and the discretion of the court limited. the object is to establish a certain rule by conformity to which mankind would be safe. Charge of rape based upon the sole testimony of the one who complains of rape should be regarded with utmost caution and that the person charged with the offense should not be convicted unless the complainant's testimony is impeccable and rings true throughout. This rule may be invoked only where the law is ambiguous and there is doubt as to its interpretation. carrying outside one’s residence of any bladed. The informations merely contained the first element – that is. The reason for this is the “tenderness of the law of the rights of individuals. B. Actus non facit reum. The rule is that reasonable doubt in criminal cases must be resolved in favor of the accused. which is the intention or motivation behind it.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) offender and one strict to the offender – that interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the offender will be adopted. A. 9. Proof of guilt must convince beyond reasonable doubt. Purisima Facts: Twenty six petitions for review were filed by the People of the Philippines involving the information filed charging the respective accused with violation of PD No. one consistent and another inconsistent with the guilt of the accused. the accused should be acquitted since evidence failed to fulfill the test of moral certainty to support a conviction. Penal laws should be construed strictly. nisi mens sit rea -. This is true to a felony characterized by dolo. Where the law is clear and unambiguous. During arraignment. Gatchalian).

the latter construction should be adopted. Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous. Issue: W/N there is ambiguity in the meaning of private conversation and private communication. Issue: W/N the accused should be held liable for the violation. /vvverga Page 12 of 100 ." Must be followed. the preamble may be used. 4200 suffer from no ambiguity. Intermediate Appellate Court (in contrast with Ramirez vs. The task of the court is to apply the law. Issue: W/N there is ambiguity in the phrase "device(s) or arrangement(s)" Decision: The use of a telephone extension for the purpose of overhearing a private conversation without authorization did not violate R.A. not authorized by all the parties to any private communication to secretly record such communication by means of any gadget. The act primarily seeks to protect large cattle from theft. The afore stated provision clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal for any person. 30 and 33 of Act 1147. because the applicable facts and circumstances pointing to a violation of R. Verga and the statute itself explicitly mentions the unauthorized "recording" of private communications with the use of tape-recorders” as among the acts punishable. the task of the court of to know the meaning and intention of the law. there is no room for interpretation. there are no slaughterhouses. 30. The contention is nonsense. the court shall resort to the principle that the spirit of the law controls the letter. Petitioner also alleged that private conversation. she presented a transcript of her conversation with the respondent. Sec. Decision: There is no ambiguity. US vs. Vena V. Chico Facts: Defendant was charged for violating sec. Gaanan vs. US vs. When there is ambiguity. The case of Ramirez turns on a different note. The phrase “ at the municipal slaughterhouse” may bet taken as limiting and restricting the words “killed for food” (b) Ramirez vs. and other purposes. that construction should be adopted which will most tend to give effect to the manifest intent of the legislature. which will harmonize the intention and object. Legislative intent is determined principally from the language of a statute. He contends that he is ignorant of the law and that the prohibition is only against the actual use of identical banners and devices which were used during the Philippine insurrection. Court of Appeals Facts: Petitioner filed a case against private respondent. In cases like this. The phrase is ambiguous and the principle that "penal statutes must be construed strictly in favor of the accused. entitled An Act to prohibit and penalize wire-tapping and other related violations of private communication.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) (a) When the law is clear. Issue: W/N the defendant incurred liability. As a result of her actions. Toribio Facts: Defendant was charged for violation of Art. The intention of the legislature and object aimed at are to control the literal interpretation of a particular language in a statute. 1 of Act. Decision: Yes. policy and purpose.A. 30 and 33 of the act prohibit and penalize the slaughtering or causing to be slaughtered for human consumption of large cattle at any place without the permit provided for in sec. CA) Facts: This case involves an act of overhearing a conversation by use of an extension line. branding and slaughtering of large cattle without a license. and interpretation would be resorted to only where a literal interpretation would be either impossible or absurd or would lead to an injustice. If the law is ambiguous. the law is applied according to its express terms. which she and the respondent had. and there is doubt as to the subject matter to which the law is to be applied. the prohibitions of Act 1147 does not apply. banner or device used during the insurrections in the Philippines. When the language if a statute is susceptible of more than one construction. which regulates the registration. (d) Appellant contends that since in his town. No. In support of her allegations. Decision: Yes. There are two constructions of these prohibitions: (c) The phrase ‘at the municipal slaughter house’ may be taken as limiting and restricting both the word ‘slaughtered’ and “killed for food” in section 30 and “killing for food” in section 33. is not the same with private communication. Garcia for allegedly vexing and humiliating her. respondent filed a case against her for violation of Republic Act 4200. Language capable of more than one meaning is to be taken in the sense. 4200 because a telephone extension device was neither among those devices enumerated in Section 1 of the law nor was it similar to those "device(s) or arrangement(s)" enumerated therein. thus. 1696 of the Philippine commission which prohibits the display of any flag. Will not also apply when strict construction will defeat the intent.

He is claiming for allowance for good conduct as provided for by Art 97 of the RPC. Issue: W/N the phrase "hulled rice" was within the meaning of "semilla alimenticia" as used in the Spanish text. The first complaint was made by the chief of police of Dumagete. This time. Decision: It is in the light of our cultural environment that the law must be construed. but by the chief of police. Director of prisons Facts: Petitioner has been in detention for 18 years of preventive imprisonment for the crime of rebellion. shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party…. Note: There are already amendments that use English terms. Issue: W/N Art 97 of the RP is applicable to detention prisoners or prisoners who are just serving preventive imprisonment. Decision: The English word "cereal". the Spanish text governs. Verga C. Decision: The term "any prisoner" in the English text of Art. Baking vs. Inasmuch as the Revised Penal Code was originally approved and enacted in Spanish. then "rice' is included under the term 'semilla alimenticia' or cereal seed. in the Spanish text. as it was the Spanish text of the Revised Penal Code that was approved by the Legislature. In cases of doubt in the interpretation of the Revised Penal Code. Under the circumstances.not one under "prison preventiva. The victim then filed the same complaint. Issue: W/N Corazon violated the Anti-Alias Law. the lawmakers could not have meant to criminalize what Corazon had done especially because some of them probably had their own Corazons. which remained in their original form.” It will be observed that the Spanish equivalent of the word "filed" is not found in the Spanish text. It may be hulled rice (arroz) or it may be rice seeds (palay). Corazon filed for support for their son. Manaba Facts: Manaba was charged with rape. Legamia vs. 97 regarding good conduct allowance is. But for those. Because it speaks of the buena conducta observada por el penado . Therefore. used in the Spanish text of article 303 of the Revised Penal Code. There is no doubt that Article 97 does not embrace detention prisoners within its reach. After the death of husband Emilio. Manaba filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of jeopardy for the same offense. is incorrect. there is no need to go back to the Spanish text. The judgment of the court was therefore void for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. and the defendant was never in jeopardy. The complaint merely alleges that the object stolen was seven sacks of rice. the Spanish text should prevail. This came to the knowledge of the real spouse thus she filed a complaint against Corazon for using the name Reyes although she was not married to Emilio. Mesias Facts: The defendant was accused of robbing seven sacks of rice and before arraignment. People vs. Since the first complaint filed was not the complaint of the offended party.. rape or acts of lasciviousness. the Spanish text is controlling. If the word rice includes the grain in its original state without the hull being taken away. Cultural environment by which the legislature is operating can also be a source of the meaning as well as the intention of the law. the thing stolen was really hulled rice (arroz) but there is nothing in the complaint which shows that fact. it was not a valid complaint in accordance with the law. the offense with which the appellee is charged in the information does not fall under article 303 of the Revised Penal Code but under the second to the last paragraph of article 302 where the offense therein defined is penalized with arresto mayor in its maximum degree to prision correccional. the Spanish text is controlling. In the construction or interpretation of the provisions of the RPC. D. abduction. into which was translated the phrase "semilla alimenticia". had no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or the subject matter of the action. For these amendments." who is a convict or a person already sentenced by final judgment. Inasmuch as hulled rice (arroz) cannot be considered as seedling (semilla alimenticia). Intermediate Appellate Court Facts: Petitioner has been living with a married man for 20 years and the relationship ended with the death of the man. Decision: The third paragraph of article 344 of the Revised Penal Code provides that: The offenses of seduction. but the judgment was set aside and the case dismissed on the ground that the court /vvverga Page 13 of 100 . Our society is a tolerant one and surely." The allowance for good conduct "for each month of good behavior" then unquestionably refers to good behavior of a prisoner while he is serving his term as a convict and not otherwise. the defendant submits that the doubt should always be resolved in favor of the accused. he contended that the term rice does not only mean hulled rice but also includes palay. The accused was tried and convicted. because the complaint had not been filed by the offended party. People vs.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. "el penado. which is controlling. Issue: W/N the plea for double jeopardy should be granted.

the offense ceases to be criminal. which prescribes a minimum efficiency of 85% for promotion. Repeals Decision: The repeal is absolute. Decision: The Agricultural Land Reform Code superseded the Agricultural Tenancy Law (except as qualified in sections 4 and 35 of the Code). 2) 3) People vs. While the case was pending appeal. a foot. Where the repeal is absolute and not a reenactment or repeal by implication. Tamayo Facts: The accused was prosecuted for and convicted of a violation of an ordinance. "Cualquier otro miembro" is more accurately translated "any other member".Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. Later cases seem to suggest that loss of teeth does not constitute disfigurement because it can easily be replaced. or the Code of Agrarian Reforms. the legal maxim cessante ratione legis. If the new law imposes a heavier penalty. He further contends that EO No. the new law shall be applied. the law in force at the time of the commission of the offense shall be applied If the new law totally repeals the existing law so that the act. The Code instituted the leasehold system and abolished share tenancy subject to certain conditions indicated in section 4 thereof. the ordinance was repealed by eliminating the section under which the accused was being prosecuted. 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. 503. Verga People vs. Issue: W/N the accused is still liable for his actions. 6389 which took effect on September 10. the crime is obliterated. The prohibition against pre-threshing has no more raison d'etre because the lessee is obligated to pay a fixed rental as prescribed in section 34 of the Agricultural Land Reform Code. One who unlawfully wounds another is responsible for the consequences of his act. Balubar Facts: Balubar was found guilty of the crime of physical injuries by the lower court. The defendant must be acquitted. "laws are repealed only by subsequent ones and their violation or nonobservance shall not be excused by disuse. 1) Different effects of repeal of penal law If repeal makes the penalty lighter in the new law. meaning any other member than an eye. Decision. was superceded by the Compilation of Civil Service Laws and Rules under which his rating of 84% is considered a high degree of efficiency. Almuete Facts: The defendant supposedly violated Sec 39 of he Agricultural Tenancy Law which is premised on the existence of the rice share tenancy system. The conflict arose from the ambiguous term “any other members” which is necessary for the charge. the Code of Agrarian Reforms. applies to the case at bar. or a leg resulting to "Deforme" or "disfigured". an arm. It is significant that section 39 is not reproduced in the Agricultural Land Reform Code whose section 172 repeals "all laws or part of any law inconsistent with" its provisions." People vs. David vs. Spanish text is given more weight. an Administrative Compilation. A. The act of pre-reaping and pre-treshing without notice to the landlord. Issue: W/N the absolute repeal obliterated the criminal liability. is no longer punishable. Issue: W/N EO 503 was repealed by Compilation of Civil Service Laws and Rules. To prosecute it as an offense when the Code of Agrarian Reforms is already in force would be repugnant to the policy and spirit of that Code and would subvert the manifest legislative intent not to punish anymore pre-reaping sod pre-threshing without notice to the landholder. Issue: W/N Almuete violated a law. Thus. a hand. 503. which was an offense under the Agricultural Tenancy. cessat ipsa lex (the reason for the law ceasing. Dancel Facts: Petitioner is assailing the promotion of Angel Dancel to Chief of Tax Registration a position to which he claims to be lawfully entitled. or custom or practice to the contrary. The English text contained “loss on any other part of his body” while the Spanish text provided the loss of “any other member” resulting in “disfigurement”. 1971. which was penalized under the old law. Such is the case at bar. The victim lost four of his front teeth. Decision: In this case. series of 1934 since under Article 7 of the Civil Code. has ceased to be an offense under the subsequent law. /vvverga Page 14 of 100 . No. The Compilation of Civil Service Laws and Rules was prepared merely by the Bureau of Civil Service and could not possibly have repealed Executive Order No. XIII. the law itself also ceases). as redesignated in Republic Act No. The accused is not relieved of liability from the requisite “deforme” even if the victim can lessen the deformity through artificial means.

Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code is not now in force because abrogated by the change from Spanish to American sovereignty over the Philippines and because inconsistent with democratic principles of government. 257 of the Penal Code for attacking the virtue of the members of the Senate. Where the latter or revising statute clearly covers the whole subject matter of antecedent acts. c. One of the petitioners contends that her criminal liability was extinguished by the repeal. shall defame. Art 256 of the Penal Code provides that any person who by writing. An implied repeal will take place when there is a law on a particular subject matter and a subsequent law is passed also on the same subject matter but is inconsistent with the first law. Castro Facts: The defendant was charged with injuries graves for sending letter to a medical health officer which contained insults and accusations. previous laws are held to be repealed by necessary implication. the repealing law will be the one to apply unless there is a saving clause in the repealing law that it shall not apply to pending causes of action. Defendant was acquitted. when those crimes are expressed publicly in writing. A penal law. abuse. The appellant contends (a) that the evidence adduced during the trial did not show that he was guilty of the crime of injurias graves as defined under the Penal Code. 2. and (b) that even though the evidence did show that he had violated the provisions of the Penal Code providing a punishment for injurias graves. 277-the Libel Law. Perfecto Facts: Gregorio Perfecto.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. Effects (1) Pending Criminal Action is not dismissed C. and such statute or law is repealed by implication if the later statute is so repugnant to the earlier one that the two cannot stand together or if the whole subject of the earlier statute is covered by the latter one having the same object. for the reason that said provisions of the Penal Code had been repealed by the Libel Law (Act No. Decision: The Philippine Libel Law. Issue: W/N Art 256 is still in force. Issue: W/N the penal code provisions were already repealed by the Libel Law. So whether he is a habitual delinquent or not. Where the later statute clearly covers the old subject-matter of antecedent acts. may be repealed either expressly or by necessary implication. Act No. and the repealing law is more favorable to the accused. and it plainly appears to have been the purpose of the Legislature to give expression in it to the whole law on the subject. 277. he could not be punished. it will be the repealing law that will henceforth apply to them. so that if the repeal is more lenient to them. the former is thereby repealed. it shall be the one applied to him. if the case is still pending in court. Buscayno vs. /vvverga Page 15 of 100 . are repealed by Act No. or insult. 885 which repealed RA 1700 took effect. Sometime of 1976. 277). and which was clearly intended to prescribe the only rule applicable to the subject. like any other statute. (a) (b) Repeal by implication is not favored There is implied repeal if there are irreconcilable inconsistencies. Verga B. 1. People vs. Military Commissions No. such that the two laws cannot stand together. even if the repealing law is partial or relative. which define and punish grave insults. Those who are not habitual delinquents will benefit on the effect of that repeal. They were accused of subversion under RA 1700 (Anti-Subversion Law). 1. (2) Decision: Provisions of the Penal Code. the crime still remains to be a crime. abuse or insult any minister of the Crown or other person shall be punished. It is the earlier that will give way to the later law because the later law expresses the recent legislative sentiment. has had the effect of repealing so much of article 256 of the Penal Code as related to written defamation. and it plainly appears to have been the purpose of the Legislature to give expression in it to the whole law on the subject. If a case is already decided and the accused is already serving sentence by final judgment. one of the two laws must give way. PD No. If a criminal law deals with the same subject as a prior law and is inconsistent with and repugnant to the prior law. the latter is held to be repealed by necessary implication. People vs. 6 and 25 Facts: The petitioners were accused of rebellion for having allegedly participated in public uprising to overthrow the government. Defendant questions whether this article is still in force or whether the Libel law already repealed it. editor of La Nacion was found guilty of violating Art. Express or implied repeal – Express or implied repeal refers to the manner the repeal is done. (1) Consequences if repeal of penal law is partial or relative If a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law.

885 extinguished the criminal liabilities of persons charged with violation of the older law. (2) If the repeal is express. Respondent demurred that even id Act No. expressly provides in its Section 7 that "acts committed in violation" of the former law before the effectivity of the said decree "shall be prosecuted and punished in accordance with the provisions of the former Art" and that nothing in the said decree "shall prevent prosecution of cases pending for violation of" Republic Act No. In crimes punished under special laws. Express repeal takes place when a subsequent law contains a provision that such law repeals an earlier enactment. the repeal of the repealing law will not revive the first law. Act no. 1700. Verga (1) If a penal law is impliedly repealed. Decision: No. 3052 which was repealed by Act. Accused contends that his criminal liability should be extinguished because of the repeal. in repealing or superseding Republic Act No. but by implication. That saving or transitory clause is reenacted in section 14(i) of the National Security Code. the petitioner would not be entitled to relief because of Act. While he was serving his sentence. the moral trait of the offender is not considered. The fact that Presidential Decree No. 319 of the penal code. 2657 expressly repealed Act no. 885 does not mention the CPP does not mean that the party is no longer regarded as a subversive organization. An unconstitutional statute can have no effect to repeal former laws or parts of laws by implication. 1697 impliedly repeals Art. No. good faith or lack of criminal intent is a valid defense. 1697. As to moral trait of the offender In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code. No. is itself repealed. No. the petitioner would still be prohibited from importing because Act. which is the Revised Anti-Subversion Law. So the act or omission which was punished as a crime under the original law will be revived and the same shall again be crimes although during the implied repeal they may not be punishable. 2. the old rule continues in force where a law. 3155 was declared unconstitutional. Issue: W/N the criminal liability was extinguished because of the repeal. it is not inconsistent with such former law. the subsequent repeal of the repealing law will revive the original law. thus. Consequences if repeal of penal law is express or implied /vvverga Page 16 of 100 . The purpose of the party is the decisive factor in determining whether it is a subversive organization. 2. PD No. 1700. Distinction between crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code and crimes punished under special laws 1. the moral trait of the offender is considered. No 3155 is constitutional. 3155 which prohibits the importation of cattle from foreign countries to the Philippines. 1697 was expressly repealed by a Section in the administrative code. which repeals a prior law. Act. No. Therefore. it is enough that the prohibited act was voluntarily done. 3052. Decision: Yes. XIV. Act. which also defines and penalizes perjury. the provisions of the penal code is revived. is not expressly. No 3155 will be revived. is itself repealed. so the act or omission will no longer be penalized. since being void.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Issue: W/N in repealing RA 1700. Issue: W/N Act. Decision: Section 12 of the administrative code provides that a law. (2) But penalty under second law will be applied if favorable to accused. That decree. (3) Effects of nullity of repealing laws Cruz vs. the first law repealed shall not be revived unless expressly provided. This is why liability would only arise when there is dolo or culpa in the commission of the punishable act. It is similar to article 366 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that felonies and misdemeanors committed prior to the effectivity of the Revised Penal Code shall be punished in accordance with the old Penal Code and the laws in force at the time of their commission. People vs. which expressly repealed a prior law. Vena V. Youngberg Facts: Petitioner attacked the constitutionality of Act No. unless the crime is the result of culpa D. As to use of good faith as defense In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code. It is entirely unnecessary to pass upon the validity of the statute attacked because even if it were declared unconstitutional. Soliman Facts: Defendant was accused of perjury under Art 1697.

/vvverga Page 17 of 100 . In crimes punished under special laws. then malice must be proven. he was acquitted. the penalty is not imposed unless the act is consummated. 4. unless the special law expressly penalize the mere attempt or frustration of the crime. Three hijackers accosted the pilot of an airplane. Consequently. the degree of accomplishment of the crime is taken into account in punishing the offender. As to degree of accomplishment of the crime In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code. In other words. As to mitigating and aggravating circumstances In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code. it is malum in se. Sunico. good faith is a defense. Rule. the act gives rise to a crime only when it is consummated. but the trial court sustained its validity. and that he did not act with intent to gain. Judgment affirmed. the act constituting the crime is a prohibited act. Questions & Answers 1. offenders are classified as principal. mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not taken into account in imposing the penalty. Where malice is a factor. that the contract was advantageous to the municipality.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. the degree of participation of the offenders is not considered. the military was alerted. She was also the highest bidder. when there is more than one offender. mitigating and aggravating circumstances are taken into account in imposing the penalty since the moral trait of the offender is considered. is not a defense. that act is wrong. 2. the election registrar raised as good faith as a defense. frustrated. and consummated stages in the commission of the crime. In violation of special law. There is a provision in the election law which proscribes any person from preventing or disenfranchising a voter from casting his vote. Test to determine if violation of special law is malum prohibitum or malum in se Analyze the violation: Is it wrong because there is a law prohibiting it or punishing it as such? If you remove the law. Therefore culpa is not a basis of liability. A mayor awarded a concession to his daughter. Under special laws. The award was even endorsed by the municipal council as the most advantageous to the municipality. There is no principal or accomplice or accessory to consider. The losing bidder challenged the validity of the contract. The crime involved is malum prohibitum. What was the crime committed? Grave coercion. Article 2 Source of RPC A. that the contract was advantageous to the municipality. The contention of the mayor that he did not profit anything from the transaction. good faith is a defense. an election registrar was prosecuted for having failed to include in the voter’s register the name of a certain voter. In crimes punished under special laws. Verga In crimes punished under special laws. The trial court convicted him saying that good faith is not a defense in violation of special laws. Since the prosecution failed to prove that the accused acted with malice. When given a problem. On appeal. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). thus. but because with or without a law. and that he did not act with intent to gain. there are no attempted or frustrated stages. Crimes committed against the provisions of a special law are penalized only when the pernicious effects. good faith is not a defense 3. There is no such thing as attempted hijacking. All who perpetrated the prohibited act are penalized to the same extent. will the act still be wrong? If the wording of the law punishing the crime uses the word “willfully”. the degree of participation of each in the commission of the crime is taken into account in imposing the penalty. it was held by he Supreme Court that disenfranchising a voter from casting his vote is not wrong because there is a provision of law declaring it as a crime. In the case of People v. thus. arise. In crimes punished under special laws. accomplice and accessory. XV. there are attempted. They compelled the pilot to change destination. In trial. As to degree of participation In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code. take note if the crime is a violation of the Revised Penal Code or a special law. which such law seeks to prevent. unless the special law punishes an omission. but before the same could be accomplished. 5. He appeals alleging his defenses raised in the Sandiganbayan that he did not profit from the transaction. The case goes to the Sandiganbayan and the mayor gets convicted for violation of Republic Act No.

The intention is to do away with that requirement so that as long as the /vvverga Page 18 of 100 . however. do not limit this to land area only. If it is not within the jurisdiction of any country. except if the crime affects only the internal management of the vessel in which case it is subject to the penal law of the country where it is registered. Philippine laws shall govern. as long as such vessel is not within the territorial waters of a foreign country. C. it is the foreign country’s criminal law that will apply. which applies only to merchant vessels. When the crime is committed in a war vessel of a foreign country. Intraterritorial application In the intraterritorial application of the Revised Penal Code. (2) SCOPE OF APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE The provision in Article 2 embraces two scopes of applications: (1) (2) Intraterritorial – refers to the application of the Revised Penal Code within the Philippine territory. A vessel is considered a Philippine ship only when it is registered in accordance with Philippine laws. Any crime committed in interior waters comprising the Philippine archipelago shall be subject to our laws although committed on board a foreign merchant vessel. Article 2 makes it clear that it does not refer only to Philippine archipelago but it also includes the atmosphere. Then the vessel entered our territory. So the three-mile limit on our shoreline has been modified by the rule. Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. there are two situations where the foreign country may not apply its criminal law even if a crime was committed on board a vessel within its territorial waters and these are: Question & Answer A vessel is not registered in the Philippines. A crime is committed outside Philippine territorial waters. these rules will not apply. interior waters and maritime zone. When the foreign country in whose territorial waters the crime was committed adopts the French Rule. So whenever you use the word territory. If that vessel is in the high seas or open seas. the requirement that the vessel must be licensed and registered in accordance with Philippine laws has been deleted from Section 25. Under international law. there is no occasion to apply the two rules. the Archipelagic Rule shall be observed. However. Extraterritorial application Extraterritorial application of the Revised Penal Code on crime committed on board Philippine ship or airship refers only to a situation where the Philippine ship or airship is not within the territorial waters or atmosphere of a foreign country. Extraterritorial – refers to the application of the Revised Penal Code outside the Philippine territory. Will the Revised Penal Code apply? Yes. Verga (1) B. The American or Anglo-Saxon Rule This rule strictly enforces the territoriality of criminal law. As far as jurisdiction or application of the Revised Penal Code over crimes committed on maritime zones or interior waters. Under the old Rules of Criminal Procedure. unless the crime committed endangers the national security of a foreign country where the vessel is within jurisdiction in which case such foreign country will never lose jurisdiction over such vessel. The law of the foreign country where a foreign vessel is within its jurisdiction is strictly applied. Otherwise. The French Rule The French Rule provides that the nationality of the vessel follows the flag which the vessel flies. for our courts to take cognizance of any crime committed on board a vessel during its voyage. the vessel must be registered in the Philippines in accordance with Philippine laws. paragraph c of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. except when the crime committed affects the national security or public order of such foreign country. Both the rules apply only to a foreign merchant vessel if a crime was committed aboard that vessel while it was in the territorial waters of another country. because war vessels are part of the sovereignty of the country to whose naval force they belong.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) (1) Rafael del Pan’s Correctional Code of 1916 (2) Code of Maruecos (3) Original Draft of German Penal Code of 1913 Where offense punishable under RPC is also punished under military law Piracy is triable anywhere (see Lo-Lol and Saraw) Vena V.

reference should be made to the provision of paragraph c of Section15 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. After the deposition. So if acts of rebellion were perpetrated by Filipinos who were in a foreign country. The crime may be regarded as an act of piracy as long as it is done with “intent to gain”. however. Paragraph 5 of Article 2. Illustration: When a Filipino who is already married in the Philippines. the taking of the deposition is not the function of the consul.” This is a very important part of the exception. because Title I of Book 2 (crimes against national security) does not include rebellion. So the intention is clear to adopt generally accepted principles of international law in the matter of exercising jurisdiction over crimes committed in a vessel while in the course of its voyage. those having to do with the discharge of their duties in a foreign country. after the second marriage. However. The functions contemplated are those. the crime would not have been prosecutable in our court. such that wherever the pirates may go. Under international law rule. since it is as if he contracted the marriage here in the Philippines. the deponent approached the consul’s daughter and requested that certain parts of the deposition be changed in consideration for $10.000. contracts another marriage abroad. a definite provision of the law making it the consul’s function to take depositions. he was doing so as a public officer in the service of the Philippine government. to be performed by the public officer in the Foreign Service of the Philippine government in a foreign country. because the bigamy was committed in a foreign country and the crime is not covered by paragraph 5 of Article 2. Under the Rules of Court. our courts can take cognizance of the crime committed in such vessel. In your answer. which are. There is. Exception: The Revised Penal Code governs if the crime was committed within the Philippine Embassy or within the embassy grounds in a foreign country. Question & Answer Vena V. With the revision. But the Filipino can not be prosecuted when he comes back to the Philippines. if the second marriage was celebrated within the Philippine embassy. The daughter persuaded the consul and the latter agreed. he may be prosecuted here. therefore. you cannot give territorial application to the Revised Penal Code. a consul can take depositions or letters rogatory. a vessel which is not registered in accordance with the laws of any country is considered a pirate vessel and piracy is a crime against humanity in general. Prior to the revision. the revised provision added the phrase “in accordance with generally accepted principles of International Law”. the Revised Penal Code governs only when the crime committed pertains to the exercise of the public official’s functions. Article 3: Felonies /vvverga Page 19 of 100 .Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) vessel is not registered under the laws of any country. However. When public officers or employees commit an offense in the exercise of their functions The most common subject of bar problems in Article 2 is paragraph 4: “While being public officers or employees. [they] should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions:” As a general rule. if the Filipino. More than this. what crime or crimes have been committed? Yes. Falsification. returns to the Philippines and cohabits here with his second wife. Verga A consul was to take a deposition in a hotel in Singapore. because Title I of Book 2 does not include rebellion. Normally. The Revised Penal Code shall not apply to any other crime committed in a foreign country which does not come under any of the exceptions and which is not a crime against national security. he commits the crime of concubinage for which he can be prosecuted. the crime committed is bigamy. Illustration: A Philippine consulate official who is validly married here in the Philippines and who marries again in a foreign country cannot be prosecuted here for bigamy because this is a crime not connected with his official duties. Will the crime be subject to the Revised Penal Code? If so. use the phrase “as defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.00. under the law. Piracy is considered a crime against the law of nations. When he agreed to the falsification of the deposition. his function being the promotion of trade and commerce with another country. This is because embassy grounds are considered an extension of sovereignty. they can be prosecuted. registration is not anymore a requirement and replaced with generally accepted principles of international law. XVI.

he accidentally stumbled onan embankment and two shots were discharged. Nullum crimen. Note: Reckless Negligence means voluntary act without malice. which reads: A person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment. it is to be understood as referring to crimes under the Revised Penal Code . /vvverga Page 20 of 100 . A specific instance is found in Article 160 – Quasi-Recidivism. which means that the provision is not extended to crimes under special laws. Note: The phrase “punishable by law” is not only constrained to those acts that are punishable by the RPC. There must be a low requiring the performance of such act. such act is not a crime. A. only external acts are punished Omission is synonymous to inaction. Crimes can also be punishable by special laws. is liable for any injuries resulting. Vena V. act committed by means of culpa (a) Negligence – lack of foresight (b) Imprudence – lack of skill 1. although his ignorance may be considered as a mitigating circumstance. Divino Facts: Divino was charged for the crime of lesiones graves for burning the feet Alfonsa believing in good faith that applying petroleum on her sores and ulcers would cure her wounds. mere silence and failure to give alarm. The case of Romana was appealed because there is no strong evidence that can prove that she was an accomplice of Martin. Definition: Felonies are acts and omissions punishable by the law. Romana was acquitted. act committed by means of dolo (b) Act is performed with deliberate intent. without evidence of agreement or conspiracy is not punishable. Silvestre and Atienza Facts: Martin and Romana were both convicted of the crime of arson by the Court of First Instance. 2. Verga Decision: No. Issue: W/N Romana’s act of omission is punishable. But as he was nearing the quarry. 3. When the crime is punishable under a special law you do not refer to this as a felony. This is important because there are certain provisions in the Revised Penal Code where the term “felony” is used. from such treatment. Mere passive presence at the scene of another’s crime. 2. Note that the word "felony" is used.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) HOW A FELONY MAY ARISE Punishable by the Revised Penal Code The term felony is limited only to violations of the Revised Penal Code. not being regular practitioner. Unfortunately. On the night of the crime. Issue: W/N Divino committed a crime considering he acted on good faith. undertakes to render medical assistance to another person. Elements: 1. Divino was held liable for culpable felony because the acts he committed were out of ignorance with the intent to bring about remedy instead of harm. MAY BE LIABLE FOR CULBABLE FELONY US vs. Alfonsa became more injured and deformed after the treatment. Catangay Facts: Catangay was found guilty of homicide through reckless negligence. nulla poena sine lege. the failure to perform a positive duty which one is bound to do. If there is no law that defines an act as a crime and provides for its penalty. before beginning to serve sentence or while serving the same. Catangay was tasked to negotiate the distance. Decision: One who. WHEN THERE IS NEITHER MALICE OR FAULT People vs. People vs. Culpable Felonies – performed without malice. Classification of Felonies Intentional Felonies (a) Act or omission of offender is malicious. PERSON CAUSING INJURY. Acts may be omissions or commissions. shall be punished under the maximum period of the penalty. one killing his companion. and the fact that he acted in good faith and according to the best of his ability does not relieve him from responsibility. WITHOUT EVIL INTENTION. So whenever you encounter the term felony. B.

But nonetheless. which no one would have performed. vs. willful intent and purpose. and those of his fellow beings. he seemed to have seen an eye of a deer and shot it. There was no negligence either because opening the latch while approaching the quarry is very usual for hunters. The fact that the defendant offered to the mother of the deceased a carabao and a horse by way of indemnity indicates that the defendant admitted the commission of the crime although he performed that act without criminal intent and only through imprudence. REASON WHY CULPABLE FELONIES ARE PUNISHED People vs. 1655 of the Philippine Commission known as the Pure Food and Drugs Act. no dolo is required (US. Ramirez Facts: Pedro Ramirez went on hunting together with two other companions. Adlaon signed that he received the money when in fact the money was never for the construction of municipal building but was to be given to Bastes who loaned a sum of money to the municipal president and treasurer. he should have exercised all the necessary diligence to avoid every undesirable accident. When the language is plain and positive. 3. Benito Siy Cong Bieng appealed for: (a) He did not have any knowledge of the acts done by his agent which was the sale of adulterated coffee. Note: Reason for punishing acts of negligence: A man must use common sense. and that where there is the absence of such intent there is no offense. although the offender was honestly mistaken as to the meaning of the law he violates. C. he knew he had two companions. Decision: Yes. and it is done by some person. his action lacks the element essential for holding that it was performed with reckless negligence. to violate the criminal law. the eyes of a man is not luminous in the dark thus it would be impossible to mistake it to that of a deer. No. Maleza and Adlaon). Issue: W/N reckless negligence is considered a crime. Decision: Between an act performed voluntarily and intentionally. willful intent. though in a lesser Vena V. Moreover. Defendants maintained that falsification does not constitute the crime complained of. nothing is left to interpretation. there was no intent because Catangay had a very good relationship with the victim. would ever be exposed to all manner of danger and injury. and exercise due reflection in all his acts. In this case. because he did not have the intention of killing the deceased. Maleza Facts: Maleza and Adlaon were charged with crimes of falsification of public documents by reason of reckless negligence. proof of the fact of the sale of prohibited drugs and food products is sufficient to sustain a conviction of a violation of the statute. Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa). it is his duty to be cautious. The accused is guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence. he shot one of his companions. He asked his two companions to watch over their prey while he looks for another. if not from instinct. although the resulting homicide was without malice. then through fear of incurring punishment. and prudent. (b) Co Kong was in charge of the store. US vs. It is a mistaken notion that positive. He performed a voluntary act in discharging his gun. there exists another. After walking for about 50 meters. Maleza is the municipal treasurer and he certified an account showing payments for the construction of the municipal building. thus. Rule: There is no need for the pattern analysis for acts that involve public policy (statutory law). performed without malice. 1. which requires that the damage be inflicted without malice but through a voluntary act. When the statute plainly forbids an act to be done. as distinguished from a mere intent. the law implies conclusively the guilty intent. rights and property.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Issue: W/N Catangay was guilty of reckless negligence Decision: No. Verga degree and with an equal material result. (People vs. except through culpable abandon. Siy Cong Bien Facts: Defendants Benito Siy Cong Bieng and Co Kong were convicted of a violation of Section 7 of Act. Decision: Under the Philippine Pure Food and Drugs Act. Otherwise his own person. Issue: W/N defendant Siy Cong Being should be held liable for the actions of his store manager. 2. The embankment cannot also be anticipated. Mala Prohibita and Mala in Se /vvverga Page 21 of 100 . but at the same time punishable. this is especially so as to statutory offenses. and the offense is not made to depend upon the positive. an intermediate act which the Penal Code qualifies as negligence. is an essential ingredient in every criminal offense. Crimes punished under special laws. To his surprise. without proof of guilty knowledge of the fact of adulteration or criminal intent in the making of the sale. and another committed unconsciously and quite unintentionally. careful. Go Chico) Act alone constitutes the offense US vs. Issue: W/N there is reckless imprudence on this case. He is responsible for such results as anyone might foresee and for acts. victim's death having been purely accidental and wholly involuntary on the part of the accused. The discharge of a firearm that caused the. or reckless negligence.

either it be right or wrong. The spirit of the law regarding possession of firearms is to punish those who possess the same without knowledge of the authorities concerned. any doubt as to his claim should be resolved in his favor. enough to call for a conviction. 6. However. Where the accused had a pending application for permanent permit to possess a firearm. which expired some 3 months before he was arrested. It does not matter for the conviction of Ongsod that he is the owner or borrower of the gun because this fact has no bearing on his guilt. People vs. prevent another from doing something not prohibited by law or compel to do something against his will. Intent governs. Decision: The accused was absolved. The testimony of the witnesses were credible and accurate. for the court can adopt a more liberal view. Ongsod was also found guilty of the crime of illegal possession of firearms. merely implemented the aforesaid recommendation of the Municipal Health Officer. in addition. Decision: No. he barricaded some establishments and stalls which protruded into the sidewalk of the Maharlika highway and who were not complying with certain health and sanitation requirement. as mayor of the town. Orquijo and Ongsod Facts: Orquijo and Ongsod were guilty of the crime of robbery. Having then acted in good faith in the performance of his duty. Issue: W/N the conviction of the court of appeals that the petitioner committed grave coercion is correct the complainants were public nuisance. Ongsod contends that it was Orquijo who owned the gun and it was merely in his possession when the Philippine constabulary seized it. Mallari Facts: Mallari was found guilty of illegal possession of firearms. Since the offense is malum prohibitum punished by special law. Issue: W/N the lower court was correct in their decision. Mapa Facts: The accused is a secret agent contending that being such. In statutory offenses. a fact corroborated by an office of the constabulary. and good faith and absence of criminal intent are not valid defenses. shall by means of violence. The petitioner then filed a complaint against the owners of the stalls saying that these stalls constituted public nuisance as well as nuisance per se. petitioner cannot be held guilty of grave coercion. Intent to perpetuate the act is required. Mala Prohibita Acts that are wrong merely because it is prohibited by a statute. Petitioner. 5. without authority of law. Grave coercion is committed when "a person who. Exceptions to the good faith rule in crimes of Mala Prohibita. it is enough that the statue has been violated and that it is not necessary to inquire whether there was intent to violate it. He further stated that he has every intention of surrendering the gun. he was still sentence by the lower court. he should be exempted from the law prohibiting illegal possession of firearm. Intent Violates Minimum required for a person to incur criminal liability 4. The mere unlicensed possession of firearm. The owners of the stalls charged the petitioner with the offense of grave coercion. Good Faith and absence of criminal intent are not valid defenses in crimes punished by special laws (Mala Prohibita) /vvverga Page 22 of 100 . People Facts: The Court of Appeals found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Grave Coercion penalized under Art. and without even bothering themselves to legalize such possession.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Mala in Se Acts that are wrong from their nature. and such possession was not unknown to an agent of the law who advised the former to keep it in the meantime. 286 of the Revised Penal Code. Decision: The court is in agreement that the complainants were public nuisance for affecting a considerable number of persons in their neighborhood. Intent is not important. People vs. The petitioner was the mayor of a town and by the recommendation of the Municipal Health Officer." The third element being absent in the case at bar. Despite his plea that he already applied for the renewal of his license. Special penal laws Intent to perpetuate a crime Vena V. Verga Definition People vs. petitioner incurred no criminal liability. Issue: W/N the absence of criminal intent and good faith are valid defenses in crimes punishable by special laws. RPC Criminal Intent Good faith can be invoked as defense for violation of the RPC (Mala in Se) Timoner vs. regardless of the intent of the holder is sufficient to sustain a conviction.

There was no reason shown why the witnesses for the prosecution would foist a crime on DIONISIO BALLONICO if he did not really commit it. Decision: As secret agent is not included in the enumeration in Section 879 of the Revised Administrative Code of persons who are not prohibited in Section 878. For him to be criminally liable. Verga D. Indeed. 2." Distinguished from Motive WHEN MOTIVE IS RELEVANT People vs. Appellant is not also exempted from the requirement of license. W/N an eleven (11) year old boy could be charged with the crime of homicide thru reckless imprudence. However. The first and fundamental duty of courts is to apply the law. The petitioner was in position that "discernment" connotes "intent". 2. Dorico Facts: Romualdo Dorico. W/N the term "discernment". Delito Deloso (dolo) Freedom Intelligence Intent (a) Delito culposa (culpa) Freedom Intelligence Negligence/Imprudence Decision: The two terms should not be confused. namely. 4. the former refers to the desired of one's act while the latter relates to the moral significance that person ascribes to the said act. as amended by Republic Act No. Ignacio Almodovar Facts: Petitioner John Philip Guevarra. This not a situation which falls under ‘who had done it’ since DIONISIO BALLONICO was positively identified by credible witnesses as one of the assailants of the victim. Hon. Intent Defined distinguished from discernment Guevarra vs. it is necessary that a minor above nine but below fifteen years of age be possessed with intelligence in committing a negligent act which results in a quasi-offense. was playing with his best friend. Teodoro was hit by a pellet on his left collar bone which caused his death. 1. Fiscal exculpated petitioner due to his age and because the unfortunate occurrence appeared to be an accident. but this Court has repeatedly held that motive is pertinent only when there is doubt as to the identity of the culprit. who commits an act prohibited by law. from possessing any firearm. Dionisio Ballonico and Fernando Dorico were all found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for murdering Gervacio Dapulag and was sentenced each with death penalty. intelligence remains as an essential element. In evaluating felonies committed by means of culpa. Discernment constitutes an exception to the exemption from criminal liability of a minor under fifteen years of age but over nine. It is clear that the terms "intent" and "discernment" convey two distinct thoughts. Hence a person may not intend to shoot another but may be aware of the consequences of his negligent act. which may cause injury to the same person in negligently handling an air rifle. three (3) elements are indispensable. is his mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong. Dionisio said that he was merely a bystander and did not participate in the crime Issue: W/N motive is relevant to establish guilt Decision: It is true that no motive has been shown why he would kill Gervacio Dapulag.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Issue: W/N Mapa should be exempted from complying with the law. While both are products of the mental processes within a person. Issue: 1. The victim's parents appealed to the Ministry of Justice. intent is wanting in such felonies. Pattern of analysis in determining criminal liability Was there criminal intent (dolo)? Or was the act done by means (imprudence/negligence)? Delito Deloso and Delito Culposa Elements of culpa E. They were target-shooting a bottle cap placed with an air rifle borrowed from a neighbor. 11 years old. The three were said to have killed the accused because he insisted on filing a criminal complaint against Romualdo for the killing of his nephew. which ordered the Fiscal to file a case against petitioner for Homicide through reckless Imprudence. The Solicitor General insists that discernment and intent are two different concepts. intelligence. In the course of their game. a minor over nine years of age but below fifteen may be held liable for a quasi-offense under Article 365. freedom of action. Obviously. Proof of motive is not essential for conviction. as used in Article 12(3) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) is synonymous with "intent. hence. Construction and interpretation come only after it has been demonstrated that application is impossible or inadequate without them. and negligence. /vvverga Page 23 of 100 . Revised Administrative Code. Vena V. (b) (1) (2) (c) Kinds of Intent general notion of intent – motive is not essential in establishing this notion of criminal intent specific notion of intent – there is no great difference between specific criminal intent ad motive. he must discern the rightness or wrongness of the effects of his negligent act.

But motive is unessential to conviction in murder cases when there is no doubt as to the identity of the culprit or where the offender had admitted the deed. 26. The defendant states that when he fell asleep. Issue: W/N the defendant is guilty of the crime of parricide. Issue: W/N the accused was guilty of arson.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. However. he apparent lack of a motive for committing a criminal act does not necessarily mean that there are none. Where. 26 broke out when the fire in House no. Go Foo Suy Facts: Fire broke out in house no. and upon meeting with his wife who tried to stop him. fire also broke out in House no. Lack of motive may be an aid in showing the innocence of the accused People vs. and when he was about to go down. The success of their crime meant that they would receive about twice the value of their stock of goods and thus converting a losing investment into a profitable one. proof of crime US vs. attack and kill Ananias. he had no criminal intent. Decision: No. which was just across the passageway from House No. the identity of the appellant as the author of the killing is not disputed as he admitted having killed the deceased. The question of what motive is sufficient to impel one to commit a particular act is always relative and no fixed norm of conduct can be said to be decisive of every imaginable case. his motive in committing the act becomes irrelevant to his conviction and the failure of the State to establish his motive is of no moment. The appellants had been conducting their business at a loss for nearly 18 months. he armed himself with a bolo and left the room. it is not a sufficient ground for him to ambush. for having acted in a dream. he dreamed that Collantes was trying to stab him with a bolo while Abadilla held his feet. and as it seemed to him that his enemies were inviting him to come down. Taneo Facts: Potenciano Taneo was accused of parricide for killing his wife. he went to bed and slept. 26. he was able to tell his wife who his attackers were. by reason of which he got up. Note: When assailant is positively identified. for we cannot probe into the depths of one's conscience where they may be found. they heard something moving. fact that was seen in the vicinity of the crime. The accused had dry goods store in house no. as in this case. witnesses testified that the fire in House no. who invited him to come down and fight. he was stopped by his wife and his mother. When they got inside. motive need not be established HOW MOTIVE IS PROVED. A person who suddenly hot up in his sleep left the room with a bolo in his hand. 30. The fact that the defendants owned a stock of goods. Decision: The accused were found guilty of the crime. set fire on house no. Their dispute was regarding boundaries of the adjoining lands they own. MOTIVE ALONE IS NOT PROOF OF CRIME /vvverga Page 24 of 100 . Issue: W/N the motive is needed to convict the defendants. Maximo also contended that the trial court erred in saying that the motive of the killing was a land case because he has no interest therein since it was his father who was the plaintiff in the said case. and wounding his father in law and two of their guests. The defendant was not held liable for the crime. which supported the fact that someone. It appears from the evidence that that the day before the commission of the crime. Even if there is such motive. 26. Or. and that their business operations over a period approximately eighteen months just prior to the fire had resulted in a considerable loss. Maximo claims that he should not be convicted of the crime. they found a hole. Maximo and Cesaria contended that it was Ananias who first attacked them and that Maximo merely defended himself. Since the prosecution was not able to establish the motive. furnishes a powerful motive for the commission of the crime (circumstantial evidence). an aid to the prosecution. the accused had a fight with Enrique Collantes and Valentin Abadilla. that it was insured for three times its value. Verga Disclosure of motive is an aid in completing the proof of the commission of the crime. Diva Facts: Maximo Diva and his wife were accused of murdering Ananias Bano. but that simply they are not known to us. On the day of the commission of the crime. While the firefighters were trying to break into the storeroom. Motive is not important to have a conviction. it was noted that the defendant was not feeling well. thus. bidden away and inaccessible to our observation. Before the victim’s life expired. After some time. wounded her abdomen and attacked other. Decision: No. and the failure of the prosecution to establish motive is completely inconsequential. 30 was about to be put out. On the day the crime was committed. Note: Circumstantial Evidences defined: indirect evidence. WHEN MOTIVE IS IRRELEVANT When assailant is positively identified People vs. 30. Maximo and Cesaria Diva conspired to attack the victim. An extreme moral perversion may lead a man to commit a crime with a real motive but just for the sake of committing it.

the injury caused to another should be unintentional. or became aware of it. /vvverga Page 25 of 100 . The act could not have been done deliberately. Issue: W/N Julio Guillen is guilty of the crime charge considering that it was the president which he intended to kill and not Simeon Varela. During the victory parade. He is therefore liable for all the consequences of his wrongful act. People vs. even though it may not have been the intention of the actor to cause an evil of such gravity as that produced”. even when the victim of the attack was not the one whom the defendant intended to kill. 17933 March 23. Julio was found dead. he was determined to assassinate the president. The primary witness of the prosecution was Lizardo’s bodyguard who said that he was there when the crime was committed and the motive was said to be the victory parade before Julio’s death. Ramirez It must be noted that there could be no motive in this case because Ramirez and the victim were good friends. Where the principal and basic evidence upon which the prosecution rests its case fails. the existence of a motive alone. Divino OFFENSES PUNISHABLE AS MALA PROHIBITA (e) Intentional and Culpable Felonies Distinguished Decision: Yes. According to the accused. all evidence intended to support or corroborate it must likewise fail. Decision: No.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) US vs. Issue: W/N the accused should be charged with a crime of homicide through reckless imprudence. upon seeing the grenade. General Castaneda. During the investigation. In the words of Viada. FELONIES COMMITED BY MEANS OF CULPA See: US vs. As a consequence. L-1477 January 18. because he did have the intention to do some evil unlawfully (maltreating the deceased). criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended to do. While the defeat of Marcos followed by such insulting parade. 1950 Vena V. and this intention. The accused having had no intention to commit so serious an evil as that which resulted. During the 1935 elections. He carried two hand grenades in Plaza Miranda and hurled it on the stage where the president was making a speech. In criminal negligence. Simeon died because of the injuries he sustained. although it was not that of killing. is not proof of the commission of a crime. thus it shall be discredited. Hence. for in accordance with article 4 of the Revised Penal Code. (d) When crimes may be committed without criminal intent ALONE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT People vs. When the grenade exploded. Julio’s men were said to have passed over Mariano’s house to humiliate the defeated candidate. it injured Simeon Varela and four other men. where such intention exists. Julio won over Mariano for the office of representative of Ilocos Norte. It is neither necessary nor profitable to examine the corroborative evidence presented by the prosecution. the act should be qualified by the felony it has produced. Mariano’s archrival. The Marcoses and Lizardo became the suspects. 1922 Facts: Nanquil was investigating a certain Severino Ramiscal for the theft of Juan Rosas’s carabao. Marcos Facts: Mariano Marcos. much less of the guilt of the defendants-appellants. the court found the testimony of Aguinaldo to be inherently improbable and full of contradictions in important details. In throwing a hand grenade at the President with the intention of killing him. kicked it away from the platform. the crime committed by him cannot be that of homicide through reckless imprudence. if it appears from the evidence that neither of the two persons could in any manner put up a defense against the attack. Nanquil GR No. Verga Facts: Julio Guillen was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and multiple frustrated murder. he was extremely disappointed in President Roxas for his alleged failure to redeem his promises made by him during the presidential election. Quirino Lizardo were accused for the murder of Julio Nalundasan. the appellant acted with malice. Decision: Yes. Issue: W/N the parade was a sufficient motive to warrant a sentence. might have irritated the herein defendants. The qualifying circumstance of treachery may properly be considered. it being simply the incident of another act performed without malice. PROOF OF MOTIVE CONVICTION People vs. “in order that an act may be qualified as imprudence it is necessary that neither malice nor intention to cause injury should intervene. The following night. is inconsistent with reckless imprudence. the victim died after a few moments. his son Ferdinand Marcos and brother in law. By and large. though perhaps an important consideration. Guillen GR No. Nanquil struck Severino with his gun.

It appeared that the sureties on the said bonds were insolvent and that the defendants did not present new bonds within the time fixed by the /vvverga Page 26 of 100 .00 for each case. One day. 217. acts are voluntary (People vs. he seized a kitchen knife. there would have been no crime. Catolico GR No. He rendered decisions in certain cases. even when the victim of the attack was not the one whom the defendant intended to kill. Facts: The accused and Juana Buralo were sweethearts. get the gild and kill anyone who would stop him. there is no criminal liability. he was awakened by some one trying to open the door. Would the facts been as he though them to be. When there is no intent.00 and a bond of Php 50." but homicide or murder as the case may be. As required by law. In this case. the accused went to a house where Juana had gone to take part in some devotion. each one for damages resulting from a breach of contract. In other words. Later on. US vs. and called out twice. Although the mere act of firing at a person is not proof per se of intent to kill. Decision: Under such circumstances. Mistake of fact indicates good faith. The qualifying circumstance of treachery may properly be considered. Thereafter. (i) Criminal Intent Presumed from Commission of the crime Mistake of fact – while ignorance of the law excuses no one (ignorantia legis non excusat). Good faith is a defense and in this case. a justice of peace. he was being attacked. an error of the mind operating upon a state of facts. Everything he did was in good faith under the belief that he was acting judiciously and correctly. the accused threatened that if Juana refuses to see him. who turned out to be his roommate. the crime is not simply "discharge of firearm. Issue: W/N Ah Chong should be acquitted because of mistake of fact. under the law. Note: It is a prima facie evidence in Malversation that such missing funds or property have been put to personal use or used for personal ends by such person. from which the defendants appealed. Good faith negates intent. if such ignorance or mistake of facts is sufficient to negate a particular intent which. in permitting the sums deposited with him to be attached in the satisfaction of the judgment rendered by him. ignorance or mistake of fact relieves tha accused from criminal liability (ignoratia facti excusat) MISTAKE OF FACT AS A DEFENSE People vs. The accused was prosecuted for malversation. 6486 02 March 1911 Facts: The defendant. Issue: W/N the accused was guilty of the said crime considering that his actions were not contrary to law. After the devotion. the accused followed the girl and her niece on their way home. yet when the surrounding circumstances of the act are such that they leave no room for doubt that the intention was to kill the person fired upon. and in cases where. Upon petition of the plaintiffs. at most a pure mistake of judgment. the defendants deposited Php 16. The act committed. struck and fatally wounded the intruder. The circumstances proved that in Ah Chong’s mind. Good faith negates intent. or become aware of it. so far as appears form the record. a person voluntarily committing an act incurs criminal liability even though the act be different from that which he intended to commit. he will enter the house. there is good faith. the accused invited Juana to take a walk with him. after the defendant had gone to bed. A crime is not committed if the mind if the person performing the act complained of be innocent (actus non facit reum. Ramirez) Acts that are negligently executed are voluntary Intent is shown by overt acts accused as justice of peace. Decision: That act of the accused. Ah Chong Facts: Defendant was a cook and the deceased was a house boy. When they were about to go up their house. One night. under the provisions of article 1 of the Penal Code. Mabug-at in both. is a necessary ingredient of the offense charged it destroys the presumption of intent and works an acquittal. Issues: W/N the accused is guilty of frustrated murder. it was not proven that the accused justice of peace used the money for personal use. was not unlawful. if it appears from the evidence that neither of the two persons could in any manner put up a defense against the attack. Verga (f) (g) (h) People vs. but the latter refused on account of the accused having frequently visited the house of a certain Carmen. the accused dismissed the appeals and ordered said sums attached and delivered to the plaintiffs in satisfaction of the judgment. regardless of the circumstances outside him. provided that the ignorance or mistake of fact was not due to negligence or bad faith. nisi mes sit rea). there is no crime.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. except in those cases where the circumstances demand a conviction under the penal provisions governing negligence. there is no crime. a felony under Art. the accused fired a shot intended for Juana but which wounded Perfecta instead. Decision: Yes. was charged of malversation of public funds. Believing that he was being attacked. Without intent. and both were employed in the same place and usually slept in the same room.

Bautista) When the accused is negligent. The defendants are in honest belief Good faith has many sources (a) Mistake of fact (b) Act is lawful The point is: when good faith is established. There is no crime of resistance when there is a mistake of fact (US vs. The women believed that she was born in 1879. Decision: No. does not relieve the accused from criminal responsibility (People vs. In effect it suffices to remember the first article. (People vs. 2. They have no way of checking since the receipt copy signed by Coching when he received the ballots were not given to them. the act of the defendant in answering “no” to the question can be considered only as an error of judgment and did not indicate an intention to commit the crime of perjury. In order to assert without fear of mistake that in our Code the substance of a crime does not exist if there is not a deed. Thus. When he testified in his defense. It is not criminal negligence for a husband to rely upon his wife's statement of her age nor for the wife to rely upon that of her father. since the act is malum prohibitum – against a law/statute. 1. People vs. because he relied on the opinion of the provincial fiscal that unjust vexation does not involve moral turpitude and he thought it was not necessary to mention it in Civil Service Form No. The Court is in disagreement with this notion. mistake of fact is not a defense. Good faith negates intent. Issue: W/N Coching and the others are guilty of the crime charges. Mistake of fact establishes good faith because have the facts been as she thought them to be. Coching Facts: Coching and several others were accused of falsification of public document and violation of the election code. being an act mala prohibita has no bearing on the case because this is not a case of willful or conscious violation of a penal statue. 3. In mistake of fact. it negates criminal intent. Issue: W/N Formaran was unjustly prosecuted on the case at bar. The lower court was in agreement that the defendants did not intend to perpetuate the act. to the husband). which states that where there is no intent there is no crime. the husband relied on the statement of his wife that she is of age when they got married. no crime. 475 when by reason of a mistake of facts there does not exist the intention to commit the crime. Note: There is no felony by dolo if there is no intent. Fernando) Vena V. The defendant was not liable for the crime because he had no intent to commit the crime. Gona). 4. Conching and the others sincerely believed that booklets 4100 to 4120 were sample ballots because three ballots from the booklet were detached and two ballots were used to cover the openings of the boxes that was given to them before the election. No criminal intent. an act that falls within the sphere of ethics if there is not a moral wrong. intention is immaterial. Lack of intent to kill the deceased.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) GR No 424 January 27. People vs. It appeared that he was previously prosecuted twice for perjury for answering ‘NO’ to the same question but he was acquitted on the first case and the second case was dismissed. Issue: W/N the husband and the wife violated the said provision of the Penal code Decision: A minor who marries without parental consent in the false belief that she is of age is not criminally responsible. In the same instance. 1 before a notary public that he was never accused of a violation of any law before any court or tribunal. But according to them. The act. there is no crime. nor of ignorance of the law. 12089-CR Facts: Formaran was accused of a crime of perjury for having sworn to a Civil Service Form No. Good faith is transferable (in this case. that so her parents gave her to understand ever since she was young. the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful. When there is no intention. Penalosa /vvverga Page 27 of 100 . 1902 Note: 1. People vs. when the truth and in fact he had been charged with the offense of unjust vexation in a criminal case before the Justice of the Peace Court. The case at bar is a case of ignorance of the fact. the act would have been lawful. they did not include in the counting booklets 4100 to 4120. because the intention was to kill another. One cannot be convicted under Art. Verga Facts: A minor married without parental consent. Decision: No. Note: Lack of intent to commit a crime may be inferred from the facts of the case. in violation of Art 475 of he old Penal Code which punished any minor who shall contract marriage without the consent of his or her parents. and she did not ask them concerning her age. according to the court. it was held that in view of the factual background of the case. the defendant claimed that he answered “No” to the question whether he had been accused of a violation of any law. Formaran No.

The act being lawful. and later in the evening sees a person with a bolo in hand approaching the house in the -attitude of going up the stairs. and thinking him to be an evil-doer. He however. who might be escaped prisoners from a nearby penitentiary. de Fernando GR No 24978 27 March 1926 Facts: The accused. Neither was there any indication that the accused was aware of the victim’s presence. the accused fired directly at the man who turned our to be the nephew of the house. 3186 Facts: Crisanto Salinas was charged for the death of Jaime Tibule. Article 4: Criminal Liability Facts: The accused was not satisfied with the slow raising of the anchor which caused him to abuse his men with offensive language. there could have been no crime committed. natural. he was called by the daughter of a certain Delgado to inform him that three unknown persons were prowling around their house. PEOPLE vs. of course. Verga Committing a felony even if the consequences are unintended Elements: (a) Felony is committed A. prowling around the vicinity. de Fernando fired a shot in the air. The person. as he seemed to have called somebody in the house.G. Oanis People vs. (1) PEOPLE vs. Defendants were acquitted. and the said agent of the law considering that the said stranger has not been recognized by any person in the household. and who enters a house to keep watch. he would. Issue: W/N Crisanto should be liable for the death of the baby Decision: No. One of the crew remonstrated that they would be able to work better if the accused stops insulting them. VALDEZ Wrong done is direct. Ah Chong). the accused moved towards the victim with big /vvverga Page 28 of 100 . Jaime died after falling from his mother’s hold while the mother was freeing his father from Crisanto’s hold. Had the defendant tried to wound his adversary and instead had bit the bystander. they saw a person going up the stairs dressed in dark clothes and carrying a bolo. 1. and continues his advance notwithstanding that the latter had fired a shot into the air. Under the circumstances. (b) US vs. But in view of the evidence. The courts should judge the accused not by the facts as they later turned out to be but what they believed to be as facts at the time of the offense and the conditions obtaining them (US vs. he should have exercised by inquiring of the occupants of the house whether the stranger was known to them. The accepted rule is that an offender is always liable for the consequence of his criminal action even though the result be different from what he intended. which makes said officer guilty of homicide through reckless negligence. shoots and kills him. The residents of the barrio were alarmed of the news. under the circumstances. did not answer thus. After some time. Upholding the maxim ignorantia facti excusat as established in People vs. While doing rounds in the barrio. Infuriated.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) that the series of unused ballots were not official but sample ballots. Vena V. Issue: W/N de Fernando was guilty of homicide through reckless negligence. MISTAKE OF FACT NOT A DEFENSE See: People vs. a policeman. the injury was accidental and the defendant should be acquitted. before shooting him. Issue: W/N Bindoy should be charged for killing Emigdio Decision: The appellant should be acquitted since there is no evidence. logical consequence of felony committed When act is lawful XVII. BINDOY Facts: The accused was charged of the crime of homicide for wounding with his bolo Emigdio who was merely a spectator of the fight. The defendant was acquitted. SALINAS 62 O. is not guilty of murder or homicide. was informed that three convicts had escaped. Oanis. Accused called out to the person to identify himself. it cannot be held that the accused was committing a crime and it cannot be said that the death of the child was a direct result of a crime. As the unknown person continued to ascend the stairs and believing that he was one of the escaped convicts. Decision: Yes. which shows that Emigdio took part in the fight. acted with reckless negligence in failing to exercise the ordinary diligence that. Crisanto was holding the victim’s grandfather in order to prevent him from fighting with the defendant’s father. or was really what be thought him to be. who does not answer the challenge of the officer of the law. An agent of the law. which ensued between the defendant and a certain Pacas. have had to answer for his criminal act. to whom notice had been given of the presence of suspicious looking persons.

In this jurisdiction. died from the explosion of the bus of which he was a passenger. was convicted of a crime of homicide for the death of Andres Aribuabo. There is intention in the commission of the crime because when a person who stabs another with a lethal weapon. vs. it is evident that the act in question should be qualified as homicide.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) knife threatening to stab him. Decision: Yes. MEDINA 102 PHIL. 181 Facts: The victim. (i) How proximate cause is determined VDA. Verga the efficient cause of the death remains the same. When the victim tried to end their affair. Thus. DE BATACLAN. which was the cause of the death. believing that he is going to be killed. REYES 61 PHIL. Issue: W/N the defendant should be held liable for the death of the victim. That the victim had a delicate condition and suffered from incipient tuberculosis does not affect criminal liability of the defendant who gave him a severe blow. the burning of the bus was a natural cause and should be attributed to the negligence of the driver and the conductor. the appellant dragged the deceased towards the streets and stabbed her in the chest with the fan knife. Decision: Yes. (ii) Definition /vvverga Page 29 of 100 . the leaking of the gasoline was the natural consequence. causing said bus to overturn. which the appellant inflicted upon the deceased. a d in order to escape jumps into water. The victim. The accused is presumed to have intended the natural consequences of the wrongful act. There was no intent but this does not extinguish the crime. It was also natural that the rescuers would innocently approach the bus to extend aid. death could reasonable be anticipated. The reason that when the vehicle turned. Blow was efficient cause of death Vena V. It was the defendant’s blow in the right hypocondrium. (1) PEOPLE vs. which determined his death. impelled by the instincts of self-preservation. ILLUSTRE 54 PHIL. was the cause. which bruised the liver and produced internal hemorrhage. Victim was treated in the hospital but died. the vehicle zig-zagged into a canal. ET AL. Juan died of internal hemorrhage and contusion on the liver. who was in charged in making sure that the roasted pig will not be consumed before the end of the parade gave a blow to Juan Magsino who tried getting a piece of the pig. 162 Facts: The defendant. A person is responsible for the consequences of his criminal act even of the deceased have been shown to be suffering from a deceased heart (which was not shown). even of the weakened condition made the blow more fatal. As the wound. QUIANSON 62 PHIL. Issue: W/N the defendant should be liable for his crew’s death Decision: Yes. The victim was said to have died from shock. Issue: W/N Quianson should be held liable for the death of the victim Decision: One who inflicts an injury on another is deemed by law to be guilty of homicide if the injury contributes mediately or immediately to the death of the victim. 341 Facts: The appellant and victim were having an illicit relationship. PEOPLE vs. Due to overturning of the bus. it is a well settled that such is not the law. Issue: W/N the overturning of the bus was the proximate cause of the death. the gasoline leaked soaking the soil underneath thus. 544 Facts: The defendant. The fact that other causes contribute to the death does not relieve the actor of responsibility. The crew’s death was a consequence of the defendant’s action. the assailant us responsible for homicide in case death results by drowning. The defendant took hold of a firebrand and applied it to the abdomen of the man who pestered him. husband of the petitioner. Issue: W/N the appellant should be acquitted considering the fact that the wound was only a slight one Decision: No. a deranged person who constantly asked for food from the former. threw himself in water and never resurface. (2) Blow was proximate cause of death PEOPLE vs. the bus was set on fire. a criminal assault is directed reasonably believes himself to be in danger of death or great bodily harm. If a person against whom. The girl died from shock as a result of the wound inflicted by the defendant. he should be responsible. Defendant contends that the victim would have survived if he did not remove the drainage placed to isolate the infection. Before the explosion. Appellant’s assault being the proximate cause of the death. when the rescuers came with torches came near the bus.

It is possible that the victim may have been inflicted with a mild tetanus but since Javier died only two or three days from the onset. and even though the victim may have been previously affected by some internal malady. Appellant therefore should be acquitted. examination to exercise PEOPLE vs. the crime committed is rightly classified as homicide and the accused is responsible therefore. Embate was acquitted. produces injury. Decision: When the fact is well established that the accused struck the victim twice with his fist. The doctor testified it was the blow which was the cause of the death. Marcelo was only hit in the palm and while the wound was healing. he died from tetanus. defendant struck him on the thighs with a slipper. Decision: No. EMBATE Facts: The child has been seriously ill for three weeks. It is a rule that in criminal conviction. (c) When there is an intervening cause US vs. The child fell but continued to work. wherefore the latter fell to the ground and had hardly risen and started to walk when he again fell down dead. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT 157 SCRA 1 Facts: Urbano was charged for the crime of homicide for the death of Marcelo Javier. In case of death under suspicious circumstances. It appears that the examination of the body was incomplete and the conclusion of the doctor have been much more than mere guesses. Proximate cause it the case. the child died. as the child lain on a damp floor. yet if a blow with the fist or foot accelerated death. Issue: W/N the defendant should be held liable for the death of the child. RODRIGUEZ Facts: The defendant was charged with having dealt with Manciano Magno with two blows which knocked the victim down. it is the duty of the physician performing the post mortem. in the abdomen and in the back. (iv) Death attributable to tetanus URBANO vs. the proof that the accused caused the victim’s death must convince a rational mind beyond reasonable doubt. which is distinct and absolutely foreign to felonious act of accused (i) Resulting injury is due to intentional act of victim (ii) Death attributable to fever prevalent in locality Vena V. After 22 days. (iii) When felony committed not proximate cause: (3) Intervening active force. PALALON The defendant was convicted of homicide largely on the testimony of a young physician who stated. /vvverga Page 30 of 100 . the child was brought home sick by his father. Since the cause of the death was unknown. One day. That same afternoon. Held: That the testimony of the physician was not conclusive and that the ecchymosis described by him might have been nothing. it is logical to assume that there may be other causes other than the hacking incident. the child died. but suggillations or "death spots" formed after the death. Issue: W/N the hacking incident can be considered a proximate cause of Marcelo’s death. No autopsy of the body was made and the physician admitted that his conclusions were partly based upon the statements of the members of the family of the deceased. PALALON 49 PHIL. The hacking incident could not have been the cause of the victim’s death since the tetanus appeared only on the 22nd day after the hacking incident. which in natural and continuous sequence. Issue: W/N the defendant should be held liable for the death of the child.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) URBANO vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (4) Blow accelerated death PEOPLE vs. the victim continued working. A fight ensued between the two when Urbano learned that Javier opened the floodgates thereby causing his palay to be flooded. unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. Even though a blow with the fist or a kick does not cause any external wound it may easily produce inflammation of the spleen and peritonitis and cause death. Two days later. defendant ordered said child to transfer. Verga (iii) Cause of death not proved US vs. and without which. One-half days later. the result would not have occurred. 177 Facts: Appellant was found guilty of the crime of homicide for the death of a child whom he slapped after answering insolently. it was proven that fever was prevalent among the children in the locality thus. in substance. It was found that Magno provoked the defendant. the accused should be acquitted. there is reasonable doubt as to the true cause of the death. the defendant cannot be held liable for said death. Decision: No. Furthermore. Decision: No. he who caused such acceleration is responsible for the death as the result of an injury willfully and unlawfully inflicted. The child did not obey thus. Since there may be other efficient causes of the death. there was a congestion of the right lung which was the principal cause of the death. that he examined the body of the deceased on the day after the commission of the crime and found ecchymosis on the body from which he concluded that hard blows had been inflicted on the deceased and that as a result thereof.

A person injured in an assault is not obliged to submit to a surgical operation to relieve the person who assaulted him from the results of his crime. Neither do we believe that the fact that he "And any such person who shall make a false or fraudulent return shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand pesos or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. ALMONTE When a person dies in consequence of an internal hemorrhage brought on by moving about against the doctor's orders. a motion for a new trial will be denied when based upon the allegation that appellant would be able to prove. That he made a mistake in killing one man instead of another. and since the defendant did commit the crime with treachery. in view of the mortal wound which he inflicted upon the latter. (iii) Causes inherent in victim: (1) Addiction to tuba drinking US vs. Mendieta (34 Phil. REYES. the victim was mentally deranged. but because of his nervous condition due to the wound inflicted by said assailant. (d) Even if unintended.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) the utmost care and not draw unwarranted conclusions from external appearances susceptible of different interpretations. In the case of United States vs. because he is responsible for all the consequences of the personal injury which was produced by the act that he had willfully performed in violation of a prohibitive law. The accused is then liable for all acts contrary to law and their natural and logical consequences." (2) Aberratio ictus: mistake in the blow PEOPLE vs. but his attorney argues that in view of the fact that said defendant had no intention to kill the deceased and committed the crime by mistake. not because of carelessness or a desire to increase the criminal liability of his assailant. even that. the crime is homicide and not merely slight physical injuries. he should have been found guilty of homicide through negligence under paragraph 1 of article 568 of the Penal Code and not of the graver crime of intentional homicide. BAYUTAS The fact that the victim was addicted to the habit of drinking tuba. although useless at present. if opportunity were given. MARASIGAN Where it appears from the evidence in the case that the appellant inflicted a wound upon the complaining witness which destroyed the use of one of the fingers of the left hand. on account of which it is admitted that his constitution and physical condition retarded the healing of his wounds. 242). GONA There can be no doubt that the defendant killed Mapudul and that he is guilty of the crime charged. /vvverga Page 31 of 100 . beyond the time that it should have taken. could be restored to substantially its normal condition by a surgical operation. such act of the victim does not have the effect of altering the natural juridical consequences of the punishable act of the accused all the more because. cannot relieve him from criminal responsibility. in no way could be considered as a relief from his criminal act. simply because the doctor was of opinion that the wound might have healed in seven days. cannot lessen the assailant's responsibility. and because his responsibility cannot be lessened on account of the bad state of health and the weakened constitution of the victim. PEOPLE vs. according to the opinion of the physician who attended him. If the defendant had not committed the assault in a treacherous manner. that the finger. SUPRA PEOPLE vs. OANIS PEOPLE vs. CAGOCO Keywords: Fell backwards Decision: Under the circumstances of this case the defendant is liable for the killing of the deceased because his death was the direct consequence of defendants felonious act of striking him on the head. as the defense itself claims. in removing the drainage from his wound. SUPRA (ii) Nervousness or temperament of victim PEOPLE vs. or both. MABUG-AT (3) Prater intentionem: injurious result is greater than that intended PEOPLE vs. (1) Instances not constituting efficient intervening cause: (i) Weak or diseased physical condition of victim Vena V. as this should be attributed to his pathological condition and to his state of nervousness and restlessness on account of the physical pain caused by the peritonitis from which he was suffering. when it is proved that he acted maliciously and willfully. SUPRA (iv) Neglect of victim or third person: US vs. (1) Error in personae: mistake in identity of victim PEOPLE vs. the court said: "Even admitting that the defendant intended to injure Hilario Lauigan instead of Pedro Acierto.. Verga (1) Victim refused medical attendance or surgical operation PEOPLE vs. This contention is contrary to earlier decisions of this court. he would nevertheless have been guilty of homicide. ILLUSTRE. VALDEZ. QUIANSON Where it does not appear that the victim. had acted voluntarily and with the knowledge that he was performing an act prejudicial to his health. although he did not intend to kill the deceased. he is guilty of murder because of the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. (2) Victim did no know how to swim US vs.

deserves no consideration. If the crime could have materialized under /vvverga Page 32 of 100 . were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment x x x. IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES Requisites: 1. The crime is physical injuries or acts of lasciviousness. the assailant is responsible for homicide in case death results by drowning Appellant should likewise be chargeable with Homicide. The impossibility of accomplishing the criminal intent is not merely a defense. when the houseboy could no longer resist the urge. went inside the room of his master. impossible crimes are recognized. If it is committed under the circumstances of rape. all circumstances which prevented the consummation of the offense will be treated as an accident independent of the actor's will which is an element of attempted and frustrated felonies. 1. To uphold the contention of respondent that the offense was Attempted Murder because the absence of Palangpangan was a supervening cause independent of the actor's will. A suddenly swerved his car inside. It is customary for the spinster to sleep nude because her room was warm. This is a crime that is not limited to a victim who is a woman. it is now possible that an impossible crime was committed. The essence of an impossible crime is the inherent impossibility of accomplishing the crime or the inherent impossibility of the means employed to bring about the crime. the crime could not have materialized. that the crime might also fall under the Revised Administrative Code – desecrating the dead. which makes a person criminally liable for an act "which would be an offense against persons or property. Is an impossible crime committed? Yes. the phrase "inherent impossibility" that is found in Article 4(2) of the Revised Penal Code makes no distinction between factual or physical impossibility and legal impossibility. A was driving his car around Roxas Boulevard when a person hitched a ride. Cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused An impossible crime is an act which would be an offense against person or property were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. placed himself on top of her and abused her. The determined resolution to do the victim wrong was evident when. there is employment of violence or intimidation or the victim is deprived of reason. the crime of acts of lasciviousness is committed. the victim may be a man or a woman. Impossible crime Question & Answer 1. the houseboy would follow and peek into the keyhole. GARDON If a person against whom a criminal assault is directed reasonably believes himself to be in danger of death or great bodily harm and in order to escape jumps into the water. therefore." In that case. Even if the victim is a man. That the act was done with evil intent 3. if this was done against the will of the passenger. Note. Before. Accused was a houseboy in a house where only a spinster resides. Is an impossible crime committed? If not. The act performed would have been constituted a crime against chastity. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible or the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual 4. and so he pushed him out of the car. The mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong cannot be appreciated in appellant's favor. When he reached a motel. not knowing that she was already dead five minutes earlier. CA In our jurisdiction.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. he climbed into the ceiling. The act performed should not constitute a violation f another provision of the RPC INTOD vs. The factual situation in the case at bar presents a physical impossibility which rendered the intended crime impossible of accomplishment. However. will render useless the provision in Article 4. Under Article 336. he cruelly asked "are you already dead?" Appellant's bid for acquittal in his sixth assignment of error. A readily welcomed the fellow inside his car and he continued driving. act performed is against property 2. PEOPLE vs. because the act would have been a crime against chastity. where the acts of lasciviousness were committed under circumstances of rape. Furthermore. meaning to say. When we say inherent impossibility. And under Article 4. Finally. such is sufficient to make the act an impossible crime. the act performed by the offender could not have been a crime against person or property. Because this person was exquisitely dressed. Acts of lasciviousness require a victim to be a woman only when it is committed under circumstances of seduction. There are two ways of committing acts of lasciviousness. impelled by the instinct of self preservation. 2. however. It was also the habit of the houseboy that whenever she enters her room. even after the victim had disappeared beneath the surface of the sea. but an act penalized by itself. this means that under any and all circumstances. Verga 2. paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. Ubi lex non distinguit nee nos distinguiere debemos. but he found out that his passenger was not a woman but a man. and gave him fist blows. II. with the new rape law amending the Revised Penal Code and classifying rape as a crime against persons. An impossible crime is true only if the act done by the offender constitutes a crime against person or property. is there any crime committed at all? It cannot be an impossible crime. A started kissing his passenger.

Is an impossible crime committed? If not. an attempted homicide. he is a criminal. Scott leaves for work but before leaving he would lock the food cabinet where he kept his food. The crime committed is frustrated parricide. if the act done by the offender constitutes some other crimes under the Revised Penal Code. A entered a department store at about midnight. Whenever you are confronted with a problem where the facts suggest that an impossible crime was committed. the intended victim developed LBM and was hospitalized. but the safe was empty. If the question asked is: “Is an impossible crime committed?”. There was no bullet at all. Whether an impossible crime was committed or not? It is not an impossible crime. 6. Hence. Everyday. so the amount of poison applied to her breakfast has no effect to her. Because of the volume of the household chores that the wife had to attend to daily. There is an impossible crime. the poison would have taken effect. The idea was that. then you suggest than an impossible crime is committed. upon seeing B. If it were a case of poisoning . Do not confuse an impossible crime with the attempted or frustrated stage. Under any and all circumstances. An impossible crime is true only to any of those crimes. then you state the reason for the inherent impossibility. paragraph 2. When Scott opened the doorknob. That is a cause other than the spontaneous desistance of the offender. against persons and those against property under Title X. what crime is possibly committed? This is not an impossible crime. But in a department store. That purpose of the law will also be served if he is prosecuted for some other crime constituted by his acts which are also punishable under the RPC. he got an electric cord tied the one end to the door knob and plugged the other end to an electric outlet. The crime committed therefore is attempted robbery. Even though the facts constitute an impossible crime. shot B. It was purely accidental that the firearm did not discharge because the bullets were old. B was willing to marry A except that A is already married. A. and therefore. But if let us say. Is there an impossible crime? No impossible crime is committed because the fact itself stated that what prevented the poison from taking effect is the physical condition of the woman. where there is plenty to steal. What prevented the consummation of the crime was because of some cause independent of the will of the perpetrator. not only the money inside the vault or safe. the crime could not have been realized. nothing happened to him. He succeeded in opening the safe. assuming that he did not lay his hands on any other article. be careful about the question asked. Scott is working in an electronic shop where he received a daily dosage of electric shock. So it implies that if the woman was not of such physical condition. if the act done does not amount to some other crime under the Revised Penal Code. he will not be liable for an impossible crime. But if due to the quantity of vetsin or sugar or soda. If really the facts constitute an impossible crime. but subjectively. Although objectively. it is not an impossible crime. it is not inherently impossible to realize the killing. employing the same mean or the same act. The means employed is not inherently impossible to bring about the consequence of his felonious act. impossible crime is true only when the crime committed would have been against person or against property. therefore. he did not realize that the firearm was empty. she developed a physical condition that rendered her so strong and resistance to any kind of poisoning. but the revolver did not discharge because the bullets were old. then it would not be a case of impossible crime anymore. Charles resented this. when Scott comes home to open the door knob. got the revolver of his father. important to know what are the crimes under Title VIII. he placed a little dose of arsenic poison into the breakfast of the wife. Was an impossible crime committed? No. He prepared her breakfast every morning. it would be an attempted felony. If they were new. A thought of killing his wife. an unloaded firearm will never fire. There are other things that he could take. He went directly to the room where the safe or vault was being kept. when it was already closed. It would be a case of physical injuries. Verga 5. he would be electrocuted. an impossible crime would be constituted if a person who was thinking that it was a poison that he was putting into the food of the intended victim but actually it was vetsin or sugar or soda. and every morning. Vena V. Scott and Charles are roommate in a boarding house. 4. 3. If the question asked is “Is he liable for an impossible crime?”. when he started squeezing the trigger. The reason is an offender is punished for an impossible crime just to teach him a lesson because of his criminal perversity. One day. A and B were lovers. no crime is committed. The wife consumed all the food prepared by her husband including the poison but nothing happened to the wife. /vvverga Page 33 of 100 . The fact that the vault had turned out to be empty is not really inherently impossible to commit the crime of robbery. none of them discharged. This could not be trespass to dwelling because there are other things that can be stolen. because under any and all circumstances. Under Article 4. A and B are enemies. Unknown to Charles. this is a catching question. He will be prosecuted for the crime constituted so far by the act done by him.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) a different set of facts. That is only true if there is nothing more to steal. it would have fired. then you judge that question on the basis of the facts. It is. He was just surprised to find out that there was an electric cord plugged to the outlet and the other hand to the door knob.

to wit: Art 4. this idea of an impossible crime is a one of last resort. Is A liable for an impossible crime? No. In other words. which would have constituted a crime against persons or property.00. went to the intended victim’s house and after having pinpointed the latter’s bedroom. But whether we agree or not. add another paragraph: However. Because it is a principle in criminal law that the offender can only be prosecuted for an impossible crime if his acts do not constitute some other crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code. Modified concept of impossible crime: In a way. A shall be liable for qualified trespass to dwelling. because on the basis of the facts stated. In this case. you state there that although an impossible crime is constituted. where a felony resulted. But to play safe. If he could be taught of the same lesson by charging him with some other crime constituted by his act. this felonious act negates the idea of an impossible crime. not knowing that B died a few minutes ago of bangungot. the wrongful acts of the culprits caused destruction to the house of the intended victim. Paragraph 2 refers to a situation where the wrongful act done did not constitute any felony. if such act constituted any other felony although different from what the offender intended. she was not in her bedroom at the time it was shot and riddled with bullets? Suppose. the answer is yes. petitioneraccused 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 victim’s house.00 to P500. incurred: 1. Eventually the culprits were prosecuted and convicted by the trial court for attempted murder. that is. it is the principle of criminal law that the offender shall be punished for an impossible crime only when his act cannot be punished under some other provisions in the Revised Penal Code. a redundancy and duplicity would be perpetrated. Verga intended victim did not come home that evening and. the decision depreciated the seriousness of the act committed. 215 SCRA 52. Otherwise. the offender will not be prosecuted for an impossible crime but for _____ [state the crime]. the Supreme Court has spoken. instead of using firearms. were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. Paragraph 1 refers to a situation where the wrongful act done constituted a felony although it may be different from what he intended. They are jealous of each other’s social status. an impossible crime is committed. four culprits. the concept of impossible crime has been modified by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Intod v. A and B are neighbors. 2. A thought of killing B so A climbed the house of B through the window and stabbed B on the heart. then that will be the proper way. thus. In the Intod case. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property. Otherwise. regardless of whether the wrongful act was an impossible crime against persons or against property. /vvverga Page 34 of 100 . The attitude was so because Article 4 of the Code provides two situations where criminal liability shall be incurred. all four fired at and riddled said room with bullets. If you want to play safe. believing she was there when in fact she was not. considering the lawlessness by which the culprits carried out the intended crime. we have to respect its ruling. As a result. the culprits set fire on the intended victim’s house. just to teach the offender a lesson because of his criminal perversity. CA. the prevailing attitude was that the provision of the Revised Penal Code on impossible crime would only apply when the wrongful act. Although the act done by A against B constitutes an impossible crime. the penalty is fixed at arresto mayor or a fine from P200.. unknown to the culprits. Criminal liability – Criminal liability shall be By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act be different from that which he intended. yet it is a principle of criminal law that he will only be penalized for an impossible crime if he cannot be punished under some other provision of the Revised Penal Code. but because the act would have given rise to a crime against persons or against property.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) 7. all armed with firearms and with intent to kill. could not and did not constitute another felony. et al. Some asked questions: Was it really the impossibility of accomplishing the killing that brought about its non-accomplishment? Was it not purely accidental that the Vena V. There is no logic in applying paragraph 2 of Article 4 to a situation governed by paragraph 1 of the same Article. thinking that the intended victim was already there as it was about 10:00 in the evening. An impossible crime is a crime of last resort. depending on the “social danger and degree of criminality shown by the offender” (Article 59). Because criminal liability for impossible crime presupposes that no felony resulted from the wrongful act done. If the question is “Is an impossible crime is committed?”. and so some members of the bench and bar spoke out against the soundness of the ruling. It so happened that the intended victim did not come home on the evening and so was not in her bedroom at that time. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment but the Supreme Court modified the same and held the petitioner liable only for the so-called impossible crime. would the criminal liability be for an impossible crime? Until the Intod case. the criminal liability should be for such other felony and not for an impossible crime. Somehow. the same is penalized to repress criminal tendencies to curtail their frequency.

For example. that act is already trespassing. you are not allowed to speculate. if the offender has performed all the acts of execution which should produce the felony as a consequence but the felony was not realized. Literally. the acts so far performed may already be a crime or it may be just an ingredient of another crime. not the felony he has in his mind. but apply the provisions of the law of the facts given. The penalties are graduated according to their degree of severity. whether the taxpayer pays the amount being demanded or not. there is such a thing as preparatory act. and the court finds that there is no law applicable. under the article. in oral defamation. The word "directly’" emphasizes the requirement that the attempted felony is that which is directly linked to the overt act performed by the offender. Overt act begins when the husband mixed the poison with the food his wife is going to take. the court will acquit the accused and the judge will give his opinion that the said act should be punished. In the attempted stage. The proper judgment is acquittal. the law uses the word “demanding”. Payment of the amount being demanded is not essential to the consummation of the crime. in illegal exaction under Article 213 is a crime committed when a public officer who is authorized to collect taxes. if the act so far being done does not begin a felony. they parted ways. it is always in the consummated stage. The purpose of classifying penalties is to bring about a proportionate penalty and equitable punishment. not to imagine what crime is intended. Formal crimes Formal crimes are crimes which are consummated in one instance. Where the court finds the penalty prescribed for the crime too harsh considering the conditions surrounding the commission of he crime. In the attempted stage. Article 5 covers two situations: (1) The court cannot convict the accused because the acts do not constitute a crime. there is no attempted oral defamation or frustrated oral defamation. A thought of eliminating B and to poison her. A met C who was willing to marry him. So. So also. he met D. Under sub-paragraph a of Article 213 on Illegal exaction. But the act of entering is an ingredient of robbery with force upon things. the judge should impose the law. licenses or impose for the government. So the policemen went to A’s house and found A still unwrapping the arsenic poison. but the court is mandated to report to the Chief Executive that said act be made subject of penal legislation and why. D asked him who was sick in the family. If the offender has not yet performed all the acts of execution – there is yet something to be performed – but he was not able to perform all the acts of execution due to some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. he went to the drugstore and bought arsenic poison. A and B are husband and wife. Police arrested him and charged him with attempted parricide. Is the charge correct? No. there is no attempted stage yet. then you have an attempted felony. criminal liability correspondingly does not begin.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) NO CRIME UNLESS THERE IS A LAW PUNISHING IT When a person is charged in court. the definition uses the word “directly”. Verga The difference between the attempted stage and the frustrated stage lies on whether the offender has performed all the acts of execution for the accomplishment of a felony. When a person starts entering the dwelling of another. After that. There are felonies which do not admit of division. In criminal law. The stages may not apply to all kinds of felonies. but he is already married. But even certain crimes which are punished under the Revised Penal Code do not admit of these stages. then the crime is already in the frustrated stage. Mere demanding of an amount different from what the law authorizes him to collect will already consummate a crime. These acts do not give rise to criminal liability. An overt act is that act which if allowed to continue in its natural course would definitely result into a felony. This is significant. Not any act will mark the beginning of a felony. You could only hold him liable for attempted robbery when he has /vvverga Page 35 of 100 . and therefore. You will notice that the felony begins when the offender performs an overt act. On the way out. In criminal law. Vena V. D went directly to the police and reported that A is going to kill his wife. The policemen asked A if he was planning to poison B and A said yes. shall demand an amount bigger than or different from what the law authorizes him to collect. Before this. A confided to D that he bought the poison to poison his wife in order to marry C. (2) Question & Answer STAGES IN THE COMMISSION OF FELONY The classification of stages of a felony in Article 6 are true only to crimes under the Revised Penal Code. The most that he could do is to recommend to the Chief Executive to grant executive clemency. This does not apply to crimes punished under special laws.

He would not be there just to sleep there. In abduction. The desistance was with the second shot and would not affect the first shot because the first shot had already hit B. the attempted stage is only that overt act which is directly linked to the felony intended to be committed. but the latter screamed. In US v. In another instance. found out that B was nude. The second attempt has nothing to do with the first. and (2) illegal possession of picklocks and similar tools. A had always been looking at B and had wanted to possess her but their status were not the same. If you were to prosecute this fellow. I will kill you. but there may be other felony constituting his act. The crime is not attempted abduction but acts of lasciviousness. The act of entering alone is not yet indicative of robbery although that may be what he may have planned to commit. In law. Desistance is true only in the attempted stage of the felony. The attempted felony is erased by desistance because the offender spontaneously desisted from pursuing the acts of execution.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) already completed all acts performed by him directly leading to robbery. Illustrations: A fired at B and B was hit on the shoulder. He was already able to detach two wood panels. But in criminal law. Can a be accused of attempted rape? No. and The nature of the crime itself. by themselves. after A saw B at her house and thought that B was already asleep. the Supreme Court held it is only attempted trespass because that is the crime that can be directly linked to his act of removing the wood panel. not an attempt to rob. Qualified trespass because he did so by cutting through the screen. Vena V. so far as could be reasonably linked to the overt act done by him. not complex because one is not necessary means to commit the other. which is not intended for entrance. that there is no more felony committed. the accused was arrested while he was detaching some of the wood panels of a store. because there was desistance. He may be liable for a consummated felony constituted by his act of trespassing. But B's wound was not mortal. he entered the house of B through the window to abuse her. Other than that. He can only be prosecuted for trespass. The crime committed is attempted homicide and not physical injuries. In deciding whether a felony is attempted or frustrated or consummated. no amount of desistance will negate criminal liability. In so far the woman being carried is concerned. He. To a layman. it is always presumed to be against the will of the owner. since the act of removing the panel indicates only at most the intention to enter. You only hold him liable for an attempt. but which are. she may already be the victim of lascivious acts. The attempted stage was erased because the offender desisted after having commenced the commission of the felony. What is negated is only the attempted stage. Dwelling is taken as an aggravating circumstance so he will be prosecuted for attempted rape aggravated by dwelling. Although. he can be prosecuted for two crimes: (1) qualified trespass to dwelling. Even though there was desistance on the part of the offender. if the desistance was made when acts done by him already resulted to a felony. already criminal offenses. One evening. for what crime are you going to prosecute him? The act done by him of entering through an opening not intended for the purpose is only qualified trespass. Thus. the act done is already in the frustrated stage. It does not mean. Do not go far and imagine what you should do. If under the definition of the felony.” But A took pity and kept the revolver and left. under Article 304 of the Revised Penal Code. the only conclusion that will come to your mind is that this fellow started to enter the store to steal something. Namaja. What A then did was to approach B. Verga The spontaneous desistance of the offender negates only the attempted stage but not necessarily all criminal liability. and A went out of the window again. your desire may lead to acts of lasciviousness. “Now you are dead. illegal possession of picklocks and similar tools is a crime. The elements of the crime. that offender will still be criminally liable for the felony brought about his act. he could not be prosecuted for qualified trespass. He found out that the man entered his sala by cutting the screen on his window. and told B. there are three criteria involved: (1) (2) (3) The manner of committing the crime. Desistance Desistance on the part of the offender negates criminal liability in the attempted stage. A has a very seductive neighbor in the person of B. /vvverga Page 36 of 100 . There are some acts which are ingredients of a certain crime. however. There was force applied in order to enter. Question & Answer A awakened one morning with a man sleeping in his sofa. so he lost interest and left. When A entered the house through the window. If the offender proceeded to abuse the woman. Beside the man was a bag containing picklocks and similar tools. Namaja was prosecuted for attempted robbery. however. because there was an intention to kill. The removal of the panelling is just an attempt to trespass. which prevented the crime from being consummated.

If you have bribery only. there is no bribery. there is consummated bribery or consummated corruption. An example of this is the crime of rape. No matter what the offender may do to accomplish a penetration. For instance. if only one side of the crime is present. but actually. the crime is consummated. Verga Manner of committing a crime For example. do not think that because the public officer already had the money in his possession. That thinking does away with the concept of the crime that it requires two to commit. The public officer received the money but just the same. This is because the manner of consummating the crime does not admit of attempt or frustration. It is in such felonies that the frustrated stage does not exist because without the felony being accomplished.the giver and the receiver. Only attempted or consummated. A corruptor gives money to a public officer for the latter not to prosecute him. only corruption. There is no middle ground when the link is there and when the link is absent. When the giver delivers the money to the supposed receiver. the crime is already frustrated bribery. The reasoning is that one cannot say that the offender. if there is a meeting of the minds. Similarly. If the one to whom the demand was made pretended to give. unless a part of the premises has begun to burn. no frustrated stage. As far as the stage is concerned. There is no frustrated adultery. It is not possible for him to perform all the acts of execution because in the first place. This is also true in the crime of arson. This is because it requires the link of two participants. bribery is the crime of the receiver not the giver. On the other hand. arrested him. if such link is absent. the crime of adultery. that means that the offender has not yet performed all the acts of execution. Because of this reasoning by the Court of Appeals in People v. the offense is consummated. You will notice that under the Revised Penal Code. If the public officer was arrested. No penetration at all. there is only an attempted stage. they cannot arise without the other. There are instances where an intended felony could already result from the acts of execution already done. consummated. In short. He received the money to have evidence of corruption. Do not think that because the corruptor has already delivered the money. and. But indirect bribery is always consummated. (Incidentally. there is no way of stating that the offender has already performed all the acts of execution. the Supreme Court followed the analysis that one cannot say that the offender in the crime of arson has already performed all the acts of execution which would /vvverga Page 37 of 100 . The manner of committing the crime requires the meeting of the minds between the giver and the receiver. Actually. the common concept of bribery is that it is the act of one who corrupts a public officer. the receiver has no intention of being corrupted. it cannot be said that the offender has performed all the acts of execution. In arson. the money was marked and this was delivered to the public officer. Actually. it requires the connection of the offender and the offended party. rape admits only of the attempted and consummated stages. In rape. you cannot have a consummated corruption without the corresponding consummated bribery. the frustrated stage is already standing on the consummated stage except that the outcome did not result. the corruption is already beyond the attempted stage. the corruptor turns down the demand.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. or accept any promise or present in consideration thereof. If you have a corruption only. there are felonies where the offender can only be determined to have performed all the acts of execution when the resulting felony is already accomplished. no matter how slight. the crime is consummated. It does not require that the entire premises be burned to consummate arson. We can only say that the offender in rape has performed all the acts of execution when he has effected a penetration. You will notice this from the nature of the crime requiring two participants. This is because the supposed corruptor has no intention to corrupt. Once there is penetration already. it is only possible in the attempted stage. Giving the idea that these are independent crimes. Slightest penetration or slightest connection. there is only an attempted adultery. in the crime of arson. the frustrated stage of arson has been eased out. there could hardly be a frustrated stage. let us take the crime of bribery. If that link is there. Can the crime of frustrated bribery be committed? No. therefore. has already performed all the acts of execution which could produce the destruction of the premises through the use of fire. Because of that. Orita. It does not admit of the frustrated stage. but he had reported the matter to higher authorities. This leaves out the frustrated stage because of the manner of committing the crime. if there was no penetration yet. Bribery is the crime of the public officer who in consideration of an act having to do with his official duties would receive something.) The confusion arises from the fact that this crime requires two to commit -. there is no way of determining whether the offender has already performed all the acts or not. This was the ruling in the case of People v. Without the resulting felony. it is only attempted bribery. Garcia. On the other hand. the frustrated stage overlaps the consummated stage. The crime of the giver is corruption of public official. but there is no meeting of the minds. when it takes two to commit the crime. he has already performed all the acts of execution. Hence. There cannot be a consummated bribery without the corresponding consummated corruption. If it has not begun to burn. the only act done by the giver is an attempt. The essence of the crime is carnal knowledge. when a public officer demands a consideration by official duty. there is no meeting of the minds. For this reason. Because of this. it is possible only in the attempted stage. The law called the crime of the giver as corruption of public official and the receiver as bribery. the moment it begins to burn. that is already an indication that the premises have begun to burn. the moment any particle of the premises intended to be burned is blackened.

If the felony does not follow as a consequence. but also his belief. the crime has already passed the subjective phase and. the offender had tried to burn the premises by gathering jute sacks laying these inside the room. the Supreme Court considered not only the acts of the offender. In US v. You will notice that under the Revised Penal Code. the analysis in the case of US v. Actually. it is consummated. The attempted stage is said to be within the subjective phase of execution of a felony. This case was much the way before the decision in the case of People v. somebody holds that arm. This being so. he believed that he has performed all the acts of execution and that it is only a matter of time that the premises will burn. you cannot say that the offender believed that he had performed all the acts of execution. lighted the same. The fact that the occupant of the other room came out and put out the fire is a cause independent of the will of the perpetrator. The reason is because we can hardly determine whether the offender has performed all the acts of execution that would result in arson. has begun to burn. This was applied in the case of US v. Questions & Answers /vvverga Page 38 of 100 . On the other hand. He lighted these. if he could have continued committing those acts but he himself did not proceed because he believed that he had done enough to consummate the crime. If you say physical injuries. Valdez is still correct.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) produce the arson as a consequence. But even then. frustrated or consummated. like physical injuries. the Vena V. where the offender. in law. There was not even a single burn of any instrument or agency of the crime. Here. He reasoned out that the crime would be frustrated because the offender was able to perform all the acts of execution which would bring about the felony were it not for a cause independent of the will of the perpetrator. The trouble is that. The court held that what was committed was frustrated arson. torch burned out. The explanation is academic. The occupants of the room put out the fire. the situation is different. He explained that by going through the definition of an attempted and a frustrated felony under Article 6. The reason for this is because the offender was not able to perform all the acts of execution to bring about physical injuries. no matter how small. Valdez. That although the offender may not have done the act to bring about the felony as a consequence. Supreme Court said the subjective phase has passed. There are also certain crimes that do not admit of the attempted or frustrated stage. If the felony follows as a consequence. If he has reached that point where he can no longer control the ensuing consequence. so he ran away. the court does not only consider the definition under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code. in determining whether the felony is attempted. Valdez is correct. frustrated. it is already frustrated. if a person who was about to give a fist blow to another raises his arms. arson is consummated. Valdez. he had no reason not to believe that the fire would spread. It is already on the consummated or frustrated stage depending on whether a felony resulted. On the subjective phase. or the stages of execution of the felony. This is because consummated arson does not require that the whole of the premises be burned. unless and until a part of the premises had begun to burn. the offended party was able to sidestep away from the blow. having already put kerosene on the jute sacks. the moment a particle or a molecule of the premises has blackened. the offender who put the torch over the house of the offended party. If the felony did not result. less serious or slight. unless a part of the premises has started to burn. it is either already frustrated or consummated. Verga But the torch which was lighted could easily burn the roof of the nipa hut. In that case. The analysis made by the Court of Appeals is still correct: that they could not demonstrate a situation where the offender has performed all the acts of execution to bring about the crime of arson and the situation where he has not yet performed all the acts of execution. One of the known commentators in criminal law has advanced the view that the crime of physical injuries can be committed in the attempted as well as the frustrated stage. therefore. it is that point in time when the offender begins the commission of an overt act until that point where he loses control of the commission of the crime already. the crime of physical injuries is penalized on the basis of the gravity of the injuries. This is because. Garcia. Garcia was handed down and the Court of Appeals ruled that there is no frustrated arson. it is no longer attempted. It is enough that any part of the premises. You have to categorize because there are specific articles that apply whether the physical injuries are serious. it is beyond the attempted stage. That act demonstrated that in his mind. but before he could throw the blow. he also stated that the crime of physical injuries may be committed in the frustrated stage when the offender was able to throw the blow but somehow. But in the case of People v. there would be attempted physical injuries. The ruling in the case of US v. When the offender has already passed the subjective stage of the felony. as a consequence. The moment the execution of the crime has already gone to that point where the felony should follow as a consequence. On the other hand. he ran away. in the jurisprudence recognizing the objective phase and the subjective phase. there is no simple crime of physical injuries. the house being a nipa hut. you could not punish the attempted or frustrated stage because you do not know what crime of physical injuries was committed. you do not know which article to apply. The weight of the authority is that the crime of arson cannot be committed in the frustrated stage. and as soon as the jute sacks began to burn.

But as long as the wallet remains on the table. this is where you have to decide whether what was transferred to the offender is juridical possession or physical possession only. If the offender did not receive the personal property. If there is no damage. frustrated or consummated? The crime committed here is serious physical injuries because of the deformity. it is frustrated. there can only be attempted or frustrated theft. That is why we made that distinction between theft and estafa. The crime of theft is already consummated because he already acquired complete control of my wallet. If there is no damage yet. In estafa. Is there an attempted slight physical injuries? thinking must be complete before a crime of theft shall be consummated. do not talk of damage. 2. So the fact that there was plastic surgery applied to B does not relieve the offender from the liability for the physical injuries inflicted. For the crime of estafa to be consummated. A threw muriatic acid on the face of B. not estafa. In law. the offender receives the property. I suddenly started searching him and I found the wallet inside his pocket. three factors must concur: (1) (2) (3) The injury should bring about the ugliness. Therefore. It can only be estafa if what was transferred to him is not only material or physical possession but juridical possession as well. If he has started lifting the wallet. the estafa can only be frustrated or attempted. Elements of the crime In the crime of estafa. In the same manner that when you are discussing the crime of theft. On the other hand. That complete control simply means that the offender has already supplanted his will from the will of the possessor or owner of the personal property involved. B became more handsome. so that there is damage already suffered by the offended party. That cannot be estafa. if it were a crime of theft. What crime is committed? Is it attempted. what is considered is not the artificial or the scientific treatment but the natural healing of the injury. such that he could exercise his own control on the thing. If there is no result. if what was transferred to him was only the physical or material possession of the object. a deformity can be said to exist. there must be misappropriation already done. estafa cannot be considered as consummated. the commentator’s opinion cannot stand because you cannot tell what particular physical injuries was attempted or frustrated unless the consequence is there. the theft is not yet consummated. the offender need not move an inch from where he was. It is consummated. Criminal law cannot stand on any speculation or ambiguity. you do not know. In determining whether a felony is attempted. Illustration: I placed a wallet on a table inside a room. even if the offender succeeded in carting away the personal property involved. He can exercise his will over the wallet already. What is necessary only is intent to gain. you disregard the healing duration of the wound or the medical treatment required by the wound. If he is in the act of trying to take the wallet or place it under. The crime of theft is the one commonly given under Article 6. A stranger comes inside the room. attempted. “Taking” in the concept of theft. When you are discussing estafa. Along this concept of deformity in law. you have to consider the manner of committing the felony. do not talk about intent to gain. Without that carrying away. he does not take it. After the surgery. It is a matter of whether he has already acquired complete control of the personal property involved. the crime of larceny which is equivalent to our crime of theft here requires that the offender must be able to carry away or transport the thing being stolen. this is only theft or none at all.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. There is no real hard and fast rule. This is so because the concept of theft under the Revised Penal Code differs from the concept of larceny under American common law. then there is no problem. Verga 1. The ugliness would not disappear through natural healing process. the recipient may be committing theft. frustrated or consummated. Under American common law. the presumption of innocence would be sacrificed. The crime committed is serious physical injuries. The injuries would have resulted in deformity were it not for timely plastic surgery. damage or intent to cause damage is not an element of theft. In order that in law. the larceny cannot be consummated. It is not a matter of carrying away. not even gain is important. If the personal property was received by the offender. the element of damage is essential before the crime could be consummated. But in receiving the property. The mere intent to derive some profit is enough but the /vvverga Page 39 of 100 . In our concept of theft. simply means exercising control over the thing. the element of the felony and the nature of the felony itself. This is so true when he removed the wallet from the confines of the table. When there is deformity. the plastic surgery applied to B is beside the point. otherwise. You cannot classify the physical injuries. The ugliness must be visible. he can drop this on the floor. gets the wallet and puts it in his pocket. etc. but took the same from the possession of the owner without the latter’s consent.

These were taken from a warehouse. is that. that the receptacle is locked or sealed has nothing to do with the stage of the commission of the crime. Adio and People v. He took the valuables. Hence. Diño. Is he criminally liable? Do not make a mistake by saying that there is a desistance. While taking the table out of the room. the crime is only attempted. the fact that he changed his mind and returned the same will no longer affect his criminal liability. In People v. it is indispensable that the victim be mortally wounded. This is very decisive in the problem because in most problems given in the bar. the return of the owner’s property is not desistance anymore. the accused loaded boxes of rifle on their truck. it is frustrated and in the other. homicide or murder as a result. Espiritu. An exception to the general rule is the so-called subjective phase. the offender. It refers only to whether it is theft or robbery with force upon things. and the wallet is there. When the offender succeeded in bringing the cock out of the coop. so they were not able to leave the compound. When the receptacle is locked or sealed. and murder – in the definition of the frustrated stage. I apprehended him. and the offender broke the same. it is clear that his will completely governed or superseded the will of the owner to keep such cock inside the chicken coop. what were taken were hospital linens. after having taken the object out of the container changed his mind and returned it. in both cases. the acts already done by him must produce or be capable of producing a felony as a consequence. Hospital linens were taken from boxes that were diffused or destroyed and brought out of the hospital. The crime is consummated theft. which was erroneously laid in some commentaries. As long as he has not taken this table out of the four walls of this room. Espiritu. the taking is not complete. the boxes of rifle were stocked file inside the compound of the South Harbor. theft is consummated. the moment he brought it out. When they were on their way out of the South Harbor. It is only frustrated because as far as the table is concern. there is frustrated theft. in the case of People v. He discovered that the fighting cocks were not physically fit for cockfighting so he returned it. The general rule is that there must be a fatal injury inflicted. You cannot talk of desistance anymore when it is already in the consummated stage. Under the definition of the frustrated stage. As far as the crime committed is concerned. it is the perimeter of the compound that is the container. If the wound is not mortal. in lieu of theft. As far as the boxes of rifle are concerned. One evening. it is consummated? In the case of US v. The offender is criminally liable but he will not be civilly liable because the object was returned. If the thing is stolen from a compound or from a room. However. the crime is only frustrated. the control is complete. as long as the object has not been brought out of that room. he was apprehended. The emphasis. It will only affect the civil liability of the crime because he will no longer be required to pay the object. they were checked at the checkpoint. put them in his pocket and was arrested. It turned out that he is not authorized at all and is interested only in the wallet.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) If instead of the wallet. The reason is that the wound inflicted is not capable of bringing about the desired felony of parricide. murder or homicide as a consequence. the accused were on their way out of the supply house when they were apprehended by military police who found them secreting some hospital linen. You do not have to go out of the compound to complete the taking or the control. In this case. But why is it that in one. or from the perimeter of the compound. If the offender has already acquired complete control of what he intended to take. the taking is not complete. From the moment they took it out of the boxes where the owner or the possessor had placed it. This is the confusion raised in the case of US v. the crime was already consummated. On the other hand. In US v. because it is only then that death will follow. Nature of the crime itself In crimes involving the taking of human life – parricide. It was held that what was committed was frustrated Theft. It was held that what was committed was consummated theft. the man who entered the room pretended to carry the table out of the room. not the table. Espiritu. homicide. The return of the thing cannot be desistance Vena V. The Supreme Court has decided cases which applied the subjective standard that when the offender himself believed that he had performed all the acts of /vvverga Page 40 of 100 . A entered the yard of B and opened the chicken coop where B keeps his fighting cocks. the offender is criminally liable and the crime is consummated theft. and before he could leave the room. If the crime is one of theft. it cannot be said that the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would produce parricide. it is the confines of this room that is the container. Diño. desistance is true only in the attempted stage. As long as they were not able to bring these boxes of rifle out of the compound. Illustration: A and B are neighbors. The will of the owner is to keep the fighting cock inside the chicken coop. But if he does not take the valuables but lifts the entire chest. The crime is not yet consummated. and being consummated. A man entered a room and found a chest on the table. Diño compared with People v. it was consummated. He opened it found some valuables inside. the crime is robbery with force upon things. to consider the offender as having performed all the acts of execution. the offenders were not able to pass the checkpoint. Verga because in criminal law.

the sovereignty of the State is not outraged and the tranquility of the public remains undisturbed. A. Reyes manipulated the books as to make them show an apparent credit when in fact Lim Buanco was owing the bank a large sum of money. The crime of conspiracy as known to the common law does not exist under the system embodied in the Spanish Penal Code. Sigue-sigue’s members are predominantly Tagalogs while OXO’s members came from Visayas and Mindanao: Issue: W/N there is conspiracy in this case Decision: A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The information in this case charges the defendants with the crime of estafa. conspiracies punished by RPC (a) conspiracy to commit treason (Art 115) (b) conspiracy to commit rebellion (Art 136) (c) conspiracy to commit sedition (Art 141) 3. This is only true when the law expressly punishes the mere conspiracy. no overt act is necessary to bring about the criminal liability. However. and decide to commit it. otherwise. or a lawful act by unlawful means. Treason. Exception: As provided by Law 2. conspiracy existed between the defendants for the withdrawal of funds from the bank regardless of whether Lim Baunco had funds in the bank to his credit or not. rebellion and sedition. An agreement to commit a crime is a reprehensible act from the viewpoint of morality. The mere conspiracy is the crime itself. the existence of conspiracy assumes pivotal importance in the determination of liability of the perpetrators. The prison riot was an offshoot of the long standing clashes between the warring groups. However. the conspiracy does not bring about the commission of the crime because conspiracy is not an overt act but a mere preparatory act. Generally. Decision: Under the common law. 1. The crime of conspiracy known to the common law is not an indictable offense in the Philippines. even though no mortal wound was inflicted. Verga certain acts as conspiracies and makes them punishable. There is an implied agreement. a felony is committed by two or more malefactors. When several offenders act in a synchronized. CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMITE A FELONY Two ways for conspiracy to exist: (1) (2) There is an agreement. Proposals punished in the code (a) proposal to commit treason (Art 115) (b) Proposal to commit rebellion (Art 136) 4. Issue: W/N the defendants should be charged with conspiracy or estafa. when in resolute execution of a common scheme. but as long as the conspirators do not perform overt acts in furtherance of their malevolent design. a combination of two or more persons to do an unlawful act by lawful means. which defines certain specific acts as conspiracies. Lim Buanco had an account with the said bank and drew large sums of money therefrom by means of checks that were signed by him and endorsed by Reyes. Article 4 of the Penal code says that there is a conspiracy when two or more persons act together for the commission of a crime. and coup d’etat are the only crimes where the conspiracy and proposal to commit to them are punishable. to the prejudice of an individual or public is a distinct offense. and Conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability When conspiracy itself is a crime. rebellion. and provides that a conspiracy to commit a crime is punishable only in the cases in which the law specifically makes them so. and does not attempt to charge them with the crime of conspiracy (a) But of pivotal importance perpetuators of crime in determining liability of PEOPLE vs. PERALTA Facts: The accused were OXO members and were charged for multiple murder for killing three members/sympathizers of the Sigue-Sigue gang during a prison riot. the fact that their acts complimented each other is indicative of the meeting of the minds. coordinated manner. the act is already in the frustrated stage. LIM BUANCO Facts: Defendants are being accused of estafa for defrauding El Banco EspanolFilipino. The participants acted in concert or simultaneously which is indicative of a meeting of the minds towards a common criminal goal or criminal objective. conspiracies punished by special laws (a) commonwealth act no 616 sec. The Penal code defines /vvverga Page 41 of 100 . General Rule: conspiracies and proposals to commit a felony are not punishable Not indictable in the Philippines US vs. sedition. Vena V. 5 (b) RA 1700 Two kinds of conspiracy: (1) (2) Conspiracy as a crime. conspiracy is not a crime except when the law specifically provides for a penalty therefore as in treason.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) execution.

as the offer of money is an overt act in a crime of this nature. Moreover. wherein it is said that "there is an attempt when the guilty person makes a beginning in the commission of a crime by direct. Pudpud : "A conspiracy 'exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. A. Issue: W/N Cabiling is as guilty as his other companions for the murder of Guido. A conflict arose between the victim and one of the defendants when the former accused the latter of land-grabbing lands owned by the former’s grandfather. ELEMENTS OF CONSPIRACY Decision: There is no conspiracy in this case. Two or more persons come to an agreement (US vs. the godson of one of the defendants. PEOPLE vs." the accused. B. According to People v. he approached the treasurer of said treasurer of said province. overt acts and does not perform all of the acts of execution which constitute the crime. B. If such be the case then. Vena V.' The usual phraseology employed in many of the later cases is 'common and joint purpose and design. 'The objective then on the part of the conspirators is to perform an act or omission punishable by law. 212. A. the victim did not support the defendant during the elections. In the case in question the proposal was in fact an "attempt" as defined in article 3 of said code. can not be said to have made a mere proposition. a 1909 decision. Decision: It is urged that the said offer was a mere proposal to commit a crime. three men. OGAPAY Facts: The defendants was said to have conspired to kill Ogapay. The conditions attending its commission and the acts executed may be indicative of a common design to accomplish a criminal purpose and objective. and that under the provisions of article 4 such proposals can only be punished in cases where specific authority therefor is to be found in the Penal Code. Thus the defendant. the act of one is the act of all the others involved and each is to be held to the same degree of liability as the others. Defendant was charged with “attempt" to commit the crime of bribery” Issue: W/N the act is punishable by the RPC. MERE CONSPIRACY AS CONSTITUTING COMMISSION OF CRIME Combinations in restrain of Trade (Art 186) Brigandage (Art 306) Certain violations of the dangerous drugs act MERE PROPOSAL AS OVERT ACT PUNISHED BY LAW: BRIBR NOT ACCEPTED (Art. B. V. a member of said board. C. GLORIA Facts: Gloria was an unsuccessful candidate for election as president of his town. US vs. Upon filing a protest.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) II. Their truck broke down while in the highway causing them to stop. for 'concurrence of wills' or unity of action and purpose. there is a conspiracy CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT A CRIME IS DISTINGUISHED CONSPIRACY AS A MEANS TO COMMIT TO CRIME FROM A. CABILING Facts: The victim was a driver of a truck that was to deliver a truckload of rice to Manila. Verga A. Malilay and People v. IV. That must be their intent. by reason of some cause or action other than his own voluntary desistance. LIABILITY OF CONSPIRATOR determination to commit felony taking part in every detail is not essential PEOPLE vs. What is required is assent to the perpetration of such a misdeed. VII. Note: When conspiracy relates to crime actually committed. and offered and promised to give him the sum of 200 pesos if he would "lend his aid and support to the said protest. it may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated. and its refusal on the part of the official whom it was proposed to bribe alone prevented the consummation of the crime. RPC) Issue: W/N there is conspiracy in the case at bar. Suddenly. /vvverga Page 42 of 100 . Magcomot. B. VI. ELEMENTS OF PROPOSAL A person has decided to commit a crime He proposes its commission to another 1. with several others had the victim killed. III. Guido died from traumatic injuries in the head. if proposal is accepted. Cabiling contends that he could not have killed Guido since he was not the one with the lead pipe. having made an offer of money for the purpose of bribery.’ 'Thus a conspiracy need not be proved be direct evidence. Villarino) Agreement concerns commission of felony (US vs. Figueras) They decide to commit it. There is need in the language of Justice Mapa in the early leading case of United States v. came and attacked the persons inside the truck killing the victim. and that there is nothing in said code which penalizes a proposal to commit the crime of bribery. not a felony but only a means of incurring criminal liability. who previously had a confrontation with one the truck passengers. C.

will your answer be different? There is no crime committed. at the accomplishment of some unlawful object. who were at that time already drunk. the criminal responsibility of several accused is individual. An accomplice is one who cooperates in the execution of the crime by previous or simultaneous acts. provided that he has not taken direct part in the execution of the crime or forced or induced others to execute it. it is necessary to prove who shot and killed the victim.50. Issue: W/N Quinto should be acquitted Decision: It is significant that in the instant case. as mere Presence of the accused at the scene of the crime. inferences presumptions LIABILITY IN ABSENCE OF CONSPIRACY Individual liability A. each of the accused is responsible only for the consequences of his own act. TOLING Facts: The defendants were all found guilty for the crime of Robbery in Band with Homicide. VIII. C. Conspiracy is not proven in this case because it Question & Answer Union A proposed acts of sedition to Union B.50 share in the loot that was promised to him. Quinto’s guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt thus he was acquitted. It is enough that from the individual acts of each accused. B. Alonzo) Solidary indemnity for victim’s indemnity DEGREE OF PROOF REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH CONSPIRACY Same Degree of proof required to establish crime 1. indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiments. Conspiracy implies concert of design and not participation in every detail of execution. which caused his untimely death. In the absence of conspiracy. It is not essential that each conspirator shall take part in every act. It was said that Quinto and his companions. Upon seeing this. The victim went to Francisco’s house. It is settled that where conspiracy is absent. Mere presence at crime scene does not establish conspiracy Positive and convincing Founded on facts and not mere conjectures. or that one should know the exact part to be performed by the other conspirator in the execution of the conspiracy. conspiracy may be inferred although no actual meeting between them to conspire is proved. the nature and extent of appellant's participation. he should be criminally responsible as an accomplice for the crime of robbery. Bolando contends that he did not know of Tolings plan till they were in the barrio. PEOPLE vs. Mere companionship does not establish conspiracy 2. According to Bolando. Every one of the conspirators who took active part in its execution is therefore responsible for all he acts of the others done in the furtherance of the common design. among whom could have been the culprits. in the acts leading to the commission of the felony has not been established by the evidence for the prosecution. IX. or A. does not establish criminal liability. had a heated encounter with the victims in topside café. PEOPLE vs. Proposal to commit sedition is not a crime. E. D. Conspirators need not all join in the agreement at the same time Collective criminal responsibility: Act of one. if any. Is there a crime committed? Assuming Union B accepts the proposal. Toling shot Isabelo thereby killing him. through apparently. in the company of others. Francisco shouted for help. and although he did not directly participate in the robbery he gave moral encouragement to them with his presence and shared in the loot in the amount of Php . QUINTO Facts: The defendants were charged of murder for hitting and inflicting upon the vital parts of Patrolman Butawa’s body mortal gunshot wounds. C. Considering that Bolando after knowing that thy were to rob someone still went with them to the Barrio. were in fact connected and cooperative. the prosecution was not able to establish whether it was really the defendant who killed the victim. /vvverga Page 43 of 100 . act of all (People vs. If it is proved that two or more persons aimed. Issue: W/N Bolando is as guilty as the other defendants Decision: Conspiracy not having been established. by their acts. But if Union B accepts the proposal. He only joined them because of the Php . he went along with Toling because he was afraid to displease the latter and he only learned of their purpose on their way. for the prosecution need not establish that all the parties thereto agreed to every detail in the execution of the crime or that they were actually together at all stages of the conspiracy. In the instant case. it may be reasonably deduced that they had a common plan to commit the felony. Toling an Bolando robbed a certain Francisco Lumpayao. or cooperated in its perpetuation by an indispensable act. there will be conspiracy to commit sedition which is a crime under the Revised Penal Code. each doing a part so that their acts. However. Verga Decision: Yes. Upon seeing Isabelo.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. there is no evidence tending to show conspiracy. does not appear that the appellants had a common design.

unless a co-conspirator was absent from the scene of the crime or he showed up. Do not think that participants are always known to each other. Every crime must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. A law student resented the fact that his brother was killed by A. A conspiracy is possible even when participants are not known to each other. however. or approval of the act. otherwise. the police were caught in traffic causing their delay. A conspiracy of the second kind can be inferred or deduced even though they have not met as long as they acted in concert or simultaneously. There must be an intentional participation in the crime with a view to further the common felonious objective. the crime of all is no longer conspiracy to commit rebellion but rebellion itself. the crime would no longer be the conspiracy but the overt act itself. The wife ran away. Even if none of them has performed the act of rebellion. Illustration: A. it was held that it must be established by positive and conclusive evidence. For as long as none of the conspirators has committed an overt act. Conspiracy is a matter of substance which must be alleged in the information. the act of one is the act of all. When the conspiracy itself is a crime. B had already killed A. But when one of them commits any overt act. but he tried to prevent the commission of the crime As a general rule. anyone who did not appear shall be presumed to have desisted. this cannot be inferred or deduced because there is no overt act. When the conspiracy is just a basis of incurring criminal liability. must have a clear and convincing evidence of its existence. the law student changed his mind so he immediately went to the police and told them to dispatch police officers to prevent B from committing the crime. there was no proposal but a conspiracy. acquiescence to. This legal consequence is not true if the conspiracy is not a crime. Their agreement was to bring about the rebellion on a certain date. Unfortunately. In People v. This was the ruling in People v. But the Supreme Court said that there was desistance so she is not criminally liable. and his desistance negates criminal liability. Pinto. regardless of the degree of injury inflicted by any one of them. They have conspired to execute a crime but the crime involved here is murder and a conspiracy to commit murder is not a crime in itself but merely a basis for incurring criminal liability. When several persons who do not know each other simultaneously attack the victim.000. In this case. for as long as anyone shall desist before an overt act in furtherance of the crime was committed. there must be an overt act done before the co-conspirators become criminally liable. 186 SCRA 5980. All that there is the agreement. it was held that mere knowledge. He hired B to kill A and offered him P50. If the conspiracy is only a basis of criminal liability. On the other hand. The exception to this is if such person who did not appear was the mastermind. without cooperation or at least. We have to observe the distinction between the two because conspiracy as a crime. The goons got hold of her husband and started mauling him. the same may be deduced or inferred from the acts of several offenders in carrying out the commission of the crime. Laurio. This is just a preparatory act. She hired some persons to kill him and pointed at her husband. the word “person” here should not be understood to require a meeting of the coconspirator regarding the commission of the felony. In Taer v. such a desistance would negate criminal liability. 204 SCRA 9. CA. there is no crime yet. agreement to cooperate. So. not by conjectures or speculations.00. All will be liable for the consequences. The existence of a conspiracy may be reasonably inferred from the acts of the offenders when such acts disclose or show a common pursuit of the criminal objective. is not enough to constitute a conspiracy. the court will not consider the same. /vvverga Page 44 of 100 . 200 SCRA 489. indicative of a meeting of the minds toward a common goal or objective. C and D came to an agreement to commit rebellion. Illustration: Three persons plan to rob a bank. so that when they reached the place. In the evening of that same day. if there has been a conspiracy to commit a crime in a particular place. The wife took pity and shouted for them to stop but the goons continued. The wife was prosecuted for parricide. unless there is an overt act. none of the co-conspirators would be liable.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) When the conspiracy is only a basis of incurring criminal liability. Illustrations: A thought of having her husband killed because the latter was maltreating her. Vena V. He disclosed to B that A was being arraigned in the City Hall of Manila and told him to execute the plan on the following day. B. there is already criminal liability arising from the conspiracy to commit the rebellion. all of them shall be held liable. This subsists even though the other co-conspirator does not know that one of them had already done the act of rebellion. Verga Although conspiracy is defined as two or more person coming to an agreement regarding the commission of a felony and deciding to commit it. if the co-conspirator or any of them would execute an overt act. But if anyone of them has committed the overt act of rebellion.

like in a killing. the participants are punished as principals. hence. B and C have been courting the same lady for several years. such that even without his cooperation. do not consider the degree of participation of each conspirator because the act of one is the act of all. A. And when conspiracy exists. in the eyes of the law. if a co-conspirator merely cooperated in the commission of the crime with insignificant or minimal acts. Vena V. it requires two parties. If they acted simultaneously to bring about their common intention. the Supreme Court ruled that even though there was conspiracy. As pointed out earlier. His cooperation was not really indispensable. and they attacked the victim simultaneously. thus. Once the proposal was accepted. That is why he was given only that penalty for an accomplice. all those acts done in pursuance of the crime agreed upon are acts which constitute a single crime. There. they even visited the lady on intervening hours. CA. “When a person has set foot to the path of wickedness and brings back his foot to the path of righteousness. One day. B and C became hostile with one another. A stabbed D. and C. it was held that conspiracy was present. there is only one crime. This is because. there is the rule on collective responsibility since it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the victim. Composite crimes Composite crimes are crimes which. That means the penalty which shall be imposed upon him is one degree lower. so much so that it cannot be known what participation each one had. In this case. They ransacked the house. in substance. what he only extended was his cooperation. the young lady agreed to marry D. C and B followed. there was a planned robbery. The robbers could have engaged another taxi. all are principals. B. Verga The common notion is that when there is conspiracy involved. In the crime of robbery with force upon things. a victim was found dead. Because of this.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Proposal is true only up to the point where the party to whom the proposal was made has not yet accepted the proposal. This notion is no longer absolute. and after committing the robbery I will return later”. In Siton v. Conspiracy is only in the preparatory stage. In the case of People v. and the taxi driver was present during the planning. As a general rule. For example. robbery with physical injuries. /vvverga Page 45 of 100 . one party makes a proposition to the other. the crime could be carried out as well. the conspirators told the taxi driver that they are going to use his taxicab in going to the place of robbery. The taxi driver brought the conspirators where the robbery would be committed. The taxi driver did not really stay during the commission of the robbery.” Where there are several persons who participated. a conspiracy arises. So it is no longer accurate to think that when there is a conspiracy. there is only a preparatory stage. “I will bring you there. it was held that the idea of a conspiracy is incompatible with the idea of a free for all. When A looked back at the young lady with D. he took the conspirators back to his taxi and brought them away. Who should be liable for the killing if who actually killed the victim is not known? There is collective responsibility here. There is no definite opponent or definite intent as when a basketball crowd beats a referee to death. When they fled. a co-conspirator may be held liable only as an accomplice. they all stood up to leave the house of the young lady feeling disappointed. B and C learned about this. Question & Answer There are several offenders who acted simultaneously. conspiracy is bilateral. Proposal is unilateral. conspiracy exists. After the robbery was finished. he saw D laughing menacingly. consist of more than one crime but in the eyes of the law. D invited the young lady and she accepted the invitation. At that instance. broke into a house because they learned that the occupants have gone on an excursion. such co-conspirator should be punished as an accomplice only. B saw a camera and took that. acting out a common criminal intent. A. robbery with rape. Before this stage. In case the crime committed is a composite crime. The Supreme Court has ruled that one who desisted is not criminally liable. Without the principle of conspiracy. The reason given is that penal laws always favor a milder form of responsibility upon an offender. For example. Nierra. the conspirator will be liable for all the acts committed during the commission of the crime agreed upon. Notwithstanding that there is conspiracy. A got a colored TV. There is conspiracy when the offenders acted simultaneously pursuing a common criminal design. all these participants shall be considered as having acted in conspiracy and they will be held collectively responsible. It was held that the taxi driver was liable only as an accomplice. On several occasions. they have equal criminal responsibility. Eventually. At most. When A. under the influence of marijuana. Illustration: A. and C found a can of salmon and took that. the penalty is based on the totality of the value of the personal property taken and not on the individual property taken by him. the law shall reward him for doing so. desistance is true only in the attempted stage. Do not search for an agreement among the participants. nobody would be prosecuted. the crimes of robbery with homicide. The taxi driver agreed but said.

Do not write classification of felonies under Book 2 of the Revised Penal Code. A raped the girl upstairs. B and C are liable because that was agreed upon and theft was not an integral part of homicide. A. 6 and 9. it is well settled that any killing taking place while robbery is being committed shall be treated as a single indivisible offense. and C decided to commit robbery in the house of D. A. It was agreed that A would go the second floor. and culpable felonies or those resulting from negligence. they are classified as. Therefore. As far as the homicide is concerned. and light felonies or those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty is arresto menor. less grave or light? To determine whether these felonies can be complexed or not. frustrated felony when the offender commences the commission of a felony as a consequence but which would produce the felony as a consequence but which nevertheless do not produce the felony by reason of causes independent of the perpetrator. 6 and 9. stages and the penalty attached to them. B and C will be liable for robbery with homicide. The crime committed is robbery with rape. Rape can not be separated from robbery. consummated felony when all the elements necessary for its execution are present. reckless imprudence. less grave felonies or those to which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period was correccional. C will be the only one liable. Felonies are classified as follows: (1) According to the manner of their commission Under Article 3. even though the co-conspirator performed different acts bringing about the composite crime. A would ransack the second floor. and to determine the prescription of the crime and the prescription of the penalty. Exception to the exception: In acts constituting a single indivisible offense. A killed him. lack of foresight or lack of skill. Pursuant to their agreement.. intentional felonies or those committed with deliberate intent. A and B ran into different directions. That was what the examiner had in mind because the question does not require candidate to classify but also to define. A. B and C killed D and after that. Unknown to B and C. and C would stay on the first floor. The crimes committed are homicide and theft. felonies are classified as attempted felony when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts. but an indivisible felony under the Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. B. and C stands guard outside. B was to wait outside. Even if B and C did not know that rape was being committed and they agreed only and conspired to rob. (3) CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES Vena V. yet rape was part of robbery. B would stay in the first floor. B and C agreed to kill D. The rule would be different if the crime committed was not a composite crime. these are felonies classified according to their gravity. the examiner was after classifications under Articles 3. A. felonies are classified as grave felonies or those to which attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive. Why is it necessary to determine whether the crime is grave. When they saw the opportunity. This is because. Take note that when the Revised Penal Code the not the the /vvverga Page 46 of 100 .Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Illustrations: A. The exception is if any of the co-conspirator would commit a crime not agreed upon. They can only evade responsibility for any other crime outside of that agreed upon if it is proved that the particular conspirator had tried to prevent the commission of such other act. This happens when the crime agreed upon and the crime committed by one of the co-conspirators are distinct crimes. This principle applies only to the crime agreed upon. the owner was awakened. While A was ransacking the second floor. All went to their designated areas in pursuit of the plan. when there is conspiracy. which is not a complex crime. Verga This question was asked in the bar examination: How do you classify felonies or how are felonies classified? What the examiner had in mind was Articles 3. Illustration: A. (2) According to the stages of their execution Under Article 6. the rule is that the act of one is the act of all. In other words. C inspected the pocket of the victim and found that the victim was wearing a ring – a diamond ring – and he took it. So C will be liable for homicide and theft. All of them will be liable for robbery with rape. As a general rule. According to their gravity Under Article 9. This is a distinct crime so the rule will not apply because it was not the crime agreed upon. and. Insofar as the crime of theft is concerned. B and C agreed to rob the house of D. all will be liable for such crime. 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.

crimes prescribe in two months. If in the course of cattle rustling. Presidential Decree No. If the penalty is fine and exactly P200. If the penalty is exactly P200. If the crime is correctional. if needed to avoid an injustice. Thias was the ruling in People v. the fine of P200. It is considered as correctional penalty and it prescribes in 10 years. and Alternative circumstances. If the offender is apprehended at any time within ten years. because Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code may be given suppletory application to prevent an injustice from being done to the offended party.00. If the offender escapes while in detention after he has been loose. there is a reservation “provision of the Revised Penal Code may be applied suppletorily to special laws”. The stages of the commission of felonies will also apply since suppletory application is now allowed. because violations of the Revised Penal Code are more serious than a violation of a special law. a special law punishes a certain act as a crime. apply Article 26. If no justice would result. After two months. This classification of felony according to gravity is important with respect to the question of prescription of crimes. Article 100 states that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. In the crime of sedition. Martinada.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) speaks of grave and less grave felonies. the offender cannot be prosecuted for murder. it was held that the use of arms is an element of rebellion. observe the distinction.00 is considered a correctional penalty under Article 26. In People v. Mitigating circumstances. If the fine is imposed as an alternative penalty or as a single penalty. 7659. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) by Republic Act No. except arresto mayor. 6425 does not expressly prohibit the suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code. Aggravating circumstances. the use of firearms is not an ingredient of the crime. A violation of a special law can never absorb a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code. is not a special law. the state loses the right to prosecute unless the running period is suspended. murder was committed. and (2) illegal possession of firearms. considering that the special law is silent on this point? Yes. punishing cattle-rustling. 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 crime in the Revised Penal Code. Here is a person who violated the special law and he was prosecuted. 533. May the court pronounce that he is civilly liable to the offended party. Exempting circumstances. means that mitigating and aggravating circumstances can now be considered in imposing penalties. Hence. For example. But do not think that when a crime is punished outside of the Revised Penal Code.00. it is already a special law. if there was already judgment that was passed. SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE Article 10 is the consequence of the legal requirement that you have to distinguish those punished under special laws and those under the Revised Penal Code. if he would not be indemnified for the damages or injuries sustained by him. Murder would be a qualifying circumstance in the crime of qualified cattle rustling. The amendments of Presidential Decree No. Do not omit the phrase “In accordance with Article 25” because there is also a classification of penalties under Article 26 that was not applied. In Article 10. so a rebel cannot be further prosecuted for possession of firearms. The special law is silent as to the civil liability of one who violates the same. the definition makes a reference specifically to Article 25 of the Revised Penal Code. So Presidential Decree No. Rodriguez. which prescribes in five years. do not give suppletorily application of the Revised Penal Code to that of special law. In the case of light felonies. With regard to Article 10. it is only considered a light felony under Article 9. There are two others which are found elsewhere in the provisions of the Revised Penal Code: /vvverga Page 47 of 100 . Circumstances affecting criminal liability There are five circumstances affecting criminal liability: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Justifying circumstances. Verga would be caused to the private offended party. For example. That article shall be applied suppletory to avoid an injustice that Vena V. which adopted the scale of penalties in the Revised Penal Code. His violation caused damage or injury to a private party. You will only apply the provisions of the Revised Penal Code as a supplement to the special law. he can be made to suffer the fine. it can be promulgated even if absent under the New Rules on Criminal Procedure. It can absorb the crime of murder. or simply correlate the violated special law. it prescribes in ten years. two prosecutions can be had: (1) sedition. the crime of cattle-rustling is not a mala prohibitum but a modification of the crime theft of large cattle.

descendant. The law enforcers told the undercover man that if he is offered a cigarette. there is no criminal liability. Article 20 provides that the penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses. Entrapment involves only ways and means which are laid down or resorted to facilitate the apprehension of the culprit. a criminal design is already in the mind of the person entrapped. Illustrations: An agent of the narcotics command had been tipped off that a certain house is being used as an opium den by prominent members of the society. swindling and malicious mischief. Vena V. Absolutory cause has the effect of an exempting circumstance and they are predicated on lack of voluntariness like instigation. although not from civil liability. But instigation absolves the offender from criminal liability because in instigation. then he should try it to find out whether it is loaded with dangerous drugs or not. Then. and Marriage of the offended woman as provided in Article 344. not the burden of proof. It has the same effect as an exempting circumstance. the offender simply acts as a tool of the law enforcers and. Article 89 provides how criminal liability is extinguished: Death of the convict as to the personal penalties. before such property had passed on to the possession of third parties. he would not have done the criminal act which he did upon instigation of the law enforcers. hence.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) (1) (2) Absolutory cause. Do not consider culpa in connection with instigation. are incompatible with dolo. Amnesty. Under Article 247. and rape. acts of lasciviousness. or relatives by affinity within the same degrees with the exception of accessories who profited themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime. Prescription of the crime. Verga Under Article 219. descendants. but you do not call it as such in order not to confuse it with the circumstances under Article 12. Instigation is associated with criminal intent. abduction. ascendant. the criminal plan or design exists in the mind of the law enforcer with whom the person instigated cooperated so it is said that the person instigated is acting only as a mere instrument or tool of the law enforcer in the performance of his duties. therefore. legitimate. in cases of seduction. In instigation. and as to pecuniary penalties. he is acting without criminal intent because without the instigation. in entrapment. On the other hand. It is confused with entrapment. ascendants. brother and sister-in-law living together or where in case the widowed spouse and the property involved is that of the deceased spouse. there is no criminal liability but only civil liability. Absolute pardon. Under Article 332. This fellow went to the place and mingled there. the crime is committed with dolo. in the case of theft. What is shifted is only the burden of evidence. do not talk of instigation. Prescription of the penalty. In justifying and exempting circumstances. Service of the sentence. Absolutory cause The effect of this is to absolve the offender from criminal liability. Entrapment is not an absolutory cause. when the offender and the offended party are related as spouse. natural and adopted brothers and sisters. Justifying circumstances contemplate intentional acts and. he in effect admits the commission of a crime but tries to avoid the liability thereof. liability therefor is extinguished if death occurs before final judgment. The law enforcers cannot themselves penetrate the house because they do not belong to that circle so what they did was to convince a prominent member of society to visit such house to find out what is really happening inside and that so many cars were congregating there. If the crime is culpable. and Extenuating circumstances. It did not emanate from the mind of the law enforcer entrapping him. a legally married person who kills or inflicts physical injuries upon his or her spouse whom he surprised having sexual intercourse with his or her paramour or mistress in not criminally liable. Exempting circumstances may be invoked in culpable felonies. Difference between instigation and entrapment In instigation. When an accused invokes them. the marriage of the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action. Entrapment does not exempt the offender or mitigate his criminal liability. The burden is upon him to establish beyond reasonable doubt the required conditions to justify or exempt his acts from criminal liability. discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence of the ward by their guardian is not penalized. /vvverga Page 48 of 100 . Under Article 344.

there is criminal liability. and if the circumstance is not among those enumerated in Article 12. He was only there upon instigation of the law enforcers. Defense is instigation. In case of somnambulism or one who acts while sleeping. refer to the circumstance as an absolutory cause. to whom the package was brought to found it to be marijuana. the person. “Are you selling that? How much? Could you bring that to the other fellow there?” When he brought it there. In entrapment. Even without selling. a law enforcer pretended to be a buyer of marijuana. He approached a person suspected to be a pusher and prevailed upon this person to sell him two kilos of dried marijuana leaves and this fellow gave him and delivered them. The idea is incompatible with each other because in entrapment. If not. Mistake of fact is not absolutory cause. The law enforcer asked him. the person entrapped is actually engaged in a violation of the law. A fellow wants to make money. Is he criminally liable? No. In instigation. This is a case of inducement. because he would not have come out for the marijuana leaves if the law enforcer had not instigated him. both will be criminally liable. If element of voluntariness is absent. In another instance. the offender is already committing a crime. There is absence of criminal intent. the raid was conducted and he was among those prosecuted for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. you cannot have a case of instigation. is to discover whether the crime is committed. there is no criminal liability. he would not be there. He is moving like a robot. this has the same effect as mitigating circumstances. If the person instigated does not know that the person is instigating him is a law enforcer or he knows him to be not a law enforcer. Vena V. It is not even mitigating. It would be contrary to public policy to prosecute a citizen who only cooperated with the law enforcer. This is entrapment. Is he criminally liable? Yes. The private citizen believes that he is a law enforcer and that is why when the law enforcer tells him. The means employed by the law enforcer did not make the accused commit a crime. This is based on the rule that a person cannot be a criminal if his mind is not criminal. Selling is not necessary to commit the crime. he is not committing a crime. Entrapment is not an absolutory cause because in entrapment. The law enforcer is only ascertaining if this fellow is selling marijuana leaves. without which he would not have been a criminal. because there is no mistake of fact anymore. Verga If the instigator is a law enforcer. the private citizen only cooperates with the law enforcer to a point when the private citizen upon instigation of the law enforcer incriminates himself. When that fellow was delivering the package. although there is civil liability. the person entrapped should not know that the person trying to entrap him was a law enforcer. This is a case of entrapment and not instigation. so this is entrapment. He was approached by a law enforcer and was asked if he wanted to deliver a package to a certain person. The officer who entrapped him only lays down ways and means to have evidence of the commission of the crime. both will be criminally liable. nobody would offer him a cigarette because he is unknown. On his own.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) The time came when he was offered a stick of cigarette and he tried it to see if the cigarette would affect him. A policeman suspected a fellow selling marijuana. The reason he is there is because he cooperated with the law enforcers. On the other hand. The offender must believe he is performing a lawful act. because it is the law enforcer who planted that criminal mind in him to commit the crime. entrapment is not an absolutory cause. So the element of voluntariness which is necessary in dolo and culpa is not present. but even without those ways and means. it is necessary that had the facts been true as the accused believed them to be. The law enforcer ascertained if it is a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. mere possession is already a crime. Somnambulism is an absolutory cause. Unfortunately. If the instigator is not a law enforcer. the offender was already committing a crime. this act is justified. If the law enforcer were able to enter the house and mingle there. Instigation absolves the person instigated from criminal liability. he believes that it is a civil duty to cooperate. Even if the law enforcer did not ask for a cigarette. It is a case of entrapment because the fellow is already committing the crime from the mere fact that he is possessing marijuana. Is he criminally liable? This is a case of instigation. he pleaded to spare him a smoke so this fellow handed to him the cigarette he was smoking and found out that it was loaded with a dangerous drug. The element which makes instigation an absolutory cause is the lack of criminal intent as an element of voluntariness. there is a crime committed by him: illegal possession of dangerous drugs. unaware of what he is doing. Even without bringing. because he is asleep. he is already possessing the marijuana. this is not a case of instigation. who happens to be a law enforcer. not instigation. He apprehended the fellow. When he saw somebody. he was apprehended. The fact that he was appointed to another person to find out its contents. So in mistake of fact. only you do not call it mitigating because this is not found in Article 13. In other words. the person entrapped is actually committing a crime. He arrested the fellow. the person involved is definitely acting without freedom and without sufficient intelligence. Extenuating circumstances The effect of this is to mitigate the criminal liability of the offender. The offender is acting without criminal intent. the person instigated cannot be criminally liable. Illustrations: /vvverga Page 49 of 100 . How can one sell marijuana if he is not in possession thereof. Defense was that he would not give a cigarette if he was not asked.

Mere provocation is not enough. at the time she was abandoned by her husband. penalty is lowered by two degrees. Distinctions between circumstances justifying circumstances and exempting (3) Vena V. Never confuse unlawful aggression with provocation. (4) When you apply for justifying or exempting circumstances. however. It only extenuates or reduces criminal liability. but the actor acted without voluntariness. In exempting circumstances – (1) The circumstances affect the actor. Illustration: A and B are long standing enemies. The concealment of honor by mother in the crime of infanticide is an extenuating circumstance but not in the case of parricide when the age of the victim is three days old and above. he approached the latter in a menacing manner with a bolo in his hand. The act complained of is considered to have been done within the bounds of law. and because there is no crime. The concealment of dishonor is an extenuating circumstance insofar as the unwed mother or the maternal grandparents is concerned. But there is no criminal liability. It cannot be characterized as an unlawful aggression because in criminal law. In the facts of the problem given above. when A saw B one afternoon. /vvverga Page 50 of 100 . this can only be justified if it was done to save the life of the person defending or the person being defended. Since the act is considered lawful. There is no criminal. One who is a kleptomaniac and who would steal objects of his desire is criminally liable. When the effect of the circumstance is to lower the penalty there is an extenuating circumstance. but not insofar as the father of the child is concerned. depriving him of the consciousness of his act. Since there is a material lowering of the penalty or mitigating the penalty. killing him. Because of their continuous quarrel over the boundaries of their adjoining properties.” Self Defense In justifying circumstances. there must be always unlawful aggression. the act of B in shooting A is not justified. not the act. Since there is a crime committed but there is no criminal. Therefore. B pulled out a revolver and shot A on the chest. it is the element of unlawful aggression that is in issue. there is civil liability for the wrong done. If the unlawful aggressor was killed. there is neither criminal nor civil liability. this is an extenuating circumstance. Mother killing her new born child to conceal her dishonor. is it necessary for her to seek the company of another man. Since there is no crime or criminal. if any? The act of A is nothing but a provocation. it is legitimate and lawful in the eyes of the law. When he was about five feet away from B. That bolo does not produce any real or imminent danger unless a raises his arm with the bolo. As long as that arm of A was down holding the bolo. there is a crime. Is B criminally liable? What crime was committed. not the actor. Verga The act complained of is actually wrongful. there is no criminal liability as well as civil liability. there is no crime. there is no imminent danger to the life or limb of B. in paragraphs 4 and 7 of Article 12. what was said was that A was holding a bolo. In the crime of adultery on the part of a married woman abandoned by her husband. This is not exempting. there is no criminal. Since the act complained of is actually wrongful. When this is given in the bar. that of suffering from an illness which diminishes the exercise of his will power without. hence. it is confession and avoidance and burden of proof shifts to the accused and he can no longer rely on weakness of prosecution’s evidence Justifying circumstances Since the justifying circumstances are in the nature of defensive acts. there is absence of dolo or culpa. But he would be given the benefit of a mitigating circumstance analogous to paragraph 9 of Article 13. So this is an extenuating circumstance. He is a mere tool or instrument of the crime.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) (2) An unwed mother killed her child in order to conceal a dishonor. A kleptomaniac is one who cannot resist the temptation of stealing things which appeal to his desire. The equation is “life was taken to save life. In justifying circumstances – (1) (2) (3) (4) The circumstance affects the act. an unlawful aggression is an attack or a threatened attack which produces an imminent danger to the life and limb of the one resorting to self-defense. the most important is self-defense. But because the actor acted without voluntariness. The reasonableness of the means employed depends on the gravity of the aggression. Abandonment by the husband does not justify the act of the woman. The effect is to mitigate the criminal liability. However.

it has the effect of lowering the penalty by one to two degrees. The shooting was not justified.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. she realized that she had stabbed her brother-in-law. a woman went into the house of another woman whom she suspected of having an affair with her husband. where there were so many people. It was held that the hacking was not justified. she got a pair of scissors and stabbed the man. She started pouring gasoline on the house of the woman. if the relative defended is still within the coverage of defense of relative. She could not possibly be raped in that place. he started emptying the revolver of the other policeman who was lying on the floor. this policeman who was shot at the thigh was already able to get hold of the revolver. At that moment. The policeman who shot the other guy fell on the floor. Do not confuse unlawful aggression with provocation. But while there may be no justifying circumstance. That is the focal point. the condition that a person making the defense did not act out of revenge. Defense of honor here is being equated with one of abuse of chastity of a woman. In US v. The accused claimed as having acted in defense of her honor and mistake of fact. Actually. But if it is privileged. It was held that the whole matter is purely her imagination. Apparently. the offended party placed his hand on the thigh of the woman who was then praying. On that point. the one who jumped out of the house was able to wrest the bolo away and started hacking the other woman. the honor of a woman in respect of her defense is equated with her virginity. There was already some sort of aggression but it was not enough to warrant the act resorted to by the accused in getting a small knife from her bag and thrusting it on the chest of the offended party. Is he entitled to a justifying circumstance? Yes. Jaurigue. On the other hand. It is enough that there was unlawful aggression against the relative defended. It will be defense of stranger. In this case. Rodriguez. there is no self-defense. resentment or evil motive is not a requirement in defense of relative. it has the effect of reducing the imposable penalty to the minimum period. Since the woman has children inside the house. and in the process. This mitigating circumstance is either privileged or ordinary. /vvverga Page 51 of 100 . her life and limb were no longer in imminent danger. Defense of stranger If the person being defended is already a second cousin. In that position. If that is not the situation. depending on how the court will regard the absence or presence of conditions to justify the act. he cannot invoke the justifying circumstance if the relative defended is already a stranger in the eyes of the law. In People v. it will be his own life that will be lost. do not forget the incomplete self-defense. while a woman was sleeping. even if there was an unlawful aggression that has already begun. In US v. In law. When the lights were turned on. resentment or some evil motive in killing the aggressor. you cannot invoke self-defense. The other was wounded on his thigh. What justifies the killing of a supposed unlawful aggressor is that if the offender did not kill the aggressor. But the fellow who killed the aggressor had some score to settle with the aggressor. he awakened the accused. If ordinary. when she killed the supposed unlawful aggressor. This is vital because if the person making the defense acted out or revenge. Life cannot be equal to property. it was held that the defense of self-defense is no available. They grappled with the bolo. Therefore. Illustration: Two policemen quarreled inside a police precinct. and that the person defending did not contribute to the unlawful aggression. The accused was already asleep. Question & Answer The person being defended was a relative – a first cousin. her sister and brother-in-law went to see a movie and came home late that evening. so she started hacking the other woman with it. Verga Defense of rights is included in the circumstances of defense and so is defense of honor. This is only required in defense of strangers. The brother-in-law came up first while his wife was still in the staircase. it would still apply. Touching the arm could not produce such danger as would really be imminent to the honor of the woman. was her life in danger? If the answer is no. it was held that it was not possible to rape the accused because the whole thing transpired in the church. The woman who was pouring gasoline had a bolo. The policeman who was wounded on the thigh jumped on the arm of the fellow who shot him. even though he acted out of some evil motive. Mateo. her availing of defense of honor is not tenable. In the process. you do not invoke defense of relative anymore. One shot the other. This is a mitigating circumstance under paragraph 1 of Article 13. under the Revised Penal Code. she jumped out to prevent this other woman from pouring gasoline around the house. Defense of property rights This can only be invoked if the life and limb of the person making the defense is also the subject of unlawful aggression. She said that she believed that her own honor was at stake. At the time the accused killed the supposed unlawful aggressor. That will be the situation. Believing that her honor was at stake. In this case. He started feeling through the dark. they wrestled for possession of the gun.

defense of relative or defense of stranger because in these cases. persons who did not participate in the damage or injury would be pro tanto civilly liable if they derived benefit out of the state of necessity. First. A cannot be justified because the state of necessity was brought about by his own felonious act. the penalty would be reduced by one or two degrees. the presence of one shall be regarded as the majority. On the other hand. the imposable penalty shall be reduced by one or two degrees depending upon how the court regards the importance of the requisites present. on the principle that “no one should enrich himself at the expense of another”. if only the element of unlawful aggression is present. but the second is not because the offender acted with culpa. to have incomplete self-defense. How. It was B who was benefited. Third. If a majority of the requisites needed to justify the act or exempt from criminal liability are present. if at all. B owns the land for raising certain goats. In that case. if aside from the element of unlawful aggression another requisite. you need only to say this: If less than a majority of the requisites necessary to justify the act or exempt from criminal liability are present. Civil liability is based on the benefit derived and not on the act. In general. He will not be civilly liable. A drove his car beyond the speed limit so much so that when he reached the curve. or defense of stranger. The author of the act is C. Civil liability referred to in a state of necessity is based not on the act committed but on the benefit derived from the state of necessity. C drove all the goats of B to the land of A. the offender shall only be entitled to an ordinary mitigating circumstance. when you are given a problem on this premise. C used another land for a vegetable garden. The goats rushed to the land of A to be saved. It is wrong to treat this as an exception to the rule that in justifying circumstances. If the question refers generally to justifying or exempting circumstances. This is what you call incomplete justification of fulfillment of duty or incomplete justification of exercise of a right. If C who drove all the goats is accused of malicious mischief. When there are only two conditions to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability. and the first condition is present. the offender shall be given only the benefit of an ordinary mitigating circumstance. B will answer only to the extent of the benefit derived by him. there can be no incomplete self-defense. For example. He swerved his car towards a house. the offender shall be given the benefit of a privileged mitigating circumstance. and The resulting felony is the unavoidable consequence of the due fulfillment of the duty or the lawful exercise of the right or office. you always have to specify the element of unlawful aggression. Illustration: A and B are owners of adjoining lands. Second. The penalty shall be lowered by one or two degrees. Fulfillment of duty In the justifying circumstance of a person having acted out of fulfillment of a duty and the lawful exercise of a right or office. the offender will be entitled to a privelege mitigating circumstance. damage or injury caused. but C is not civilly liable because he did not receive benefits. the offender shall be given the benefit of a privileged mitigating circumstance. There was heavy rain and floods. there are only two conditions: (1) (2) The felony was committed while the offender was in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. defense of relative. but not all. Invariably. otherwise. his defense would be that he acted out of a state of necessity. the other requisites being absent. State of necessity Vena V. A owns the land for planting certain crops. there would be no incomplete selfdefense. Without this. So the accused will not be civilly liable if he did not receive any benefit out of the state of necessity. you have to qualify your answer. Or absent. the offended party must be guilty of unlawful aggression. although he was not the actor. his vehicle skidded towards a ravine. Verga The state of necessity must not have been created by the one invoking the justifying circumstances. In such a case. there is no criminal nor civil liability. He cannot claim that it was fortuitous event. destroying it and killing the occupant therein. may incomplete self-defense affect the criminal liability of the offender? If the question specifically refers to incomplete self-defense. with respect to other circumstances. it means that not all the requisites to justify the act are present or not the requisites to exempt from criminal liability are present. but the land of A was destroyed. defense of relative or defense of stranger. are present.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Incomplete self-defense or incomplete justifying circumstance or incomplete exempting circumstances When you say incomplete justifying circumstance. Dam was opened. if at all?” Make a separate answer with respect to self-defense. “how may incomplete justifying circumstance affect criminal liability of the offender. the question should be. /vvverga Page 52 of 100 . defense of relative or defense of stranger.

In case it is a culpable felony. or whether the accused acted with complete deprivation of intelligence in committing said crime. When they were there. he will be given the benefit of an incomplete fulfillment of duty. the Supreme Court granted them the benefit of incomplete justification of fulfillment of duty and the penalty was reduced by one or two degrees. Oanis and Callanta.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) In People v. Verga In exempting circumstances. Note that the commitment of the offender in a reformatory is just a consequence of the suspension of the sentence. 1991. while waiting for his wife to go home. 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. 603. The commitment is in a penitentiary. B did not stop so A shot B who was hit at a vital part of the body. started firing at the man. It seems that the view of many is that when the offender is a youthful offender. However. since suspension of sentence requires certain conditions: /vvverga Page 53 of 100 . Schizoprenia (dementia praecox) can only be considered a mitigating circumstance because it does not completely deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts. They tried to invoke the justifying circumstance of having acted in fulfillment of a duty. he must necessarily be confined in a reformatory. If the person attacked runs after him. a policeman. a hoodlum. If the sentence is not suspended. or freedom of action on the part of the offender is missing. The offender was not only defending himself but was acting in fulfillment of a duty. There was an order to kill Balagtas if he would resist. When the unlawful aggressor started fleeing. there is no commitment in a reformatory. and The test of volition. Is the act of A justified? Yes. A youthful offender can only be confined in a reformatory upon order of the court. The policeman would be held criminally liable because he acted with imprudence in firing toward several people where the offender had run. Under common law countries. as defined is limited to mental aberration of the mind. Imbecile has an IQ of 7. supposedly a notorious bandit. Exempting circumstances Vena V. the following are the two tests for exemption on grounds of insanity: (1) (2) The test of cognition. the policeman still fired indiscriminately. The justifying circumstance of self-defense cannot be invoked because the unlawful aggression had already ceased by the time A shot B. decided on November 21. This is wrong. When A saw B. let us say. Rafanan. he drew his revolver and went after B. The second requisite is absent because they acted with negligence. You apply paragraph 5 on fulfillment of duty. the accused Chief of Police and the constabulary soldier were sent out to arrest a certain Balagtas. There could not be any danger on their life and limb. As long as he was not acting out of malice when he fired at the fleeing criminal. In People v. This was the ruling in People v. Imbecility and insanity There is complete absence of intelligence. They found out later on that the man was not really Balagtas. There was nothing that prevented them from looking around the house and looking at the face of the fellow who was sleeping. without going around the house. they were held guilty of the crime of murder because the fellow was killed when he was sleeping and totally defenseless. the unlawful aggression ceased. After firing a shot in the air. But if. the most important issue is how the minority of the offender affected his criminal liability. imprudence. There is no lucid interval unlike in insanity. he becomes the unlawful aggressor. in the eyes of the law. The intellectual deficiency is permanent. there must be an application filed with the court which should pronounce sentence. this is true only if it was the person who stabbed was the one killed. there is absence of freedom of action or intelligence. lack of foresight or lack of skill. they saw a certain person who resembled Balagtas in all his bodily appearance sleeping on a bamboo bed but facing the other direction. But although he will be criminally liable. intelligence. he cannot be made criminally liable. Presidential Decree No. the reason for the exemption lies on the involuntariness of the act – one or some of the ingredients of voluntariness such as criminal intent. Under the amendment to Presidential Decree No. 1179 requires that before a youthful offender may be given the benefit if a suspension of sentence. B died. Do not confuse fulfillment of a duty with self-defense. Self-defense cannot be invoked. However. or whether the accused acted in total deprivation of freedom of will. emotional or spiritual insanity are exempting circumstances unlike in this jurisdiction because the Revised Administrative Code. Dungo. who mistook him for someone else. to bring the criminal to the authorities. Hence. was suddenly stabbed at the back by B. The accused arrived at the house of a dancer who was supposedly the girlfriend of Balagtas. or absence of negligence. The accused. the policeman was stabbed and despite the fact that the aggressor ran into a crowd of people. Illustration: A. Minority In exempting circumstances.

(2) Damnum absque injuria Under Article 12. The offender should not have been given the benefit of a suspended sentence before. It is to be imposed one degree lower and in the proper periods subject to the rules in Article 64. It may be lowered by three or four degrees. He may be given the benefit of a suspended sentence under the conditions mentioned earlier and only if he would file an application therefor. this is just an exempting circumstance. if the offender was exempt from criminal liability because the prosecution was not able to prove that the offender acted with discernment. depending upon whether the court deems best for the interest of the offender. tripped on a stone with one of his car tires. the court promulgate the sentence but the minor shall be entitled to reduction of the penalty by at least two degrees. This time it is fixed. Article 275 gives you the crime of abandoning the victim of one’s own accident. a distinction has to be made whether the offender acted with or without discernment. This means he is a first timer. What is the liability of the driver? There is no civil liability under paragraph 4 of Article 12. (3) If at the time the judgment is to be promulgated he is already above 18. The burden is upon the prosecution to prove that the offender acted with discernment. However. This type of offenders are absolutely exempt. If over nine but below 15. Suspension of sentence is not automatic. the offender is exempt not only from criminal but also from civil liability.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. Verga committed to a penitentiary. but lowered by at least two degrees. the penalty to be imposed is discretionary on the court. This paragraph embodies the Latin maxim “damnum absque injuria”. This means that the offender must be performing a lawful act. If the prosecution would want to pin criminal liability on him. An offender below 18 is always entitled to a mitigating or exempting circumstance. he is exempt from criminal liability but not from civil liability. there is no exemption anymore but he is also given the benefit of a suspended sentence under the conditions stated earlier and if at the time the sentence is promulgated. The pedestrian suffered profuse bleeding. (4) If the offender is 15 years old and above but below 18. The reason is because if the sentence were to be suspended. The limitation that it should be lowered by at least two degrees is just a limitation on the power of the court to reduce the penalty. It is not for the minor to prove that he acted without discernment. he cannot avail of a suspended sentence. the be will the (1) (2) (3) The crime committed should not be punishable by reclusion perpetua or death penalty. Here. that he was doing it with due care but somehow. the court will impose a penalty one degree lower. correlate paragraph 4 of Article 12 with the second paragraph of Article 275. he is only civilly liable but he will be committed to the surveillance of his parents who will be required to report to the court periodically on the progress or development of the offender. He must be below 18 years old because a youthful offender is one who is below 18. this should not be taken against him because in this age bracket. it has to prove that the crime was committed with discernment. Even if the offender nine years or below acted with discernment. If the offender is proven to have acted with discernment. /vvverga Page 54 of 100 . although the minor may be qualified. the exemption is absolute. Here. he is not 18 years old or over yet. yet. The driver is not under obligation to defray the medical expenses. Note that the age of majority has been reduced to 18. there is no civil liability as well as criminal liability. If the sentence is promulgated. this is where the court may give him the benefit of a suspended sentence. Since he cannot be committed to a reformatory anymore because he is not less than 18 years old. It is a crime. the accident referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 275 is in the concept of paragraph 4 of Article 12. Although. If the sentence should not suspended. The stone flew hitting a pedestrian on the head. If the youthful offender has filed an application therefor. where generally there is civil liability. It cannot be less than two degrees. injury resulted by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it. he would have to be When the offender is over nine but below 15. in paragraph 4 of Article 12. All that the minor has to show is that he is within the age bracket. Illustration: A person who is driving his car within the speed limit. paragraph 4. while considering the condition of the traffic and the pedestrians at that time. How does the minority of the offender affect his criminal liability? (1) If the offender is within the bracket of nine years old exactly or less. There is no more bracket where the offender is a minor yet no longer entitled to a mitigating circumstance. he would be committed in a reformatory. That means promulgation of sentence shall not be suspended.

Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) If at the very beginning. In other words. do not compensate because that would be violating the rules. Although the bulk of the circumstances in Article 13 are ordinary mitigating circumstances. Privilege mitigating circumstances operate to reduce the penalty by one or two degrees. even if there is an aggravating circumstance. If the offender has still freedom of choice. yet. If the penalty is lowered by one or two degrees. In bar problems. You have learned that the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply. Verga Ordinary mitigating circumstances. he is entitled to a discretionary penalty of at least two degrees lower. whether to act or not. but the requisites for exemption are not all present. penalty for parricide is reclusion perpetua to death. You can easily detect whether the circumstance which mitigates the liability of the offender is privilege or not. the offender must act without voluntariness. even if force was employed on him or even if he is suffering from uncontrollable fear. It takes preference over all other circumstances. the offender was negligent. Instead. So also. such an offender if criminally liable is entitled to the lowering of penalty by one degree. The offender shall be given the benefit of privelege mitigating circumstances. That means the penalty shall be reduced to the minimum period of the prescribed penalty. where it is privilege. these articles are very important. Apply the rule if majority of the requisites to exempt from criminal liability are present. unless the mitigating circumstance is offset by an aggravating circumstance. it is privilege. That means that the penalty prescribed of the crime committed shall be reduced by one or two degrees in accordance with Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code. Article 69 would apply. In a situation where the offender would otherwise be exempt. when the crime committed is punishable by a divisible penalty. he is not exempt from criminal liability because he is still possessed with voluntariness. therefore. If he would abandon him. Will he be given the benefit of Indeterminate Sentence Law? Then. In exempting circumstances. in cases where the offender is below 18 years old. before you go into any circumstance. Mitigating circumstances Distinctions between ordinary mitigating circumstances (1) mitigating circumstances and privileged As to the nature of the circumstances Ordinary mitigating circumstances can be offset by aggravating circumstances. when you are given indeterminate sentences. Notice that in the last paragraph of Article 365. it will be Article 365 on criminal negligence. Privilege mitigating circumstance aggravating circumstance. the penalty is qualified to a higher degree. The circumstances under Article 13 are generally ordinary mitigating. but the person who caused the injury is duty bound to attend to the person who was injured. that is. It cannot be offset by an aggravating circumstance. if the penalty is reduced by degree. lower first the penalty to the proper degree. you give effect to it above all considerations. it is a privilege. paragraph 2. Here. it is in that abandonment that the crime arises which is punished under the second paragraph of Article 275. provided the penalty is a divisible one. But if over nine but under 15. Compulsion of irresistible uncontrollable fear force and under the impulse of an Vena V. paragraph 2. will operate to reduce the penalty to the minimum period. can never be offset by any (2) As to effect /vvverga Page 55 of 100 . Article 13 is meaningless without knowing the rules of imposing the penalties under Articles 63 and 64. the offender is still entitled to a mitigating circumstance of incomplete exemption under paragraph 1 of Article 13. you do not apply Article 275. if not offset. the infliction of the injury by mere accident does not give rise to a criminal or civil liability. two or more of this ordinary mitigating circumstances shall have the effect of a privilege mitigating circumstances if there is no aggravating circumstance at all. in the case of the so-called hit and run drivers who have injured somebody and would abandon the victim of the accident. among other situations. Correlate Article 13 with Articles 63 and 64. Question & Answer A 17 year old boy committed parricide. the offender shall be given only the benefit of ordinary mitigating circumstances. If less than a majority of the requisites for exemption are present. When the circumstance which mitigates criminal liability is privileged. except in paragraph 1. That is precisely why this circumstance is considered privileged. the facts state. depending upon what the law provides. under paragraph 4 of Article 12. when the penalty imposed is death or life The offender must be totally deprived of freedom. When there is a lowering of penalties by degrees.

Therefore. but if provocation did not come from the person offended. you disregard the privileged character of minority. The Indeterminate Sentence Law applies to this and so the offender will be given its benefit. Although in fact. You are only treating it as an ordinary mitigating circumstance. not the age of the offender at the time the sentence is to be imposed. C told B that sometime in the past. the penalty would go one degree lower and the penalty for parricide which now stands at reclusion perpetua will go down to reclusion temporal. you have to apply that circumstance first. not a culpable one. A boxed him. that is the time when you find out whether the Indeterminate Sentence Law will apply or not. he did not fight back. that is not the imposable penalty. the age of the offender at the time the crime was committed is not considered. there was a bully and he told the accused that he is not allowed to go inside. This is one of the three instances where the offender has performed a felony different from that which he intended. Criminal laws are to be construed always in a manner liberal or lenient to the offender. is yes. Reclusion temporal is already governed by the Indeterminate Sentence Law. the offender is a 17-year old boy. B approached A and boxed him. Can A invoke sufficient provocation to mitigate criminal liability? No. However. therefore. so he was humiliated and embarrassed. the age of the offender at the time of the commission of the crime shall be the basis. whatever anger or diminished self control may have emerged from the offender had already vanished or disappeared.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) imprisonment. If the resulting felony could be expected from the means employed. there is more reason to give him its benefit. therefore. Vena V. B at that time was with his brother C. Being a 17-year old boy. When the crime is the product of reckless imprudence or simple negligence. In that gathering. there is sufficient provocation. the courts are generally considering that there must be no break between the provocation or threat and the commission of the felony. and because he was small. this mitigating circumstance is no longer applicable. Privilege mitigating circumstance will apply over and above all other considerations. The person provoked cannot retaliate against him. However. under paragraph 3. That circumstance is privileged. the felony was committed precisely because he was then and there provoked. So before you go in the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Question & Answer A was walking in front of the house of B. is reclusion temporal. When you arrive at the correct penalty. The accused tried to reason out but the bully slapped him several times in front of so many people. For purposes of lowering the penalty by one or two degrees. as well as the Court of Appeals. there was a ruling that if a period of one hour had lapsed between the provocation and the commission of the felony. thus. The commission of the felony must be immediate to the threat or provocation in order that this circumstance be mitigating. means that there must be a notable disproportion between the means employed by the offender compared to that of the resulting felony. since being 17 years old is a privilege mitigating circumstance. has stretched this criterion – it is not only a matter of time anymore. Sufficient provocation must come from the offended party. this circumstance does not avail. Praeter intentionem The common circumstance given in the bar of praeter intentionem. The moment you do that. It is wrong for you to determine whether the Indeterminate Sentence Law will apply or not on the basis of reclusion perpetua because that is not the imposable penalty. it is the age of the offender at the time the sentence is to be promulgated. it is not mitigating because the one who gives the provocation is not the one against whom the crime was committed. Although the penalty prescribed for the crime committed is reclusion perpetua. Before. Between giving the offender the benefit of the Indeterminate Sentence Law and withholding it away from him. There may actually be sufficient provocation which immediately preceded the act. If there is sufficient break of time before the provocation or threat and the consequent commission of the crime. The imposable penalty. That privilege lowers the penalty by one degree. This circumstance does not apply when the crime results from criminal negligence or culpa. mitigating circumstances does not apply. But then in the problem given. In other words. the recent rulings of the Supreme Court. Illustration: The accused went to a barrio dance. so A boxed C. In applying this mitigating circumstance. He shall be given the benefit of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Article 13 will not apply. But for purposes of suspension of the sentence. Verga Sufficient threat or provocation This is mitigating only if the crime was committed on the very person who made the threat or provocation. The answer. some of whom were ladies who were being courted by the accused. the law presupposes that during that interval. but A cannot hit back at B because B is bigger. The common set-up given in a bar problem is that of provocation was given by somebody. the person provoked retaliated on a younger brother or on an elder father. he cannot fight the bully at that time /vvverga Page 56 of 100 . this is the product of intentional felony. therefore. paragraph 4.

So. one of the mitigating circumstances under paragraphs 4. On review. Since they are predicated on different set of facts. You have to look at two criteria: (1) If from the element of time. Here. in one case. there is a material lapse of time stated in the problem and there is nothing stated in the problem that the effect of the threat or provocation had prolonged and affected the offender at the time he committed the crime. if there is that time element and at the same time. thinking of the humiliation and outrage done to him. However. Article 13. this time. It is enough if what was imputed or what was done was wrong. whether natural. Whether or not they are married. Passion or obfuscation This stands on the premise or proposition that the offender is suffering from a diminished self control because of the passion or obfuscation. the vindication need not be done by the person upon whom the grave offense was committed. he cannot be given the benefit of paragraph 5 or 6. As a rule. although they arose from one and the same case. As long as the offender at the time he committed the felony was still under the influence of the outrage caused by the provocation or threat. Accused had no choice but to go home. When he saw the bully again. unlike in sufficient threat or provocation where the crime should be inflicted upon the very person /vvverga Page 57 of 100 . therefore. he came home and surprised his common law wife having sexual intercourse with a friend. However. The same is true with the circumstances under paragraphs 4 and 5. the accused was given the benefit of the circumstances and the basis of considering passion or obfuscation in favor of the accused was the act of the common law wife in committing adultery right from the conjugal bed. a Chinaman eloped with a woman. here. The accused was still acting under a diminished self control because he was thinking of the humiliation he suffered in the hands of the offended party. In considering whether the wrong is a grave one upon the person who committed the crime. then he will still get the benefit of this mitigating circumstance. he is still suffering from outrage of the threat or provocation done to him. 5 and 6 stands or arises from a set of facts. The reason stated by the Supreme Court for allowing the accused to be benefited by this mitigating circumstance is that the effect of the humiliation and outrage emitted by the offended party as a provocation upon the accused was still present when he committed the crime and. The trial court denied his claim because the relationship was a common law one. Diokno. and another mitigating circumstance arises from another set of facts. then you can predicate any one of these circumstances on one fact and the other on another fact and so on. The word “immediate” here does not carry the same meaning as that under paragraph 4. there is a ruling to the effect that if the offender is given the benefit of paragraph 4. he is acting under a diminished self control. Here. The Supreme Court gave him the benefit of this mitigating circumstance. they may be appreciated together. in vindication of a grave offense. education and social status will be considered. Verga who made the threat or provocation. The evidence for the accused showed that when he went home. sufficient provocation was one of mitigating circumstances considered by the Supreme Court in favor of accused. This is the correct interpretation of paragraph 4. If the case involves a series of facts.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) because the latter was much bigger and heavier. Only one of the three mitigating circumstances should be given in favor of the offender. This is the reason why it is mitigating. it need not be the same person who committed the grave offense or who was offended by the wrong done by the offended party. he was armed with a knife and he stabbed the bully to death. In a case where the relationship between the accused and the woman he was living with was one of common law. was the the the Vena V. or vice-versa. This infuriated him. it is enough that the offender committed the crime with the grave offense done to him. his ascendant or descendant or to his brother or sister. the prohibition against considering all these mitigating circumstances together and not as one applies only if they would be taken on the basis of the same set of facts. he was not able to sleep throughout the night. any man who discovers that infidelity was (2) In People v. However. Hence. his spouse. Actually. Vindication of a grave offense The word “offense” should not be taken as a crime. then you use the criterion based on the time element.” Therefore. So. it cannot be based on common law relationship because common law relationships are illicit. The passion must be legitimate. adopted or legitimate and that is the proximate cause of the commission of the crime. his age. facts are given indicating that at the time the offender committed the crime. despite the lapse of about 22 hours. the reason for paragraph 4 still applies. it almost three days before accused was able to locate the house where Chinaman brought the woman. The outrage was so serious unless vindicated. He killed the friend and he claimed passion or obfuscation. The word “immediate” here is an erroneous Spanish translation because the Spanish word is “proxima” and not “immediatementa. consider whether passion or obfuscation is generated by common law relationship or by some other human consideration.

decided December 14. there is a ruling that if after committing the crime. the offender had the opportunity to go into hiding. the offender did not flee and instead waited for the law enforcers to arrive and he surrendered the weapon he used in killing the victim. he continues to elude arrest. this is not voluntary surrender. Mindac. almost naked. If. The surrender here is only done out of convenience to save his own self. personal property was entrusted to him and he misappropriated the same. because (1) he acknowledges his guilt (2) he wishes to save the government the trouble and expenses of searching and capturing him. a female classmate. In short. the time and the expenses to be incurred in looking for him. Voluntary surrender The essence of voluntary surrender requires that the offender. the surrender is not spontaneous. However. the offender must have surprised his/her spouse actually committing sexual intercourse should be present. In this case. after having committed the crime. Ingratitude was shown here. However. it is not mitigating. She confessed and explained that any woman cannot tolerate what he did to her. if the law enforcers had already known where he is hiding and it is just a matter of time before he is flushed out of that place. under this circumstance. a male classmate is escorting B. the fact that he did not flee is not voluntary surrender. If he kills them. When a man saw a woman bathing. However. this may be considered as mitigation of a grave offense to him or otherwise as a situation sufficient to create passion or obfuscation. Vena V. Although he admitted his participation in the killing. Therefore. If this act was done somewhere else and the accused kills the paramour or the spouse. Verga As a general rule. 1992. the ruling was that voluntary surrender is mitigating. instantly killing him. then even if the law enforcers do not know exactly where he was hiding and he would come out. The common law wife learned that he was getting married to a classmate. In a case where the offender is deaf and dumb. On the way out. The man left the village where they were living and never returned home. On the scheduled wedding day. People v. Physical defect The physical defect that a person may have must have a relation to the commission of the crime. She gave him the best years of her life. the accused will be given the benefit of sufficient provocation if the intercourse was done in his dwelling. the offender did not flee and he went with the responding law enforcers meekly. It was held that jealousy is an acknowledged basis of passion. surprises his wife who was nude and lying with another man who was also nude. if he comes out from hiding because he is seriously ill and he went to get medical treatment. Whether or not a warrant of arrest had been issued against the offender is immaterial and irrelevant. if after committing the crime. Where the reason for the surrender of the accused was to insure his safety. Illustrations: A is courting B. It was held that passion and obfuscation were considered mitigating. The male classmate stabbed said men. she stabbed the groom in the chest. for which reason he raped her. he gets the benefit of Article 247. She practically waited for him day and night. his arrest by policemen pursuing him being inevitable. had evaded the law enforcers and the law enforcers do not know of his whereabouts. voluntary surrender is not applicable. when a married man upon coming home. A saw this and stabbed C. demonstrating an intent to submit himself unconditionally to the person in authority or his agent in authority. must be spontaneous. Article 247 does not apply. Although this is the ruling. vindication of a grave offense will be mitigating in favor of the offender. A. then Article 247 does not apply. that requisite which in the first place. such fact is not tantamount to voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance. Where the offender went to the municipal building not to own responsibility for the killing. C danced with B. his act of surrendering under such circumstance indicates that he is willing to accept the consequences of the wrong he has done and also thereby saves the government the effort. the offender would come out in the open and he gives himself up. A man and a woman were living together for 15 years. When a married person surprised his better half in the act of sexual intercourse with another. Hence. If he would give up. still. If the surprising was done not in the actual act of sexual intercourse but before or after it. The /vvverga Page 58 of 100 . his act of doing so will be considered as indicative of repentance and he also saves the government the time and the expense of looking for him. some men whistled lustfully. the surrender is not considered as indicative of remorse or repentance. such man cannot claim passion as a mitigating circumstance.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) committed on the very bed provided by him to the woman would naturally be subjected to obfuscation. This was held to be obfuscation. Even if the offender may have gone into hiding. he tried to avoid responsibility by claiming self-defense which however he was not able to prove. The criterion is whether or not the offender had gone into hiding or had the opportunity to go into hiding and the law enforcers do not know of his whereabouts. Surrender to be considered voluntary and thus mitigating. a receptionist in a beerhouse.

the so-called generic aggravating circumstances are referred to simply as aggravating circumstances. Verga Most important of the classification of aggravating circumstances are the qualifying and the generic aggravating circumstances. Qualifying circumstances to be appreciated as such must be specifically alleged in the complaint or information. it cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance. All of these will qualify a killing from homicide to murder. such circumstance is not mitigating. as long as it is proven during trial. as a result of which he became poor. however. Distinctions between aggravating and qualifying circumstances: In aggravating circumstances – (1) (2) The circumstance circumstance. in the crime of murder. This is so because there is no qualifying circumstance that is not aggravating. It is not an ingredient of a crime. Vena V. If his lifestyle is one of having so many vices. Specific or those that apply only to a particular crime. he cannot talk so what he did was. In practice. the law specifically mentions thereunder several circumstances which are aggravating under Article 14. /vvverga Page 59 of 100 . (3) In qualifying circumstance – (1) The circumstance affects the nature of the crime itself such that the offender shall be liable for a more serious crime. he got a piece of wood and struck the fellow on the head. If it is not so included. Therefore it is included in the provision of law defining the crime. they are susceptible of being offset by a mitigating circumstance. if you find qualifying circumstances. The aggravating circumstances must be established with moral certainty. it will be considered only as generic aggravating circumstance. In Article 248. Being an ingredient of the crime. If this happens. Stealing by a person who is driven to do so out of extreme poverty is considered as analogous to incomplete state of necessity. To say qualifying aggravating circumstance is redundant.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) crime committed was estafa. In the examination. you understand that only one is qualifying. as long as his means of action. defense or communication with others are not restricted. If the offender is blind in one eye. (2) (3) An aggravating circumstance is qualifying when it is an ingredient of the crime. If it is proved during trial. If not alleged but proven during the trial. Analogous cases 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. can be offset by an ordinary mitigating No need to allege this circumstance in the information. with the same degree of proof required to establish the crime itself. The fact that he was deaf and dumb is not mitigating because that does not bear any relation to the crime committed. It only affects the penalty to be imposed but the crime remains the same. The circumstance is actually an ingredient of the crime. This circumstance must also have a bearing on the crime committed and must depend on how the crime was committed. this is not so where the offender became impoverished because of his own way of living his life. you have to think about these as aggravating circumstances which are the ingredients of the crime. Not any physical defect will affect the crime. it is not qualifying. Qualifying or those that change the nature of the crime. However. Aggravating circumstances Kinds of aggravating circumstances: (1) (2) (3) (4) Generic or those that can generally apply to all crime. Inherent or those that must of necessity accompany the commission of the crime. It will only do so if it has some relation to the crime committed. 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. The crime committed was physical injuries. The act of a thief in leading the authorities to the place where he disposed of the loot has been considered as analogous or equivalent to voluntary surrender. If a person is deaf and dumb and he has been slandered. The so-called qualifying aggravating circumstances are simply referred to as qualifying circumstances. the court would consider the same in imposing the penalty. his subsequent stealing because of his poverty will not be considered mitigated by incomplete state of necessity.

not against property like Robbery with homicide (People v. reward or promise as a consideration for killing. Illustration: A person induced another to kill somebody. The fellow who hired him will not be liable for the crime he had done because that was not the crime he was hired to commit. it is only appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance. The fellow who induced him becomes a co-principal and therefore. Ga. Even if any of the qualifying circumstances under Article 248 on murder was proven. This is aggravating only when the very offended party is the one who reposed the confidence. age. Thus. although initially they are considered as qualifying. however. such will be wiped out by these circumstances. they are only to be taken as generic. the fellow was hired to kill the parent of the one who hired him. He killed a stranger and not the parent. but not for purposes of aggravating circumstances in paragraph 2. what was alleged in the information was treachery. evident premeditation and act was done in consideration of a price. Vena V. the two other circumstances which are otherwise qualifying could be offset by the mitigating. The accused abused the child.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) If let us say. If there is any mitigating circumstance in favor of the offender. (People v. The mitigating circumstance referred to in the amendment as not affecting the imposition of the penalty in the maximum are only ordinary mitigating circumstances. The servant poisoned the child. even if they are alleged in the information or complaint. the accused cannot be convicted of murder because the circumstance proven is not qualifying but merely generic. The others will merely be considered as generic. abuse of confidence is no longer aggravating. It is generic because it is not alleged in the information at all. sex Aggravating only in crimes against persons and honor. Only one of these is qualifying. Therefore. That fellow killed the other guy and employed treachery. Correlate Article 14 with Article 62. Disrespect due to rank. dwelling is no longer aggravating. the crime was already murder. he is liable for the same crime committed. This is only true however. the accused was charged with murder. However. if that is not the circumstance alleged in the information. it cannot be considered qualifying because a qualifying is an ingredient of the crime and it cannot be taken as such without having alleged in the information because it will violate the right of the accused to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him. Verga Taking advantage of public position Article 62 was also amended by the Republic Act No. Let us say. if the servant was still in the service of the family when he did the killing. professors. if there is any ordinary mitigating circumstance in favor of the accused. The legal import of this amendment is that the subject circumstance has been made a qualifying or special aggravating that shall not be offset or compensated by a mitigating circumstance. the treachery will qualify only the criminal liability of the actual executioner. Taoan. it cannot qualify the crime. In a case where the offender is a servant. It was held that the abuse of confidence is not aggravating. what was proven was the price. Just the same. supervisors of public and duly recognized private schools. What was committed is different from what was agreed upon. When the aggravating circumstance refers to the material execution of the crime. Privileged mitigating circumstances always lower the penalty accordingly. but proven during the trial. like treachery. Abuse of confidence Do not confuse this with mere betrayal of trust. If not alleged in the information. reward or promise were alleged as aggravating. 182 SCRA 601). it will only aggravate the criminal liability of those who employed the same. Do not hesitate to offset on the principle that a qualifying circumstance cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance because only one is necessary. the offended party is one of the members of the family. As far as the killing is concerned. During the trial. the offended party is different from the fellow who reposed the confidence and abuse of confidence in this case is not aggravating. The treachery was not proved. as well as lawyers are persons in authority only for purposes of direct assault and simple resistance. Teachers. Article 62 gives you the different rules regarding aggravating circumstances. If any one of the three circumstances was proven. only one will qualify the crime. The reason is because /vvverga Page 60 of 100 . If the other two are also proven. Aggravating circumstances will not be considered when it is the crime itself. Article 14. 7659. If the confidence is reposed by another. If any of these qualifying circumstances is not alleged in the information. if there are three of the qualifying circumstances alleged in the complaint or information. Illustrations: A mother left her young daughter with the accused because she had nobody to leave the child with while she had to go on an errand. What is present is betrayal of trust and that is not aggravating. 156 SCRA 790). colleges and universities. It was held that abuse of confidence is aggravating. provided the mitigating circumstance is not a privileged mitigating circumstance. Three of these circumstances: treachery. If the crime charged is qualified trespass to dwelling. let us say. If he was driven by the master already out of the house for some time and he came back and poisoned the child.

then dwelling is aggravating because the comfort room is a necessary dependency of the house proper. It is enough that he used the place for his peace of mind. For this reason. Dwelling is aggravating in this case because the house was provided by the man. Hence. the law is presuming that he is not intending to commit a wrong so one who attacks him while in the tranquility of his home shows a degree of perversity in him. Dwelling is aggravating. if the offended party while answering the call of nature is killed. Dwelling can be aggravating even if it is not owned by the offended party. Roof still part of the house. is considered a dwelling. Dwelling was considered aggravating on the part of the paramour.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) that confidence has already been terminated when the offender was driven out of the house. If the dwelling is both that of the offended party and the offender. provided that he also stays there once in a while. dwelling is not aggravating. dwelling is not considered aggravating. this aggravating circumstance. considering that any dependency necessary for the enjoyment of a place of abode is considered a dwelling. like what the salesmen do when they are assigned in the provinces and they rent rooms. in order to be aggravating must be owned by the offended party is no longer absolute. each one is his own dwelling. rest and peace of mind in the abode of the offended party is considered a dwelling. Even a room in a hotel if rented as a dwelling. Illustrations: A man was fixing something on the roof of his house when he was shot. It should also not be the dwelling of the offender. Whenever one is in his dwelling. In the provinces where the comfort rooms are usually far from the house proper. maintaining the room. A person while in the room of his house. If he is killed there. All the appurtenances necessary for the peace and comfort. A occupies the ground floor while B the upper floor. Verga places of their own. Due to the wife's refusal to go back to the conjugal home and live with the husband. was shot. Vena V. rest. The term “dwelling” includes all the dependencies necessary for a house or for rest or for comfort or a place of privacy. However. The stairs here would form part only of B's dwelling. then the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present. Dwelling should not be understood in the concept of a domicile. if the paramour was also residing on the same dwelling. Illustrations: A and B are living in one house. It was held that dwelling is aggravating. the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is not present. dwelling is not aggravating. dwelling is already aggravating. It was held that dwelling was aggravating although it is not owned by the offended party because the offended party is considered as a member of the family who owns the dwelling and that dwelling is where she enjoyed privacy. A room in a hotel or motel will be considered dwelling if it is used with a certain degree of permanence. provided that the offended party is considered a member of the family who owns the dwelling and equally enjoys peace of mind. even if the offender caught up with him already out of the house. the same being necessary and an integral part of his house or dwelling. The paramour is not a resident of the same dwelling. The crime of adultery was committed. The rule that dwelling. If the offender entered the house and the offended party jumped out of the house. if a man has so many wives and he gave them a /vvverga Page 61 of 100 . comfort and privacy. Husband inflicted physical violence upon the wife. Dwelling need not be owned by the offended party. Dwelling is not limited to the house proper. Illustration: Husband and wife quarreled. A person has more than one dwelling. the husband pulled out a knife and stabbed the wife which caused her death. So. Hence. When he is only a visitor there. dwelling will be aggravating. the stairs which are used to reach the second floor is considered a dwelling because the second floor cannot be enjoyed without the stairs. rest. If the offended party was assaulted while on the stairs. Dwelling Dwelling will only be aggravating if it is the dwelling of the offended party. The wife left the conjugal home and went to the house of her sister bringing her personal belongings with her. The husband went to the house of the sister-in-law and tried to persuade the wife to come back to the conjugal home but the wife refused because she is more at peace in her sister's house than in the conjugal abode. dwelling is not aggravating. where the offended party seeks privacy. Peace of mind and comfort. The sister accommodated the wife in the formers home. privacy and comfort. If the place used is on the second floor. If the attack is made while B was on the stairs. when an attack is made while A is on the stairs. If a young man brought a woman in a motel for a short time and there he was killed. A man was killed in the house of his common law wife. peace of mind and comfort.

a crime was committed near the lamp post. D showed up from underwater and stabbed B. The crime is the band itself. One-half of the house is used as a store and the other half is used for dwelling but there is only one entrance. Dwelling is aggravating where the place is. always have in mind four at least. there should at least be four persons. If the dwelling portion is attacked where even if the store is open. Uninhabited place Illustration: Vena V. Evidence tending to prove that the offender took advantage of the place and purposely availed of it is to make it easier to commit the crime. there is another separate entrance to the portion used for dwelling. B and C also are on board on their respective bancas. despite the fact that there were other persons not so far from the scene. Even if there are four. The way the law defines a band is somewhat confusing because it refers simply to more than 3.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) dwelling is still aggravating. decided October 22. Balcony is part of the dwelling because it is appurtenant to the house Dwelling is aggravating in robbery with homicide because the crime can be committed without necessarily transgressing the sanctity of the home (People v. A garage is part of the dwelling when connected with an interior passage to the house proper. no aggravating circumstance just by the fact of nighttime alone. the crime must begin and end during the nighttime. Dwelling is still aggravating even if the offender did not enter the house. but only three or less are armed. One evening. However. Illustration: A is on board a banca. If the offended party was inside the house and the offender was outside and the latter shot the former inside the house while he was still outside. Correlate this with Article 306 . Even if the crime was committed at night. darkness was not present. 1992). considering the fact that A and C before being able to give assistance still have to jump into the water and swim towards B and the time it would take them to do that. where brigandage is actually committed. Whenever you talk of band. the store is not a public place as in the first case. All of them should be armed. Darkness is what makes this circumstance aggravating. Do not say three or more because it is four or more. Band In band. If the dwelling portion is attacked. Even if there was darkness but the nighttime was only an incident of a chance meeting. band becomes aggravating. although he is not the owner thereof as when victim was shot in the house of his parents. in case the store is closed. when actually it should be 4 or more. Different forms of repetition or habituality of the offender /vvverga Page 62 of 100 . De Los Reyes. However. The reason is because he could not have left his dwelling were it not for the fact that the attacker entered the house. shall be necessary. a “home”. it is a public place and as such is not capable of being the subject of trespass. Nocturnity is the period of time after sunset to sunrise. the chances of B receiving some help was very little. even for a brief moment. dwelling is not aggravating because whenever a store is open for business. dwelling is aggravating since here. there was a reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help. As a rule. Is there an aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place here? Yes. Verga It is determined not by the distance of the nearest house to the scene of the crime but whether or not in the place of the commission of the offense . not so far away. it is not considered part of the dwelling. as well as crime began at night and ended at day is not aggravated by the circumstance of nighttime. the circumstance is aggravating. hence. there is no aggravating circumstance here. The Supreme Court held that there is no aggravating circumstance of nighttime. The mere forming of a band even without the commission of a crime is already a crime so that band is not aggravating in brigandage because the band itself is the way to commit brigandage. but there was light. Crime began at day and ended at night.Brigandage. It must be shown that the offender deliberately sought the cover of darkness and the offender purposely took advantage of nighttime to facilitate the commission of the offense. Nighttime What if the crime started during the daytime and continued all the way to nighttime? This is not aggravating. it is not a band. from dusk to dawn. Suddenly. If not connected.

Habitual delinquency under Article 62 (5) – The offender within the period of 10 years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries. Aside from the penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed. ordinarily. the fourth. (e) estafa or swindling and (f) falsification. In recidivism. Pardon does not erase recidivism. even if it is absolute because only excuses the service of the penalty. estafa or falsification. Illustration: In 1980. but not the conviction. it would only increase the penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed to its maximum period.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) (1) Recidivism under Article 14 (9) – The offender at the time of his trial for one crime shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. there was no other crime of which he was convicted so he cannot be regarded as a repeater. the emphasis is on the fact that the offender was previously convicted by final judgement of a felony and subsequently found guilty of another felony embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. It is important that the conviction which came earlier must refer to the crime committed earlier than the subsequent conviction. Recidivism does not prescribe. if he is subsequently convicted of a crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. While the case was being tried. If not offset. . The conviction became final because he did not appeal anymore and the trial for his earlier crime which was robbery ended in 1984 where he was also convicted. Hence. hence it cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance. is found guilty of the any of said crimes a third time or oftener. (c) robbery. (2) (4) (3) (5) Recidivism In recidivism. . (b) less serious physical injuries. There is no time limit between the first conviction and the subsequent conviction. He was found guilty and was convicted of theft also in 1983. no aggravating circumstance is present. (3) Vena V. It is a generic aggravating circumstance which can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance. an additional penalty shall be imposed depending upon whether it is already the third conviction. the fifth and so on . The circumstance need not be alleged in the information. the crimes committed should be felonies. he committed theft in 1983. . /vvverga Page 63 of 100 . A committed robbery. robo. Repetition or reiteracion under Article 14 (10) – The offender has been previously punished for an offense which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty. . The crimes are limited and specified to: (a) serious physical injuries. Recidivism cannot be had if the crime committed is a violation of a special law. it is taken into account as aggravating in imposing the penalty. otherwise the court cannot acquire jurisdiction to impose additional penalty. Is the accused a recidivist? The subsequent conviction must refer to a felony committed later in order to constitute recidivism. He also did not appeal this decision. No matter how long ago the offender was convicted. The crimes are not specified. (4) Distinctions between recidivism and habitual delinquency In recidivism – (1) (2) (3) (4) Two convictions are enough. hurto. Recidivism is imprescriptible. (d) theft. The circumstance must be alleged in the information. Habitual delinquency is a special aggravating circumstance. it is enough that they may be embraced under the same title of the Revised Penal Code. Quasi-recidivism under Article 160 – Any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment before beginning to serve such sentence or while serving such sentence shall be punished by the maximum period prescribed by law for the new felony. Verga There is a time limit of not more than 10 years between every convictions computed from the first conviction or release from punishment thereof to conviction computed from the second conviction or release therefrom to the third conviction and so on . The law considers this aggravating when a person has been committing felonies embraced in the same title because the implication is that he is specializing on such kind of crime and the law wants to prevent any specialization. (5) In habitual delinquency – (1) (2) At least three convictions are required. when a person commits a crime under different titles. The reason for this is as the time the first crime was committed.

If it is not alleged in the information and in the course of the trial. as long as there is an allegation there that the accused is a habitual delinquent. If the first conviction is for serious physical injuries or less serious physical injuries and the second conviction is for robbery. the fourth time will have to fall under any of the three categories. Habitual delinquency We have to consider the crimes in it and take note of the titles of crimes in the Revised Penal Code. the prosecution tried to prove that the offender is a habitual delinquent over the objection of the accused. The reason is recidivism is a generic aggravating circumstance only. It need not be alleged in the information. the pardon shall erase the conviction including recidivism because there is no more penalty so it shall be understood as referring to the conviction or the effects of the crime. In recidivism. the objection should be overruled. if proven during trial. If the prosecution tried to prove recidivism and the defense objected. This is because in 1975 when he committed the robbery. The trial for robbery ended in 1981. the court shall consider such aggravating circumstance because it is only generic. the court has no jurisdiction to consider the offender a habitual delinquent. he committed theft. While the same was being tried in 1978. the trial court can appreciate it. the court which tried the case. because the robbery which was committed earlier would be decided later. Habitual delinquency refers to prior conviction and therefore this must be brought in the information before the court can acquire jurisdiction over this matter. Right now. Question & Answer In 1975. there was no crime committed yet. the offender committed robbery. Generally. the present rule is that it can be appreciated even if not alleged in the information. If you will interpret the definition of recidivism. theft or estafa and the third is for falsification. although the law defines it as a circumstance where a person having been convicted by final judgement was previously convicted also by final judgement for a crime embraced in the same title in the Revised Penal Code. he was convicted of theft and he did not appeal this decision. if that conviction is subsequent to the commission of the robbery. the penalty for the crime for which he will be convicted will be increased to the maximum period unless offset by a mitigating circumstance. On the other hand. but if the defense does not object to the presentation of evidence during the trial and the same was proven. Habitual delinquency. you have a situation where the offender is a habitual delinquent but not a recidivist because no two crimes fall under the same title of the Code. the procedure you know that when the prosecutor alleges habitual delinquency. It must be the other way around. the information is defective. In 1980. Even if the accused is in fact a habitual delinquent but it is not alleged in the information. it is necessary that the conviction must come in the order in which they are committed. If the offender had committed and was convicted of each of the crimes under each category so that no two crimes fall under the same title of the Revised Penal Code. Verga If the offender has already served his sentence and he was extended an absolute pardon. even if recidivism is not alleged in the information. Thus. the court cannot admit the evidence presented to prove habitual delinquency over the objection of the accused. even though in imposing the penalty for the robbery. recidivism is a generic aggravating circumstance. The reason why habitual delinquency cannot be appreciated unless alleged in the information is because recidivism has nothing to do with the crime committed. it does not have to be alleged in the information because even if not alleged. It is necessary to allege recidivism in the information. that is enough to confer jurisdiction upon the court to /vvverga Page 64 of 100 . the prosecution when introducing evidence was objected to. the dates when they were committed. it must specify the crimes committed. May the judge in imposing the penalty for robbery consider the accused a recidivist considering that he was already convicted in 1980 for the crime of theft which is under the same title of the Revised Penal Code as that of robbery? No. As such. Thus. if proven during trial. When the offender is a recidivist and at the same time a habitual delinquent. This is the correct view because recidivism is a generic aggravating circumstance. the date when the accused was convicted or discharged. there was already a previous conviction. an added penalty will be imposed in accordance with Article 62. he is not a recidivist. being a special or specific aggravating circumstance must be alleged in the information. If these are not alleged. this would seem to be covered but that is not so. it was held that even though the details of habitual delinquency was not set forth in the information. then the moment the habitual delinquent is on his fourth conviction already.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. Recidivism may be considered even though not alleged in the information because this is only a generic aggravating circumstance. in a relatively recent ruling of the Supreme Court. the court can appreciate the same. you cannot avoid that he is a habitual delinquent and at the same time a recidivist because at least. However. After determining the correct penalty for the last crime committed.

The killing was committed before serving sentence but convicted by final judgement. in reiteracion. that means that the offender was never reformed by the fact that he already served the penalty imposed on him on the first conviction. Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance. as the case may be. That is why it is said that reiteracion is not always aggravating. If the offender had not yet served out his penalty. When there is a third conviction. While he was in Muntinlupa. it is necessary that it be a felony. If the accused fails to file such. the accused may file a motion for bill of particulars. While he was serving sentence. the law expects that since he has already tasted punishment. reiteracion is not aggravating because the law considers that somehow. This is the philosophy on which the circumstance becomes aggravating. he committed a felony. the penalty attached to the crime subsequently committed should be higher or at least equal to the penalty that he has already served. Even in a criminal case. Reverse the situation. again commits another felony which carries a lighter penalty. he was found smoking marijuana. even if literally. because the crime committed while serving sentence is not a felony. So. You will only consider the penalty in reiteracion if there is already a second conviction. reward or promise The Supreme Court rulings before indicate that this circumstance aggravates only the criminal liability of the person who committed the crime in /vvverga Page 65 of 100 . the offender is a repeater. repetition is not aggravating. Verga This is found in Article 160. he will more or less refrain from committing crimes again. The emphasis is on the nature of the crime committed while serving sentence or before serving sentence. In consideration of a price. since there are already two of them subsequently. Even if the penalty for the subsequent crimes committed are lighter than the ones already served. this fellow was corrected because instead of committing a serious crime. However. If that is the situation. When there is a privileged mitigating circumstance. Illustration: Offender had already been convicted by final judgement. the offender is already a repeater. Quasi-recidivism Vena V. It is necessary in order that there be reiteracion that the offender has already served out the penalty. In so far as the earlier crime is concerned. the penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed shall be lowered by 1 or 2 degrees. you disregard whatever penalty for the subsequent crimes committed. he got involved in a quarrel and killed a fellow inmate. Sentence was promulgated and he was under custody in Muntinlupa. He becomes a quasi-recidivist because the crime committed was a felony. subsequently. the law considers that somehow he has been reformed but if he. he killed someone. This cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance and the imposition of the penalty in the maximum period cannot be lowered by any ordinary mitigating circumstance. he committed a lesser one. Is he a quasi-recidivist? No. if there is only a second conviction. The offender must already be convicted by final judgement and therefore to have served the penalty already. if he commits a felony carrying a lighter penalty. This is so because if the penalty attached to the felony subsequently committed is not equal or higher than the penalty already served. he escaped from his guard and in the course of his escape. but then it shall be imposed in the maximum period if the offender is a quasirecidivist. That means he has not yet tasted the bitterness of life but if he had already served out the penalty. the accused has the right to avail of the so-called bill of particulars. pay attention to the penalty attached to the crime which was committed for the second crime. That is why if the offender committed a subsequent felony which carries with it a penalty lighter than what he had served. If he committed another lesser one. In the absence of the details set forth in the information. It should not be a violation of a special law. Illustration: The offender was convicted of homicide. the offender has already tasted the bitterness of the punishment. even though over and above the objection of the defense. he is deemed to have waived the required particulars and so the court can admit evidence of the habitual delinquency. then he becomes a repeater. forget about reiteracion. Reiteracion This has nothing to do with the classification of the felonies. Is he a quasi-recidivist? Yes. However. In reiteracion. then he becomes a repeater because that means he has not yet reformed. a violation of the Revised Penal Code. because while serving sentence. he committed a felony before beginning to serve sentence or while serving sentence. He was prosecuted for illegal use of prohibited drugs and was convicted. The emphasis here is on the crime committed before sentence or while serving sentence which should be a felony. Assume that the offender was found guilty of illegal use of prohibited drugs. but even at this stage. While serving sentence in Muntinlupa.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) consider habitual delinquency.

reward or promise who would execute the crime is a principal by direct participation. he told B. /vvverga Page 66 of 100 . On Thursday. A boxed B. As far as the killing of B is concerned. A then dragged B's body and poured gasoline on it and burned the house altogether. the crime is arson since he intended to burn the house only. Insofar as B is concerned. What condition is missing to bring about evident premeditation? Evidence to show that between Monday and Friday. In evident premeditation. to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. you burn down his house while the latter is inside. a principal by inducement while the person receiving the price. the person making the offer is an inducer. A did not know that C. he waited for B but killed C instead. A and B fought on Monday but since A already suffered so many blows. A killed B. the following conditions must concur: (1) (2) (3) The time when the accused determined to commit the crime. promise. A killed B. Illustrations: A and B fought. the son of B was also in their house and who was peeping through the door and saw what A did. One argument led to another until A struck B to death with a bolo. Whenever a killing is done with the use of fire. the crime is arson even if someone dies as a consequence.” Evident premeditation Vena V. their responsibilities are the same. If the intent is to destroy property. thought of killing B on Friday. So. the crime is homicide because there was no evident premeditation. Verga For evident premeditation to be aggravating. Can there be evident premeditation when the killing is accidental? No. A told B that someday he will kill B. The crime committed is only murder. reward or price offered or given as a consideration for the commission of the crime. A told B. A knew that B is coming home only on Friday so A decided to kill B on Friday evening when he comes home. Illustration: A and B were arguing about something.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) consideration of the price. It could not be murder. on Monday. However. the crime is attempted murder because there is evident premeditation. there was no evident premeditation. or reward but not the criminal liability of the person who gave the price. If the victim is already dead and the house is burned. when there is a promise. If the intent is to kill. Hence. Sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution. the crime is arson. C was burned and eventually died too. if the killing was accidental. Law enforcers only use this to indicate that a killing occurred while arson was being committed. It is either arson or murder. Insofar as C is concerned. this is murder. However. Afraid that A might kill him. Illustration: A. An act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination. "I will kill you this week. and subsequently killed the victim. On Friday. Is there evident premeditation in both cases? None in both cases. As a consequence. Is there evident premeditation? There is aberratio ictus. reward or promise but also the criminal liability of the one giving the offer. that murder cannot be considered for C. As far as the killing of C is concerned. there must be a clear reflection on the part of the offender." On Friday. Is there evident premeditation? None but there is treachery as the attack was sudden. At the most. the offender has manifested the intention to kill the victim. They are both principals and that is why the recent rulings of the Supreme Court are to the effect that this aggravating circumstance affects or aggravates not only the criminal liability of the receiver of the price. What is necessary to show and to bring about evident premeditation aside from showing that as some prior time. it is homicide since it is noted that they were arguing. he hid somewhere in the house. There is no such crime as murder with arson or arson with homicide. I will kill you. reward or consideration. By means of inundation or fire Fire is not aggravating in the crime of arson. there is murder even if the house is burned in the process. On Friday. No such crime as arson with homicide." A bought firearms. A met B and killed him. Evident premeditation shall not be considered when the crime refers to a different person other than the person premeditated against. qualify. "This week shall not pass. However. the offender clung to his determination to kill the victim. A and B had a quarrel. you could designate it as “death as a consequence of arson. acts indicative of his having clung to his determination to kill B. as when to kill someone. too.

This is one aggravating circumstance where the offender who premeditated. This is murder – a homicide which has been qualified into murder by evident premeditation which is a qualifying circumstance. then bought a knife. It must appear that the offender clung to his determination to commit the crime. Lee. Evident premeditation is part of the crime like kidnapping for ransom. method and form of attack may be premeditated and would be resorted to by the offender. he thought of killing somebody. They fought on Monday and parted ways. robbed the passengers and the driver (People v. Because of this. But there may be evident premeditation and there is treachery also when the attack was so sudden. This is a circumstance that will qualify a killing from homicide to murder. robbery with force upon things where there is entry into the premises of the offended party. Premeditation must be clear. Same where A planned to kill any member of the Iglesio ni Kristo. It is only treachery because the evident premeditation is the very conscious act of the offender to ensure the execution. It is required that there be evidence showing meditation between the time when the offender determined to commit the crime and the time when the offender executed the act. Craft Aggravating in a case where the offenders pretended to be bona fide passengers of a jeepney in order not to arouse suspicion. Do not consider both aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation against the offender. A was just waiting for him to get intoxicated and after which.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) While it is true that evident premeditation may be absorbed in treachery because the means. B accepted. It is enough that the victim is determined so he or she belongs to a group or class who may be premeditated against. A premeditated to kill any member of particular fraternity. In order for evident premeditation to be considered. Illustration: A and B have been quarreling for some time. the law says evident. When A saw B in the restaurant with so many people. method and form in the commission of the crime which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. A approached B and befriended him. they were going to drink. 191 SCRA 12). One day. Intoxication is the means deliberately employed by the offender to weaken the defense of the offended party. It is not enough that there is some premeditation. It was held that evident premeditation is not present. Abuse of superior strength There must be evidence of notorious inequality of forces between the offender and the offended party in their age. Evident premeditation was not absorbed in treachery because treachery refers to the manner of committing the crime. size and strength. He. The fact that the offender premeditated is not prima facie indicative of evident premeditation as the meeting or encounter between the offender and the offended party was only by chance or accident. the very person/offended party premeditated against must be the one who is the victim of the crime. Evident premeditation is always absorbed in treachery. The means. and estafa through false pretenses where the offender employs insidious means which cannot happen accidentally. B was having too much to drink. A saw a knife and used it to stab B with all suddenness. Carpio. What is the essence of treachery? /vvverga Page 67 of 100 . The mere fact that there were two persons who attacked the victim does not per se constitute abuse of superior strength (People v. Vena V. he stabbed B. It is essential for this aggravating circumstance for the victim to be identified from the beginning. A pretended to befriend B. the circumstance may be treachery and not abuse of superior strength or means to weaken the defense. employing means to weaken the defense. just to intoxicate the latter. A decided to seek revenge. method or form employed my be an aggravating circumstance which like availing of total darkness in nighttime or availing of superior strength taken advantage of by the offender. A proposed that to celebrate their renewed friendship. A and B are enemies. but once inside the jeepney. sharpened it and stabbed the first man he met on the street. Illustration: A person who has been courting a lady for several years now has been jilted. If this was the very means employed. A did not dare fire at B for fear that he might hit a stranger but instead. He then killed one. decided on December 20. Treachery Treachery refers to the employment of means. and that the offender took advantage of such superior strength in committing the crime. It is not necessary that the victim is identified. 1991). Verga There are some crimes which cannot be aggravated by evident premeditation because they require some planning before they can be committed. He bought a firearm and practiced shooting and then sought B.

What crime was committed? The crime is only homicide because the aggravating circumstance is only nocturnity and nocturnity is not a qualifying circumstance. B was not able to put up a defense and A was able to flee while B died. decided on July 6. this is also a qualifying circumstance. /vvverga Page 68 of 100 . Treachery not appreciated where quarrel and heated discussion preceded a killing. Toribio). A was wounded but not mortal so he managed to run away. Robbery was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. the killing is murder even if the manner of attack was not shown (People v. even only a token one. B died. the offender shoved the body inside a canal. there is no treachery anymore. treachery was considered as the victim was not in a position to defend himself (People v. In the first situation. It must be shown that the victim was totally defenseless. 191 SCRA 643). ignominy is held aggravating. Ilagan. One evening. But where children of tender years were killed. The SC ruled this is only homicide because treachery must be proven. Cruelty pertains to physical suffering of the victim so the victim has to be alive. Treachery is out when the attack was merely incidental or accidental because in the definition of treachery. But although a quarrel preceded the killing where the victim was atop a coconut tree. It is not enough to show that the victim sustained treacherous wound. whether or not the victim is dead or alive. decided on April 30. the nighttime is generic aggravating circumstance. Accused held liable only for the killings. However. the offended party was not able to put up any defense. Ignominy refers to the moral effect of a crime and it pertains to the moral order. A thought of killing B but then he cannot just attack B because of the latter's size. But in murder. treachery cannot be considered present. method or form employed by the offender. Gahon. In the same manner. the offended party was denied the chance to defend himself. If because of the cover of darkness. the accused was convicted only for homicide. So. Hence. In the example where A pretended to befriend B and invited him to celebrate their friendship. Distinction between ignominy and cruelty Ignominy shocks the moral conscience of man while cruelty is physical. Illustration: A and B quarreled. the Supreme Court considered the crime as aggravated by ignominy. 1991). However A had no chance to fight with B because A is much smaller than B. the crime is murder because there is already treachery. because the victim would be put on guard (People v. Instead some other aggravating circumstance may be present but not treachery anymore. There must be evidenced on how the crime was committed. Gupo). B was able to walk a few steps before he fell and died. if B despite intoxication was able to put up some fight against A but eventually. In People v. if A and B casually met and there and then A stabbed B. it is something which offends the moral of the offended woman. A waited for B and stabbed B. raping a woman from behind is ignominous because this is not the usual intercourse. means and form used or employed by him. ignominy is adding insult to injury. The reason why treachery cannot be considered as present here is because the offended party was able to put up a defense and that negates treachery. aggravated by dwelling and in disregard of age. the implication is that the offender had consciously and deliberately adopted the method. the crime is still murder if the victim is killed. although Vena V. method or form employed by the offender. In treachery. A thought of committing a crime at nighttime with the cover of darkness. Although one of the victims was barely six years old. The crime committed is murder but then the correct circumstance is not treachery but means employed to weaken the defense. if the offender avails of the services of men and in the commission of the crime. In plain language. Suddenness of the attack does not by itself constitute treachery in the absence of evidence that the manner of the attack was consciously adopted by the offender to render the offended party defenseless (People v. the offended party fought back. then the attendant circumstance is no longer treachery but means employed to weaken the defense. while the victim after having been killed by the offender. the accused was prosecuted for robbery with homicide.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) The essence of treachery is that by virtue of the means. Verga stabbing may be sudden since A was not shown to have the intention of killing B. Although the qualifying circumstance is abuse of superior strength and not treachery. they took advantage of superior strength but somehow. This is how animals do it. Example: A had a gunshot wound at the back of his head. which is also a qualifying circumstance of murder under Article 248. 1992. Lapan. In a case where the crime committed is rape and the accused abused the victims from behind. A clear example is a married woman being raped before the eyes of her husband. being one year old and 12 years old. B pulled a knife as well and stabbed A also. A positioned himself in the darkest part of the street where B passes on his way home. due to the means. In a case of homicide. If the offended party was able to put up a defense. the offended party. the crime was homicide only. So.

To be aggravating. Vena V. Verga Organized or syndicated crime group In the same amendment to Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code. Sixty stab wounds do not ipso facto make them aggravating circumstances of cruelty. confederating or mutually helping one another for purposes of gain in the commission of a crime. it must be alleged in the information and proved during the trial. refer to it as aggravating or mitigating depending on whether the same is considered as such or the other. if not alleged in the information. the court cannot validly consider the circumstances because it is not among those enumerated under Article 14 of the Code as aggravating.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) After having been killed. If motor vehicle is used only in the escape of the offender. conspiracy in the commission of the crime is alleged in the information. An organized or syndicated crime group means a group of two or more persons collaborating. This circumstance is aggravating only when used in the commission of the offense. Where therefore. Unlawful entry Unlawful entry is inherent in the crime of robbery with force upon things but aggravating in the crime of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons. paragraphs were added which provide that the maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was committed by any person who belongs to an organized or syndicated crime group. If relationship is aggravating. There is a decision by the Court of Appeals that a motorized bicycle is a motor vehicle even if the offender used only the foot pedal because he does not know how to operate the motor so if a bicycle is used in the commission of the crime. there is cruelty only when there are evidence that the offender inflicted the stab wounds while enjoying or delighted to see the victim in pain. Cruelty and ignominy are circumstances brought about which are not necessary in the commission of the crime. It is noteworthy. Illustration: A and B are enemies. do not use alternative circumstance. then refer to it as such. Otherwise. Cruelty is aggravating in rape where the offender tied the victim to a bed and burnt her face with a lighted cigarette while raping her laughing all the way (People v. and Education. The circumstance being special or qualifying. The moment it is given in a problem. The crime is murder if 60 wounds were inflicted gradually. it must have been used to facilitate the commission of the crime. the allegation may be considered as procedurally sufficient to warrant receiving evidence on the matter during trial and consequently. that there is an organized or syndicated group even when only two persons collaborated. The Supreme Court held that it added shame to the natural effects of the crime. Lucas. Aggravating when a motorized tricycle was used to commit the crime (1) (2) (3) (4) Relationship. there must be evidence showing that the accused inflicted the alleged cruel wounds slowly and gradually and that he is delighted seeing the victim suffer in pain. or mutually helped one another in the commission of a crime. the circumstance of an organized or syndicated crime group having committed the crime has been added in the Code as a special aggravating circumstance. /vvverga Page 69 of 100 . which acts are inherent in a conspiracy. motorized means of transportation or motorized watercraft. 181 SCRA 315). Alternative circumstances Four alternative circumstances Use only the term alternative circumstance for as long as the particular circumstance is not involved in any case or problem. A upon seeing B pulled out a knife and stabbed B 60 times. however. If mitigating. Intoxication. confederated. there is no cruelty. Degree of instruction. even though proven during the trial. the body was thrown into pile of garbage. absence of this evidence means the crime committed is only homicide. refer to it as aggravating. motor vehicle is not aggravating. For cruelty to exist as an aggravating circumstance. Will that fact be considered as an aggravating circumstance of cruelty? No. In the absence of evidence to this effect. that the crime is committed with the use of a motor vehicle. ignominy is aggravating. With this provision. motor vehicle becomes aggravating if the bicycle is motorized. the said special aggravating circumstance can be appreciated if proven. Motor vehicle The Supreme Court considers strictly the use of the word “committed”.

the same will immediately aggravate. Exempting circumstance is the relationship. Otherwise intoxication cannot legally be considered. Also in Article 247. The idea is the offender. ascendant. On the contrary. requires that the offender has reached that degree of intoxication where he has no control of himself anymore. the Supreme Court said. the court will have to take it as mitigating. There were 11 stab wounds and this. Degree of instruction and education These are two distinct circumstances. So although the offender may have partaken of two cases of beer. the court will not consider it at all. There must be indication that because of the alcoholic intake of the offender. So the court will not consider this as aggravating or mitigating simply because the circumstance has no relevance to the crime that was committed. so that if the prosecution wants to deny the offender the benefit of this mitigation. crime is qualified seduction. regardless of whether the woman is of bad reputation. the indication is that the offender gained strength out of the drinks he had taken. there were two laborers who were the best of friends. Verga This circumstance is ipso facto mitigating. This is an absolutory cause. Example: A has been living with (3) Sometimes. the other circumstances in Article 15 may not be taken into account at all when the circumstance has no bearing on the crime committed. The intoxication in law requires that because of the quality of the alcoholic drink taken. When arraigned he invoked intoxication as a mitigating circumstance. but after stabbing the victim he hailed a tricycle and even instructed the driver to the place where he is sleeping and the tricycle could not reach his house and so he has to alight and walk to his house. malicious mischief and swindling or estafa. because of the intoxication is already acting under diminished self control. relationship is qualifying. One pulled out a knife and stabbed the other. intoxication will not be considered mitigating. Those commonly given in Article 332 when the crime of theft. Rather it is the effect of the alcohol upon the offender which shall be the basis of the mitigating circumstance. So the mere fact that the offender has taken one or more cases of beer of itself does not warrant a conclusion that intoxication is mitigating. the offender had practically lost self control. In the crime of qualified seduction. One may not have any degree of instruction but is nevertheless educated.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Except for the circumstance of intoxication. When they drank two cases of beer they became more talkative until they engaged in an argument. The moment it is shown to be habitual or intentional to the commission of the crime. Degree of instruction also will not be considered if the crime is something which does not require an educated person to understand. is automatically aggravating. or descendant or if the offender is a brother or sister or brother in law or sister in law of the offended party and they are living together. In such a case. they decided to have some good time and ordered beer. his behavior after committing the crime must show the behavior of a man who has already lost control of himself. There is diminished voluntariness insofar as his intelligence or freedom of action is concerned. Relationship may not be considered at all. relationship is a qualifying and not only a generic aggravating circumstance. then there is no diminished self control. aggravating. Since it was payday. is incompatible with the idea that the offender is already suffering from diminished self control. Vena V. if not mitigating. especially if it is not inherent in the commission of the crime. the manner of committing the crime. There are specific circumstances where relationship is exempting. they should prove that it is habitual and that it is intentional. even if the woman is 60 years old or more. There is no criminal liability but only civil liability if the offender is related to the offended party as spouse. Intoxication to be considered mitigating. Among such circumstances are: (1) (2) In the case of an accessory who is related to the principal within the relationship prescribed in Article 20. he is suffering from diminished self control. even if they are present. The Supreme Court did not give the mitigating circumstance because of the number of wounds inflicted upon the victim. that if the circumstance is present. Relationship Relationship is not simply mitigating or aggravating. It is only the circumstance of intoxication which if not mitigating. Intoxication does not simply mean that the offender has partaken of so much alcoholic beverages. Illustration: In a case. regardless of the crime committed. That is wrong. Do not think that because the article says that these circumstances are mitigating or aggravating. It is not the quantity of drink that will determine whether the offender can legally invoke intoxication. This is the rational why intoxication is mitigating. The conduct of the offender. It is not the quantity of alcoholic drink. the offended woman must be a virgin and less than 18 yrs old. a spouse does not incur criminal liability for a crime of less serious physical injuries or serious physical injuries if this was inflicted after having surprised the offended spouse or paramour or mistress committing actual sexual intercourse. But if the offender is a brother of the offended woman or an ascendant of the offended woman. Intoxication /vvverga Page 70 of 100 . But the other circumstances. So if this reason is not present. but if they do not influence the crime.

we have the right to property acquired by us. PEOPLE vs. All the requisites of exempting circumstance are present and should be taken into consideration. Issue: W/N the defendant is entitled on grounds of legitimate selfdefense. yet it cannot be said that he lacks education because he came from a family where brothers are all professionals. There is no question that there was aggression on the part of the victims: one of the deceased ordering while the other actually participating in the fencing. land dispute. However. Revised Penal Code. jumping from the window fell on some stones. LUAGUE Keyword: Woman about to be raped while her husband was at work. the following requisite should be present: unlawful aggression. only he is the black sheep because he did not want to go to school. mitigated by the privileged extenuating circumstance of incomplete self-defense. self-defense Issue: Can the defendant. PEOPLE vs. illiteracy will not mitigate because the low degree of instruction has no bearing on the crime. after admitting having shot the deceased from the window of his house with a shotgun under the foregoing circumstances claim that he did so in defense of his person and his rights and therefore he should be exempted from criminal liability. MERE TOUCHING OR GRASPING OF ARM. It may happen also that the offender grew up in a family of professionals. Victim. (1) WHEN KILLING FOR HONOR HELD JUSTIFIED. she was not warranted in making such a deadly assault. as the injured person did not insist CASES FOR JUSTIFYING. and the right to honor which is not the least prized of our patrimony. his resistance was disproportionate to the attack. The Supreme Court held that although he did not receive schooling. (2) WHEN KILLING HELD UNJUSTIFIED. EVEN IF INTRUDER DID NOT REPLY WHEN ASKED WHO HE WAS PEOPLE vs. APEGO Keyword: Paranoid sister. “gaddemit!”. SELF-DEFENSE (PROPIA DEFENSA). reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. So he understands what is right and wrong. Issue: W/N the defendant can plead complete self-defense. WITHOUT INSISTENCE OR REPETITION WHICH COULD BE CONSIDERED AN ATTEMPT AGAINST HONOR. Appellant is therefore guilty beyond reasonable doubt of only two (2) homicides. But it does not follow that he is bereft of education. that will aggravate his criminal liability. it is concluded that. Vena V. The fact that he has knowledge of the law will not aggravate his liability. there was not sufficient provocation to justify her in using a deadly weapon. although she actually believed it to be the beginning of an attempt against her. he was invoking lack of degree of education. The /vvverga Page 71 of 100 .Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) professionals for sometime. Decision: When a sleeping woman is awakened at night by some one touching her or grasping her arm. Decision: Yes. When the appellant fired his shotgun from his window. But if he committed falsification. MITGATING AND AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES I. If the offender did not go higher than Grade 3 and he was involved in a felony. defense of one’s person or rights is treated as a justifying circumstance under Article 11 . NARVAEZ Keywords: fencing. because his knowledge has nothing to do with the commission of the crime. believing that some person is attempting to abuse her asks who the intruder is and receives no reply. Verga third element is also present. attacks the said person with a pocketknife. He may just be a maid in the house with no degree of instruction but he may still be educated. couple coming from Nasugbu. killing his two victims. If a child or son or daughter would kill a parent. and the nature of the wound shows that she was either standing up or sitting up at the time. and she. (a) PICKING UP KNIFE OF RAPIST PREPARING TO LIE WITH ACCUSED AND STABBING HIM). The defendant’s act constitutes a justifying circumstance since: Aside from the right to life on which rests the legitimate defense of our person. Decision: No. The fact that the offender did not have schooling and is illiterate does not mitigate his liability if the crime committed is one which he inherently understands as wrong such as parricide. the offender may be a lawyer who committed rape. where he used his special knowledge as a lawyer. In the same manner. notwithstanding the woman's belief in the supposed attempt. reasonableness of the resistance is also a requirement of the justifying circumstance of self-defense or defense of one's rights under paragraph I of Article 11. but in order for it to be appreciated. husband stabbed at the vital organ by the sister with fan knife and TIN CANS. paragraph 1 of the RPC.

Since one of the ingredients of self-defense is missing. Accused did not provoke the assault. The ancient common law rule in homicide was denominated “retreat to the wall”. the deceased assaulted the defendant but the latter was able to resist the aggression. Thus. it cannot be believed that it was necessary for him to resort to violence. the force employed by the defendant was reasonably necessary and that he acted in legitimate self-defense. KILLING OF PARAMOUR NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO ATTEMPT TO RAPE ACCUSED WHO MAINTAINED ILLICIT RELATION WITH VICTIM FOR SOME TIME PEOPLE vs. An accused was no longer acting in self-defense when he pursued and killed a fleeing adversary. The accused exceeded her right of self-defense since there was really no need of wounding the victim. Guards. DOMEN Keyword: Fight over a carabao. LUAGUE. SUPRA US vs. in the commission of the crime. PEOPLE vs. Unlawful Aggression When present Attempt to rape a woman PEOPLE VS. and therefore a statement alleging such violence is improbable and inadmissible as a basis for an exemption from liability. Under the circumstances. upon the ground that the accused in committing the homicide acted in self-defense. Issue: W/N the defendant is entitled to acquittal for having killed the victim in the exercise of his right of self-defense. threatened by the constabulary. There were two stages in the fight. This principle has now given way in the US to Vena V. LAUREL Keywords: Stolen kiss. There was no provocation on the defendant’s part. the same having ceased from the moment the deceased took to his heels. defendant cheated the victim. MOJICA Keywords: Constabulary versus Police. Decision: Yes. When the deceased retreated. There was reasonable necessity for the means employed by X to repel the attack. there being then no more aggression to defend against. Victim became so angry and threatened to inflict harm on the defendant. Both men accused each other for starting the fight. His duty requires him to overcome his opponent and the force he may exert therefore differs somewhat from that which ordinarily may be offered in self-defense. Decision: When it is proven that the deceased had for some time maintained illicit relations with the accused. POTESTAS Keywords: Woman kills her paramour who was not her live-in partner saying that the latter tried to rape her. Defendant was a police Issue: W/N the defendant can maintain that he killed the victim in self-defense and that he is exempt from criminal liability. /vvverga Page 72 of 100 . Verga “stand ground when in the right” rule. Decision: Yes. The law did not require the accused to retreat. PEOPLE vs. being accustomed to pass the night in her house. there was no longer any danger to the life of the accused but the latter pursued him and inflicted many additional wounds. though originally the unlawful aggressor. There was no reasonable cause for striking a blow in the center of the body where the vital parts are located. complete self-defense cannot be invoked. In the initial stage. i. there was present the circumstance of incomplete exemption from responsibility since the second requisite is missing. the circumstance of nocturnity cannot be considered because the nighttime was not purposely selected by the accused. Issue: W/N there is a reasonable necessity for the means employed to repel the attack. The resistance was not disappropriate to the assault thus the accused is exempted from criminal liability because he acted in legitimate defense of his person. PEOPLE vs. The element of practicability made it impossible for him to determine during the heat of a sudden attack whether he would increase or diminish the risk to which exposed by standing his ground or stepping aside. striking with a “Japanese wood” and inflicting with a tuba knife causing the victim’s death. and at a time when they were both in bed.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) or repeat any act which could be considered as an attempt against her honor. Issue: W/N the woman can plead self-defense considering that the man seems to be asleep when he was killed. This doctrine make it the duty of a person assailed to retreat as far as he can before he is justified in meeting force with force. Decision: No. ALCONGA Keywords: Gambling. The crime having been committed by the owner of the house against the person who had by mutual consent frequented the house. A policeman in the performance of his duty must stand his ground and cannot take refuge in flight when attacked.

was justified by the circumstance. who used the weapon. is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. but sanity is presumed. Issue: W/N the policeman should be held liable Decision: No. who furnished the legitimate weapon used in his defense should be also acquitted and declared exempt from any responsibility. Issue: W/N the person who aided the old man by furnishing a weapon to the latter makes the former liable for homicide. the defense interposed being that the defendant was insane at the time he killed the deceased. to commit assault and disobedience with a weapon in the hand. US vs. BONOAN Keywords: barbershop. “I’ll pay you” Issue: W/N the prosecution have the burden of proving that the accused was sane at the time he committed the crime. the burden of establishing that fact rests upon him. The killing was done in the performance f a duty. Poultry area. was declared to be exempt from responsibility in repelling the attack of which he was the victim and in wounding his assailant therewith. SUBINGSUBING Keywords: 78 year old man aided by another man to parry the blows of X who made unchaste proposals to the old man’s wife. The deceased did not head several warning shots. while it was at the cost of the life of the deceased. In the Philippines. DELIMA Keywords: Escapee who was killed by a policeman while ordering the latter to surrender. Issue: W/N the action of the defendant can be justified. and this presumption is confirmed by the evidence. If one who defends a third person under the conditions and with the requisites the penal law lays down for exempting him from responsibility should be acquitted of the charge in a case prosecuted against him. Policeman committed no crime. To hold the accused guilty of homicide may have the effect of demoralizing police officers discharging official functions identical or similar to those in the performance of which petitioner was engaged at the time he fired at the deceased. PEOPLE VS. to be sure. the logical consequence of that declaration of exemption from responsibility is that the other. PEOPLE Keywords: Detention prisoner charged of stealing chickens. and the means employed having been reasonably necessary in this defense. Decision: The act performed was committed in the performance of official duty and was more or less necessary to prevent the escaping prisoner from successfully eluding the officers of the law. This would be a great detriment to public interest. there would be halfhearted and dispirited efforts on their part to comply with such official duty. the burden. HOW INSANITY IS PROVED /vvverga Page 73 of 100 . Where the one. The appellant having acted in defense of his wife and child and the other passengers in the boat in striking the deceased with an oar in order to make him desist from trying to upset the boat. The deceased was under the obligation to surrender and had no right after evading service of his sentence. PEOPLE vs. Verga Issue: W/N it was the defendant who was the assailant. then when a person who did nothing more than furnish a weapon to one whom he saw in peril and in great need of defending himself and repelling a serious assault. Police only tried to hit the victim on the leg but unfortunately hit him on the back.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. which although the policeman to resort to such an extreme means which. the obligation of proving that affirmative allegation rests on the defense. when not satisfied with the explanation offered. as was held in the same judgment to be lawful and right. Decision: No. insanity “I’ll kill you”. VALCORZA vs. and when a defendant in a criminal case interposes the defense of mental incapacity. CABUNGCAL Keywords: ROCK THE BOAT! Issue: W/N the defendant is completely exempted from all criminal liability. PEOPLE vs. it is illogical and unjust to deny to said assistant the same exemption from responsibility and the exoneration granted the slayer on the grounds of self-defense. he is completely exempt from criminal liability. although it proved to be fatal. The victim then can invoke self-defense. Decision: Considering the preceding relations between the contending parties. Decision: Yes. Decision: No. would be the aggressor. with the result that thereafter. it is the offended party who was directly or indirectly affected and who would naturally be interested in demanding an explanation and therefore in seeking the interview. so that when they meet it is to be presumed that such offended party. In the case at bar.

For purposes of disposing of appellant's defense it becomes necessary to restate certain basic principles in criminal law. One person is not compelled to travel behind another on the highway. it is permissible to receive evidence of the condition of his mind a reasonable period both before and after that time. or at least equal to that which he was required to commit and that it promised an evil of such gravity and imminence that it might be said. that one of the causes which will overthrow this presumption of voluntariness and intelligence is insanity in which even the actor is exempt from criminal liability as provided for in Article 12. this court will not presume that. with freedom intelligence. we read the thoughts. trivial crime committed by X to a municipal president. in a particular case of defiance of local authority by the unlawful violation of a local ordinance even where the offense thus committed /vvverga Page 74 of 100 .Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. Child was run over while the defendant was trying to overtake. if clear and convincing. that a felonious or criminal act (delito doloso) is presumed to have been done with deliberate intent. US vs. that is. S. Bonoan). Verga In order to ascertain a person's mental condition at the time of the act. Whatever may have been the cause of an automobile accident. Decision: No. it must appear that the threat which caused the fear was of an evil greater that. Before a force can be considered to be an irresistible one. notwithstanding the fact that three days were expended in doing so. viz. as set forth in the opinion. after having arrested the complaining witness without a warrant. Mind can only be known by outward acts. In the absence of all evidence to the contrary. PEOPLE vs. therefore. Issue: W/N the municipal president can be found guilty of “illegal and arbitrary detention” of the accused for a period of three days. US vs. he acts without the least discernment because there is a complete absence of the power to discern. that is. Under all the circumstances of this case. insanity exist when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. Issue: W/N the defendant should be charged for reason of reckless negligence. he cannot be held liable either civilly or criminally. the motives and emotions of a person and come to determine whether his sets conform to the practice of people of sound mind. paragraph 1. Applying these principles. of the Revised Penal Code. circumstantial evidence. In the eyes of the law. mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability. that a person is criminally liable for a felony committed by him. Issue: W/N the defendant can be acquitted with the argument that he should be exempted from criminal liability on account of insanity. The onus probandi rest upon him who invokes insanity as an exempting circumstances and he must prove it by clear and positive evidence. the accused is deprived of reason. Issue: W/N the defendant can invoke that he was acting under the impulse if an uncontrollable fear of a greater injury. KNIGHT Keyword: chauffer of US Army. Decision: No. The defense in a criminal action that the defendant in committing the crime acted under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear produced by a threat of an equal or greater injury to himself can be held to be sustained. Fortaleza followed as to the authority of a municipal president to make an arrest without a warrant for an offense committed in his presence. To prove insanity. Impulse of uncontrollable fear of a greater injury should the defendant refuse. Direct testimony is not required nor are specific acts of derangement essential to establish insanity as a defense. or must produce such an effect upon the individual that in spite of all resistance. that the. if it cannot be attributed to the misconduct or the negligence of the operator in the management of his machine. The case of U. or that there is a total deprivation of freedom of the will. Decision: No. US vs. suffice (People vs. The traveler may pass to the front when he has good and sufficient grounds to believe that he can do so in safety. the municipal president being held to have all the usual powers of a public officer for the making of arrests without warrant. VICENTILLO Keywords: illegal detention. brought him before a justice of the peace as soon as "practicable" thereafter. ELICANAL Keyword: Captain killed by shipmates. the defendant. it reduces him to a mere instrument. and one has not the exclusive right to precede another. RENEGADO Keywords: Insane security guard. Decision: Chief mate did not exercise influence over the accused. vs. Thereby. unfortunate circumstances than prolonged the detention. ordinary man would have succeeded to it. Slave-driver teacher who asked the guard to type test questionnaires. and malice because the moral and legal presumption is that freedom and intelligence constitute the normal condition of a person in the absence of evidence to the contrary. defense fails.

trivial and unimportant. or by disordered function of the sensory or of the intellective faculties.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) is. or at least it must be the result of a voluntary. DAR employee killed. under said circumstance. She has in her favor the fourth and seventh exempting circumstances. his irrational acts and beliefs. In order that insanity may relieve a person from criminal responsibility. Verga It is difficult to distinguish from insanity. to avoid the act in question. Insanity in law exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence. Hiding a deadly weapon and embarking to evade arrest are conscious adoption of the pattern to kill. the existence of which no rational person would believe. baby killed by animal bites. it is necessary that there be a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. conscious and. in order that he may be held liable. his free agency being at the time destroyed. at the very time of doing the act. However. there has been no case that lays down a definite test or criterion for insanity. Issue: W/N the defendant can be acquitted on the grounds of insanity. and through which we determine whether his acts conform to the practice of people of sound mind. abandonment Issue: W/N the mother can be held liable for infanticide and or abandonment of a minor. the person who commits them. DISTINGUISH INSANITY FROM SANITY Vena V. Under foreign jurisdiction. and his improvident bargains. A person acts under an irresistible impulse when. which states that insanity is "a manifestation in language or conduct. PEOPLE vs. he has lost the power to choose between right and wrong. and characterized by perversion. Puno). his acts and conduct inconsistent with his previous character and habits. that the accused be deprived of cognition. that he acts without the least discernment. it is permissible to receive of his mental condition for a reasonable period both before and after the time of the act in question. or must be conscious of his acts. Even in cases where said crimes are committed through mere imprudence. such as evidence of the alleged deranged person's general conduct and appearance. and the right and wrong test. which is manifested in language or conduct. The vagaries of the mind can only be known by outward acts: thereby we read the thoughts. The fact that the defendant remembered his acts proves that he was not insane or if insane. Evidence of insanity must have reference to the mental condition of the person whose sanity is in issue. HOW COURTS SHOULD CONSIDER BURDEN OF PROOF IN CASES INVOLVING PLEA OF INSANITY /vvverga Page 75 of 100 . to be punishable. a person is insane when he suffers from such perverted condition of the mental and moral faculties as to render him incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong. by reason of duress or mental disease. or a more or less permanently diseased or disordered condition of the mentality. Decision: Infanticide and abandonment of a minor. irresistible impulse test. Decision: One who suffers from insanity at the time of the commission of the offense charged cannot in a legal sense entertain a criminal intent and cannot be held criminally responsible for his acts. There no definite defined border between sanity and insanity. Under the right and wrong test. in itself. not because of imprudence or any other cause than that she was overcome by severe dizziness and extreme debility. His unlawful act is the product of a mental disease or a mental defect. BANDIAN Keywords: infanticide. Insane delusion is manifested by a false belief for which there is no reasonable basis and which would be incredible under the given circumstances to the same person if he is of compos mentis. an insane person believes in a state of things. of disease or defect of the brain. namely: delusion test. The law exempts from criminal liability any person who acts under the circumstances in which the appellant acted in this case. with no fault or intention on her part. DUNGO Keywords: confined in a mental hospital for insanity but found sane while perpetuating the crime. PEOPLE vs. functional or organic. by giving birth to a child in a thicket and later abandoning it. Under the delusion test. Direct testimony is not required nor the specific acts of derangement essential to establish insanity as a defense." Insanity as defined above is evinced by a deranged and perverted condition of the mental faculties. must be committed willfully or consciously. So far. insanity may be shown by surrounding circumstances fairly throwing light on the subject. under our jurisdiction. free act or omission. that is. it may not have been necessary or at least expedient to make an arrest and bring the offender forthwith before the proper judicial officer. Thus. motives and emotions of a person. his insanity admitted of lucid intervals. inhibition. or by impaired or disordered volition. that there be complete absence or deprivation of the freedom of the will (People vs. However. which is the subject of inquiry. An insane person has no full and clear understanding of the nature and consequence of his act. must be in the full enjoyment of his mental faculties. there are three major criteria in determining the existence of insanity. We can apply as test or criterion the definition of insanity under Section 1039 of the Revised Administrative Code.

Dungo). Accused confined in the mental hospital after the incident. the law presumes all acts to be voluntary. tinig ng ibon”. Issue No 1: W/N murder was committed. in which she was concerned. not an exempting. she being suddenly and roughly attacked and unexpectedly fired upon with a 45-caliber revolver. (People vs. and as such must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The standard set out in Formigones were commonly adopted in subsequent case. AGGARVATING AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES US vs. the State should guard against sane murderer escaping punishment through a general plea of insanity. between her aggressor and a third person. namely: (a) the tests of cognition-"complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the [criminal] act. a few moments prior to or during the perpetration of the crime." This is perhaps to be expected since person's volition naturally reaches out Vena V. The burden of proving the affirmative allegation of insanity rests on the defense. Verga only towards that which is presented as desirable by his intelligence. notwithstanding the fact that he was already provided with a clean and well-prepared weapon /vvverga Page 76 of 100 . Decision: No. deliberately and after due reflection had resolved to kill the woman who had left him for another man. if not point blank range.e. on the basis of his mental condition. and at a time when she was listening to a conversation. in that the woman Agustina Sola met a violent death. the Court has recognized at most a mitigating." The law presumes every man to be sane. which have been fully proven in the present case. and in order to accomplish his perverse intention with safety. Issue No. The woman found another man. Otherwise stated. invokes insanity as a defense has the burden of proving its existence." But our case law shows common reliance on the test of cognition. and after usual and customary words had passed between her and her aggressor. All the foregoing circumstances conclusively prove that the accused. was doubtless unable to flee from the place where she was standing. however. Whoever. knowingly. Thus: In considering the plea of insanity as a defense in a prosecution for crime. rather than on the test relating to "freedom of the will. Appellant has not successfully discharged the burden of overcoming the presumption that he committed the crime as charged freely. The allegation of insanity or imbecility must be clearly proved. manifest and evident by reason of the open acts executed by the accused. whether that intelligence be diseased be healthy. Without positive evidence that the defendant had previously lost his reason or was demented. it will be presumed that he was in normal condition. manners. and it is improper to conclude that a person acted unconsciously." examination of the case law has failed to turn up any case where this Court has exempted an accused on the sole ground that he was totally deprived of "freedom of the will. or even escape or divert the weapon. in the defense of insanity. Decision: The above-stated facts. 2: W/N Evident premeditation can be appreciated. HICKS Keyword: Afro-American soldier and Moro woman having an illicit affair. Issue: W/N the defendant can be acquitted of the charge of rape on the ground that he was suffering from a mental disorder called schizophrenia at the time he committed the crime. with the qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosia). where the accused failed to show complete impairment or loss of intelligence. Acts penalized by law are always refuted to be voluntary. every doubt is resolved in favor of the accused.. and forms were employed in the attack that directly and specially insured the consummation of the crime without such risk to the author thereof as might have been offered by the victim who. The quantum of evidence required to overthrow the presumption of sanity is proof beyond reasonable doubt. and intelligently. Jealousy. However. From all of the foregoing it is logically inferred that means. RAFANAN Keywords: Schizophrenic person pleading not guilty for the crime of rape. Premeditation is. In any case. while the injured woman was unarmed and unprepared. Insanity is a defense in a confession and avoidance. Insanity must be clearly and satisfactorily proved in order to acquit an accused on the ground of insanity. "Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the willpower of the offender without however depriving him of the consciousness of his Acts. defined and punished by article 403 of the Penal Code. owing to the suddenness of the attack.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Generally. unless his insanity and absence of will are proved. and that it is improper to presume that acts were done unconsciously. Lastly. in criminal cases. PEOPLE vs." i. constitute the crime of murder. circumstance in accord with Article 13(9) of the Revised Penal Code. therefore. The circumstance of premeditation can be appreciated but should only be considered as merely a generic one. Seclusive who allege that he hears sounds." and (b) the test of violation-"or that there be a total deprivation of freedom of the will. A person accused of a crime has the burden of proving his affirmative allegation of insanity. Decision: Yes. which he described as “parang ibon. doubt as to the fact of insanity should be resolved in favor of sanity. the starting premise is that the law presumes all persons to be of sound mind. without an accompanying "complete deprivation of intelligence. at close. Evident premeditation. in order to relieve him from liability.

in that defendant "acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion and obfuscation. DELA CRUZ Keywords: Due to heat of passion. but the victim thus wounded and running away was also pursued by the accused. Verga PEOPLE vs. and. and his discovery of her in flagrante in the arms of another. Issue No. Decision: Yes. US vs. to a mitigating Decision: Yes. The only causes which mitigate the criminal responsibility for the loss of self-control are such as originate from legitimate feelings. penknife Issue No. unworthy. 1: W/N the circumstances can be considered an extenuation of his criminal liability. Vena V.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) and carried other loaded cartridges besides those already in his revolver. who had theretofore been his querida (concubine or lover). in what appeared to be a proper manner. Decision: No. Decision: Yes. Issue No." the evidence disclosing that in the heat of passion he killed the deceased. his reason for killing her being merely that she had elected to leave him and with his full knowledge to go and live with another. we repeat. disguising his intention and calming her by his apparent repose and tranquility. as a fundamental requisite of self-defense is not necessarily implied in any act of aggression against a particular person. In the case at bar the impulse upon which the defendant acted. Her act of mortally wounding her lover had not been precede by aggression on the part of the latter. he entered the house. was not present in the instant case. A slight push of the head with the hand-which. In the former case the cause of the alleged "passion and obfuscation" of the aggressor was the convict's vexation. doubtless in order to successfully accomplish his criminal design. There is no occasion to speak her of the “reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it". disappointment and anger engendered by the refusal of the woman to continue to live in illicit relations with him. upon discovering her in flagrante in carnal communication with a mutual acquaintance. when the author of the same does not persist in his purpose or when he desists therefrom to the extent that the person attacked is no longer in peril." was not that the woman declined to have illicit relations with him. . not those which arise from vicious. and immoral passions. which. This marked obstinacy of the accused in her aggression clearly reveals her intention to cause to its full extent the injury she has committed. “that woman”. The stab-wound inflicted upon the deceased by the accused was not only mortal. Issue No 3: W/N the accused can invoke loss of reason and selfcontrol produced by jealousy. YUMAN Keyword: Man refused to go back to his live-in partner. 3: W/N she is entitled to a mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to cause grave injury. nor is it necessary to inquire whether or not there was "sufficient provocation" on the part of the one invoking legitimate self-defense because both circumstances presuppose unlawful aggression. 4: W/N the defendant is entitled circumstance that she acted under obfuscation. 2: W/N a slight pushing of the head which hurt the woman can be considered a mitigating circumstance: Decision: No. especially the fact that the accused had been abandoned by the deceased after living together for three or four years. Decision: No. As said by the supreme court of Spain in the above cited decision. behaving himself properly as he had planned to do beforehand. "Considering that an unlawful aggression. according to her was the cause that led her to stab him. such act does not constitute the unlawful aggression mentioned by the Code. but the sudden revelation that she was untrue to him. Decision: No. a man kills his concubine upon discovering that she had carnal communication with another man. The commission of the offense of which defendant was convicted was marked with the extenuating circumstance defined in subsection 7 of article 9. 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 extenuating circumstances to be taken into consideration by the court. Issue No. greeting everyone courteously and conversed with his victim. Issue No.the latter would perhaps have inflicted upon him other wounds had it not been for the timely arrival of policeman who calmed her bellicose attitude and placed her under arrest. This mitigating circumstance should be taken into consideration in favor of the accused. which she had a perfect right to do. Issue No 2: W/N this case can be decided based on Hick’s case. and which naturally produced "passion and obfuscation. to repel which it is lawful to employ a means of defense which may be reasonably necessary. 1: W/N the woman committed a crime. in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case. and the harsh treatment which the deceased gave the accused /vvverga Page 77 of 100 . knife in hand.

Decision: Yes. not established. not possessing it. PEOPLE vs. Issue No. Even without benefit of wedlock. Issue No. either. while Alicia was in the prime of her youth. or any gratitude owed by one to the other that ought to be respected. That he watched her movements daily manifested his jealous character.. Decision: Evident premeditation was. 6: W/N she is entitled to a mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction. but the accuse did no seek or take advantage of it to better accomplish his purpose. kaingero. Decision: No. 5 glasses of tuba. 5: W/N the can be aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence and obvious ungratefulness. For this reason. True that he was armed with a balisong. treachery cannot be imputed Issue No. It will be recalled that the lower court found that the accused had previously reproved the deceased for allowing herself to be caressed by a stranger. Decision: No. a short time before the aggression. the place was bright and well lighted. Decision: No. The defendant is a mere wage-earner and could not even sign her statement before the police and had to affix her thumb mark. Her loose conduct was forcibly driven home to the accused by a remark he heard on the very day of the crime that the accused was the husband "whose wife was being used by Maring for purposes of prostitution". with the crime committed. Decision: No. 6: W/N the accused can claim a mitigating circumstance of having acted on provocation strong to cause passion and obfuscation. but the physique of the aggressor ought also to be considered. The crime was committed at nighttime. hence the circumstance did not aggravate the crime. Issue No 5: W/N she entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to the authorities. BELLO Keyword: Old man. We can not see how the accused's insistence that she live with him again. and. but he was old and baldado (invalid). Issue No. There is nothing to show that the assailant and his common-law wife reposed in one another any special confidence that could be abused. or connection. The facts are not sufficient to draw a comparison of their relative strength. and his rage at her rejection of the proposal. or that he was penniless while she was able to earn a living and occasionally gave him money.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) on the afternoon of the day in question.1: W/N treachery can be appreciated in order to qualify the crime to murder. but showed her determination to pursue a lucrative profession that permitted her to distribute her favors indiscriminately. 2: W/N there is evident premeditation. Verga formidable advantage over the unarmed victim. Issue No. 4: W/N nighttime maybe appreciated as aggravating circumstance. MACBUL /vvverga Page 78 of 100 . a monogamous liaison appears morally of a higher level than gainful promiscuity. At any rate. Decision: Yes. he could not take advantage of it. PEOPLE vs. 3: W/N the crime can be qualified by abuse of superior strength. induced his young bride to work as a public hostess. taking into account the emotional excitement of the accused. both lived together as husband and wife. Woman refused to give support and was seeing another man. since. Issue No. White slave trade. In fact. the wound was but a part and continuation of the aggression. The accused had been carrying a balisong with him for a long time as a precaution against drunkards. The evidence does not show. it would be an error to take into consideration this circumstance. Alicia's insulting refusal to renew her liaison with the accused.. and without any present plan or intent to use it against his commonlaw wife. Possession of a balisong gives an aggressor a Vena V. Neither is it shown that the accused took advantage of any such special confidence in order to carry out the crime. likewise. any superior strength on the part of the accused. None is inferable from the fact that the accused was much older than his victim. and which would bear any relation. Under the circumstance. The trial court itself found that the stab in the back was inflicted as the victim was running away. deliberate intent to take advantage of superior strength. without regard as to which portion of her body was the subject of attack. but there is no evidence that from this jealousy sprouted a plan to snuff out her life. therefore. was not motivated by any desire to lead a chaste life henceforth. can be properly qualified as arising from immoral and unworthy passions. it is not clearly shown that there was "intención deliberada de prevalerse de la superioridad aprovecharse intencionadamente de la misma" i. Decision: While it cannot be denied that Alicia was stabbed at the back.e. The four (4) stab wounds were inflicted indiscriminately. and not infirm. Issue no. a remark that so deeply wounded the appellant's feelings that he was driven to consume a large amount of wine (tuba) before visiting the deceased to plead with her to leave her work.

Victim even made a proposal of love to the wife of the accused in lieu the latter’s gambling debt. On the basis of the foregoing evidence. treachery should be considered against all persons participating or cooperating in the perpetration of the crime. Revised Rules of Court). Issue: W/N the accused be held liable for the crimes of kidnapping and murder. Decision: Conspiracy. Issue No. ONG Keyword: Debt. This court approves it. 2: W/N the accused can invoke the fact that no irreparable material damage was caused to the offended part in the commission of the crime. Treachery (alevosia) qualified the killing to murder. Section 1. In other words. Conspiracy implies concert of design and not participation in every detail of execution. Verga be taken into Keywords: habitual delinquent. Decision: Yes. The evidence at hand hardly satisfied the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt as to the charge of kidnapping. Issue No. Mitigating circumstance of plea of guilt and extreme poverty. recognizing the immanent principle that the right to life is more sacred than a mere property right. Issue: W/N the court erred in considering the defendant a habitual delinquent. if within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of robo. Decision: Yes. appellant's first conviction. The crime was murder only. cannot be taken into account because his second conviction took place fourteen years later. Thus. Neither is it among those which may be considered as similar nature and analogous to those expressly recognized in accordance with Article 13 /vvverga Page 79 of 100 . A person shall be deemed to be habitually delinquent. that last one. he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener. W/N extreme poverty can be appreciated as a mitigating PEOPLE vs. Hence within the purview of habitual delinquents. or falsificación. Decision: No. the accused can hardly be held liable for kidnapping as well. therefore it cannot correctly Vena V. That is not to encourage or even countenance theft but merely to dull somewhat the keen and pain-producing edges of the stark realities of life. estafa. Decision: Yes. Issue No 2: W/N treachery can be appreciated in qualifying the crime to murder. reduction of penalty due to mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty and lack of irreparable material damage. PEOPLE vs. These facts portray well that the tied hands of the victim rendered him defenseless and helpless thereby allowing the accused to commit the crime without risk at all to their person. Decision: No. stealing two sacks of papers which belong to the Provincial Government of Sulu. is not recognized by the RPC." Therefore. namely. stabbed to death and buried. Decision: Yes. It may not be amiss to state that an accused is entitled to acquittal unless his guilt is shown by proof beyond reasonable doubt. There was no illegal detention and victim was killed and promptly buried. connivance and unity of purpose and intention among the accused were present throughout in the execution of this crime. which is that the crime committed by the accused has caused no irreparable material damage to the offended party. one previous conviction against him. Issue: W/N the accused is entitled to a mitigating circumstance of plea of guilt. Issue: W/N treachery can be appreciated as regards the two other accused who did not do the actual stabbing. (Rule 133. They cannot escape the consequence of any of their acts even if they deviated in some detail from what they originally thought of. 2: circumstance. hurto. Kidnapped. Undisputed facts show that the victim’s hands were tied and his mouth was gagged with a flannel cloth before he was stabbed twice with an icepick and buried in a shallow grave near a creek. The necessary result is that the accused can he held liable only for the killing of the victim. the time interval when the deceased was actually deprived of his liberty was short and the same was only incidental to the main objective of murdering him. The mitigating circumstance so invoked. The plea of guilty spontaneously entered by the accused prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution constitutes mitigating circumstance.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) section 10 and consideration. DY POL Keyword: falsification of public document. The four participated in the planning and execution of the crime and were at the scene in all its stages.

the group intended merely to kill the victim. and flee from the locale of the fearful crime. The purposive selection of an uninhabited place is thus clear from the evidence. 7: W/N cruelty can be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. Issue: W/N the purposive selection of uninhabited place be appreciated. since the treachery rests upon an independent factual basis. bury him. Issue: W/N the plead of guilt can be used as a mitigating circumstance. Decision: It is clear that appellants took advantage of nighttime in committing the felonies charged. is an aggravating circumstance. The accused and the victim were together that night in the nightclub as well as in the car not because of said confidence. Issue No. Since the kidnapping portion of the crime cannot be appreciated beyond reasonable doubt. Inducement by the uncle. Issue: W/N the aggravating circumstance that the accused forced or induced his nephew to murder the priest by hire or reward be appreciated. GAMAO Keywords: Priest killed in exchange of a sum of money. Cruelty (ensañamiento). Indeed. For cruelty to exist. /vvverga Page 80 of 100 . Decision: No. causing him unnecessary physical or moral pain in the consummation of the criminal act. It is true that he owed his uncle a sum of money and the latter could have used these obligations in order to force his nephew to commit the crime but it has not been shown beyond reasonable doubt that the uncle actually hired his nephew to kill the deceased since the nephew rejected the offer. Issue No. It has been held that the use of a motor vehicle is aggravating in murder where the said vehicle was used in transporting the victim and the accused. 6: W/N the use of motor vehicle be appreciated as aggravating circumstance. Issue No. The accused sought the solitude of the place in order to better attain their purpose without interference. Revised Penal Code). it appears that the victim's burial was not meant to make him suffer any longer but simply to conceal his body and the crime itself. it must be shown that the accused enjoyed and delighted in making their victim suffer slowly and gradually. nephew refused the money but nonetheless carried on with the crime. Issue: W/N the accused can be credited with any mitigating circumstance. A special case therefore is present to which the rule that nighttime is absorbed in treachery does not apply. It was merely because the accused had some accounts to settle with him. but can be perceived distinctly therefrom. Decision: Yes. Decision: Yes. The motor vehicle facilitated the stark happening. This aggravating circumstance was correctly appreciated by the lower court regardless of whether or not the same was purposely and deliberately sought by the accused for it is clear that the darkness of the night facilitated the commission of the crime and was taken advantage of by them. and that the accused made use of such relation to commit the crime. the circumstance of nighttime is not absorbed in treachery. Decision: No. Even granting that the victim died because of asphyxiation when he was buried and not hemorrhage from stab wounds. Verga Issue No. Decision: Yes. par. The accused meditated and tenaciously persisted in the accomplishment of the crime and were not prompted merely by the impulse of the moment. Decision: In order for this circumstance to obtain.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. as it appears from the record. the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation (premeditacion conocida) attended the commission of the crime. 10. the culprit taking advantage of the offended party's belief that the former would not abuse said confidence. 8: W/N there is evident premeditation. It is essential too that the confidence be a means of facilitating the commission of the crime. 13. cannot be considered here. 5: W/N the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence can be appreciated. The brief of the Acting Solicitor General agrees with that of the accused in denying the attendance of cruelty as an aggravating circumstance. US vs. Decision: The place was ideal not merely for burying the victim but also for killing him for it was a place where the possibility of the victim receiving some help from third persons was completely absent. and to secure themselves against detection and punishment. 3: W/N the aggravating circumstance of nighttime can be absorbed in treachery. The accused showed signs of remorsefulness upon his arrest when he cooperated with the police authorities in the solution of the crime. it would appear that the plead of guilty to this information naturally would be most unfair to the accused since the penalty would be that of capital punishment. The record does not show beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was forced or induced to commit this crime. Issue No. Decision: The accused Benjamin Ong is likewise is entitled to the mitigating circumstance that is analogous to passion and obfuscation (Art. it is necessary that there be a relation of trust and confidence between the accused and the one against whom the crime was committed. Inasmuch as the treachery consisted in the fact that the victims' hands were tied at the time they were beaten.

The influence exercised by the uncle over his nephew was so great and powerful that the latter could not resist it. It can be deduced that both are intoxicated. arising from the defense which the priest might make. PEOPLE vs. Decision: Yes. 1: W/N the act of the accused can be characterized as murder and multiple attempted murder Decision: Yes. ii) II. He was unable to see by whom the blow was struck. Issue No. 4: W/N the uncle should be considered as a principal by induction. The crime committed is murder with multiple attempted murder qualified by the use of explosive. Also. Accused is only entitled to a mitigating defense of intoxication. which knocked the latter down. Issue No. McMann and McKay went to the house of a Moro to get some /vvverga Page 81 of 100 . DEFINING HABITUAL DRUNKARD AS ONE GIVEN TO INTOXICATION BY EXCESSIVE USE OF INTOXICATING DRINKS U. The deceased received the fatal blow while he was in the dark space between the door and the stairs leading to the upper portion of the convent. and he is not entitled to the benefit of the mitigating circumstance established by the Penal Code. Fitzgerald immediately arose. INTOXICATION WHEN MITIGATING. it must be presumed that he intended the natural consequences of his act. Nor can the fact that the homicide was immediately preceded by an affray between the deceased and the defendant may be considered as a mitigating circumstance. Verga Issue No. and the fact that the accused was drunk at the time of the commission of the crime must then be considered as a mitigating circumstance. These facts clearly establish the qualifying circumstance of alevosia in so far as the accused is concerned. the SC was compelled to give him the benefits of the mitigating circumstance of lack of discretion since it was shown the nephew was a poor ignorant fisherman and only depends on his uncle for subsistence. He selected his nephew to commit the crime and dominated all who were present. The murderer taking advantage of the darkness was lying in wait for his victim. FEATI. Decision: No. FITZGERALD Facts: The accused and the victim had a dispute in a distillery. Decision: Yes. Issue: W/N a mitigating circumstance can be considered. Marsh died soon after. DE LA ROSA Keywords: demonstration. i) (a) NOT HABITUAL PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR OF NON-HABITUAL CHARACTER OF INTOXICATION A. vs. Provocation on the part of Marsh cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance since there was no evidence how the quarrel arose. Issue No. 2: Was the crime properly classified as murder? Decision: Yes. 2: W/N the aggravating circumstance of treachery be appreciated as well.” ran toward the ice plant in search of a revolver and returned. Issue No 3: W/N the accused be credited with aggravating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wong as that actually done. it will be presumed that intoxication is not habitual. Issue No.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. security guard threw a pillbox hitting one of the demonstrators in the head. he saw Marsh and fired at him. Owing to his extreme ignorance. After which. where it appears that the accused fired a loaded revolver at the deceased and killed him. MCMANN Facts: McMann and on McKay (one the victims) were packers at Camp Vicars in Mindanao. No other mitigating circumstance can be appreciated in his favor for one who attacks another with a deadly weapon as a revolver must know that the most probable result of such an aggression is the death of the person attacked.S. US vs. Decision: In the presence of proof to the contrary. thereby employing means or methods in the execution of this crime which tended directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself. He had no opportunity to offer any resistance whatever. I. and saying “I will show you sons of b—s. The nephew merely depends on his uncle for his subsistence while the latter was found to be a man of great influence. Decision: Yes. The victim (Marsh) struck Fitzgerald. He hated the Roman Catholic Church and called a meeting in his house where the question of murdering the priest was discussed. 3: W/N extreme ignorance can be used as a mitigating circumstance. There can be no question that the latter was directly induced by his uncle to kill the priest.

3: W/N sex can be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance against the accused. Issue No. BALONDO Keywords: leaves.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) matches with which to light their cigarettes however. killed Mac Kay instead. 5: W/N the fact that the victim was the niece of the accused aggravate the crime.” “culprits. Issue No. accomplice. The moro then reported McMann to the authorities. McMann suddenly fired at McKay hitting the latter. PERSONS WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE Under the Revised Penal Code. But intoxication in this case cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance since the defendant is a habitual drunkard. Uncle killed his niece to taste human flesh. This classification is true only under the Revised Penal Code and is not used under special laws. McMann then saw another Moro who was carving the head of a bolo. the first thing to find out is if there is a conspiracy. Decision: No. it is not possible now to ascertain the mental condition of the defendant as of the time when he committed the crime of which he is charged. Decision: Yes. Decision. Issue No. Cannibal.” When a problem is encountered where there are several participants in the crime. The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration only when the offended party is the spouse. natural or adopted brother or sister or relative by affinity in the same degree of the offended. 1: W/N it can be contended that three years after the commission of the crime. Nothing in the record shows that before the deceased died. legitimate. as a /vvverga Page 82 of 100 . Mcmann also fired at him. Since the accused was charged of having killed the deceased for more than three years ago. 2: W/N the accused used superior strength. that the court should have subjected the accused to some psychiatric test to determine his sanity. if only one person committed a crime. McMann snatched the bolo cutting the latter’s fingers. The attendant circumstance qualifies the crime committed as murder. Only use the term “offender. The accused had made several statements which were reduced into writing and signed by him. defendant cannot claim lack of intention. Issue No.” Also only classify offenders when more than one took part in the commission of the crime to determine the proper penalty to be imposed. When the Moro tried to run. 6: W/N there are any mitigating circumstance that can be appreciated in favor of the accused. the law looks into their participation because in punishing offenders. but they were all together during that time). Issue: W/N intoxication may be considered a mitigating circumstance. Verga Issue No. she was subjected to such indignities as would cause her shame or moral suffering. when more than one person participated in the commission of the crime. Issue No. Decision: It is unlikely that the shooting was accidental since he witnesses testified that they say McMann aiming the gun at Mac Kay’s head. Do not use the term principal when the crime committed is a violation of special law. It is probable that McMann was actually going to shoot the Moro but because he was drunk at that time. So. The court also held that the defendant was drunk at the time the crime was committed. No. do not use principal. the Revised Penal Code classifies them as: (1) (2) (3) principal. the owners of the house would not allow them to enter. The facts and circumstances narrated by the accused in those different statements tally in important details. ascendant.” or the “accused. banana Vena V. Thereafter. If there is. Decision: No. Decision: Yes. descendant. McMann and McKay found themselves waiting in a room (not clear if they were waiting to be investigated. Habitual drunkard is defined as one who habituated to intemperance whenever the opportunity offered ACCUSED SEEN DRUNK TWELVE TIMES OR MORE PEOPLE vs. The accused voluntarily admitted his guilt. 4: W/N Ignominy can be added to the natural effects of the act. The commission of the crime was attended by aggravating circumstance of disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of her sex. Clearly. the Moro. or accessory. The circumstance of his having made a voluntary plea of guilt before the court of evidence by the prosecution. because the penalties under the latter are never graduated. Decision: Yes. Use the “offenders. The record constitutes sufficient justification for the conclusion that the accused was not insane at the time of the commission of the crime.

But if the cooperation merely facilitated or hastened the consummation of the crime. A was mauling B. It must be strong as irresistible force. The accused are father and son. “Kill him! Kill him. But even the principal and the accomplice will not be liable if the felony committed is only light and the same is not consummated unless such felony is against persons or property. In the case of rape. When the felony is grave.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) general rule. it is more than if the crime could hardly be committed. He shot and killed someone. The son was a robust farm boy and the victim undernourished. The liability of the fellow who stopped the friend from approaching is as an accomplice. Is the mother liable? No. where three men were accused. but accessories are not liable for liable for light felonies. In the second situation. then notwithstanding the existence of a conspiracy. The act of the father in holding the legs of the victim merely facilitated the penetration but even without it the son would have penetrated. In a case where the offender was running after the victim with a knife. However. all participants are criminally liable. As to the liability of the participants in a felony. the offender on top could hardly penetrate because the woman was strong enough to move or resist. Ill advised language is not enough unless he who made such remark or advice is a co-conspirator in the crime committed. The father told his son that the only way to convince the victim to marry him is to resort to rape. If they are not and the same is not consummated. This is tantamount to an irresistible force compelling the person induced to carry out the execution of the crime. The accessory is not. The Supreme Court ruled that the father is liable only as an accomplice. But where the felony is only light only the principal and the accomplice are liable. penetration is possible even without the assistance of the father. Principal by inducement Concept of the inducement – one strong enough that the person induced could hardly resist. If the crime could hardly be committed without such cooperation. C. “Shoot!”. the facts indicate that if the fellow who held the legs of the victim and spread them did not do so. Understandably he did not cooperate in the mauling. favor the lesser penalty or liability. or light. even though the felony is only attempted or frustrated. if the participation of one is so insignificant. threw her on the ground and placed himself on top of her while the father held both legs of the woman and spread them. Is the person who shouted criminally liable. It is not just a matter of cooperation. Is that inducement? No. In case of doubt. or less grave. one held the legs. such that even without his cooperation. The basis is the importance of the cooperation to the consummation of the crime. the son was much bigger than the woman so considering the strength of the son and the victim.” A killed the other fellow. a person shouted to A. So when they saw the opportunity the young man grabbed the woman. one was on top of the woman. It is not that the crime would not be committed because if that is what you would imply it becomes an ingredient of the crime and that is not what the law contemplates. even the principal and the accomplice are not liable. Verga The point is not just on participation but on the importance of participation in committing the crime. There was a quarrel between two families. Apply the doctrine of pro reo. he only stopped to other fellow from stopping the mauling. It was held that the fellow who blocked the victim is a principal by indispensable cooperation because if he did not block the way of the victim. the Supreme Court ruled that all participants are principals. Principal by accomplice indispensable cooperation distinguished from an Vena V. then such cooperation would bring about a principal. One of the sons of family A came out with a shotgun. this would make the cooperator merely an accomplice. the one chasing the victim caught up and stabbed the latter at the back. While in the course of a quarrel. In the first situation. a friend of B tried to approach but D stopped C so that A was able to continuously maul B. the criminal liability of all will be the same. Therefore it is only when the light felony is against person or property that criminal liability attaches to the principal or accomplice. the offender could not have caught up with the latter. the Code takes into consideration whether the felony committed is grave. one held the hands. Another fellow came and blocked the way of the victim and because of this. Those who held the legs and arms are principals by indispensable cooperation. such offender will be regarded only as an accomplice. His mother then shouted. The reason for this ruling is that the law favors a milder form of criminal liability if the act of the participant does not demonstrate a clear perversity. less grave. the crime would be committed just as well. In another case. because the act of one is the act of all. /vvverga Page 83 of 100 .

One must not have participated in the commission of the crime. Neither is the wife’s act of beaming the victim with a flashlight indispensable to the commission of the killing. we will bury him. 1612 has.” “I will not marry you if you do not kill B”(let us say he really loves the inducer). not simply of an accessory under paragraph 2 of Article 19 of the Code. So the accessory shall be liable for the same felony committed by the principal. Utterance was said in the excitement of the hour. such participation of an accessory brings about criminal liability under Presidential Decree No. Among the enumeration is “by profiting themselves or by assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime”. possesses. Madali. Verga effects or proceeds of the crime or assisted the offender to profit therefrom. They practically become co-conspirators. Questions & Answers 1.” Oscar stabbed the victim. he went home to get a rifle. “Birahin mo na. Considering that it was not so dark and the husband could have accomplished the deed without his wife’s help. When an offender has already involved himself as a principal or accomplice. In People v. One who knowingly profits or assists the principal to profit by the effects of robbery or theft is not just an accessory to the crime. natural or adopted or where the accessory is a relative by affinity within the same degree. It was held that there was no conspiracy. degree of inducement anymore. unless the accessory himself profited from the /vvverga Page 84 of 100 . shoot him” cannot make the wife the principal by inducement. Joint or simultaneous action per se is not indicia of conspiracy without showing of common design. who was 18 yrs old. The penalty is higher than that of a mere accessory to the crime of robbery or theft. but such assistance merely facilitated the felonious act of shooting. Oscar has no rancor with the victim for him to kill the latter. than the latter. Agapinay. The family was not in good graces of the neighborhood. He cannot be an accessory. Considering that Ernesto had great moral ascendancy and influence over Oscar being much older. She assisted her husband in taking good aim. The accessory comes into the picture when the crime is already consummated. and it was Ernesto who provided his allowance. However. Presidential Decree No. clothing as well as food and shelter. Examples of inducement: “I will give you a large amount of money. modified Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code. the son was mauled. Likewise. or as an ascendant. May one who profited out of the proceeds of estafa or malversation be prosecuted under the Anti-Fencing Law? In People v. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law). Balderrama. acquires and/or sell. keeps or in any manner deals with any article of value which he knows or should be known to him to be the proceeds of robbery or theft is considered a “fence” and incurs criminal liability for “fencing” under said decree.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. Anyone who participated before the consummation of the crime is either a principal or an accomplice. and considering further that doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused. When the accessory is related to the principal as spouse. therefore. the liability of the wife is only that of an accomplice. 188 SCRA 69. The shouts of his wife “Here comes another. the one who uttered “Kill him. Accessory as a fence The Revised Penal Code defines what manners of participation shall render an offender liable as an accessory. he cannot be an accessory any further even though he performs acts pertaining to an accessory. 1612. birahin mo na. Mere possession of any article of value which has been the subject of robbery or theft brings about the presumption of “fencing”. Accessories Two situations where accessories are not criminally liable: (1) (2) When the felony committed is a light felony. the participation of one who conceals the effects of robbery or theft gives rise to criminal liability for “fencing”. Ernesto is principal by inducement. where the crime committed by the principal was robbery or theft. In People v. Father challenged everybody and when neighbors approached. but principally liable for fencing under Presidential Decree No. It is not the determining cause of the crime in the absence of proof that the words had great dominance and influence over the husband. Ernesto shouted to his younger brother Oscar. not a command to be obeyed. Therefore you do not look into the One cannot be an accessory unless he knew of the commission of the crime. or descendant or as brother or sister whether legitimate.” while the felonious aggression was taking place cannot be held liable as principal by inducement. 35 years old. with intent to gain. Any person who. 186 SCRA 812.

In both laws. When the soldiers left. Illustration: Crime committed is kidnapping for ransom. making use of his public function and thus abusing the same. parricide murder or attempt on the life of the Chief executive or the principal is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime. If principal committed robbery by snatching a wristwatch and gave it to his wife to sell. Presidential Decree No. Such officer becomes an accessory by the mere fact that he helped the principal to escape by harboring or concealing. Destroying the corpus delicti Vena V. said act constitutes the crime of abetting piracy or abetting brigandage as the case may be. do not overlook the purpose which must be to prevent discovery of the crime. is the wife criminally liable? Can she be prosecuted as an accessory and as a fence? The liability of the wife is based on her assisting the principal to profit and that act is punishable as fencing. However. the same act is the basis of liability and you cannot punish a person twice for the same act as that would go against double jeopardy. still an accessory to the crime of estafa. Article 20 does not include an auntie. the aunt even gave money to her nephew to go to the province. If the crime is embezzlement or estafa. Otherwise the effect would be that the accessory merely harbored or assisted in the escape of an innocent man. concealing or assisting the principal to escape and a private citizen or civilian harboring concealing or assisting the principal to escape. as long as that killing is established beyond reasonable doubt. 532 provides that any person who knowingly and in any manner… acquires or receives property taken by such pirates or brigands or in any manner derives benefit therefrom… shall be considered as an accomplice of the principal offenders and be punished in accordance with the Rules prescribed by the Revised Penal Code. and is not inconsistent with any provision of Republic Act No. murder or attempt on the life of the Chief Executive. In the case of a public officer. If this is not the crime. the crime committed by the principal must be either treason. incorporated therein the crime of piracy in Philippine territorial waters and thus correspondingly superseding Presidential Decree No. 532. The corpus delicti is not the body of the person who is killed. the liability of persons acquiring property subject of piracy or brigandage. But if the crime was piracy of brigandage under Presidential Decree No. the accessory cannot be held criminally liable without the principal being found guilty of any such crime. 533 (Anti-piracy and AntiHighway Robbery Law of 1974). not a fence. in amending Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code. he becomes an accessory. Acquiring the effects of piracy or brigandage It is relevant to consider in connection with the criminal liability of accessories under the Revised Penal Code. Section 4 of the Decree which punishes said acts as a crime of abetting piracy or brigandage. On the other hand. Harboring or concealing an offender In the third form or manner of becoming an accessory. parricide. There is only a fence when the crime is theft or robbery. To this end. The crime committed by the principal is determinative of the liability of the accessory who harbors. 1612 and the Revised Penal Code. if the principal is acquitted of the charges.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) No. even if the corpse is not recovered. Although Republic Act No. unless the contrary is proven. not just an accessory. 7659. conceals knowing that the crime is committed. It shall be presumed that any person who does any of the acts provided in this Section has performed them knowingly. in case of a civilian. paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. The act of knowingly acquiring or receiving property which is the effect or the proceeds of a crime generally brings about criminal liability of an accessory under Article 19. 7659. to the piracy or brigandage. the civilian does not become an accessory unless the principal is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime. She will no longer be liable as an accessory to the crime of robbery. Principal was being chased by soldiers. His aunt hid him in the ceiling of her house and aunt denied to soldiers that her nephew had ever gone there. Verga When the crime is robbery or theft. The reason is because one who is not a public officer and who assists an offender to escape or otherwise harbors. although the penalty is that for an accomplice. Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. still stands as it has not been repealed nor modified. or conceals such offender. with respect to the second involvement of an accessory. take note that the law distinguishes between a public officer harboring. The law requires that the principal must have committed the crime of treason. If the /vvverga Page 85 of 100 . criminal liability will arise and if there is someone who destroys the corpus delicti to prevent discovery. the mere fact that he harbored concealed or assisted the principal to escape does not ipso facto make him an accessory. Even if the crime committed by the principal is treason. or murder or parricide or attempt on the life of the Chief Executive. 2. Is aunt criminally liable? No. this is not the reason. the crime committed by the principal is immaterial.

[Taer should have been liable for violation of the Anti-fencing law since cattle rustling is a form of theft or robbery of large cattle. 1829. There is an earlier Supreme Court ruling that the accessory and accomplice must be charged together with the principal and that if the latter be acquitted. Yet it is not always true that the accomplice and accessory cannot be criminally liable without the principal first being convicted. or accessory. Under Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. Article 19. Under paragraph 3. the aunt is criminally liable but not as an accessory.] In Enrile v. the civilian who harbored. but under this decree. Presidential Decree No. But if the evidence shows that the act done does not constitute a crime and the principal is acquitted. it is required that all those involved in the commission of the crime must be included in the information that may be filed. If there is no crime. Verga However. punishes acts commonly referred to as “obstructions of justice”. the law requires that the principal be found guilty of any of the specified crimes: treason. has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest. It is a malum prohibitum. What is Vena V. or attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive. either treason. Article 19 of the Code. except that he was not charged with fencing. The theory of absorption must not confine itself to common crimes but also to offenses punished under special laws which are perpetrated in furtherance of the political offense. prosecution and conviction. This Decree penalizes under Section 1(c) thereof. effective January 16. then said accused will be acquitted. The subject acts may not bring about criminal liability under the Code.” Here. or assists the escape of the principal. murder. Although this ruling may be correct if the facts charged do not make the principal criminally liable at all. Conspiracy was not proven. Such an offender if violating Presidential Decree No. whether principal. of “(c) Harboring or concealing. but under Presidential Decree No. the standard of the Revised Penal Code. that means he is not guilty and therefore. accomplice and accessory. In other words. because there is no crime committed. 533. So the criminal liability of an accomplice or accessory does not depend on the criminal liability of the principal but depends on the quantum of evidence. which penalizes obstruction of apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders. concealing. That is as far as the Revised Penal Code is concerned. Taer was held liable as an accessory in the crime of cattle rustling under Presidential Decree No. although under paragraph 3 of Article 19 when it comes to a civilian. He is simply an offender without regard to the crime committed by the person assisted to escape. the principal must first be found guilty of the crime charged. the nature of the crime is immaterial. 80 for the purposes specified therein. take note in the case of a civilian who harbors. no need for guilt. Amin. and the offender need not be the principal – unlike paragraph 3. unless the acquittal is based on a defense which is personal only to the principal. But not Presidential Decree No. 1829. 1829 is no longer an accessory. In Taer v. the law specifies the crimes that should be committed.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) person is a public officer. (2) /vvverga Page 86 of 100 . But the prosecutor must initiate proceedings versus the principal. PENALTIES Measures of prevention not considered as penalty The following are the measures of prevention or safety which are not considered penalties under Article 24: (1) The arrest and temporary detention of accused persons as well as their detention by reason of insanity or imbecility or illness requiring their confinement in a hospital. concealed or assisted in the escape did not violate art. parricide. accomplice. And in filing an information against the person involved in the commission of the crime. CA. the liability of the accused will depend on the quantum of evidence adduced by the prosecution against the particular accused. then the supposed accomplice and accessory should also be acquitted. etc. 1829. there is no specification of the crime to be committed by the offender for criminal liability to be incurred for harboring. inter alia. So this means that before the civilian can be held liable as an accessory. The paragraph uses the particular word “guilty”. Even if the principal is convicted. This special law does not require that there be prior conviction. So in the problem. or facilitating the escape of any person he knows or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect. 1981. then there is no criminal liability. material is that he used his public function in assisting escape. accused received from his co-accused two stolen male carabaos. 19. a person charged with rebellion should not be separately charged under Presidential Decree No. the act. The commitment of a minor to any of the institutions mentioned in art. Whether the accomplice and the accessory may be tried and convicted even before the principal is found guilty. the law does not distinguish between principal. 1829. parricide. conceals. or knowledge of the crime. the accomplice and the accessory shall not be criminally liable also. aunt is not criminally liable because crime is kidnapping. or facilitating the escape of the offender. If the principal is acquitted. if the evidence presented against a supposed accomplice or a supposed accessory does not meet the required proof beyond reasonable doubt. yet there is a special law which punishes the same act and it does not specify a particular crime. All will be accused and whether a certain accused will be principal or accomplice or accessory will depend on what the evidence would show as to his involvement in the crime.

the constitutional right of an accused to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. he will only be given 80% or 4/5 of the period of his preventive detention. Deprivation of rights and reparations which the civil laws may establish in penal form. but since he is not convicted yet. deprivation of liberty. So. In the amendment. or when he has been previously summoned but failed to surrender and so the court has to issue a warrant for his arrest. unless he is one of those disqualified under the law. whatever credit he is entitled to shall be forfeited. He must still be a minor at the time of promulgation of the sentence. But if the offender did not sign an undertaking. liberty and property without due process of law. if ultimately the accused is convicted and the penalty imposed involves Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code has been amended by a Batas Pambansa effective that tool effect on September 20. The discharge of the offender from preventive imprisonment or detention is predicated on the fact that even if he would be found guilty of the crime charged. provides that the period during which he had undergone preventive detention will be deducted from the sentence. If he signed an undertaking to abide by the same rules and regulations governing convicts. Repeal of Article 80 When may a minor be committed to a reformatory? If the minor is between 9 . the detention of a person accused of a crime while the case against him is being tried does not amount to a penalty. Yet Article 29. if the accused has actually undergone preventive imprisonment. Detention prisoner has more freedom within the detention institution rather than those already convicted.15 years old and acted with discernment.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. then he will only be subjected to the rules and regulations governing detention prisoners. As such. /vvverga Page 87 of 100 . If the offender is not disqualified from the credit or deduction provided for in Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code. yet the law considers this as part of the imprisonment and generally deductible from the sentence. sentence must first be suspended under the following conditions: (1) (2) (3) Crime committed is not punishable by death or reclusion perpetua. And also. From this provision. 1980. Correlating Article 24 with Article 29 Although under Article 24. but by express provision of Article24 is not a penalty. the law does not speak of credit. then the next thing to determine is whether he signed an undertaking to abide by the same rules and regulations governing convicts. he is suffering like a convict. he has practically served the sentence already. under the rules on bail in Rule 114 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. When will this credit apply? If the penalty imposed consists of a deprivation of liberty. Whether the person is entitled to credit is immaterial. but if he has been convicted for two or more crimes whether he is a recidivist or not. preventive imprisonment of an accused who is not yet convicted. superior officials may impose upon their subordinates. then it means that while he is suffering from preventive imprisonment. Verga (3) (4) Suspension from the employment or public office during the trial or in order to institute proceedings. This amendment is found in the Rules of Court. Under what circumstances may a detention prisoner be released. while he is under preventive imprisonment. Fines and other corrective measures which. one can see that the detention of the offender may subject him only to the treatment applicable to a detention prisoner or to the treatment applicable to convicts. that is why the credit is full. the same treatment exactly is applied there. He is availing of the benefit of suspension for the first time. in the exercise of their administrative disciplinary powers. he cannot be subjected to the treatment applicable to convicts unless he signs and agrees to be subjected to such disciplinary measures applicable to convicts. even though the proceedings against him are not yet terminated? (5) Why does the Revised Penal Code specify that such detention shall not be a penalty but merely a preventive measure? This article gives justification for detaining the accused. the detention would violate the constitutional provision that no person shall be deprived of life. The convicted prisoner suffers more restraints and hardship than detention prisoners. Otherwise. because he has been detained for a period already equal to if not greater than the maximum penalty that would be possibly be imposed on him if found guilty. Not all who have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be given a credit Under Article 24.

Under Article 70. This amendment has been incorporated under Rule 114 precisely to do away with arbitrary detention.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) If the crime committed is punishable only by destierro. In the crime of grave threat or light threat. (2) Destierro What is the duration of destierro? Vena V. one who is sentenced to a singly penalty of reclusion perpetua should not be held for more than 40 years. it shall be the one imposed. The proper answer would be that reclusion perpetua has no duration because this is an indivisible penalty and indivisible penalties have no durations. However. he commits the crime of evasion of service of sentence under Article 157. The civil liability must be determined. when the offender is required to put up a bond for good behavior but failed or refused to do so under Article 284. Thus. offender during the time of his sentence: (1) (2) Civil interdiction shall deprive the The rights of parental authority. such detention prisoner shall be discharged. the maximum period shall in no case exceed 40 years. But if the convict himself would go further from which he is vanished by the court. /vvverga Page 88 of 100 . In the crime of concubinage. the court cannot extend beyond 250 Kms. which is the Three-Fold Rule. but the offender is entitled privileged mitigating circumstance and lowering the prescribed penalty by one degree. the penalty one degree lower is destierro. If the convict should enter the prohibited places. That is why the trial must go on. Verga The duration of destierro is from six months and one day. There is no provision of the Revised Penal Code that one sentenced to reclusion perpetua cannot be held in jail for 40 years and neither is there a decision to this effect. Questions & Answers If the offender has already been released. (3) (4) Civil Interdiction Civil interdiction is an accessory penalty. with more reason. and whether the proceedings are terminated or not. those sentenced to reclusion perpetua shall be pardoned after undergoing the penalty for 30 years. Under Article 27. If he was criminally liable. not less than 25 Kms. by reason of his conduct or some other serious cause. Proper petition for habeas corpus must be filed to challenge the legality of the detention of the prisoner. shall be considered by the Chief Executive as unworthy of pardon. it follows that he is also civilly liable. Under the Revised Penal Code. to six year. Where the penalty prescribed by law is arresto mayor. and/or the paramour or mistress. Marital authority. destierro is the penalty imposed in the following situations: (1) When a legally married person who had surprised his or her spouse in the act of sexual intercourse with another and while in that act or immediately thereafter should kill or inflict serious physical injuries upon the other spouse. what is the use of continuing the proceedings? The proceedings will determine whether the accused is liable or not. It is a punishment whereby a convict is vanished to a certan place and is prohibited form entering or coming near that place designated in the sentence. or guardianship either as to the person or property of any ward. unless such person. limit is upon the authority of the court in vanishing the convict. the penalty prescribed for the concubine is destierro under Article 334. Destierro is a principal penalty. If a convict who is to serve several sentences could only be made to serve 40 years. Understand the amendment made to Article 29. This is found in Article 247. such convict shall be sentenced to destierro so that he would not be able to carry out his threat. which is the same as that of prision correcional and suspension. there is no evasion of sentence because the 240-Km. The duration of 40 years is not a matter of provision of law. the most the offender may be held under preventive imprisonment is 30 days. Duration of penalties Reclusion perpetua What is the duration of reclusion perpetua? Do not answer Article 27 to this question. this is only by analogy..

So in the imposition of the sentence. Penalties which the law considers as accessory to the prescribed penalty are automatically imposed even though they are not stated in the judgment.civil interdiction for life or during the period of the sentence as the case may be. 3.suspension from public office. Verga specify only the principal penalty but that is not the only penalty which the offender will suffer. Death . (3) Questions & Answers 1. Arresto . What do we refer to if it is special or absolute disqualification? (5) There are accessory penalties which are true to other principal penalties. If asked what are the accessory penalties. If you were the judge. Article 41. and The right to dispose of such property by any act or any conveyance inter vivos. what is the duration? The duration is six years and one day to 12 years. he executed a deed of sale over his only parcel of land. Article 42.suspension of the right to hold office and the right of suffrage during the term of the sentence. as provided in Article 34. Reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal . This is an accessory penalty and. the court will /vvverga Page 89 of 100 . Prision correccional . is the duration? If the penalty of suspension is imposed as an accessory. Prision mayor . The convict can convey his property. Articles 40 to 45 of the Revised Penal Code shall govern. how would you resolve the move of the creditor to annul the sale? Civil interdiction is not an accessory penalty in prision mayor. Article 44. and civil interdiction during 30 years following date of sentence. An example is the penalty of civil interdiction. State the principal penalty and the corresponding accessory penalties. do not just state the accessory penalties. What do we refer to if it is perpetual or temporary disqualification? We refer to the duration of the disqualification. In classifying the penalties as principal and accessory. As to the particular penalties that follow a particular principal penalty. a convict sentenced to civil interdiction suffers certain disqualification during the term of the sentence. We refer to the nature of the disqualification. If the penalty of temporary disqualification is imposed as principal penalty. While serving sentence. Vena V.perpetual absolute disqualification. (1) (2) Article 40. and perpetual special disqualification from the rights of suffrage if the duration of said imprisonment shall exceed 18 months. Illustration: A has been convicted and is serving the penalty of prision mayor. Article 43. Penalties in which other accessory penalties are inherent: Can a convict execute a last will and testament? Yes. and perpetual absolute disqualification. 4. from the right to follow a profession or calling.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) (3) (4) The right to manage his property. what (4) Its duration shall be that of the principal penalty. The accessory penalties follow the principal penalty imposed for the crime as a matter of course. One of the disqualifications is that of making a conveyance of his property inter vivos. The classification of principal and accessory is found in Article 25. 2. what is meant by this is that those penalties classified as accessory penalties need not be stated in the sentence.temporary absolute disqualification perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage. A creditor moved to annul the sale on the ground that the convict is not qualified to execute a deed of conveyance inter vivos. Primary classification of penalties Principal penalties and accessory penalties The penalties which are both principal and accessory penalties are the following: (1) (2) Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification.

and the maximum. So it was held that when the penalty should be reclusion perpetua. you were asked to state the period in which the penalty of reclusion perpetua is to be imposed. medium and maximum. The legal effect of each is entirely different. Conrado Lucas. or it is light only on the other hand. 7659. there is no such thing as minimum. applied Article 65 of the Code in imposing the penalty for rape in People v. Verga You were asked to state whether you are in favor or against capital punishment. are they one and the same bond that differ only in name? No. Before the enactment of Republic Act No. Divisible and indivisible penalties When we talk of period. If. Understand that you are not taking the examination in Theology. the courts are not at liberty to use any designation of the principal penalty. Designation of penalty Since the principal penalties carry with them certain accessory penalties. speculations arose as to whether it made reclusion perpetua a divisible penalty.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Questions & Answers What accessory penalty is common to all principal penalties? Confiscation or forfeiture on the instruments or proceeds of the crime. Thus. Otherwise. The nature of the penalty as divisible or indivisible is decisive of the proper penalty to be imposed under the Revised Penal Code inasmuch as it determines whether the rules in Article 63 or the rules in Article 64 should be observed in fixing the penalty. after being given a problem. the Supreme Court. In other words. with each portion composing a period as follows: /vvverga Page 90 of 100 . GR No. May 25. if the penalty has no fixed duration. it sentenced the accused to life imprisonment. should be divided into three equal portions to form one period of each of the three portions. If it is indivisible. the penalty of reclusion perpetua had no fixed duration. As we know. Explain the issue on the basis of social utility of the penalty. because when you talk of period. 7659. it is said to be divisible and. Questions & Answers 1. Illustration: When the judge sentenced the accused to the penalty of reclusion perpetua. 1994. he is not deserving of pardon. There is no crime under the Revised Penal Code which carries this penalty. Do not talk of period. which made amendments to the Revised Penal Code. it is implying that the penalty is divisible. 108172-73. depending on whether the felony committed is grave or less grave on one hand. you are implying that the penalty is divisible because the period referred to is the minimum. consistent with the rule mentioned. If bond to keep the peace is not the same as bond for good behavior. it is an indivisible penalty. remember that when the penalty is indivisible. Bond for good behavior Bond for good behavior is prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the crimes of grave threats and light threats under Article 234. when a penalty has a fixed duration. because the moment they deviate from this designation. Because of this. The Revised Penal Code provides in Article 27 that the convict shall be pardoned after undergoing the penalty for thirty years. Is it beneficial in deterring crimes or not? This should be the premise of your reasoning. it is clear that the two bonds are not the same considering that the legal effect or the failure to put up the bond is not the same. unless by reason of his conduct or some other serious cause. the designation is wrong. The capital punishment Reclusion perpetua as modified Vena V. Bond to keep the peace One of the principal penalties common to the others is bond to keep the peace. Thus. Remember that no felony shall be punished by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission pursuant to Article 21. in accordance with the provisions of Articles 65 and 76. the medium. the courts are not correct when they deviate from the technical designation of the principal penalty. there is no period. the same article now provides that the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be from 20 years to 40 years. The legal effect of failure to post a bond for good behavior is not imprisonment but destierro under Article 284. but instead of saying reclusion perpetua. As amended by Section 21 of Republic Act No. The legal effect of a failure to post a bond to keep the peace is imprisonment either for six months or 30 days. It divided the time included in the penalty of reclusion perpetua into three equal portions. there will be no corresponding accessory penalties that will go with them. it is error for the court to use the term “life imprisonment”. by its First Division. You cannot find this penalty in Article 25 because Article 25 only provides for bond to keep the peace.

which have not been touched by a corresponding amendment. The appellee seasonably filed a motion for clarification to correct the duration of the sentence. as well. other provisions of the Revised Penal Code involving reclusion perpetua. regardless of the attendant modifying circumstances. Medium . pursuant to Article 70. four months and one day. Since. such as Article 41 on the accessory penalties thereof and paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 61. then it should have amended Article 63 and Article 76 of the Revised Penal Code. the First Division referred the motion to the Court en banc. But even without this amendment. 6425 provides for the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death whenever the dangerous drugs involved are of any of the quantities stated herein. because instead of beginning with 33 years. if reclusion perpetua was classified as a divisible penalty. If Article 63 of the Code were no longer applicable because reclusion perpetua is supposed to be a divisible penalty. the Court sentenced the accused to imprisonment of 34 years. Article 81 has been amended and. 212 SCRA 402. To this end. In the matter of executing the death penalty.20 years and one day. In fine. It shall then remain as an indivisible penalty. the case of an offender who is below 18 years old at the time of the commission of the offense. four months and one day. it follows by necessary implication that the minimum of reclusion perpetua is twenty (20) years and one (1) day with a maximum duration thereafter to last for the rest of the convict’s natural life. the Court concludes that although Section 17 of RA 7659 has fixed the duration of Reclusion Perpetua from twenty years (20) and one (1) to forty 40 years. instead of the straight penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court. Verily. Maximum . It would be legally absurd and violative of the scales of penalties in the Code to reckon the minimum of Reclusion Perpetua at thirty (30) years since there would thereby be a resultant lacuna whenever the penalty exceeds the maximum twenty (20) years of Reclusion Temporal but is less than thirty (30) years. there was no clear legislative intent to alter its original classification as an indivisible penalty. in all the graduated scales of penalties in the Code. 70 and 21. four months and one day. Lucas by quoting pertinent portion of the decision in People v. eight months and one day. to 33 years and four months. to 40 years. There are. if Congress had intended to reclassify reclusion perpetua as divisible penalty. then there would be no statutory rules for determining when either reclusion perpetua or death should be the imposable penalty.26 years. and because the issue is one of first impression and momentous importance. The issue of whether the amendment of Article 27 made reclusion perpetua a divisible penalty was raised. 1995. the resolution states: After deliberating on the motion and re-examining the legislation history of RA 7659. however. is only to serve as the basis for determining the convict’s eligibility for pardon or for the application of the three-fold rule in the service of penalties.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. thus: The imputed duration of thirty (30) years for reclusion perpetua.34 years. Minimum . The latter is the law on what are considered divisible penalties Ultimately. Innovations on the imposition of the death penalty Aside form restoring the death penalty for certain heinous crimes. thereof. the Supreme Court en banc held that reclusion perpetua shall remain as an indivisible penalty. as set out in Article 25. although. Now then. thus. the death penalty may not be meted out on an offender who was below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime because Article 68 the lowers the imposable penalty upon such offenders by at least one degree than that prescribed for the crime. Reyes. To illustrate. reclusion perpetua is the penalty immediately next higher to reclusion temporal. four months and one day of reclusion perpetua. the question arises: “What then may be the reason for the amendment fixing the duration of reclusion perpetua?” This question was answered in the same case of People v. Considering the aggravating circumstance of relationship. then Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code would lose its reason and basis for existence. Verga under the Code and what should be the duration of the periods thereof. the first paragraph of Section 20 of the amended RA No. to 26 years and eight months. Republic Act No. it was stated as 34 years. 7659 made innovations on the provisions of the Revised Penal Code regarding the imposition of the death penalty: (1) Article 47 has been reworded to expressly include among the instances where the death penalty shall not be imposed. In a resolution promulgated on January 9. it appears that the maximum period for the service of penalties shall not exceed forty (40) years. there would be no occasion for imposing reclusion perpetua as the penalty in drug cases. directs that the manner of putting the convict to (2) /vvverga Page 91 of 100 .

he cannot suffer subsidiary penalty because the latter is not an accessory and so it must be expressly stated. has been deleted and instead. and When penalty is only a fine. The court then issued an order for said convict to suffer subsidiary penalty. can he stay there and not pay fine? No. After undergoing subsidiary penalty and the convict is already released from jail and his financial circumstances improve. (3) The original provision of Article 83.whichever is lower. that convict cannot be required to suffer the accessory penalty. there shall be no subsidiary penalty for the non-payment of damages to the offended party. the maximum duration of the subsidiary penalty is one year. A subsidiary penalty will only be served if the sheriff should return the execution for the fine on the property of the convict and he does not have the properties to satisfy the writ. thereafter. This is tantamount to double jeopardy. or not to pay the fine and instead serve the subsidiary penalty. so that even if the convict has no money or property to satisfy the fine. In People v. whether he likes it or not. for which reason he filed a petition for habeas corpus contending that his detention is illegal. Questions & Answers The penalty imposed by the judge is fine only. The sentence will merely provide that in case of non-payment of the fine. for the full amount with deduction. limits such suspension to last while the woman was pregnant and within one year after delivery. But this will only be true if the one year period is higher than 1/3 of the principal penalty. It will then be the prison authority who will compute this. Therefore. Verga execution is issued to collect the fine. The subsidiary penalty is not an accessory penalty that follows the principal penalty as a matter of course. Subido. It is not within the control of the convict to pay the fine or not and once the sentence becomes final and executory and a writ of If the subsidiary penalty prescribed for the non-payment of fine which goes with the principal penalty. That means that the writ of execution issued against the property of the convict. A subsidiary penalty is not an accessory penalty. the addition of subsidiary penalty will be null and void. it was held that the convict cannot choose not to serve. the same shall answer for the fine. If the court overlooked to provide for subsidiary penalty in the sentence and its attention was later called to that effect. that means it does not go with another principal penalty. The sheriff then tried to levy the property of the defendant after it has become final and executory. So even if subsidiary penalty is proper in a case. Article 39 deals with subsidiary penalty. Subsidiary penalty Is subsidiary penalty an accessory penalty? No. if the judge failed to state in the sentence that the convict shall be required to suffer subsidiary penalty in case of insolvency to pay the fine. There are two situations there: (1) (2) When there is a principal penalty of imprisonment or any other principal penalty and it carries with it a fine. he cannot suffer any subsidiary penalty. such imprisonment should not be higher than six years or prision correccional. Vena V. is returned unsatisfied. If the subsidiary penalty is to be imposed for non payment of fine and the principal penalty imposed be fine only. (1) When is subsidiary penalty applied Therefore. The judgment became final without statement as to subsidiary penalty. If the convict does not want to pay fine and has so many friends and wants to prolong his stay in jail. Will the petition prosper? Yes. and the sentence shall be carried out not later that one year after the finality of judgment. Otherwise. This particular legal point is a bar problem. Since it is not an accessory penalty. it must be expressly stated in the sentence. It must be that the convict is insolvent to pay the fine. if convict has property to levy upon. the judgment of the court must state this. the convict cannot be made to undergo subsidiary penalty more than 1/3 of the duration of the principal penalty and in no case will it be more than 1 year .get 1/3 of the principal penalty . if any. so there is no subsidiary penalty that goes beyond one year.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) death by electrocution shall be changed to gas poisoning as soon as the facilities are provided. but it was returned unsatisfied. The convict was detained. ii. it tried to modify the sentence to include subsidiary penalty after period to appeal had already elapsed. there is no subsidiary penalty. This subsidiary penalty is one of important matter under the title of penalty. If the judgment is silent. but the sentence does not specify the period of subsidiary penalty because it will only be known if the convict cannot pay the fine. anent the suspension of the execution of the death penalty for three years if the convict was a woman. which is a single penalty. can he be made to pay? Yes. the most (2) /vvverga Page 92 of 100 . the convict shall be required to save subsidiary penalty. If the fine is prescribed with the penalty of imprisonment or any deprivation of liberty.

00 multiplied by 50 counts and state further that “as a judge.00 multiplied by 3. the Three-Fold Rule will apply. penalty is reclusion perpetua. But the subsidiary penalty will be served not by imprisonment but by continued suspension. the penalty imposed was arresto mayor and a fine of P200. Hence. Verga and a fine of P200. Since it is a penalty with a fixed duration under Article 39.00 x 50 = P10. Thus. Illustration: There are about four mitigating circumstances and one aggravating circumstance. It is clearly provided under Article 39 that if the means of the convict should improve.00. As far as the court is concerned.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) that the convict will be required to undergo subsidiary imprisonment is six months. because the penalty of suspension has a fixed duration. This being a restriction of liberty with a fixed duration under Article 39 for the nonpayment of fine that goes with the destierro.00 x 50. The term is wrong because the penalty is not only served by imprisonment. apply the Three-Fold Rule if the penalty is arresto mayor and a fine of P200. the charges of all these consumers was a minimum of 10. The collector appropriated the amount collected and so was charged with estafa. If the principal penalty is destierro. It was also established that he was intoxicated. suspension and destierro have the same duration as prision correccional. So. the non-payment of the fine will bring about subsidiary penalty. Under Article 27. In this case of 50 counts of estafa. even if he has already served subsidiary penalty. otherwise. the convict shall be required to undergo subsidiary penalty. since in the service of the sentence. may he be required to undergo subsidiary penalty? Yes. what penalty would you impose? May the convict be required to undergo subsidiary penalty in case he is insolvent to pay the fine? The Three-Fold Rule should not applied by the court. this being a divisible penalty. he shall still be required to pay the fine and there is no deduction for that amount which the convict has already served by way of subsidiary penalty. Arresto mayor + P200. if the felony committed is slight. The accused. This is a penalty where a public officer anticipates public duties.” For the purposes of subsidiary penalty. If you were the judge. Suppose the convict cannot pay the fine. the convict cannot be required to pay the fine for subsidiary penalty for the non-payment of the fine because public censure is a penalty that has no fixed duration. Penalty imposed was arresto mayor Vena V. It is the prison authority who will apply the Three-Fold Rule. It will only be one year and six months. and no aggravating circumstances were present.000. The subsidiary penalty follows the nature of the principal penalty.payment of the fine of P10. Arresto Mayor is six months x 50 = 25 years.00 in each count. Illustration: A convict was sentenced to suspension and fine. If the totality of the imprisonment under this rule does not exceed six years.000. Illustration: A collector of NAWASA collected from 50 houses within a certain locality. When he was collecting NAWASA bills. applying the Three. voluntarily surrendered and pleaded guilty of the crime charged upon arraignment. P200. because it is an indivisible penalty. the penalty does not go beyond six years. if the felony committed is grave or less grave. then. after committing parricide. Articles 63 and 64 If crime committed is parricide. If the penalty is public censure and fine even if the public censure is a light penalty. He was convicted. This is because the imprisonment that will be served will not go beyond six years.Fold Rule. So the duration does not exceed six years. and a penalty with a fixed duration. the convict will be required to undergo subsidiary penalty and it will also be in the form of destierro. Court offsets the aggravating circumstance against the mitigating circumstance and there still remains three mitigating circumstances. the maximum duration of the subsidiary penalty is only 15 days. even if the totality of all the sentences without applying the Three-Fold Rule will go beyond six years. Do not consider the totality of the imprisonment the convict is sentenced to but consider the totality or the duration of the imprisonment that the convict will be required to serve under the Three-Fold Rule. the convict shall be required to undergo subsidiary penalty if he could not pay the fine.00. There are some who use the term subsidiary imprisonment. This means one year and six months only. he entered into the performance of public office even before he has complied with the required formalities. when there is a subsidiary penalty. that will be the penalty to be imposed. Do not apply this when there is one aggravating circumstance. for the non. I am not in the position to apply the Three-Fold Rule because the ThreeFold Rule is to be given effect when the convict is already serving sentence in the penitentiiary. penalty to be imposed shall be one degree lower to be imposed in the proper period. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance. What penalty would you impose? Reclusion perpetua. such shall be 1/3 of the period of suspension which in no case beyond one year. /vvverga Page 93 of 100 .00. I would impose a penalty of arresto mayor and a fine of P200.

no matter how many mitigating circumstances there are. When the penalty prescribed for the crime committed is a divisible penalty and there are two or more ordinary mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances whatsoever. Penalty prescribed to a crime is lowered by degrees in the following cases: (1) When the crime is only attempted or frustrated If it is frustrated. when it is only ordinary mitigating circumstance and aggravating circumstance. Because you determine the imposable fine on the basis of the financial resources or means of the offender. The penalty prescribed by law will be the penalty to be imposed. Memorize the scale in Article 71. One degree lower. do not go one degree lower because it is not punishable unless it is a light felony against person or property where the imposable penalty will be lowered by one degree or two degrees. Go into the lowering of the penalty by one degree if the penalty is divisible. Whenever the provision of the Revised Penal Code specifically lowers the penalty by one or two degrees than what is ordinarily prescribed for the crime committed. such penalty should be understood as a degree in itself and the following rules shall govern: (1) When the penalty prescribed by the Revised Code is made up of a period. the penalties prescribed by the Revised Penal Code are only in periods. correct? Is the judge (3) Vena V. It is necessary to know the chronology under Article 71 by simply knowing the scale. after offsetting. Take note that destierro comes after arresto mayor so the penalty one degree lower than arresto mayor is not arresto menor. it will lower the penalty by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law depending on what the particular provision of the Revised Penal Code states. penalty is one degree lower than that prescribed by law. if homicide is frustrated. provided it is not a light felony against persons or property. the judge lowered the penalty by one degree. or there is an accomplice participating in homicide. penalty is two degrees lower than that prescribed by law. But if the penalty would be lowered by degree. but destierro. So do not apply the rule in paragraph 5 of Article 64 to a case where the penalty is divisible. but in the minimum period. there is a privileged mitigating circumstance or the felony committed is attempted or frustrated. is prision mayor. This is so because the penalty prescribed by law for a given crime refers to the consummated stage. while arresto mayor is one month and one day to six months. because if it is a light felony and punishable by fine. with respect to the range of each penalty. do not go down any degree lower. under Article 71. the duration of destierro is the same as prision correccional which is six months and one day to six years. by way of destierro or disqualification. apply Article 66. If it is attempted. But be this as it is. When there is a privilege mitigating circumstance in favor of the offender. In Article 27. arresto mayor is higher than destierro. But generally. Penalty is two degrees lower in the case of an accessory. like prision correccional medium. the penalty is reclusion temporal. whether absolute or special. This is true if the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code is a whole divisible penalty -.one degree or 2 degrees lower will also be punished as a whole. Although the penalty is prescribed by the Revised Penal Code as a period. Cannot go below the minimum period when there is an aggravating circumstance.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Because of that. the reference is Article 71. In such a case when there are aggravating circumstances. (2) When the offender is an accomplice or accessory only Penalty is one degree lower in the case of an accomplice. in the scale of penalties graduated according to degrees. Article 66 When there are mitigating circumstance and aggravating circumstance and the penalty is only fine. On the other hand. since arresto menor is one to 30 days or one month. This is so because the penalty prescribed by law for a crime refers to the consummated stage. the penalty one degree lower /vvverga Page 94 of 100 . In homicide under Article 249. So. to a limited extent. the penalty next lower in degree shall be the one imposed. Verga No. or prision correcional minimum to medium. (4) (5) Penalty commonly imposed by the Revised Penal Code may be by way of imprisonment or by way of fine or. it is not a crime at all unless it is consummated. In the matter of lowering the penalty by degree. if it is attempted or frustrated. the range of arresto menor follows arresto mayor. like prision correcional minimum. and two degrees lower is prision correccional.

00. every time such penalty is lowered by one degree you have to go down also by two periods. it cannot go lower than P200. leaving a difference of P375. the financial capability of the offender to pay the fine. 1/4 of P500. Article 64 governs when the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code is divisible. it is discretionary upon the court to apply the fine taking into consideration the financial means of the offender to pay the same. These rules have nothing to do with mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Verga deducting 1/4 of the maximum amount of the fine from such maximum without changing the minimum amount prescribed by law. it is not only the mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances that the court shall take into consideration.00. In other words. Every degree will be composed of two periods.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) is prision correccional minimum. the fine is lowered by Vena V. Article 63 governs when the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code is indivisible. every time you go down one degree lower. the fine will be imposed at P200. Article 75 – Fines With respect to the penalty of fine. So. when there are two or more ordinary mitigating circumstance and there is no aggravating circumstance whatsoever. he will actually serve the penalties imposed by law. P125. If at all.00. and one of them is wealthy while the other is a pauper.00. the court may impose a higher penalty upon the wealthy person and a lower fine for the pauper. such penalty shall be lowered by one degree only but imposed in the proper period. This penalty made up of three periods. each degree will be made up of only one period because the penalty prescribed is also made up only of one period. Illustration: If the penalty prescribed for the crime is prision correccional medium to maximum. but primarily. Article 66 of the Revised Penal Code shall govern.00 to P500.00 from P500. the penalty another degree lower is a fine ranging from P200. Under this article.00 to P250. On the other hand. you will only apply this provided the sum total of all the penalties imposed would be greater than /vvverga Page 95 of 100 . in no case should penalty exceed 40 years. not the the the (2) This rule is intended for the benefit of the convict and so. Article 66 In so far as ordinary mitigating or aggravating circumstance would affect the penalty which is in the form of a fine. the prescribed penalty is never lowered by degree. For instance.00.00. the penalty upon an accused who is poor may be less than the penalty upon an accused committing the same crime but who is wealthy . the rules are found in Articles 63 and 64. For the same crime. Penalty for murder under the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal maximum to death. you have to go down by three periods. These rules refer to the lowering of penalty by one or two degrees. no matter how many ordinary mitigating circumstances there are.00 and that would leave a difference of P250. the penalty one degree lower is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor medium. when there are two offenders who are co-conspirators to a crime. Illustration: The penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code is prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium. This is done by deducting P125. The penalty one degree lower is P375. When the penalty prescribed by the Code is made up of two periods of a given penalty. It takes a privileged mitigating circumstance to lower such penalty by degree. (3) When the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code is made up of three periods of different penalties. To go another degree lower. when the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code is divisible. when a convict is to serve successive penalties. if the fine has to be lowered by degree either because the felony committed is only attempted or frustrated or because there is an accomplice or an accessory participation. So. This rule applies when the fine has to be lowered by degree. When the penalty is indivisible. The Three-Fold Rule Under this rule.00.00 shall again be deducted from P375. the most severe of penalties imposed on him shall be multiplied by three and the period will be only term of the penalty to be served by him. Illustration: If the penalty prescribed is a fine ranging from P200. In other words. However. Hence.00. As to how mitigating or aggravating circumstances may affect the penalty. and the penalty two degrees lower is arresto mayor maximum. the penalty one degree lower will be arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum. but the felony is frustrated so that the penalty should be imposed one degree lower. the penalty would be reclusion temporal maximum – reclusion perpetua – death. the fine has to be lowered further. and the penalty another degree lower will be arresto mayor minimum to medium. Instead. and their penalty consists of a fine only. Another degree lower will be arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional medium.00 shall be deducted therefrom.

that Three-Fold rule is to be applied. Illustration: Penalties imposed are – One prision correcional – minimum – 2 years and 4 months One arresto mayor One prision mayor . the court is not at liberty to apply the Three-Fold Rule. The common mistake is.to reform them rather than to deteriorate them and. even if it would amount to 1. Never apply the Three-Fold rule when there are only three sentences. Act No. then it does not apply. if the valuable human resources were allowed prolonged confinement in jail. In other words. What is material is that convict shall serve more than three successive sentences. If the crime is a violation of the Revised Penal Code. Verga serving sentence that the prison authorities should determine how long he should stay in jail. It is only when the convict is /vvverga Page 96 of 100 . For purposes of the Three-Fold rule. as amended Three things to know about the Indeterminate Sentence Law: (1) (2) (3) Its purpose. The Three-Fold Rule can only be applied if the convict is to serve four or more sentences successively. Significance: If ever granted pardon for 1 crime. The chronology of the penalties as provided in Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code shall be followed.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) the product of the most severe penalty multiplied by three but in no case will the penalties to be served by the convict be more than 40 years. The Three-Fold rule does not apply to the penalty prescribed but to the penalty imposed as determined by the court. The three-Fold rule will apply whether sentences are the product of one information in one court. you take the most severe and multiply it by three. whether the Three-Fold Rule could be applied. Even if you add the penalties. This rule will apply only if sentences are to be served successively. It is in the service of the penalty. the two remaining penalties must still be executed. If asked.6 years and 1 day to 12 years Indeterminate Sentence Law governs whether the crime is punishable under the Revised Penal Code or a special Law. If the sentences would be served simultaneously.Fold Rule in this case. the Three-Fold rule does not govern. Instances when it does not apply. even penalties without any fixed duration or indivisible penalties are taken into account. whether sentences are promulgated in one day or whether the sentences promulgated by different courts on different days. if given a situation. what penalty would you impose. Purpose is to preserve economic usefulness for these people for having committed a crime -. the court will impose a sentence that has a minimum and maximum. the purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence Law in shortening the possible detention of the convict in jail is to save valuable human resources. If not by Purpose The purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence law is to avoid prolonged imprisonment. for purposes of imposing the penalty. they would deteriorate. imprisonment. So. under the Three-Fold rule. So not only penalties with fixed duration. Illustration: A district engineer was sentenced by the court to a term of 914 years in prison. indivisible penalties are given equivalent of 30 years. It is not limited to violations of the Revised Penal Code.000 years or more. you can never arrive at a sum higher than the product of the most severe multiplied by three. so that if he will have to suffer several perpetual disqualification. Although this rule is known as the Three-Fold rule. and How it operates For purposes of the Three-Fold Rule. 4013 (Indeterminate Sentence Law). if you were the judge.1 month and 1 day to 6 months . It applies only when the penalty served is imprisonment. at the same time. the the the are the Vena V. saving the government expenses of maintaining the convicts on a prolonged confinement in jail. The maximum of the indeterminate sentence will be arrived at by taking into account the attendant mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances according to Article 64 of the Do not commit the mistake of applying the Three. A person was sentenced to three death sentences. it will be given and equivalent duration of 30 years. you cannot actually apply this if the convict is to serve only three successive penalties. not in the imposition of the penalty. because it is proven to be more destructive than constructive to the offender. whatever the sum total of penalty for each crime committed. even perpetual penalties are taken into account. If the penalty is perpetual disqualification.

To fix the minimum and the maximum of the sentence. The minimum and the maximum referred to in the Indeterminate Sentence Law are not periods. there is always a minimum and maximum of the sentence that the convict shall serve.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Revised Penal Code. the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code and not that which may be imposed by court. as long as it will not be less than the minimum limit of the penalty under said law. Whatever remains. If there is mitigating circumstance. crimes under special law do not consider mitigating or aggravating circumstance present in the commission of the crime. This is true only if the mitigating circumstance taken into account is only an ordinary mitigating circumstance. the court will fix the minimum for the indeterminate sentence. use the term minimum to refer to the duration of the sentence which the convict shall serve as a minimum. Verga If there are several mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Crimes punished under special law carry only one penalty. penalty under the Revised Penal Code is not the penalty to be imposed by court because the court must apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law. the court can fix a penalty anywhere within the range of penalty prescribed by the special law. in applying the Indetermiante Sentence Law. the basis of the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code. Within the range of one degree lower. In arriving at the minimum of the indeterminate sentence. and when we say maximum. and go one degree lower than that. penalty shall be imposed in the maximum. This means – (1) Penalties prescribed by the law for the crime committed shall be imposed in the medium period if no mitigating or aggravating circumstance. the minimum shall be based on the penalty as reduced by the privilege mitigating circumstance within the range of the penalty next lower in degree. This is so because such an interpretation runs contrary to the rule of pro reo. If the mitigating circumstance is privileged. courts are required in imposing the penalty upon the offender to fix a minimum that the convict should serve. in fixing the maximum of the indeterminate sentence. To fix the maximum. (4) (5) Vena V. But in so far as the minimum is concerned. otherwise. do not say. months and days. when the crime is punished under a special law. Rule under Art 64 shall apply in determining the maximum but not in determining the minimum. apply the rules. In the same manner. If there is a privilege mitigating circumstance which has been taken in consideration in fixing the maximum of the indeterminate sentence. This ruling. it is enough that the name of the penalty is mentioned while the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applied. So in the case of statutory offense. and within the range of the penalty arrived at as the maximum in the indeterminate sentence. no mitigating and no aggravating circumstances will be taken into account. as long as it will not exceed the limit of the penalty. it is that penalty arrived at by the court after applying the mitigating and aggravating circumstances that should be the basis. the court will impose the penalty within the range of the penalty prescribed by the special law. The attendant mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime are taken into consideration only when the maximum of the penalty is to be fixed. you cannot follow the law in so far as fixing the minimum of the indeterminate sentence is concerned. which provides that the penal laws should always be construed an applied in a manner liberal or lenient to the offender. the rule is. and to set a maximum as the limit of that sentence. consider the mitigating and aggravating circumstances according to the rules found in Article 64. there is no need to mention the number of years. it was held that for purposes of applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. In determining the applicable penalty according to the Indeterminate Sentence Law. If there are two or more mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance. we refer to the maximum limit of the duration that the convict may be held in jail. If there is aggravating circumstance. So. the court may fix any penalty as the maximum without exceeding the penalty prescribed by special law for the crime committed. In one Supreme Court ruling. however. there are no degree or periods. it may happen that the maximum of the indeterminate sentence is lower than its minimum. no aggravating. If the crime is punished by the Revised Penal Code. Just the same. If the crime is a violation of a special law. Courts are required to fix a minimum and a maximum of the sentence that they are to impose upon an offender when found guilty of the crime charged. penalty shall be in the minimum. whenever the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable. courts are given discretion to fix a minimum (2) (3) /vvverga Page 97 of 100 . In fixing the minimum. the law provides that the maximum shall be arrived at by considering the mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime according to the proper rules of the Revised Penal Code. for purposes of ISLAW. the court will take into account the penalty prescribed for the crime and go one degree lower. the court will fix the maximum of the sentence. maximum or minimum period. no mitigating. No mitigating and aggravating circumstances are taken into account. We are not referring to any period of the penalty as enumerated in Article 71. they shall offset against each other. Under the law. Moreover. penalty next lower in degree shall be the one imposed. For the purposes of the indeterminate Sentence Law. is obviously erroneous. So. Therefore. But penalty one degree lower shall be applied in the same manner that the maximum is also fixed based only on ordinary mitigating circumstances.

The idea is that probation has to be invoked at the earliest opportunity. such convict is not disqualified of the benefit of probation. Under the amendment to the Probation Law. Without regard to the nature of the crime. only those whose penalty does not exceed six years of imprisonment are those qualified for probation. national security or subversion. An application for probation is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the trial court that renders the judgment. the penalty of which is only arresto menor or a fine. He should not wait up to the time when he interposes an appeal or the sentence has become final and executory. The Indeterminate Sentence Law shall not apply to: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Persons convicted of offense punishable with death penalty or life imprisonment. Persons convicted espionage. if none of the individual penalties exceeds six years. Persons convicted of treason. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year. Persons who are habitual delinquents. 968 (Probation Law) Among the different grounds of partial extinction of criminal liability. If the penalty is six years plus one day. he cannot avail of probation anymore. Although a person may be eligible for probation. Probation is a manner of disposing of an accused who have been convicted by a trial court by placing him under supervision of a probation officer. rebellion. On the other hand. This /vvverga Page 98 of 100 . Presidential Decree No. as long as it will not be lower than the penalty prescribed. Cempron.00. no. Persons convicted of piracy. Persons who sentence. the moment he perfects an appeal from the judgment of conviction. but not to those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of the approval of Indeterminate Sentence Law. The penalty imposed. according to – (1) (2) (3) The time committed. Vena V. Among these crimes is Alarms and Scandals. under such terms and conditions that the court may fix. Book 2 of the Revised Penal Code. So the benefit of probation must be invoked at the earliest instance after conviction. So even if he would be convicted subsequently of a crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code as that of the earlier conviction. sedition. if after considering the attendant circumstances. 187 SCRA 278). the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies (People v. he is no longer qualified for probation. If the offender was convicted of several offenses which were tried jointly and one decision was rendered where multiple sentences imposed several prison terms as penalty. without regard to the penalty. he is not disqualified from probation provided that the penalty of the current crime committed does not go beyond six years and the nature of the crime committed by him is not against public order. the basis for determining whether the penalty disqualifies the offender from probation or not is the term of the individual imprisonment and not the totality of all the prison terms imposed in the decision. the most important is probation. shall have escaped from confinement or evaded Those who have been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive and shall have violated the term thereto. May a recidivist be given the benefit of Probation Law? As a general rule. So even if the prison term would sum up to more than six years. those convicted of a crime against public order regardless of the penalty are not qualified for probation. of misprision of treason. the offender is not disqualified by such penalty from applying for probation. For the offender to apply in such court.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) anywhere within the range of the penalty prescribed by special law. Exception: If the earlier conviction refers to a crime the penalty of which does not exceed 30 days imprisonment or a fine of not more than P200. conspiracy or proposal to commit treason. the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal or less. Disqualification may be divided into three. So know the crimes under Title III. Although the penalty prescribed for the felony committed is death or reclusion perpetua. Verga may be availed of before the convict begins serving sentence by final judgment and provided that he did not appeal anymore from conviction. and The offender involved. he should not appeal such judgment. those who are convicted of subversion or any crime against the public order are not qualified for probation.

iii. unless the convict has waived expressly his right to appeal or otherwise. yet the court believes that because of the crime committed it was not advisable to give probation because it would depreciate the effect of the crime. Offenses which are not probationable are those against natural security. that because a crime committed is not bailable or the crime committed. As far as offenders who are under preventive imprisonment. just the individual rehabilitation of the offender but also the best interest of the society and the community where the convict would be staying. he will be disqualified from applying for Probation. sentence will only become final and executory after the lapse of the 15-day period. and Discretionary conditions. if he would be released on probation. Probation is intended to promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by providing him with individualized treatment. Whether a convict who is otherwise qualified for probation may be give the benefit of probation or not. no right to probation can be applied for. Generally. to decongest our jails. Probation is only available once and this may be availed Vena V. and to save the government much needed finance for maintaining convicts in jail Probation is only a privilege. where as the applicant is not disqualified under the provision of the Probation Law. then regardless of the penalty. Mandatory conditions: (1) The convict must report to the Probation Officer (PO) designated in the court order approving his application for Probation within 72 hours from receipt of Notice of such order approving his application. because of the prevalence of the crime. the court may refuse or deny an application for probation. to prevent the commission of offenses. Verga only where the convict starts serving sentence and provided he has not perfected an appeal. upon promulgation of the sentence. the convict cannot avail of probation. less than six years. but also the probationable penalty. Persons who have been granted of the benefit of probation cannot avail thereof for the second time. naturally he goes back to detention. provided the same would not violate the constitutional rights of the offender and subject /vvverga Page 99 of 100 . those against public order and those with reference to subversion. the order denying the application therefore is null and void. although bailable. and The convict. the courts are always required to conduct a hearing. To allow him loose may bring about a lack of respect of the members of the community to the enforcement of penal law. So even if the offender may not be disqualified of probation. he forfeits his right to apply for probation. must report to the PO at least once a month during the period of probation unless sooner required by the PO. regardless of the purpose of the appeal. Probation shall be denied if the court finds: (1) (2) (3) That the offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be provided most effectively by his commitment to an institution. but only based on the report of the probation officer. the courts do not grant an application for probation for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law. the probation is cancelled. If the court denied the application for probation without the benefit of the hearing. that does not mean that they already start serving the sentence even after promulgation of the sentence. In such a case. because it is an act of the court in excess of jurisdiction or without jurisdiction. So it is not along the purpose of probation to grant the convict the benefit thereof. even though he may thereafter withdraw his appeal. If the offender would appeal the conviction of the trial court and the appellate court reduced the penalty to say. Consider not only the probationable crime. the denial is correctible by certiorari. Discretionary conditions: The trial court which approved the application for probation may impose any condition which may be constructive to the correction of the offender. or Probation will depreciate the seriousness of the crime. because the earliest opportunity for him to avail of probation came only after judgment by the appellate court. If the convict perfected an appeal. Generally. the penalty which is not probationable is any penalty exceeding six years of imprisonment. they cannot afford to put up a bail.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Once he appeals. (2) These conditions being mandatory. If it were the non-probationable crime. as a probationer. That there is undue risk that during the period of probation the offender will commit another crime. the penalty will already be final and exeuctory. The probation law imposes two kinds of conditions: (1) (2) Mandatory conditions. to provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender which might be less probable if he were to serve a prison sentence. he has partly started serving sentence and in that case. the court even if the crime is probationable may still deny the benefit of probation. the moment any of these is violate. that convict can still file an application for probation.

no matter how long ago was the first conviction. the offended was again captured and charged for rebellion. because the pardon wipes out the effects of the crime. Because the amnesty granted to him erased not only the conviction but also the effects of the conviction itself. is he a recidivist? Yes. Criminal liability is totally extinguished as follows: (1) By the death of the convict as to personal penalties. is he a recidivist? No. he was convicted. one of the defenses raised was that of condonation of the crime by his constituents. This is only true to administrative cases but not criminal cases. and as to pecuniary penalties. seduction and acts of lasciviousness. then years later. By commutation of sentence. Illustrations: Criminal liability is partially extinguished as follows: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) By conditional pardon. By prescription of the penalty. allowances which the culprit may earn while he is serving sentence. although absolute does not erase the effects of conviction. Amnesty erases not only the conviction but also the crime itself. Where the offender dies before final judgment. By prescription of the crime. a public official was charged before the Sandiganbayan for violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. liability therefore is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment By service of sentence. Pardon only excuses the convict from serving the sentence. For good conduct. and so he was given an amnesty. if he will be subsequently convicted for a felony embracing the same title as that crime. Pardon. Verga elected by the constituents. But if he was serving sentence when he was pardoned. the case on appeal will be dismissed. that pardon will not wipe out the effects of the crime. So while a case is on appeal. that his constituents have pardoned him. By absolute pardon. unless the language of the pardon absolutely relieve the offender of all the effects thereof.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) to this two restrictions: (1) the conditions imposed should not be unduly restrictive of the probationer. By the marriage of the offended women as in the crimes of rape. decided on September 2. So that if an offender was convicted for rebellion and he qualified for amnesty. Suppose. his death extinguishes both his criminal and civil liabilities. the offender dies. then years later he rebelled again and convicted. There is an exception to this and that is when the pardon was granted when the convict had already served the sentence such that there is no more service of sentence to be executed then the pardon shall be understood as intended to erase the effects of the conviction. The offended party may file a separate civil action under the Civil Code if any other basis for recovery of civil liability exists as provided under Art 1157 Civil Code. you cannot find among them the election to public office. he shall still be a recidivist. he was nevertheless re- /vvverga Page 100 of 100 . he cannot be considered a recidivist. Considering that recidivism does not prescribe. Amnesty and pardon Death of the offender Vena V. 1994) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) The effects of amnesty as well as absolute pardon are not the same. In one case. instead of amnesty. Parole. So if the convict has already served the sentence and in spite of that he was given a pardon that pardon will cover the effects of the crime and therefore. and Probation. Bayotas. The Supreme Court ruled that the re-election to public office is not one of the grounds by which criminal liability is extinguished. By amnesty which completely extinguished the penalty and all its effects. Total extinction of criminal liability Among the grounds for total extinction as well as those for partial extinction. During the ensuing election. abduction. (People v. and (2) such condition should not be incompatible with the freedom of conscience of the probationer EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY Always provide two classifications when answering this question. what was given was absolute pardon.

not public. the offender even if granted pardon shall still remain disqualified from those falling in cases where moral turpitude is a bar. Prescription of crime and prescription of the penalty Prescription of the crime begins. and his name was included in the list of all those granted absolute pardon. he was granted absolute pardon. the earlier jurisprudence to the contrary had already been abrogated or overruled. Although pardon restores his eligibility for appointment to that office. even though the offender may not have filed a motion to quash on this ground the trial court. So /vvverga Page 101 of 100 . the crime has indeed prescribed. “Commission of the crime is public” -. if legally. From the moment the falsified document is registered in the Registry of Property. It is not the filing of the complaint. this time he shall be a recidivist. The prescription of the crime is interrupted or suspended – (1) When a complaint is filed in a proper barangay for conciliation or mediation as required by Chapter 7. In Monsanto v. the prescription of the crime is suspended until the accused is convicted or the proceeding is terminated for a cause not attributable to the accused. Pardon becomes valid only when there is a final judgment. Jr. such accused can raise the question of prescription even for the first time on appeal. it may be given before final judgment or after it. whether the conciliation or mediation is terminated for not. but after conviction and during the appeal he learned that at the time the case was filed. so he brought the criminal action only then.. When a crime prescribes. but the suspension of the prescriptive period is good only for 60 days. Actually. the penalty will prescribe from the moment the convict evades the service of the sentence. Illustration: In the crime of falsification of a document that was registered in the proper registry of the government like the Registry of Property or the Registry of Deeds of the Civil registry. hence. For instance. On the prescription of the penalty. There is no such thing as a premature amnesty. for purposes of prescription. After which the prescription will resume to run. On the other hand. the State loses the right to prosecute the offender. the falsification is deemed public from the time the falsified document was registered or recorded in such public office so even though. he shall not be considered a recidivist. the pardoned convict must reapply for the new appointment . the period for filing a complaint or information may not be extended at all. Factoran. the prescription thereof would only commence from the time the offended party or the government learns of the commission of the crime. light felony prescribes in 60 days or two months. the prescriptive period of the crime shall already run from the moment the falsified document was recorded in the public registry. The Supreme Court ruled that the crime has already prescribed. it is premature and hence void. and the appellate court shall have no jurisdiction to continue. 170 SCRA 191. When criminal case is filed in the prosecutor’s office.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. The prevailing rule now is. even though the last day such prescriptive period falls on a holiday or a Sunday. and therefore even if he commits theft again. Local Government Code. Pedro was prosecuted and convicted of the crime of robbery and was sentenced to six years imprisonment or prision correccional. but the filing of the information in the trial which will suspend the prescription of the crime.This does not mean alone that the crime was within public knowledge or committed in public. the filing of the complaint on the succeeding Monday is already fatal to the prosecution of the crime because the crime has already prescribed. the prescription of the crime will be suspended only when the information is already filed with the trial court. prescription of the crime is not waivable. Moreover. (2) But where the crime is subject to Summary Procedure. the prescriptive period already commenced to run. The rules on Criminal Procedure for purposes of prescription is that the filing of the complaint even at the public prosecutor’s office suspends the running of the prescriptive period. Ten years later. the owner of the land came to know of the falsified transaction only after 10 years. as a general rule on the day the crime was committed. So in the case where a deed of sale of a parcel of land which was falsified was recorded in the corresponding Registry of Property. After serving sentence for three years. the crime has already prescribed. the period will only commence to run when the convict has begun to serve the sentence. So the earlier rulings to the contrary are already abrogated by express provision of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. if he has served all six years of the first sentence. it was held that absolute pardon does not ipso facto entitle the convict to reinstatement to the public office forfeited by reason of his conviction. a crime embraced in the same title. If given before this. because it does not require a final judgment. Verga When the crime carries with it moral turpitude. If the 60th day falls on a Sunday. pardon shall relieve him of the effects of the crime. but not the filing with the barangay. Pedro was again prosecuted and convicted of the crime of theft. unless the crime was concealed. the offended party may not really know of the falsification. in which case.

the vehicle carrying him collided with another vehicle and overturned. Marriage as a ground for extinguishing civil liability must have been contracted in good faith. but also that of the accomplice and accessory. the prescriptive period of the crime or penalty shall remain suspended whenever he is out of the country. no matter how long such convict has been a fugitive from justice. The crime committed does not include the initial evasion of service of sentence that the convict must perform before the penalty shall begin to prescribe. so that if the convict was never given parole. and Indemnification of consequential damages. it is the commission of other crime. but not when such co-principal himself took direct part in the execution of the crime. Article 158 refers only to those who leave and return. the offended woman. This is the partial extinction referred to. Whether it is prescription of crime or prescription of penalty. The offender who marries the offended woman must be sincere Vena V. For the penalty to prescribe. notwithstanding such marriage. seduction and acts of lasciviousness. the running of the prescriptive period will go on even if the offender leaves Philippine territory for that country. in relation to Article 158. In the case of the prescription of the penalty. Parole This correspondingly extinguishes service of sentence up to the maximum of the indeterminate sentence.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) if an accused was convicted in the trial court. prescriptive period of the penalty shall be suspended and shall not run in the meantime. Indonesia. Those who did not leave the penitentiary under such circumstances do not get such allowance for loyalty. So if the offender goes to any of these countries. When the offender leaves for a country to which the Philippines has an extradition treaty. Presently the Philippines has an extradition treaty with Taiwan. booked there. the penalty imposed by the trial court will never prescribe because he has not yet commenced the service of his sentence. Canada. The Supreme Court ruled that marriage contemplated must be a real marriage and not one entered to and not just to evade punishment for the crime committed because the offender will be compounding the wrong he has committed. although the marriage remains a valid marriage. he must be brought to Muntinlupa. such convict shall be given credit of 1/5 of the original sentence from that allowance for his loyalty of coming back. although already his wife can still prosecute him again. The marriage still subsists although the offended woman may refile the complaint. no partial extinction. Do not think that the marriage is avoided or annulled. will also benefit from such marriage. It is only in the crimes of rape. A convict who escapes the place of confinement on the occasion of disorder resulting from a conflagration. Do not say that it is applicable to private crimes because the term includes adultery and concubinage. placed inside the cell and thereafter he escapes. if there are any. and the conviction becomes final and executory. USA and Switzerland. if the subject could leave the Philippines and go to a country with whom the Philippines has no extradition treaty. so that the initial crime of evasion of service of sentence does not suspend the prescription of penalty. not only criminal liability of the principal who marries the offended woman. do not say that it is applicable for the crimes under Article 344. Co-principals who did not themselves directly participate in the execution of the crime but who only cooperated. abduction. Partial extinction of criminal liability Good conduct allowance This includes the allowance for loyalty under Article 98. Reparation of the damage caused. Australia. It is only true in the crimes of rape. otherwise. earthquake or similar catastrophe or during a mutiny in which he has not participated and he returned within 48 hours after the proclamation that the calamity had already passed. Marriages in these cases may even compound the crime of adultery or concubinage. abduction. seduction and acts of lasciviousness that the marriage by the offender with the offended woman shall extinguish civil liability. the moment the convict commits another crime while he is fugitive from justice. the prescriptive period still continues to run. thus enabling the prisoner to escape. Marriage In the case of marriage. CIVIL LIABILITY OF THE OFFENDER Civil liability of the offender falls under three categories: (1) (2) (3) Restitution and restoration. Restitution or restoration /vvverga Page 102 of 100 . after the convict has evaded the service of penalty that will suspend such period. Verga in the marriage and therefore must actually perform the duties of a husband after the marriage. on the way to the penitentiary. so this fellow was arrested to serve the sentence.

Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Restitution or restoration presupposes that the offended party was divested of property, and such property must be returned. If the property is in the hands of a third party, the same shall nevertheless be taken away from him and restored to the offended party, even though such third party may be a holder for value and a buyer in good faith of the property, except when such third party buys the property from a public sale where the law protects the buyer. For example, if a third party bought a property in a public auction conducted by the sheriff levied on the property of a judgment creditor for an obligation, the buyer of the property at such execution sale is protected by law. The offended party cannot divest him thereof. So the offended party may only resort to reparation of the damage done from the offender. Some believed that this civil liability is true only in crimes against property, this is not correct. Regardless of the crime committed, if the property is illegally taken from the offended party during the commission of the crime, the court may direct the offender to restore or restitute such property to the offended party. It can only be done if the property is brought within the jurisdiction of that court. For example, in a case where the offender committed rape, during the rape, the offender got on of the earrings of the victim. When apprehended, the offender was prosecuted for rape and theft. When the offender was asked why he got on of the earrings of the victim, the offender disclosed that he took one of the earrings in order to have a souvenir of the sexual intercourse. Supreme Court ruled that the crime committed is not theft and rape but rape and unjust vexation for the taking of the earring. The latter crime is not a crime against property, this is a crime against personal security and liberty under Title IX of Book II of the RPC. And yet, the offender was required to restore or restitute the earring to the offended woman. Property will have to be restored to the offended party even this would require the taking of the property from a third person. Where personal property was divested from the offended party pursuant to the commission of the crime, the one who took the same or accepted the same would be doing so without the benefit of the just title. So even if the property may have been bought by the third person, the same may be taken from him and restored to the offended party without an obligation on the part of the offended party to pay him whatever he paid. The right to recover what he has paid will be against the offender who sold it to him. On the other hand, if the crime was theft or robbery, the one who received the personal property becomes a fence, he is not only required to restitute the personal property but he incurs criminal liability in violation of the Anti-Fencing Law. If the property cannot be restituted anymore, then the damage must be repaired, requiring the offender to pay the value thereof, as determined by the court. That value includes the sentimental value to the offended party, not only

Vena V. Verga

the replacement cost. In most cases, the sentimental value is higher than the replacement value. But if what would be restored is brand new, then there will be an allowance for depreciation, otherwise, the offended party is allowed to enrich himself at the expense of the offender. So there will be a corresponding depreciation and the offended party may even be required to pay something just to cover the difference of the value of what was restored to him. The obligation of the offender transcends to his heirs, even if the offender dies, provided he died after judgment became final, the heirs shall assume the burden of the civil liability, but this is only to the extent that they inherit property from the deceased, if they do not inherit, they cannot inherit the obligations. The right of the offended party transcends to heirs upon death. The heirs of the offended party step into the shoes of the latter to demand civil liability from the offender. Reparation of the damage caused In case of human life, reparation of the damage cause is basically P50,000.00 value of human life, exclusive of other forms of damages. This P50,000.00 may also increase whether such life was lost through intentional felony or criminal negligence, whether the result of dolo or culpa. Also in the crime of rape, the damages awarded to the offended woman is generally P30,000.00 for the damage to her honor. In earlier rulings, the amount varied, whether the offended woman is younger or a married woman. Supreme Court ruled that even if the offended woman does not adduce evidence or such damage, court can take judicial notice of the fact that if a woman was raped, she inevitably suffers damages. Under the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, a private prosecutor can recover all kinds of damages including attorney’s fee. The only limitation is that the amount and the nature of the damages should be specified. The present procedural law does not allow a blanket recovery of damages. Each kind of damages must be specified and the amount duly proven. Indemnification of consequential damages Indemnification of consequential damages refers to the loss of earnings, loss of profits. This does not refer only to consequential damages suffered by the offended party; this also includes consequential damages to third party who also suffer because of the commission of the crime. The offender carnapped a bridal car while the newly-weds were inside the church. Since the car was only rented, consequential damage not only to the newly-weds but also to the entity which rented the car to them.

/vvverga

Page 103 of 100

Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Most importantly, refer to the persons who are civilly liable under Articles 102 and 103. This pertains to the owner, proprietor of hotels, inns, taverns and similar establishments, an obligation to answer civilly for the loss or property of their guests. Under Articloe 102, two conditions must be present before liability attaches to the inkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors: (1) The guest must have informed the management in advance of his having brought to the premises certain valuables aside from the usual personal belongings of the guest; and The guest must have followed the rules and regulations prescribed by the management of such inn, tavern, or similar establishment regarding the safekeeping of said valuables.

Vena V. Verga

When these requisites concur, the employer will be subsidiarily civilly liable for the full amount that his employee was adjudged civilly liable. It is already settled in jurisprudence that there is no need to file a civil action against the employer in order to enforce the subsidiary civil liability for the crime committed by his employee, it is enough that the writ of execution is returned unsatisfied. There is no denial of due process of law because the liability of the employer is subsidiary and not primary. He will only be liable if his employee does not have the property to pay his civil liability, since it is the law itself that provides that such subsidiary liability exists and ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Civil liability of the offender is extinguished in the same manner as civil obligation is extinguished but this is not absolutely true. Under civil law, a civil obligation is extinguished upon loss of the thing due when the thing involved is specific. This is not a ground applicable to extinction of civil liability in criminal case if the thing due is lost, the offender shall repair the damages caused. When there are several offenders, the court in the exercise of its discretion shall determine what shall be the share of each offender depending upon the degree of participation – as principal, accomplice or accessory. If within each class of offender, there are more of them, such as more than one principal or more than one accomplice or accessory, the liability in each class of offender shall be subsidiary. Anyone of the may be required to pay the civil liability pertaining to such offender without prejudice to recovery from those whose share have been paid by another. If all the principals are insolvent, the obligation shall devolve upon the accomplice(s) or accessory(s). But whoever pays shall have the right of covering the share of the obligation from those who did not pay but are civilly liable. To relate with Article 38, when there is an order or preference of pecuniary (monetary) liability, therefore, restitution is not included here. There is not subsidiary penalty for non-payment of civil liability. Subsidiary civil liability is imposed in the following: (1) In case of a felony committed under the compulsion of an irresistible force. The person who employed the irresistible force is subsidiarily liable; In case of a felony committed under an impulse of an equal or greater injury. The person who generated such an impulse is subsidiarily liable.

(2)

The Supreme Court ruled that even though the guest did not obey the rules and regulations prescribed by the management for safekeeping of the valuables, this does not absolve management from the subsidiary civil liability. Noncompliance with such rules and regulations but the guests will only be regarded as contributory negligence, but it won’t absolve the management from civil liability. Liability specially attaches when the management is found to have violated any law or ordinance, rule or regulation governing such establishment. Even if the crime is robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons or committed by the inkeeper’s employees, management will be liable, otherwise, not liable because there is duress from the offender, liable only for theft and force upon things. Under Article 103, the subsidiary liability of an employer or master for the crime committed by his employee or servant may attach only when the following requisites concur: (1) (2) (3) (4) The employer must be engaged in business or in trade or industry while the accused was his employee; At the time the crime was committed, the employee-employerr relationship must be existing between the two; The employee must have been found guilty of the crime charged and accordingly held civilly liable; The writ of execution for the satisfaction of the civil liability was returned unsatisfied because the accused-employee does not have enough property to pay the civil liability.

(2)

The owners of taverns, inns, motels, hotels, where the crime is committed within their establishment due to noncompliance with general police

/vvverga

Page 104 of 100

Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
regulations, if the offender who is primarily liable cannot pay, the proprietor, or owner is subsidiarily liable. Felonies committed by employees, pupils, servants in the course of their employment, schooling or household chores. The employer, master, teacher is subsidiarily liable civilly, while the offender is primarily liable. In case the accomplice and the principal cannot pay, the liability of those subsidiarily liable is absolute. COMPLEX CRIME Philosophy behind plural crimes: The treatment of plural crimes as one is to be lenient to 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 in the maximum period. Purpose is in the pursuance of the rule of pro reo. If be complexing the crime, the penalty would turn out to be higher, do not complex anymore. Example: Murder and theft (killed with treachery, then stole the right). Penalty: If complex – Reclusion temporal maximum to death. If treated individually – Reclusion temporal to Reclusion Perpetua. Complex crime is not just a matter of penalty, but of substance under the Revised Penal Code. Plurality of crimes may be in the form of: (1) (2) (3) Compound crime; Complex crime; and Composite crime.

Vena V. Verga

robbery with rape, rape with homicide. These are crimes which in the eyes of the law are regarded only as a single indivisible offense. iv. Composite Crime/Special Complex Crime This is one which in substance is made up of more than one crime but which in the eyes of the law is only a single indivisible offense. This is also known as a special complex crime. Examples are robbery with homicide, robbery with rape, and rape with homicide. The compound crime and the complex crime are treated in Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. But in such article, a compound crime is also designated as a complex crime, but “complex crimes” are limited only to a situation where the resulting felonies are grave and/or less grave. Whereas in a compound crime, there is no limit as to the gravity of the resulting crimes as long as a single act brings about two or more crimes. Strictly speaking, compound crimes are not limited to grave or less grave felonies but covers all single act that results in two or more crimes. Illustration: A person threw a hand grenade and the people started scampering. When the hand grenade exploded, no on was seriously wounded all were mere wounded. It was held that this is a compound crime, although the resulting felonies are only slight. Illustration of a situation where the term “necessary” in complex crime should not be understood as indispensable: Abetting committed during the encounter between rebels and government troops such that the homicide committed cannot be complexed with rebellion. This is because they are indispensable part of rebellion. (Caveat: Ortega says rebellion can be complexed with common crimes in discussion on Rebellion) The complex crime lies actually in the first form under Article 148. The first form of the complex crime is actually a compound crime, is one where a single act constitutes two or more grave and/or less grave felonies. The basis in complexing or compounding the crime is the act. So that when an offender performed more than one act, although similar, if they result in separate crimes, there is no complex crime at all, instead, the offender shall be prosecuted for as many crimes as are committed under separate information. When the single act brings about two or more crimes, the offender is punished with only one penalty, although in the maximum period, because he acted only with single criminal impulse. The presumption is that, since there is only one

A compound crime is one where a single act produces two or more crimes. A complex crime strictly speaking is one where the offender has to commit an offense as a means for the commission of another offense. It is said that the offense is committed as a necessary means to commit the other offense. “Necessary” should not be understood as indispensable, otherwise, it shall be considered absorbed and not giving rise to a complex crime. A composite crime is one in which substance is made up of more than one crime, but which in the eyes of the law is only a single indivisible offense. This is also known as special complex crime. Examples are robbery with homicide,

/vvverga

Page 105 of 100

Lawas. de Leon. considering that Criminal Law. and the soldiers mechanically fired. if there is only one criminal impulse which brought about the commission of the crime. so no one would run away. only one penalty should be imposed. some killed the others in another place within the same penitentiary. These soldiers feared that on the way. the term “continuing crime” is used in criminal procedure when any of the material ingredients of the crime was committed in different places. but the decision in the Lawas case is correct. The term “continuing crimes” as sometimes used in lieu of the term “continued crimes”. however. The band of robbers ransacked the different quarters therein. “Continuing crime” is the term used in criminal procedure to denote that a certain crime may be prosecuted and tried not only before the court of the place where it was originally committed or began. While Article 48 speaks of a complex crime where a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave offenses. Hence. The question of whether the constabulary soldiers should be prosecuted for the killing of each under a separate information has reached the Supreme Court. where the accused took five roosters from one and the same chicken coop. some of the Muslims may escape. Conversely. The workers of said mill have their quarters within the compound. because the accused acted out of a single criminal impulse only. but also before the court of the place where the crime was continued. The definition in Article 48 is not honored because the accused did not perform a single act. In People v. Vena V. However performing a series of acts but this is one and the same intent Supreme Court ruled that only one crime is committed under one information. There are in fact cases decided by the Supreme Court where the offender has performed a series of acts but the acts appeared to be impelled by one and the same impulse. Lawas ordered his men to fire. when a series of acts are perpetrated in pursuance of a single criminal impulse. this is referred to as a continuing crime. they were moved by a single criminal intent. Such situation is also brought under the operation of Article 48. the accused constabulary soldiers were ordered to march with several muslims from one barrio to another place. the Supreme Court considered this as a complex crime when the act is the product of one single criminal impulse. If confronted with a problem. There are cases where the Supreme Court held that the crime committed is complex even though the offender performed not a single act but a series of acts. regardless of a series of acts done. Eleven were killed and several others were wounded. use the standard or condition that it refers not only to the singleness of the act which brought two or more grave and/less grave felonies. In criminal procedure for purposes of venue. A “continued crime” is one where the offender performs a series of acts violating one and the same penal provision committed at the same place and about the same time for the same criminal purpose. Some of the accused killed their victims in one place within the same penitentiary. Garcia. the roosters were owned by different persons. so the Hajji remonstrated and there was commotion. Verga In People v. a band of robbers came across a compound where a sugar mill is located. In this case it is not the singleness of the act but the singleness of the impulse that has been considered. there is what is called a continued crime. The act of one is the act of all.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) act formed. You cannot find an article in the Revised Penal Code with respect to the continued crime or continuing crime. because a complex crime of multiple homicide was committed by them. Because there were several victims killed and some were mortally wounded. it was held that there is only one crime of theft committed. So Lawas ordered the men to tie the Muslims by the hand connecting one with the other. There is a complex crime not only when there is a single act but a series of /vvverga Page 106 of 100 . When the robbers entered the compound. the accused were convicts who were members of a certain gang and they conspired to kill the other gang. not because of Article 48 but because this is a continued crime. At the height of the commotion. CONTINUED AND CONTINUING CRIMES In criminal law. The only reason is that the series of acts are impelled by a single criminal impulse. they are not really used with the same import. it is regarded in law as one. The Supreme Court ruled that all accused should be punished under one information because they acted in conspiracy. The nearest article is Article 48. although. The Supreme Court ruled that the accused should be prosecuted only in one information. The confusion lies in this. one of them protested. it may happen that the offender is impelled only by a single criminal impulse in committing a series of acts that brought about more than one crime. the assumption is that each act is impelled by a distinct criminal impulse and for ever criminal impulse. This becomes a complex crime. it follows that there is only one criminal impulse and correctly. However. he did not want to be included among those who were tied becase he was a Hajji. In People v. 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. even those cases when the act is not a single but a series of acts resulting to two or more grave and less grave felonies. the accused should be held for the complex crime of multiple homicide with multiple frustrated homicide. In another case. although both terms are analogous. a separate penalty. Not because there were several quarters robbed. It was held that there is only one crime committed – multiple robbery. When the hands of the Muslims were tied. There were a series of acts. when there are several acts performed. the ruling is that a complex crime is committed. the offender should be penalized only once.

The other three rapes are distinct counts of rape. In People v. the offenders did not only kill one person but killed different persons. Vena V. the four took turns in abusing her. Otherwise. the Supreme Court through Justice Aquino ruled that there is only one count of forcible abduction with rape committed by the offenders who abducted the two women and abused them several times. separate complaints/information. Each of the four offenders was convicted of four rapes. referring to the complex crime proper because this applies or refers only to a deliberate commission of one offense to commit another offense. Note: This is a dangerous view because the abductors will commit as much rape as they can. So while the Supreme Court ruled that the light felony resulting from the same criminal negligence should be complexed with the other felonies because that would be a blatant violation of Article 48. it is necessary to embody these crimes under one single information. It cannot separate the light felony because it appears that the culpa is crime itself and you cannot split the crime. if several offenders abducted the woman and abused her. there were four participants here. Each intercourse brings with it the danger of bringing one stranger in the family of the husband. Although the killings did not result from one single act. Article 48 also applies in cases when out of a single act of negligence or imprudence. Bulaong. because there is no other provision in the RPC. Jose. Bojas. instead the Supreme Court stated that an additional penalty should be imposed for the light felony. the Supreme Court adopted the dissenting opinion of Justice Aquino in People v. two or more grave or less grave felonies resulted. The abuse amounting to rape is complexed with forcible abduction because the abduction was already consummated when the victim was raped. this crime is considered as one and prosecuted under one information. only one complex crime of rape would arise. it must be called a complex crime. Applying the concept of the “continued crime”. Apparently. together with other grave or less grave felonies resulting therefrom and the Supreme Court held that all felonies resulting from criminal negligence should be made subject of one information only. after all. the Supreme Court followed the ruling in People v. because they acted in conspiracy or under the same criminal impulse. Pabasa. The second part of Article 48 does not apply. except when the crimes in one information constitute a complex crime or a special complex crime. yet by virtue of this ruling of the Supreme Court. In earlier rulings on abduction with rape. However. each intercourse constitutes one crime. This was only a dissenting opinion of Justice Aquino. But the multiple rapes should be considered only as one because they are in the nature of a continued crime. there is only one information and prosecution only. In adultery. regardless of the number of rapes committed because all the rapes are but committed out of one and the same lewd design which impelled the offender to abduct the victim. Jose that the four men who abducted and abused the offended women were held liable for one crime – one count or forcible abudction with rape and distinct charges for rape for the other rapes committed by them. the singleness of the act is not considered a single crime. In criminal procedure. so it is clear that in killing of one victim or the killing of another victim. it would be tantamount to splitting the criminal negligence similar to splitting a cause of action which is prohibited in civil cases. Verga In People v. although only the first part thereof (compound crime). Therefore. a light felony may result from criminal negligence or imprudence. The three rapes are not necessary to commit the other rapes. This would mean two penalties to be imposed. So whenever the Supreme Court concludes that the criminal should be punished only once. It was held that each one of the four became liable not only for his own rape but also for those committed by the others. a light felony should not be included in a complex crime. In the eyes of the law. that there could be only one complex crimeof abduction with rape. One of the four rapes committed by one of them was complexed with the crime of abduction. Pabasa. It is necessary to consider them as complex crimes even if the essence of the crime does not fit the definition of Art 48. They abducted the woman. another act out of this is done simultaneously. In People v. there should only be one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. In People v. regardless of the number of rapes committed. The offenders are to be convicted of one count of rape and separately charged of the other rapes. The reason being that. Although in this case. Duplicity of offenses. the following cases have been treated as constituting one crime only: /vvverga Page 107 of 100 . it is prohibited to charge more than one offense in an information. Although under Article 48. that when several persons abducted a woman and abused her. The forcible abduction must be complexed therewith. The rapes committed were in the nature of a continued crime characterized by the same lewd design which is an essential element in the crime of forcible abduction. It is correct that when the offender acted in conspiracy. after which. there is multiple rape. one for the complex crime and one for the light felony. in order not to violate this rule. Supreme Court considered this as complex.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) acts. each committed four crimes of rape. the light felony shall be included in the same information charging the offender with grave and/or less grave felonies resulting from the negligence of reckless imprudence and this runs counter to the provision of Article 48.

or their agents and shall be interrupted by the filling of the complaint or information and shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted. Tumlos. the trend is to follow the single larceny doctrine. Jaranillo). 324. for the purpose of depriving a person of a legal civil right to which he was entitled. June and July 1936 and falsifications to conceal said offenses committed in August and October. that is taking of several things. (2) (3) In the theft cases. The illegal charging of fees for service rendered by a lawyer every time he collects veteran’s benefits on behalf of a client who agreed that attorney’s fees shall be paid out of such benefits (People v. The dismissal of the criminal action does not extinguish the civil responsibility. Verga the government. (2) (3) EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY • • • • • • Death of the convict as to the personal penalties before final judgment By service of the sentence By amnesty which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects BY prescription of the crime By prescription of the penalty By the marriage of the offended party (rape) On the other hand. one which was committed during the period from January 19 to December. (2) caused injury to one party only – /vvverga Page 108 of 100 . 351). Said acts were committed on two different occasions. and all acts of collection were made under the same criminal impulse. The authorities. The concept of delito continuado has been applied to crimes under special laws since in Article 10. Decision: No. the oath. the case will be dismissed. the Revised Penal Code shall be supplementary to special laws. The Supreme Court directed the prosecution to consolidate the cases into one offense because (1) they were in violation of the same law – Executive Order No. whether belonging to the same or different owners.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) (1) The theft of 13 cows belonging to two different persons committed by the accused at the same place and period of time (People v. 1955 and the other from January 1956 to July 1956 (People v. Vena V. constitutes one larceny only. The accused must first show compliance with the requirements for availing himself of the benefits like taking the required oath. 320). Here. Dismissal of the case will not be without prejudice to the right of the widow to enforce the civil liability of the accused. the accused was charged with performing a single act – that of approving the legalization of aliens not qualified under the law. 1936. at the same time and place. crime politically motivated Issue: W/N the civil aspect is extinguished too on account of amnesty. The prosecution manifested that they would only file one information. SANDIGANBAYAN Keyword: Torrens. the Supreme Court declined to apply the concept in the following cases: (1) US vs.. 66 Phil. Two Estafa cases. Subsequently. that the criminal act never existed. Prescription shall not run when offender is not in the Philippines. ARTICLE 91 (PRESCRIPTION) Period of prescription shall run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party. and (3) they were done in the same day. MADLANGBAYAN Keyword: spy. amnesty. Issue: Should the case be dismissed and accused acquitted since the crime was politically motivated. The theft of six roosters belonging to two different owners from the same coop and at the same period of time (People v. PEOPLE vs. registration of public document Issue: W/N the act charged has already prescribed. Justice Garchitorena. CIV. 67 Phil. 13 Phil 306). Many courts have abandoned the separate larceny doctrine. 32 amended informations were filed. under which there was distinct larceny as to the property of each victim. The idea of amnesty wipes out the crime cannot not be carried to the extent of saying. Seventy-five estafa cases committed by the conversion by the agents of collections from the customers of the employer made on different dates. Several malversations committed in May. Decision: No. decided on December 2. Sabbun. 1993). unless the latter provides the contrary. The collections of legal fees were impelled by the same motive. The malversations and falsifications were not the result of one resolution to embezzle and falsify (People v. Dichupa. 10 SCAR 156). Upon filing in the court. that of collecting fees for services rendered. Also 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 (Santiago v.

The very essence of pardon is forgiveness and remission of guilt. The employer was also no in the automobile when the accident happened and when it exercised due diligence in choosing a driver. they may repatriate for the injury or indemnify the owner. The subsidiary liability of the master only takes place when the servant. ARTICLE 100 Every person criminally liable for a felony in also civilly liable. Considering the lapse of more than 20 years. it prevents any penalties and disabilities. RUIZ Keyword: Defraud. the pardoning power cannot be restricted or controlled by the legislative action. VARELA vs. Decision: Yes. The date of the violation of the law becomes the operative date for the commencement of the period of prescription. falsification of public documents. subordinate or employee commits a punishable criminal act while in the actual performance of his own ordinary duties and he was innocent thereby rendering incapable of satisfying by himself his own liability. The /vvverga Page 109 of 100 . Pardon implies guilt. registration being a constructive notice to the whole word. Pardon if granted before conviction. Where it admitted that the employer did not know that his chauffer was using the car that day and the he exercised due diligence in hiring the chauffer. Decision: Yes. filling in the register of deeds Issue: W/N the crime prescribed Decision: Yes. Verga Keyword: 2 vehicles collided in intersection. Issue: Does Art. jewels Issue: W/N the owner of the jewels direct four pawnshops to restore the jewels without indemnity on the party of the petitioner. Issue: Can the employer be held liable. FACTORAN Keywords: Estafa. FULL and ABSOLUTE FREEDOM: Subject to the limitations imposed by the constitution. thus. The date of computing the period of prescription would be from the date of the filing of the application. 91 cannot be construed in such manner as to admit application of the rule on construction. the prescriptive period would lapse on 1986 or 5 months before the filing of the complaint. The criminal offense of falsification of public document has already prescribed. in accordance with the judgment entered in the aforesaid cause for estafa. If granted after conviction. the employer cannot be civilly liable. it removes penalties and disabilities and restores him to all his civil rights. victim died. Every person criminally liable for a crime or misdemeanor is also civilly liable. VALDEZ Vena V. PEOPLE vs. The owner has an absolute right to the jewels from the possession of whoever holds them. Among the civil responsibilities incurred by a person committing estafa is that of restoring the thing taken. Absolute pardon dies not blot out the crime committed. from attaching. MONSANTO vs. the court will not hesitate to do so if the factual and legal circumstance so warrant.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Decision: Yes. it does no erase the crime and the conviction thereof. Although caution should be observed in applying the rule of construction in civil cases. the employer is not engaged in business or industry and merely uses automobile for private ends. If restitution is impossible. Decision: No. Decision: No. once registered is a notice to the world. CASTILLO Keyword: Chauffer. Issue: W/N the jewels can be recovered. All persons must take notice. the employer can not be held liable. MC the employer did not know his car was used. consequent upon condition. victim cannot collect from the driver. STEIMETZ vs. FINNICK Keyword: Estafa of jewels. The application of the rule on constructive notice in the construction of Article 92 of the RPC would most certainly be favorable to the accused since the prescriptive period of the crime shall have to be reckoned with earlier. MARQUEZ vs. pawned instead of selling them. REYES Keyword: prescription of crime. The title. REYES vs. the crimes charges already prescribed. The jewels were pawned without the knowledge of the owner thus must be restored by the pawnshop owners. This is the reason why the employee is not entitled to backpay when pardoned. Decision: No. Even if the ten year period commenced to run from the registration and issuance of the free patent title by the register of deed. The criminal action has been extinguished by prescription. Issue: W/N the driver’s employer can be civilly liable.

The law is plain. Finally. he must be presumed to be the author of the theft and not merely an accessory. Decision: Yes. The case of People v. Issue: W/N that person is mere accessory to the theft or principal. Thus. an action for recovery therefore may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1. Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. VILLALOBOS Keyword: Theft of carabao. that death supervenes before final judgment. if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. A number of stolen carabao were found in the possession of a person who kept them hidden for a time and. provided. depending an the source of obligation upon which the same is based as explained above. The said principle does not apply in instant case wherein the civil liability springs neither solely nor originally from the crime itself but from a civil contract of purchase and sale. PEOPLE vs. the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused. however. of course. He is principal to the crime. BAYOTAS Keyword: Rape. unless it be satisfactorily shown that the property was stolen by some other person. SC dismissed the criminal aspect Issue: Does death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguish his civil liability. this issue was settled in the affirmative. he can not lawfully withhold the possession thereof from the true owner and insist upon reimbursement. ipso facto extinguishes the former. altered the brands on the animals. It should be stressed that the extinction of civil liability follows the extinction of Vena V. Another person aided in procuring registration certificate. Although stolen property is acquired in good faith by a third party. 1. Stated differently. Statutory construction is unnecessary. This separate civil action may be enforced either against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused. where the civil liability does not exist independently of the criminal responsibility. Said liability is extinguished. Corollarily. The civil liability. the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action by prescription. a few days prior to their recovery. Verga the criminal liability under Article 89. as explained in Number 2 above. /vvverga Page 110 of 100 . before delivery. In such case. With reference to Castillo's criminal liability. 2.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) US vs. the privateoffended party instituted together therewith the civil action. conformably with provisions of the Civil Code. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. the extinction of the latter by death. Decision: Yes. Castillo. poses a problem. His participation as an accessory cannot be admitted. Such liability is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. only when the civil liability arises from the criminal act as its only basis. that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible privation of right by prescription. 4. 3. the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case. them is no question. Where the civil liability survives. in cases where -during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Descarregar
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->