Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
This reviewer is sourced from Boados book, some stuff from Reyes, Glenn Tuazons notes,
Justice Callejos lectures and recitations, and case doctrines. Enjoy. And no stamping please!
Fundamental Principles
Criminal law is that branch of public law which defines criminal offenses and prescribes specific
punishments for them.
o Penal law: acts of the legislature which prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their
violations; or those that define crimes, treat of their nature and provide for their punishment
All felonies in the RPC are public wrongs, as distinguished from private wrongs, the latter is just a
breach of duty or contract of 2 private parties.
o While the State has the power to prosecute persons for private crimes, the law gives the
victim the privilege of not instituting actions for private crimes (adultery, seduction,
abduction,etc) to protect the latter from shame and humiliation. There must be a complaint
initiated by the offended party.
Ex post facto law is a penal law which is given retroactive application to the prejudice of the accused.
o Makes an act or omission criminal which when committed was not yet so
Binding on all person who reside or sojourn in the Philippines, whether citizens or not
Ex: those who are covered by treaties and laws of preferential application
(example: Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, see discussion on
immunities)
o Territoriality
Refers to the situs of the act or the place where the penal law is applicable
Applicable to all crimes committed within the limits of the Philippine territory
Penal laws have prospective application unless they are favorable to the offender who
is not a habitual delinquent
Ambassadors or nuncios
Charges d affairs
o Staff of the mission are comprised of:
Diplomatic
But they may be temporarily restrained if they do stuff that threaten public order.
o Varying degrees of immunity depending on the status of the person (based on the
enlightened discussion of the esteemed Justice Puno in Liang v People):
Diplomatic agent: inviolable, not liable to any form of arrest or detention; blanket
immunity
Consular officials: immune for acts performed in the exercise of consular functions;
not liable to arrest or detention pending trial, except in the case of a grave crime
A foreign agent, operating within a territory, can be cloaked with immunity from suit
but only as long as it can be established that he is acting within the directives of the
sending state.
o The DFA initially determines immunity, but the final determination is still with the Courts.
(although in the WHO case, the Court said it was bound.)
o In the VFA, before the American accused is convicted, he is under the custody of the
Americans. However, once convicted, he will be detained by the Philippine authorities, with
the Americans having visitation rights. Hence, detention in the US embassy after conviction
was held violative of the VFA. (Nicolas v Romulo)
By local legislation
o Transactional immunity (Tanchangco v Sandiganbayan)
o Omnibus Election Code: one who reports to the Comelec any incident of vote buying/selling
and testifies is immune, even if he took part in the crime
o PD 749: immunity granted to those furnishing information regarding bribery, indirect bribery,
corruption
o Parliamentary/Presidential immunity
Is there any law which does not care for immunity? Is there any law which is immune from immunity
statutes?
o Yes. RA 9851, or The Law against Crimes against Humanity/Genocide.
o It says that the law applies equally to all persons without any distinction based on official
capacity.
Section 9. Irrelevance of Official Capacity. - This Act shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In
particular, official capacity as a head of state or government, a member of a government or parliament, an elected representative or a government
official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Act, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of
sentence. However:
(a) Immunities or special procedural rules that may be attached to the official capacity of a person under Philippine law other than the established
constitutional immunity from suit of the Philippine President during his/her tenure, shall not bar the court from exercising jurisdiction over such a
person; and
(b) Immunities that may be attached to the official capacity of a person under international law may limit the application of this Act, nut only within
the bounds established under international law.
Justice Callejo: Service-oriented offenses are not absorbed by rebellion or coup detat
because the former are disciplinary in nature. Hence, erring military men can be tried
separately and independently under the RPC for the same act.
Basis of criminal liability: human free will man has the capacity to choose good and
evil
Basis of criminal liability: man inherently good, but offender is socially sick;
influenced by society
xxx provided, that the President of the Philippines may, in the interest of justice, order or direct at any time before arraignment that any such crimes
or offenses be tried by the proper civil courts.
3
Section 46. Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, criminal cases involving PNP members shall
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regular courts xxx
Article 1. Time when Act takes effect. This Code shall take effect on the first day of January, nineteen
hundred and thirty-two.
Art. 2. Application of its provisions. Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential
application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago,
including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against
those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and
securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and
securities mentioned in the presiding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions;
or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of
Book Two of this Code.
This article gives the exceptions to the territoriality principle of criminal law. Hence, the following acts
can be prosecuted in the country, even if done abroad:
o Offenses committed while on a Philippine ship or airship
o Forgery or counterfeit of any coin or currency note of the Philippines or obligations and
securities issued by the Government of the Philippines
o Connection with the introduction into the country of the obligations and securities mentioned
o Offenses committed by public employees or officers in the exercise of their functions
o Crimes of national security and the law of nations defined in Title One of Book 2
Can there be crimes committed here but can not be prosecuted?
o Yes, those provided in treaties and laws of preferential application.
o See immunity discussion above.
How about terrorism? What does the law say about that?
Should be affirmation and conformation
Terrorism is the commission of the enumerated acts in the law which sow and create a
condition of widespread and extradordinary fear and panic among the people, in order to
coerce the government to give in to a lawful demand.
o The Human Security Act (RA 9372) says that even if committed abroad, the individual can
still be prosecuted here if:
Commit said crimes against Philippine citizens or persons of Philippine descent, where
their citizenship or ethnicity was a factor to the commission of the crime
The accused ahs committed the said crime against a Filipino citizen.
o See footnote for the options of the Philippine government. 6
o It also says that the RPC have a suppletory application to the Act and that in interpreting the
act, the Philippine courts can be guided by the judicial decisions of international courts and
tribunals, among others. (Sec 15 Justice Callejo asked this in recit.) 7
Territory of the Philippines: within Philippine archipelago, atmosphere, interior waters, maritime zone
o Territorial sea: 12 nm; Contiguous zone: 24 nm; EEZ: 200 nm
o In the contiguous zone, the State may enforce laws which relate to customs, immigration,
taxes, sanitary laws
o
SEC. 58. Extra-Territorial Application of this Act. - Subject to the provision of an existing treaty of which the Philippines is a signatory and to any
contrary provision of any law of preferential application, the provisions of this Act shall apply: (1) to individual persons who commit any of the
crimes defined and punished in this Act within the terrestrial domain, interior waters, maritime zone, and airspace of the Philippines; (2) to individual
persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit, conspire or plot to commit any of the crimes defined and
punished in this Act inside the territorial limits of the Philippines; (3) to individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of
the Philippines, commit any of the said crimes on board Philippine ship or Philippine airship; (4) to individual persons who commit any of said crimes
within any embassy, consulate, or diplomatic premises belonging to or occupied by the Philippine government in an official capacity; (5) to individual
persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit said crimes against Philippine citizens or persons of
Philippines descent, where their citizenship or ethnicity was a factor in the commission of the crime; and (6) to individual persons who, although
physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit said crimes directly against the Philippine government.
6
Section 17. Jurisdiction.- The State shall exercise jurisdiction over persons, whether military or civilian, suspected or accused of a crime defined and
penalized in this Act, regardless of where the crime is committed, provided, any one of the following conditions is met:
(a) The accused is a Filipino citizen;
(b) The accused, regardless of citizenship or residence, is present in the Philippines; or
(c) The accused has committed the said crime against a Filipino citizen.
In the interest of justice, the relevant Philippine authorities may dispense with the investigation or prosecution of a crime punishable under this Act if
another court or international tribunal is already conducting the investigation or undertaking the prosecution of such crime. Instead, the authorities
may surrender or extradite suspected or accused persons in the Philippines to the appropriate international court, if any, or to another State pursuant to
the applicable extradition laws and treaties.
No criminal proceedings shall be initiated against foreign nationals suspected or accused of having committed the crimes defined and penalized in this
Act if they have been tried by a competent court outside the Philippines in respect of the same offense and acquitted, or having been convicted,
already served their sentence.
7
Section 15. Applicability of International Law.- In the application and interpretation of this Act, Philippine courts shall be guided by the following
sources:
(a) The 1948 Genocide Convention;
(b) The 1949 Genava Conventions I-IV, their 1977 Additional Protocols I and II and their 2005 Additional Protocol III;
(c) The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, its First Protocol and its 1999 Second
Protocol;
(d) The 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child and its 2000 Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict;
(e) The rules and principles of customary international law;
(f) The judicial decisions of international courts and tribunals;
(g) Relevant and applicable international human rights instruments;
(h) Other relevant international treaties and conventions ratified or acceded to by the Republic of the Philippines; and
(i) Teachings of the most highly qualified publicists and authoritative commentaries on the foregoing sources as subsidiary means for the
determination of rules of international law.
English rule: territorial State has jurisdiction, except when it merely concerns internal management of
the vessel (ET English-territory)
French rule: flag of registry has jurisdiction, as long as it does not disturb the peace of the country
(French-flag)
We follow the English rule.
o Hence, when the accused was caught smoking opium in a English vessel in Philippine waters,
the Courts have jurisdiction over him. Drugs disturb the peace of the country.
o What if he did not smoke the opium or sell it, does it still disturb the peace?
Suggested answer from Glenns reviewer: In the DDA, mere attempt to transport
marijuana is a crime. If a commercial vessel passes by the territorial sea, the general
rule under UNCLOS is that the ship cannot be boarded. The criminal law of a State
may not be enforced on board the vessel to prosecute indidivuals except if measures
are necessary to suppress illegal traffic of drugs. Hence, if mere passing through the
territorial sea can lead to boarding and prosecution, what more if the ship is docked?
o But the Courts can disregard the rule if they want.
Yes, if it is a continuing crime. If it began in the high seas and continued here. (US v
Bull, kalabaws werent secured properly. Began in Taiwan, I think, and ended here)
o Does the Philippines have ability to legislate on crimes applying to the high seas?
Title One
FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES
WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Chapter One
FELONIES
Art. 3. Definitions. Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there is fault when the wrongful act
results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
Freedom of action
Intelligence
Intent
Culpa
Freedom of action
Intelligence
Negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight, lack of skill
In a felony by dolo, there must be a confluence of the act/omission punishable by law and the mens
rea (physical act + act of the mind)
o A felony by dolo is a voluntary act. It is a free, voluntary and intentional act; one acts with
intelligence if he can distinguish right from wrong, moral from not, licit fro not
o For felonies by dolo, one is not criminally liable if there is no criminal intent
o Intent refers to the use of a particular means to bring about the desired result. It is
manifested by the overt acts of a person.
EX: if intent an element of the crime (specific criminal intent: intent to kill,
intent to gain), intent cannot be presumed and must be established
o Specific intent is important for the attempted and frustrated stages,
to find out what crime to peg the guy with
In specific intent felonies (where intent is essential), the prosecution must allege in
the information and prove beyond a reasonable doubt the specific intent. (P v Delim)
o Motive is the moving power of force which impels a person to commit acts.
EX:
o in cases of political crimes, where common crimes are absorbed by
the political crime if it were done in pursuance of the political motive
o when the husband catches the wife making love with a paramour. Not
criminally liable for homicide if motive was to avenge his dishonor. But
if he killed the wife for some other motive, liable.
o For evidentiary issues
In a felony by culpa, culpa is a mode of committing a crime.
o It is the mental attitude which is benig penalized.
o In Art 365 (Reckless Imprudence), culpa is itself the crime punished. The crime is properly
denominated as reckless imprudence resulting to homicide.
Homicide does not refer to Art 249, but merely indicates that the victim died. There
is no intent to kill.
This was applied in P v Carmen, where the faith healers tried to cure a boy by beating
him up and other folksy stuff. Boy died, but Court said no intent to kill, so just
reckless imprudence resulting to homicide.
o Can there be a crime of reckless imprudence resulting into frustrated homicide?
Uh, no. frustrated homicide requires intent to kill. This is incompatible with
recklessness, negligence or imprudence. Kalokohan yan.
o Cant here be conspiracy resulting from negligence?
Yezzir. Remember P v Pugay. A poured gasoline on mental retardate. B lit him up with
a match. SC: A liable for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide (he shouldve
foreseen that someone will light the guy up). B liable for homicide (victim died, so
intent to kill presumed, but he was given a MC here)
o What about mistake in the identity of the victim, does this constitute reckless imprudence?
No. Dolo, the killing was deliberate. Mistake in identity is not culpa. It was an unlawful
act willfully done. (P v Oanis policeman shot a man sleeping, without ascertaining
first if it was the escapee they were looking for.)
Malum in se, or malum prohibitum, how can we tell?
o Is lack of criminal intent a defense on SPL? Depends if mala in se, or mala prohibitum.
o In answering whether plunder was malum in se or prohibitum, the Court used the following
questions:
Do the penalties imposed follow the nomenclature of the RPC? (Boado doesnt agree
with this one because of the old DDA which applied RPC penalties to drugs which are
malum prohibitum)
Court answered yes to all 3 questions and thus categorized plunder (under Art
9372) as mala in se.
o A member of the BEI tampers with election results. Mala in se or prohibitum?
In se, even if the crime is defined by SPL. It is inherently immoral and wrong to
tamper with election results.
o Is genocide malum in se?
Prohibitum.
Interestingly, the intent considered here is the intent to possess the firearm (intent to
perpetrate the act versus intent to commit a crime). Fajardo v People (2011). 8
Yes. Anti-carnapping Law. if the offender kills the driver or occupant to take the car,
guilty of special complex crime of carnapping with murder.
o May a felony by dolo or culpa absorb a crime which is malum prohibitum?
No. A felony by dolo or cupla cannot absorb a malum prohibitum crime. (Loney v
People. But what about illegal firearms?)
o Can there be a conspiracy to commit malum prohibitum?
Yes. In Tigoy v People, the accused were charged with violation of a malum
prohibitum (Forestry Code) because they cut some timber and transported it. Court
applied conspiracy.
When the crime is punished by a special law, as a rule, intent to commit the crime is not necessary. It is sufficient that the offender has the intent to
perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law. Intent to commit the crime and intent to perpetrate the act must be distinguished. A person may not
have consciously intended to commit a crime; but he did intend to commit an act, and that act is, by the very nature of things, the crime itself. In the
first (intent to commit the crime), there must be criminal intent; in the second (intent to perpetrate the act) it is enough that the prohibited act is done
freely and consciously.
In the present case, a distinction should be made between criminal intent and intent to possess. While mere possession, without criminal intent, is
sufficient to convict a person for illegal possession of a firearm, it must still be shown that there was animus possidendi or an intent to possess on the
part of the accused. Such intent to possess is, however, without regard to any other criminal or felonious intent which the accused may have harbored
in possessing the firearm. Criminal intent here refers to the intention of the accused to commit an offense with the use of an unlicensed firearm. This is
not important in convicting a person under Presidential Decree No. 1866. Hence, in order that one may be found guilty of a violation of the decree, it
is sufficient that the accused had no authority or license to possess a firearm, and that he intended to possess the same, even if such possession was
made in good faith and without criminal intent.
Concomitantly, a temporary, incidental, casual, or harmless possession or control of a firearm cannot be considered a violation of a statute prohibiting
the possession of this kind of weapon, such as Presidential Decree No. 1866.
The all-knowing Justice does not agree. Art 8 states that conspiracy must be to
commit a felony which is RPC crimes.
Basis of liability
Modifying circumstances
Degree of participation
Stage of accomplishment
Moral turp?
Where can we find them?
In se
Moral trait
Taken into account
Taken into account
Taken into account
Generally involve moral
turpitude
Generally in the RPC
Prohibitum
Offenders voluntariness
Not considered
Not considered
Only when consummated
Generally no moral turpitude
Generally in SPL
Boado says applies to both dolo and culpa (since felony is used)
But the brilliant Justice Callejo says it applies to only dolo (since intended is used). Follow Justice
Callejo, its his test.
o Accused was attacked by assailant with a bolo. He managed to wrestle the bolo away from
the assailant but as he yanked it away, it hit his wife. Accused not liable, his act of wrestling
the bolo away was not a felony, it was a legal act. (P v Bindoy)
A person is liable for the natural and logical consequences of his criminal act
o Natural occurrence in ordinary course of things
o Logical there must be a reasonable connection between the act done and the consequence
In other words, the act must be the proximate cause of the effect.
o Proximate cause the cause, which in its natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the result would not have
occurred
Even if the resulting wrongful act was different from the offenders intention, he is liable for that
resulting act.
"If a man creates in another man's mind an immediate sense of danger which causes such person to try to escape, and in so doing he injuries himself,
the person who creates such a state of mind is responsible for the injuries which result.
Accused wanted to rape the victim, so she jumped out of the window and died. Accused guilty
even fro r the death. Rape with homicide. (P v Castromero)
o Accused stabbed the victim so doctor put a drainage on the wound. Victim was in pain and
because of his state of nervousness removed the drainage. Victim died. Accused liable. (P v
Quianzon)
Even if the doctor is negligent, so long as the accused inflicted mortal wounds on the victim, the
negligence of the doctor is not an active intervening force that exculpates the accused.
o But in some cases the doctors acts are exculpatory for the accused.
Like when doctor is so drunk that he gave the victim poison, instead of medicine.
Cause and effect between act of the accused and the resulting injury is not altered by:
o Pre-existing conditions of the victim (pathological)
o Predispositions of victim
If victim likes drinking and its part of his culture, and then after being stabbed, the
doctor told him not to drink anymore, but still he drinks, the stabber is liable. (US v
Bayutas)
o Physical condition of the victim
Punching Steve Rogers before he becomes Captain America. And then he dies. His
scrawniness can not be taken against him.
o Incompetence of the doctor
o Refusal of the victim to get medical help
o Infection of the wound
But the infection should not be due to the malicious act of the offended party (US v
delos Santos)
Hence, act is not the proximate cause if:
o There is an active force that intervened between the felony committed and the death of the
victim; active force must be foreign to the act of the perpetrator
o Resulting injury or damage is the intentional act of the victim
o Fault of the doctor (not sure, Sir just mentioned it)
So, what applies for culpa?
o Art 365. Offender is liable for whatever damage or injury caused by him.
o Can there be reckless imprudence resulting to double homicide if two people died? May
reckless imprudence result into a complex crime under Art 48?
Yes, because reckless imprudence is a felony under Art 3 and Art 48 talks about
felonies as component crimes.
A person is presumed to contemplate the ordinary consequences of his acts. (Rule 131, Sec 5c)
o
Mistake of Fact
Aberratio Ictus
Factors which affect the intent and criminal liability of the offenders
Definition
Notes
Effect on intent
Effect on liability
Had the facts
Ah Chong.
No criminal intent
No criminal liability
been true to the
Accused must not be
belief of the
negligent in
offender, his act
ascertaining facts.
would have been
justified;
Mistake in the
situation
Mistake in the
A shoots B. He
Intended result
Increases criminal
blow; offender
instead hits C who
falls on another
liability which may
intends the injury
was standing by B.
person, or may be
result to a complex
on one person,
(three persons
in addition to the
crime
but the harm fell
present actual
injury on the
on another
victim, intended
intended victim
victim, and accused)
Treachery can be
appreciated.
10
Error in personae
Mistake in the
identity of the
victim
A wants to kill B. He
instead kills C, who
was his father and
who he thought was
B.
(two persons
involved actual &
unintended victim
and accused)
Intended result
falls on another
due to error in the
identity of the
victim
Praeter
intentionem
So grave a wrong
that what was
intended; need for
a great disparity
between the
intended felony
and actual felony
committed
Cause of the
cause is the cause
of the evil caused
A punched B. B died.
Actual crime is
greater than
intended
Proximate cause
Results in crime
although was not
intended
Extenuating if the
resulting crime is
greater than
intended (parricide
when what was
intended was
homicide); no
effect if the
resulting crime is
the same as that
intended
Mitigating under
Art 13
Results in criminal
liability whether
acting with intent
(Art 4) or
negligence (Art
365)
Impossible crimes
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for
the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means.
Impossible crimes wont apply if another crime had been committed by the acts of the offender
Not a crime, it would have been a crime
Elements:
o Offender performed an act which would be an offense against persons or property
o Act done with criminal intent
o Accomplishment of the act is
Inherently impossible
Elements:
Consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime
Example: offender bribes someone who he thinks is Pnoy, its not Pnoy, just a look-alike; pointed a gun to victim, but empty pala;
accused fired guns into the empty bedroom of the intended victim, but the
victim was out of town, sipping margaritas in a beach with his homies (Intod
v CA);
11
compare with P v Balmores where the accused made a really really really bad
falsification of a sweepstakes ticket. SC convicted him of falsification. But
Paras dissented and said that the falisification was so bad that it was
inherently inadequate in the means employed. No one in their right mind
would have thought it was a real sweepstakes ticket.
Rape can now be an impossible crime since crime against persons.
Is conspiracy applicable to impossible crimes? No.
Is art 6 applicable to impossible crimes? No.
Justice Regalado: Under Art 59, the imposable penalty for impossible crime is arresto mayor. If I saw
a person on a bed, thought he was my bitter rival and I punched him, and because of my weak arms,
he only sustained slight PI, I wouldve been sentenced to arresto menor.
o But if he turns out that he was already dead, my penalty would be arresto mayor because of
the impossible crime.
o How odd! Just like how salmon swim up the current, and not downward. (Sabaw man.)
Art. 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by
the law, and in cases of excessive penalties. Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may
deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall
report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the court to
believe that said act should be made the subject of legislation.
In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, such
statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict
enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty,
taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense.
If no law punishing act, court should dismiss the case (because of Art 21 and 22)
Art 5 does not apply to crimes defined by SPL because of the use of the words degree of malice
o This brings to mind BP 22, in relation to AC 12-2000, as clarified by AC 13-2001:
SC noticed that people are using the courts as collection agencies and are clogging up
the dockets
So the SC issued a circular dissuading people from filing BP 22 and for judges to just
impose fines
For libel, even if imposable penalty is imprisonment or fine, the SC prefers fine over imprisonment.
(Brillante v CA)
If the penalty is too excessive, remedy is executive clemency. But judge should still impose the
penalty. (P v Veneracion)
Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. Consummated felonies as well as those which
are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the
felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the
will of the perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly or over acts, and
does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or
accident other than this own spontaneous desistance.
12
BUT the felony was not produced by reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator
If the cause of the frustration is due to the will of the offender, crime is not
frustrated, but could be another crime
o Example: Scott gives Jean poison. Jean drinks it. However, before
Jean dies, Scott feels bad and gives Jean the antidote. Not frustrated
murder, but consummated physical injuries.
o Reached the objective stage of the offense because no further action is required on his part.
o Crimes with no frustrated stage:
Rape
But touching not enough, the touching must be in relation with the intent to
have carnal knowledge of the woman and there must have been penetration,
however slight. Hence, grazing and mere stroking not enough. 10 (P v
Campuhan)
o If just in the mons pubis merely attempted, (mere strafing of the
citadel of passion doctrine)
Arson
Adultery
Theft/Robbery
One is liable for consummated robbery if one takes possession of the personal
property of the other, however brief it may be.
Dude goes into lot of the owner, and steals three cows. He is still in the lot
when the owner catches him with the three cows in tow. Consummated theft.
Does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony
Non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance (P v Lizada, penned by the good justice Callejo himself)
o Directly by overt acts
Elements:
Such external acts have direct connection with the crime intended to be
committed
There should be an immediate and necessary connection between the overt acts and
the crime intended to be committed.
10
Touching when applied to rape cases does not simply mean epidermal contact, stroking or grazing of organs, a slight brush or a scrape of the penis
on the external layer of the victims vagina, or the mons pubis there must be sufficient and convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias
or slid into the female organ, and not merely stroked the external surface thereof, for an accused to be convicted of consummated rape.
13
It can be the first of a series of acts that would produce the intended crime, as long
as the intended crime is established or known.
In P v Lizada, the accused was caught by the brother of the victim without his
shirt on. The accused was on top of the victim, held her hands and was
mashing her breasts and touching her vajayjay. The victim was naked. Acts of
lasciviousness or attempted rape? SC: Attempted rape. By the series of acts
committed by the accused, he had commenced the execution of rape, which,
if for the arrival of the brother, would have produced the rape.
Overt acts: external acts which if continued will logically result in a felony
Preparatory acts: acts which still require another act so that a felony will
result; not punishable unless the act itself is a crime
o Example of a preparatory act: buying poison, buying a gun,
surveillance of a store which you will rob
Offender did not perform all the acts of execution
Still has full control of acts, and has not completed the needed acts yet.
Due to cause or accident other than spontaneous desistance.
If the person desists on his own, he is not guilty of the attempted crime.
Hence, as long as you desist while still in the subjective phase, you are not
liable for the crime.
The desistance can be for whatever reason (fear, conscience, hunger, needed
to go poop). As long as you desist voluntarily, no liability for the attempted
crime.
o BUT: you can be liable for any other felony already committed.
o Example: Emma aimed gun at Johnny and fired, missed. Emma aimed
again but Johnny pleaded for his life, so Emma felt sorry for him and
desisted from firing. Emma liable for first shot, but not liable for the
second act of aiming.
Take note that in RA 9851, a person is criminally liable for a crime defined and penalized
therin if he/she attempts to commit such a crime by taking action that commences its
execution by means of a substantial step, but the crime does not occur because of
circumstances lindependept of the persons intention. (Sec 8)
Acts of execution
Cause of nonaccomplishment
Phase
Included?
Intent
Homicide/murder
11
Frustrated
All acts have been performed
Cause independent of the will of the
perpetrator
Objective
Wound fatal
Attempted
Not all acts had been done
Cause or accident other than
offenders spontaneous desistance
Subjective
Necessarily included in the frustrated
stage
Inherent
Wound not fatal
Does the subjective and objective phase apply to crimes against persons (specifically,
homicide/murder)?11
Test should be limited to homicide/murder. Because rape is now a crime against persons and the nature of the wound test does not apply to rape.
14
If there was intent to kill and wound inflicted was fatal: frustrated
If there was intent to kill and wound inflicted was not mortal/fatal: attempted
o A non-fatal/slight wound cant possibly produce death.
Why isnt the subjective/objective phase used? Because even if the accused had lost control
of all his acts (bumaril na siya eh!), the determination is still with the nature of the wound.
(Rivera v People)
There were old rulings before (P v Eduave, P v Borinaga 12) where the test was the belief of
the offender. If he believed that the wound was mortal, frustrated.
No longer the rule. Now, even if the accused believed that he inflicted a mortal
wound, but he did not, it is merely attempted, not frustrated. The nature of the
wound controls, not the belief of the person.
Justice Callejo warns not to be in a hurry in categorizing if mortal/fatal wound or not, wait for
the results. He said this in critique of a case wherein a doctor removed the feeding tube of
the victim. The SC only considered it attempted homicide.
Art. 7. When light felonies are punishable. Light felonies are punishable only when they have been
consummated, with the exception of those committed against person or property
Light felonies penalty not exceeding arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both
GR: Punishable only when consummated
o EX: crimes against persons or property (all stages)
Only principals and accomplices are liable
Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are
punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it.
There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some
other person or persons.
There is conspiracy where two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of
a felony and decide to commit it.
Must proven beyond reasonable doubt.
o But no need for direct proof. May be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during and
after the commission of the crime, all o which point to or indicate a joint purpose, a concert of
action and a community of interest.
Art 8 does not define a penalty!
Requirements for conspiracy:
o Singularity of intent, and
o Unity in the execution of the unlawful objective (P v Pagalasan)
There must be criminal intent. No such thing as conspiracy as a product of negligence. No conspiracy
to commit an unintentional act.
Conspiracy does not apply to crimes defined in SPL
o Unless the SPL provides that conspiracy to commit a crime under that law is a crime in itself.
12
dude stabbed the chair where his victim was sitting. He ended up stabbing the back of the chair, but he thought he dealt the blow and then ran away
Section 26. Attempt or Conspiracy. Any attempt or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts shall be penalized by the same penalty
prescribed for the commission of the same as provided under this Act:
(a) Importation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical;
(b) Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and
essential chemical;
(c) Maintenance of a den, dive or resort where any dangerous drug is used in any form;
(d) Manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical; and
(e) Cultivation or culture of plants which are sources of dangerous drugs.
13
15
What if
itself)?
Access Devise Regulations (RA 8484) conspiracy to commit access devise fraud 14
Anti-terrorism Law (RA 9372)15
no provision in SPL? Can Art 8 still be a mode to commit a crime (not a crime in
In Andan v People, SC held that 2 or more persons who conspire to commit a crime of
BP 22 are liable for such crime, applying Art 8 of the RPC.
In Tigoy v CA, accused were guilty of violating the Forestry Code. SC applied Art 8 to
the accused.
Conspiracy to commit treason, conspiracy to commit rebellion (and the SPLs above)
EXCEPT:
Active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself (held the hands of a
guy who was shot),
By exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators (Mayor lording over his
minions while they chop the head off of some poor fellow)
o Is Art 4, paragraph 1 applicable to conspiracy? (Justice Callejo)
Yes. Each conspirator is responsible for everything fone by his confederates, which
follow incidentally in the execution of the common design, as one of its probable and
natural consequences even though not intended as part of the original design.
Conspirators are held to have intended the consequences of their act by engaging in
conspiracy.
Conspirators are necessarily liable for the acts of another conspirator unless such act
differs radically and substantively from that which they intended to commit. (P v
Bisda)
14
Section 11. Conspiracy to commit access device fraud. If two (2) or more persons conspire to commit any of the offenses listed in Section 9 and
one or more of such persons does any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as in the case
of the doing of the act, the accomplishment of which is the object of such conspiracy.
15
SEC. 4. Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism. Persons who conspire to commit the crime of terrorism shall suffer the
penalty of forty (40) years of imprisonment.
There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of the crime of
terrorism as defined in Section 3 hereof and decide to commit the same.
16
EXCEPT:
o Other crime was committed in their presence and they did not prevent
its commission indicating their approval thereof
o When the other crime is the natural consequence of the crime planned
(Art 4)
Examples:
If one of the robbers prevented the others from committing the extra act of
homicide or rape, then he is only liable for robbery, and not robbery with
rape/homicide. It does not matter if he succeeds in preventing them or not.
(P v de Jesus)
One of the conspirators who committed robbery, after they all escaped, saw a
car and carnapped it. Only he was liable for carnapping. (P v Mapalit)
Agreed to rob victim. After the robbery, one of the conspirators went back to
the house to rape the maid. Only the rapist is liable for the rape. (P v
Angeles)
Conspiracy continues until the object of the conspiracy is attained. It is a continuing event,
unless in the meantime, they abandon the conspiracy or the conspirators are arrested.
For a conspirator to escape liability from the planned crime, he must perform an overt
act to disassociate himself before the crime is actually committed.
17
In other words, for a conspirator to disclaim liability, he must, before the crime
occurs:
As long as the parts played by each of the principals in the conspiracy contribute to
the realization of the common design, they are all liable equally.
The acquittal of a conspirator does not absolve the other co-conspirators from
criminal liability.
Mere fact that he knew of the criminal design does not ipso facto make him a coconspirator (unless mastermind nga).
Implied conspiracy
o Deduced from the acts of the offenders
o No planning, they acted in concert during the commission of the crime
o The agreement to pursue a common design and united purpose was instantaneous
o GR: accused must have participated in the commission of the crime to be considered a coconspirator
Mere presence or approval of the crime without more will not make the alleged
conspirator liable because there would be no basis for deducing conspiracy as to him
as there is absent criminis particeps (criminal participation)
Three kinds of conspiracy according to Estrada v Sandiganbayan:
o Wheel conspiracy one person is the hub and his underlings are the spokes
This was used against Jinggoy. SC said that the hub was Erap while the spokes are all
the accused, and the rim that enclosed the spokes was the common goal in the
overall conspiracy (the amassing of wealth). Jinggoy was a spoke.
o Chain conspiracy involving the distribution of drugs in a way that there is successive
communication and cooperation in the same way as with legit businesses conduct their
business with suppliers, etc
o Enterprise conspiracy usually seen in organized crime, involves racketeering
Is evident premeditation automatic in conspiracy?
o No. it depends on what kind of conspiracy.
16
As to the circumstance of price or reward, it can only be appreciated against appellant Tiguman since it was he who committed the felonious act for
money. the same evidence on price established conspiracy between the appellants. Consequently the act of one is the act of all.
18
falsification or malversation through falsification, without such act of negligence the crime
could not have been accomplished. But since negligence cannot co-exist with conspiracy, his
liability shall be thru culpa but that of his subordinates thru dolo, if there is no conspiracy.
When, however, the infraction consists in the reliance in good faith, albeit misplace by a head
of office on a subordinate upon whom the primary responsibility rests, absent a clear case of
conspiracy, the head of office must be exculpated.
There has to be some added reason why the head must be compelled to examine each
voucher/paper that comes his way. There are so much to sign and go over, he cant be
expected to go through all the paperwork.17 (Arias v Sandiganbayan, Arias was acquitted.)
Art. 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light felonies. Grave felonies are those to which the law
attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with
Art. 25 of this Code.
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are
correctional, in accordance with the above-mentioned Art..
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which a penalty of arrest menor or a fine
not exceeding 200 pesos or both; is provided.
Grave felonies
o Capital punishment or afflictive penalties in any of its periods (as long as min, med, max is
within the afflictive penalty, grave!)
Example: penalty imposed by law is AMenor Max to AMayor Min, less grave since max
period of the penalty is within the penalty of Amayor
Light felonies
o Amenor or fine not exceeding P200
Compare with Art 26 where a fine of P200 is correctional. See Art 26 for reconciliation
Use this article to determine:
o Whether a complex crime was committed (Art 48, requires grave or less grave felonies)
o Duration of the subsidiary penalty to be imposed (Art 39, 2) where the subsidiary penalty is
based on the severity of the penalty
o Duration of the detention in case of failure to post the bond to keep the peace (Art 35)
o Whether the crime has prescribed (Art 90)
o Whether the person in authority or his agents have committed delay in the delivery of
detained persons (Art 125)
o The proper penalty for quasi-offenses (Art 365)
Like in Child Abuse Act (RA 7610) when victim is 12 years old, penalty shall
be RP
17
There has to be some added reason why he should examine each voucher in such detail. Any executive head of even small government agencies or
commissions can attest to the volume of papers that must be signed. There are hundreds of document , letters and supporting paper that routinely pass
through his hands.
18
(a) Acts falling under Section 5(a) constituting attempted, frustrated or consummated parricide or murder or homicide shall be punished in
accordance with the provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
19
EX to EX: when it specially provides that the RPC will not be supplementary to the
SPL.
Examples:
o DDA RPC shall not apply to violations of DDA, except in case of
minors19
o Anti-hazing law mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit
so grave a wrong not applicable
o Anti-terrorism conviction under this law is a bar to prosecution of
that person under the RPC or another SPL for the predicate crime 20
supplementary, the following shall apply:
ISL
Art 11 to 15
Conspiracy (at least for BP 22, in Ladonga v P)
When
o
o
o
Justifying Circumstances
Acts of the actor are in accordance with law and hence, he incurs no criminal liability
Rule now: Stand ground when in the right. No longer retreat to the wall. (US v Domen)
Requisites:
o Unlawful aggression
o Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
o Lack of sufficient provocation on part of person defending himself
Unlawful aggression must always be there. Without it, nothing to prevent or repel. No unlawful
aggression? No self-defense.
o Actual and real peril, or at least an imminent threat to ones:
Life
Limbs
Honor/Chastity
Property
Liberty
o Cant be simply imagined. Nor should it be a mere threatening or intimidating attitude.
o If there is an agreement to fight, no unlawful aggression, hence no self-defense.
Unless one attacked ahead of time. The one who attacked ahead of time: unlawful
aggression.
o Slapping held to be unlawful aggression. Against honor since the face of a person is akin to
his dignity and honor. (P v Sabio)
If these acts resulted in mutilation, it shall be punishable in accordance with the Revised Penal Code; those constituting serious physical injuries shall
have the penalty of prison mayor; those constituting less serious physical injuries shall be punished by prision correccional; and those constituting
slight physical injuries shall be punished by arresto mayor.
Acts falling under Section 5(b) shall be punished by imprisonment of two degrees lower than the prescribed penalty for the consummated crime as
specified in the preceding paragraph but shall in no case be lower than arresto mayor.
19
Section 98. Limited Applicability of the Revised Penal Code. Notwithstanding any law, rule or regulation to the contrary, the provisions of the
Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3814), as amended, shall not apply to the provisions of this Act, except in the case of minor offenders. Where the
offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death provided herein shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
20
SEC. 49. Prosecution Under This Act Shall Be a Bar to Another Prosecution Under the Revised Penal Code or Any Special Penal Laws. When a
person has been prosecuted under a provision of this Act, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and
substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar
to another prosecution for any offense or felony which is necessarily included in the offense charged under this Act.
20
When the aggression has ceased to exist, no more necessity for self-defense. The aggression
must continue up to the point where the aggressor is killed.
The right to self-defense begins where the necessity exists, and ends when necessity
ends. It is limited by that necessity. (P v Adlawan)
Like when the aggressor ran away after the attack, accused can no longer run after
him and kill him and then invoke self-defense.
Here, the retaliation becomes the unlawful aggression. Hence, the original
aggressor can invoke self-defense (at least partial since there will be sufficient
provocation on his part for initially attacking)
When the attacker was already disarmed, unlawful aggression has ceased. (Gusto v
CA)
Reasonable necessity of the means employed
o Depends upon the circumstances surrounding the aggression, the state of mind of the
aggressor and the available weapon at the defenders disposal
o Law requires rational equivalence, not material commensurability
Hence, when a big, strong, and powerful American negro attacked a Filipino, and the
Filipino shot him 4 times, the SC stated that the Filipino employed reasonable means.
(US v Paras)
o Self-preservation is the paramount consideration
Lack of sufficient provocation
o There can be provocation on the part of the accused, but it should not be suffient
o Sufficient provocation is unjust or improper conduct/act of the offended party, capable of
exciting, inciting or irritating anyone. It must be adequate enough to excite a person to
commit a wrong.
Defense of property rights
o In P v Ignacio, the dissent said that there must be an attack on the person in possession of
property as well, and not just the property for self-defense to be invoked. Follow this.
o The person may use such force as reasonably necessary to prevent or repel the unlawful
physical invasion of his property. This does not seem to involve the taking of human life.
o The preservation of human life and limb is of more importance to society than the protection
of property. (State v Green)
o Fencing of a persons land which will cut him off to the highway is unlawful aggression. (P v
Narvaez)
Can there be self-defense in libel?
o Apparently, yes. (P v Hiong, the person libel may hit back with another libel which, if
adequate, will be justified)
Defense of honor/chastity
o Girl stabbed man who embraced her in a dark alley. Self-defense! (P v dela Cruz)
o Girl stabbed man who touched her thigh in a well-lit church. No self-defense. (P v Jaurige)
Relate with Art 24721
o Art 247 is an absolutory circumstance. The penalty imposed is only destierro, and its more
for the protection of the accused more than it is a punishment.
o For instance, the accused arrived and saw his wife in the act of sexual intercourse. The
paramour and the wife ran away. Accused went out. He heard rustling of leaves and saw his
wife putting on her panties. He stabbed his wife. SC: Cant invoke 247 because at that time,
the wife was already putting on her panties.
o
21
Art. 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. Any legally married person who having surprised his spouse in
the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict
upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.
If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt from punishment.
These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents with respect to their daughters under eighteen years of age, and their
seducer, while the daughters are living with their parents.
Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or shall otherwise have consented to the infidelity of the other
spouse shall not be entitled to the benefits of this article.
21
Dissent (follow this): its asking too much to actually catch them in the act of actual
sexual congress. What else can you deduce when you see your wife putting on her
panties and her paramour is right there?
o Accused saw his wife making lust with someone else. He told her to leave. But in a rage she
rushed and attacked the husband with a knife. In defense, husband stabbed the wife.
Husband has the right to invoke his honor and defend it, so he can invoke Art 11.
He can also invoke 247 if he discovers his wife and some dude making love.
247 will get you banished, 11 will bring you home scot-free.
Tension-building phase
In the US, even men can avail of it. its called battering and its effects
o Does not amend Art 11, but simply adds a new element/defense
Defense of Relatives
2. Any one who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or
legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and
those consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed
in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the revocation was given
by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.
Elements:
o Unlawful aggression
o Reasonable necessity of the means employed
o In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the person defending had no part
therein
Relatives included:
o Spouse
22
SECTION 26. Battered Woman Syndrome as a Defense. Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman
syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense
under the Revised Penal Code.
In the determination of the state of mind of the woman who was suffering from battered woman syndrome at the time of the commission of the crime,
the courts shall be assisted by expert psychiatrists/ psychologists.
22
o Ascendants/descendants
o Legit, natural or adopted bros or sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same degrees
o Consanguinity within 4th civil degree
What if your spouse has died, will SD still be applicable to your inlaws?
o Yes. relationship by affinity between surviving spouse and kindred of deceased continues
regardless if there is offspring or not.
Defense of Strangers
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and second
requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this Art. are present and that the person defending be
not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
Elements
o Unlawful aggression
o Reasonable necessity of the means employed
o Person defending is not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motives
State of necessity
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes damage to another,
provided that the following requisites are present;
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
Elements
o Evil sought to be avoided actually exists
o Injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it
o No other practical and less harmful means of preventing it
Civil liability on the person who benefited (Art 101)
If incomplete, see Art 69.
The state of necessity must not be brought about by the intentional provocation of the party invoking
the same. (P v Retubado)
The evil should not have been created by the accused or his own negligence.
o For example, you drive recklessly, you swerve to avoid a child, but end up killing someone
else. You are still liable for Art 365.
Invoked in a BP 22 case wherein the accused said that she was forced to issue bouncing checks to
save her mother from the harsh treatment of the hospital she was confined in. SC said the
predicament was brought about by her own failure to pay the hospital bills.
Elements:
o Acted out of duty or office
o Injury caused is consequence of that duty or right
Judgment and discretion of public officers in the performance of duties must be exercised neither
capriciously nor oppressively but within reasonable limits. In the absence of clear legal provisions,
they must act in conformity with exercise of sound discretion.
When the victim was a deranged man who was already subdued as he was lying on the ground, and
the policeman walks up to him, and unloads a bullet on the mans forehead, causing his brains to
splatter all over the wet pavement and on the policemans shoe, there is no lawful exercise. There
was no need for such. (P v Pule)
Police can use force to prevent the escape of the victim who snatched their armalite. (Cabanlig v
Sandiganbayan)
o If the victim pointed the gun at the policeman, the policeman can invoke both self-defense
and lawful exercise of duty.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.
23
Elements:
o Order issued by superior
o Order is for a legal purpose
o Means used to carry out such order is lawful
If the order is illegal but is apparently legal and the subordinate is not aware of its illegality, the
subordinate is not liable. (Tabuena v Sandiganbayan, Tabuena disbursed money of Marcos) (But
arent we all presumed to know the law?)
Exempting Circumstances
While crime is still criminal, the law exempts the actor from liability.
o But not from CIVIL LIABILITY.
Except in accident and insuperable cause which strictly are not criminal.
Justifying
Act legal
No crime, no criminal
No civil liability
Emphasis of the law is on the act
Exempting
Act criminal
Theres a crime and a criminal
Civil liability
Emphasis of the law is on the actor
Insanity/Imbecility
Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. the following are exempt from criminal
liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval. When the imbecile
or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order
his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall
not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court.
Insanity: complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, deprived of rason, total
deprivation of freedom of will
o Exempt, unless acted during a lucid interval
o Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability
o Must relate to period immediately before or at the precise moment of doing the act which is
the subject of the inquiry
If sane when act was done, but insane during trial, he can still be criminally liable
o Distinguish between lack of reason (insanity) and failure to use good judgment due to anger
(passion)
o Burden of proof: accused (because of presumption of sanity)
But if already known that he was insane at that time: prosecution must prove he was
sane at time of commission
o Quantum of proof to overthrow presumption of sanity: beyond reasonable doubt
Imbecile: mental development to that of children between 2-7 years of age
o Always exempt
Two tests to determine complete deprivation of intelligence in the commission of the act:
o Cognition test deprivation of intelligence in committing the criminal act (awareness of right
or wrong)
Minority
24
those who acted with discernment are entitled to privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority
But the maximum age to suspend the sentence is only until 21 years old. 24
2 presumptions under RA 9344:
o presumption of minority
o presumption of no discernment (if 15-18)
reckless imprudence (say, a 15 year old boy drives a car and hits someone)
A child under 9 is conclusively presumed to have no discernment. (Jarco Marketing v CA)
o With RA 9344, its now 15
What is discernment?
o The mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong.
o Prove by evidence of physical appearance, attitude or deportment not only before and during
the commission of the act, but also after and during the trial. The surrounding circumstances
must demonstrate that the minor knew what he was doing and that it was wrong.
o Such circumstance includes the gruesome nature of the crime and the minors cunning and
shrewdness. (Llave v P, where the minor was deemed with discernment because he was an
o
23
Sec. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps and Other Training Facilities. A child in conflict with the law may, after
conviction and upon order of the court, be made to serve his/her sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution, in an agricultural camp
and other training facilities that may be established, maintained, supervised and controlled by the BUCOR, in coordination with the DSWD.
24
SEC. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence. - Once the child who is under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the offense
is found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall determine and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from the offense committed.
However, instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended sentence,
without need of application: Provided, however, That suspension of sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile is already eighteen years (18) of
age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt.
Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the various chcumstances of the child, the court shall impose the appropriate disposition measures
as provided in the Supreme Court Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law.
SEC. 40. Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court. - If the court finds that the objective of the disposition measures imposed upon the
child in conflict with the law have not been fulfilled, or if the child in conflict with the law has willfully failed to comply with the conditions of
his/her disposition or rehabilitation program, the child in conflict with the law shall be brought before the court for execution of judgment.
If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18) years of age while under suspended sentence, the court shall determine whether to
discharge the child in accordance with this Act, to order execution of sentence, or to extend the suspended sentence for a certain specified period or
until the child reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years.
25
honor student and made sure that his rape of another minor was in a secluded area; see also
P v Doquena where the minor was the brightest of his class. Tsk tsk to the smarties!)
o Intelligence, on the other hand, is the power necessary to determine the morality of human
acts to distinguish a licit from an illicit act.
Offenses not applicable to children:
o Vagrancy and prostitution
o Mendicancy
o Sniffing of rugby
Read codal na lang for stuff on diversion, etc.
Accident
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without
fault or intention of causing it.
Accident: happens outside the sway of our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable
consequences
Elements:
o Performance of a lawful act with due care
o Injury to another was by accident
o Without intent or negligence/no fault or no intent
Appreciated in Pomoy v People. Pomoy was a policeman who struggled with the victim who was under
investigation. Gun accidentally went off during the struggle.
The accident must not be foreseeable or else there will be fault or criminal negligence
Accident and negligence are mutually exclusive
o Negligence presupposes some degree of fault or foreseeableness in the fault of the person
No such thing as accidental self-defense. NO SUCH THING. (Tamboong v People)
No civil liability
Irresistible Force
5. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.
Elements:
o Force must be physical, come from an outside force and accust must act not only without a
will but even against his will
o Actor reduced to a mere instrument, no more freedom
o Duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending, and of such a
nature as to induce a well-grounded fear of death or serious bodily injury
Accused must have had no opportunity to leave or escape or self-defense
Elements
o Fear of an evil greater than or at least equal to that which the accused was required to
commit
o Evil was os such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have succumbed to it
Founded on duress or lack of voluntairness on the part of the actor
Same rule with irresistible force, if accused had chance to run away or escape, this EC wont be
appreciated (P v Morales, where the accused, in a kidnapping case, were a good kilometer from
where the co-accused were. They couldve just ran away)
Not appreciated when one of two rapists claimed he was under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear
from the other, but yet he raped the victim while the other was no longer there. (P v Tami)
Civil liability on the principal
Insuperable cause
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful insuperable
cause.
26
Applies in felonies by omission (like Art 125 and then holidays pala!)
No civil liability
Anymore?
Spontaneous desistance in the attempted stage (unless overt act was a crime in itself)
Mistake of fact
Zombies
Show the lesser perversity of the offender and thus considered to lower the penalty prescribed for the
offense
There are other circumstances which also reduce the penalty but are not under Art 13
o These are the extenuating circumstances like concealment of dishonor on the part of the
mother in infanticide
Cant be offset
o Specific
25
Art. 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability. No criminal, but only civil liability, shall result from the commission of the crime of theft,
swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by the following persons:
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line.
2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the same shall have passed into the possession of
another; and
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.
The exemption established by this article shall not be applicable to strangers participating in the commission of the crime.
27
Ordinary
Can be offset by a generic AC
Lowered to minimum period (except if 2 or more
MCs and no AC, then lower degree by one)
Not considered in single indivisible penalties
Privileged
Cant be offset
Penalty lowered by one or two degrees
Always considered no matter the penalty imposed
Minority/Oldies
2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he shall
be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80.
Praeter Intentionem
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
26
like when the accused hit the victim in the eyebrow with a LEAD PIPE. SC did not
apply this MC because of the brute force used and the part of the body where the
blow was struck. (Oriente v P)
o
hazing incidents26 under the Anti-Hazing Law (RA 8049), or
o culpa or to crimes not involving intent. Intentionem nga eh.
Usually applied to physical acts
o Accused poured gasoline on a mental retardate, and latter burned to death. (P v Pugay,
accused only meant to burn the clothes of the guy, not the guy himself)
Any person charged under this provision shall not be entitled to the mitigating circumstance that there was no intention to commit so grave a wrong.
28
o Husband punched wife. Wife broke her ribs and died. (P v Ulep)
But has been applied in malversation.
o Petitioner was a municipal treasurer and the audit team discovered he was short P72k in
funds. After a few months, he returned the money he borrowed. SC gave him two MCs:
voluntary surrender and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
Intent is determined at the time of the commission of the crime.
o Intent determined by weapons, words, conduct before, during, and after (immediately?) the
incident.
What if 2 persons conspired to commit a felony, and one intended to commit the grave wrong, but the
other did not, what happens?
o Conspirator who did not indeed to commit so grave a wrong as that committed CAN NOT
invoke the MC. (Act of one, act of all!)
But if both of them did not intend to commit so grave a wrong, they both can invoke
the MC.
Can both treachery and praeter intentionem coexist? Can they hold hands and skip?
o Yes. They may coexist. reachery refers to the manner or method used to kill the victim. Lack
of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed refers to the state of mind of the
person. (P v Flores)
Sufficient Provocation
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act.
Provocation must:
o Be sufficient
o Be immediate to the commission of the crime (no interval of time elapsed between
provocation and commission of the crime)
o Originate from the offended party
Sufficient provocation is unjust or improper conduct/act of the offended party, capable of exciting,
inciting or irritating anyone. It must be adequate enough to excite a person to commit a wrong.
(Licayo v P, Oriente v P)
Offended shouted and told the accused to leave. Accused killed him. No MC.
Even if the act of the victim may not constitute unlawful aggression to invoke SD, the same act may
still be invoked by the offended as sufficient provocation on the part of the victim. (Gotis v P)
o Deceased struck accused then ran away like a scared dog. Accused caught up with him and
killed him. Accused actually could have two MCs in his favor: sufficient provocation and
passion/obfuscation. But he cant be entitled to both, since both are based from the same
facts.
o Same rule applies when same facts give rise to vindication of grave offense and sufficient
provocation. Only entitled to one MC.
Provocation need not be in words, but can also be in action. When the victim entered the accused
persons property and started gathering crops, this constituted sufficient provocation. (P v Arquiza)
Immediate in this case means proximate and allows for a lapse of time
o As long as the offender is still suffereing from the mental agony brought about by the
offense to him
Grave offense is not the grave offense in Art 9. Here, it might not even be a felony at all. It can be
an assault to ones honor.
o Includes insult Youre just living out of the pockets of your wife!
Committed against spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or
sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees
Test if the assault is grave depends on:
o Social standing of parties
29
Accused had a common law wife who worked as a hostess/GRO. He told her to stop
her job, she refused. She also refused to stay with Bello because she wanted to
continue her work of dancing scantily clad in front of drunk people. SC held that
passion/obfuscation present, saying, We can not see how the accused's insistence
that she live with him again, and his rage at her rejection of the proposal, can be
properly qualified as arising from immoral and unworthy passions. Even without
benefit of wedlock, a monogamous liaison appears morally of a higher level than
gainful promiscuity.
o Exercise of a lawful right by the offended party cannot be a proper source of
passion/obfuscation.
o As when the offended party came to regain his land. (P v Lopez)
Act which produced the passion/obfuscation must not be far removed from the commission of the
crime by a considerable length of time during which the accused might have regained his normal
equanimity
o Lapse of 1 week? No, accused was already expected to recover his equanimity. (P v Ventura
where he found out that his wife had an affair with her amo)
o 3 days? No, same reason. (P v Caber, offended allegedly raped wife of accused 3 days before
the stabbing)
Appreciated in case where the husband killed a witch who cast a spell on the accuseds wife. (P v
Tubadeza, Longbottom v Lestrange)
Treachery cannot exist with passion and obfuscation. In the latter, the accused loses his reason and
self-control. Its inconsistent with treachery.
Sufficient provocation, immediate vindication, passion/obfuscation cannot be credited separately,
must only appreciate one of them. Unless arising from different factual bases.
Elements:
30
Plea of Guilt
Must be:
o In open court
o Spontaneously and unconditionally
o Prior to the presentation of the evidence of the prosecution
Voluntary plea of guilty and voluntary surrender can be both appreciated in one case
Physical defects
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus
restricts his means of action, defense, or communications with his fellow beings.
Illness
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender without
however depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.
If illness deprives the offender of his consciousness of his acts, he will be exempt from liability.
Illnesses considered:
o Psychosis (P v Antonio)
o Schizophrenia
Analogous circumstances
10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned.
31
Abberatio ictus MC? No. Neither exempting nor mitigating. (P v Genoya, wherein a girl was hit by an
arrow)
Aggravating Circumstances
Cannot be offset
Changes the nature of the crime and the designation of the offense
The penalty does not per se increase, but the nature of the crime is changed (along
with the corresponding penalty)
Do not change the character of the offense charged but guides the court in imposing
the proper penalty
Element of the felony committed thus no longer considered against the offender in
the determination of the penalty (Art 62)
The ones in Article 14 are generally generic, but some are qualifying and even special
No law providing that additional rapes/homicides are considered as aggravating because list is
exclusive
Where of the aggravating circumstances has been used as a qualifying circumstance, the others will
be deemed as generic.
o Hence, treachery qualifies homicide into murder. Evident premeditation becomes a generic
circumstance na lang.
Test: did the accused abuse his office in order to commit the crime?
32
Public official must use the influence, prestige, and ascendancy which his office gives him in realizing
his purpose.
There must be an intimate connection between the offense and office of the accused.
The offenders being a public officer does not ipso facto make it aggravating. If the public officer could
have committed the crime without the use of public position, it is not aggravating.
o Using ones service firearm in shooting someone does not fall under this AC.
In P v Villamor, accused used a gun officially issued to him by virtue of office. Court
said he could have shot him even without a gun from the police.
When a policeman keeps quiet while his other police officers were robbing a polio guy and his sister,
the quiet policeman is guilty of abuse of public position. He could have prevented the others from
robbing the victim, but he didnt. His silence made him liable. (Fortuna v People, a beautiful case.)
Does not apply if inherent in crime.
o Example: Falsification by a public officer of a public document.
Considered special aggravating because of RA 7659, Sec 23. 27 See Art 62 of RPC. Cant be offset!
Covers only persons in authority, not agents of persons in authority and other public officers
o One vested with jurisdiction or authority to maintain peace and order
Elements:
o Public authority is engaged in the discharge of his duties
o Not the person against whom the crime is committed
o Offender knows that he is a public authority
If public authority is the victim, then crime is direct assault (AC deemed absorbed).
Barangay captain is a person-in-authority. He was playing cards, then accused shot him. Insult to
public authorities? No. Barangay captain was the victim, and he was not performing his duty at that
time time. He was playing tong-its. (P v. De Mesa)
If crime committed in the presence of an agent of a person in authority, the provision doesnt apply.
(P v. Siojo, but Boado says the opposite)
If in the presence of a policeman, not aggravating because the policeman is only an agent of a person
in authority. (P v Magbueno)
What if crime committed in the presence of a professor while the latter was teaching?
o Not aggravated. A teacher or professor is only a person in authority for purposes of Art 148
(direct assault) and Art 151 (resistance and disobedience).
27
1(a). When in the commission of the crime, advantage was taken by the offender of his public position, the penalty to be imposed shall be in its
maximum regardless of mitigating circumstances.
33
AGE, SEX, RANK: considered in crimes against persons, security or honor; but NOT in crimes against
property
o Hence, not applicable to complex crime of robbery with homicide (P v. Cabiles)
Sex: not considered in crimes where being a woman is an element (rape, etc)
o Mere fact that victim is woman does not give rise to the AC of sex. Must be some specific
insult or disrespect shown to her womanhood.
Rank: high social position/standing
o Teacher, judge, consul, general, etc
o Charge should not include rank as an inherent element thereof
Hence, a combination of video store and dwelling is not a dwelling for purposes of
this AC (P v. Tano)
Home is that which the law seeks to protect or uphold whether the dweller is a lessee,
a boarder or a bed spacer
Held to include:
little rooms separated by curtains (sirs example of his dorm with his
brothers)
o Appreciated when:
Victim was stepping on the first rung of the stairs connected to his house
EXCEPT in ADULTERY, and the bad spouse did the deed in the conjugal
dwelling (P v. Ibanez)
See case of P. v. Punzalan where the house and the servants quarters were
separate but within the same compound. The houseboy went to the house of
the amo and killed him there. SC said no AC because the servants quarters
located in the same compound, hence part of the dwelling of the offended
party. (Sir doesnt agree with this. Basta separate and distinct places, dapat
separate dwellings.)
Inherent in the crime (trespass, robbery with force upon things, destructive arson)
34
Requisites:
o Offended had trusted the offender
o Offender abused such trust (P v. Ostia)
o Such abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime
Essential that the confidence is IMMEDIATE and PERSONAl such that it gives the accused some
advantage and makes it easier to commit the crime (P v. Arojado, where accused was the first cousin
of the victim)
o Also applied in P v. Villanueva, where common-law husband (whom the victim called papa)
raped the victim.
Inherent in:
o Qualified theft
o Estafa
For obvious ungratefulness, the offended received favors from the victim but still committed the crime
(e.g. kupal)
Only in the third circumstance (public authorities engaged in the discharge) is performance of
function necessary.
If done in the palace of the President, in his presence, or in a place dedicated to religious worship,
performance of function not necessary.
Must show that offender sought the above places for the commission of the crime (lack of respect!)
o Thats why it wasnt appreciated in P. v. Jaurige, where the young lass stabbed the dudes
neck in church after he placed his hand precariously on her thigh
If all three are present, are these separate ACs or only one?
o GR: Only one.
EXCEPT: when the three can be distinctly perceived and can subsist independently of
each other, revealing greater perversity. (P v. Librando)
35
Subjective test: was it purposely sought out by the accused to afford impunity?
o Yes to either question will suffice to appreciate night time.
There must be evidence that night time was sought for, or the nocturnity facilitated the commission of
the offense. (P v. Dela Cruz)
Test: whether or not in the place of the commission of the offense, there was reasonable possibility of
the victim receiving some help
It is not the distance, but the possibility or impossibility of immediate aid to be obtained. (P v. Ostia,
P v. Cabiles)
o The more important consideration is if the commission of the crime makes it possible for the
victim to receive aid.
If the distance is not so great, but you have to climb a hill to reach the house to
render aid, despobado is considered.
Casual encounter at night in an uninhabited bukid? Not AC. The prosecution must show that the
remoteness of the place was chosen by the accused to facilitate the crime, or conceal it.
Band
Consists of:
o Four or more persons
o Armed malefactors (at least four must be armed)
o Shall have acted together in the commission of an offense
Armed: any weapon which by reason of its intrinsic nature or purpose is capable of inflicting serious
injuries (bolo, club, guns, grenades, cupcake.)
But remember Art 226-B: Rape committed by 2 or more persons, offender is sentenced to RP (to
death).
Destructive arson by 2 or more people (Art 320, amended by PD 1744): qualifying circumstance 29
28
Art. 295. Robbery with physical injuries, committed in an uninhabited place and by a band, or with the use of firearm on a street, road or alley. If
the offenses mentioned in subdivisions three, four, and five of the next preceding article shall have been committed in an uninhabited place or by a
band, or by attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehicle or airship, or by entering the passenger's compartments in a train or, in any manner,
taking the passengers thereof by surprise in the respective conveyances, or on a street, road, highway, or alley, and the intimidation is made with the
use of a firearm, the offender shall be punished by the maximum period of the proper penalties.
In the same cases, the penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon the leader of the band.
29
Irrespective of the application of the above enumerated qualifying circumstances, the penalty of death shall likewise be imposed when the arson is
perpetrated or committed by two (2) or more persons or by a group of persons, regardless of whether their purpose is merely to burn or destroy the
building or the burning merely constitutes an overt act in the commission or another violation of law.
36
When conspiracy is proved, band can be appreciated. It is not absorbed by conspiracy, since the latter
is only a means to commit a crime.
Calamity or misfortune
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or
other calamity or misfortune.
Elements:
o Armed men took part in the commission of the crime, directly or indirectly,
o Accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime was committed
Not appreciated when:
o all the accused acted under the same plan and for the same purpose.
Liability
All principals
Number
Specificity
Nature
4 or more
Crime not specified
Generic
Organized Crime
Syndicate (Art 62)
All principals
2 or more
Crime for GAIN
Special aggravating
Cant be offset
Habituality
9. That the accused is a recidivist.
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code.
10. That the offender has been previously punished by an offense to which the law attaches an equal or
greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
By final judgment,
Hence, theres a need for two convictions (first by final judgment, and must
take place prior to the second convication)
37
But if amnesty?
Antecedent
Offense
Penalty
Reiteracion
First offense must have been punished with an equal or greater penalty, or
He has committed two or more crimes previously to which the law attaches a lighter
penalty (penalty imposed by law, not penalty which judge eventually metes out)
Does not require that the offenses be covered under the same title of the Code
Reiteracion is concerned with the penalty imposed by law, and not the nature
of the crime
Recidivism
Previous conviction by final judgment
Under the same Title of the Code
No requirement as to penalty imposed in the
prior conviction
Habitual delinquency
Within a period of 10 years from the date of his release or last conviction,
Of the crimes of falsification, robbery, estafa, theft, serious or less serious physical
injuries (FRETSeL)
Convictions
Crimes covered
Prescription
Reitreacion
Service of sentence
Need not be under the same
Title
Prior crime must have been
penalized with an equal or
greater penalty or 2 or more
crimes with lighter penalty
Recidivism
Two are enough
Must be both under the
same Title of the Code
None as no time limit given
Habitual Delinquency
Three are required
FRETSeL
Prescribes if the 10-year
38
He commits a felony.
Penalizes the convict with the max period for the new felony committed.
Accused is serving sentence for homicide. Then kills someone in prison. Hell
get the max period for his second homicide.
Equally affects the offeror (principal by inducement) and the acceptor (principal by direct
participation). (People v. Alincastre, Mayor Gordon case)
Those who did not benefit from the PPR will not have his penalty increased because this AC is
personal to the giver and the receiver.
Inducement must be the primary consideration in the commission of the crime for it to be
aggravating.
Need not be money. Services pwede!
Mere promise will suffice, as long as it induced!
Dude tells accused to kill X for P5. Accused kills B. (Error in personae) What happens?
o Offeror no AC, acceptor AC.
o Person different from intended! (People v. dela Serna)
Dude gives money after the crime. No promise before crime. No AC. (US v Flores)
Qualifies homicide to Mordor, em, murder.
Evident premeditation
13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation.
Elements:
o Time when the offender determined to commit the crime
o An overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination
o Sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow him to reflect
upon the consequences of his act (People v. Annibong)
39
Kidnapping
Robbery
If two or more persons conspire to commit a crime, and they decide to commit it,
there may be evident premeditation if the conspiracy allowed the conspirators to
ponder upon and reflect on their decision to commit a felony.
Craft: cunning or intellectual trickery or chicanery resorted to by the accused to carry out his evil
design
o Assuming position of authority to gain entry in a house
Fraud: deceit, manifested by insidious words or machinations
Disguise: resorted to conceal ones identity
o If disguise sucked and offender was still recognized, cannot be aggravating
These cannot be AC if did not facilitate the commission of the crime, or not take advantage of by the
offender in the course of the assault
If they were used to insure the commission of the crime against persons without risk to offender,
absorbed by treachery (usually absorbed by treachery)
o But can be appreciated separately if based on different facts.
40
For example, guy pretends to hire a jeep because he wants to rob it. Jeepney driver
gets loko. While on the jeep, accused kills accused by hitting him behind the head. SC
considered craft in the plan in the robbery scheme. Treachery in the killing of the
driver. (P v San Pedro, 1980).
Posing as customers of a restaurant, and the robbing it = craft. (P v. Empacis)
Aggravating in robbery with homicide.
o Inducing a buyer of cows to a visit a pen of cows, and then killing him = craft. Intellectual
trickery. (P v. Labaguen)
Abuse of superior strength: where offenders intentionally employ excessive force out of proportion to
the means of defense available to the victim.
o Must be a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor. Consider the
relative strength versus the victim.
o Superiority in number does not necessarily mean this AC will be appreciated
Must still be proved that the attackers cooperated in such a way as to secure
advantage from superiority of strength
Generally accepted that the husband is physically stronger than the wife (P v Galapia,
where horny husband couldnt get some from his estranged wife, so he killed her.)
An attack made by an armed man upon a woman, who died as a result, is murder because his sex
and weapon gave him superiority of strength. (P v Olivio, where an Igorot woman was killed)
Absorbs band
Absorbed by treachery (P v. Demo, P v. Suyum [2 people killed a guy with a bolo G.R. No. 137518,
2002])
o If an AC is absorbed by another, then it loses its juridical existence.
Treachery
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means,
methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution,
without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
Conditions:
o Employment of means, manner, method or execution that would ensure the safety of the
offender from any defense or retaliation of the offended party, and
o The means, manner, and form were consciously and deliberately chosen.
41
In this case, J Callejo, using Spanish decisions, said that treachery is not an element
of robbery with homicide. It is neither inherent in the said crime, and thus should be
considered as a generic aggravating circumstance. The law looks at the constituent
crime of homicide which is a crime against persons, and not at the constituent crime
of robbery which is a crime against property. Reason? When robbery is coupled with
crimes against persons, the crime is not only an assault of the property, but also of
the victims themselves.
It is not qualifying because crime of robbery with homicide is a unique crime. There is
no robbery with murder. Homicide is used as a generic term, even if the second
component is actually murder.
o This was reiterated in P v. Ancheta (GR 143935), where the six accused robbed palay and
then murdered the victims using guns and a grenade. (generic!)
Can treachery be considered as qualifying in rape with homicide (to make it rape with murder)?
o No. Homicide used in generic sense. Treachery only considered as generic aggravating. No
such crime as rape with murder.
Examples:
o Killing a guy who was drunk and sleeping. (P v. Vallespin)
o The accused shooting the major as the former hid in his house as the latter proceeded to
effect a warrant of arrest on him. (P v. Garcia)
o Victim hogtied before he was stabbed with icepicks (P v. Ong, mahjong case, ala Chinese
mafia movie, yu dont want pay me mah maney, ay kill u)
o Attacking an unconscious victim
o Victim a child of tender age
May treachery be considered if the wrongful act done be different from that intended by the offender?
o Yes. Treachery is present even if the victim killed is different than the one intended to be
killed. (P v. Castillo, where the victim was killed because he was wearing the targets shirt.
Compare with P v. Hilario, where the court said that evident premeditation can not be
appreciated)
Does it have to be consummated to appreciate treachery?
o No. treachery doesnt depend on success. It can be considered even if not consummated.
Sufficient that it tends to this end. (People v. Abendan)
No treachery if attack is an impulse, or due to passion, or when accused did not do any preparations
Treachery may be appreciated even when the victim is warned of the danger to his person, for what
is decisive is that the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or retaliate
The retaliation, if ever, must come from the victim, not from anyone else
In a continuous aggression, treachery must be shown present at the inception of the attack, not in
some subsequent stage of the attack.
o Treachery must be present and preceded the commencement of the act which caused the
injury complained of
o After the commencement of such an attack, and before its termination, an accused person
may have employed means or methods which were of a treacherous character, and yet such
would not constitute treachery.
One continuous attack cannot be broken up into parts and made to constitute
separate, distinct attacks so that that treachery may be injected therein
42
EX: when attack is sudden and made in such a manner that insures its execution free from
danger and without risk to oneself on account of what the victim might make to defend
himself (P v. Base, where barangay captain was suddenly shot in the head after opening the
door of his residence to the accused)
Generic only for crimes other than killing.
o Special aggravating in serious physical injuries because it increases the penalty.
o Generic in less serious physical injuries.
o Generic in parricide and infanticide. (?)
o Special qualifying in serious physical injuries. (higher degree given!)
o Primordial qualifying circumstance: qualifies homicide into murder.
o Special in the sense that applies only to crimes against persons.
Treachery absorbs:
o Nighttime
o Superior strength (P v Go-od, where victim was ganged up by accused while looking for his
goat)
o Evident premeditation.
o Superior strength
o Craft
o Band
For example, accused took victim at night, walked all night in the mountains,
then tied victim to the tree in morning, and then killed him. Consider night
time and treachery separately. (People v Bernidad)
Treachery inherent in murder by poisoning.
o
Ignominy
17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of
the act.
Moral attribute, adds disgrace to the material injury caused by the crime
Relates to moral suffering (whereas cruelty refers to physical suffering)
Circumstance pertaining to a moral order which adds disgrace to the material injury caused to the
offended party; makes crime more humiliating
Victim must still be alive (P v. Fuertes, where accused sliced off flesh of the victim after the death.
But should have been discussed in cruelty. But either way, wont be appreciated, patay na eh)
o Same ruling in P v. Cachola, where victims privates were severed off after he was shot.
Examples:
o Lighting a cigarette on the pubic area of an 8-year old victim (P v. Valla)
o Raping doggy-style (People v Saylan, and in the sick twisted case of P v Siao)
Rape before father or spouse (this has been amended by RA 8353, which made it a
special qualifying circumstance, see discussion below)
Forcing victim to exhibit herself in her full nakedness before the rape
Raping a preggy victim (this has also been amended by RA 8353, which made it a
special qualifying circumstance)
Tying a banana fiber around his junk before raping the victim (enumerated in P v.
Bacule, where sodomy, to appreciate ignominy, was not proven by the prosecution)
o Note: Glenns notes state that Art 266-A has changed the rulings of the doggy-style cases
from rape to sexual assault. However, sexual assault talks of inserting ones penis into
anothers mouth or anal orifice. In the two doggy-style cases, the penis was inserted into the
vagina of the victims. Hence, it should still be covered under rape, not sexual assault.
43
19. That as a means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken.
Use of
o
Use of
o
Cruelty
21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other
wrong not necessary for its commissions.
Must be done while victim was alive and the offender delighted in the suffering of the victim
o Offender enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and gradually causing him
unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of the criminal act
Test: whether accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by causing another wrong
not necessary for its commission or inhumanly increased the victims suffering or outraged or scoffed
at his person or corpse (P v. Sitchon, where bad common-law dad beat to death his 2-year old son for
spreading his poo around the floor. The Court did not consider cruelty because no proof that commonlaw dad enjoyed the beating)
Multiple wounds not per se cruelty
Chopping off head of victim cruelty
In robbery with homicide, can the extra (2nd or 3rd) killing be counted as an aggravating circumstance
analogous to cruelty? (Keep in mind that theres no such thing as robbery with multiple
homicide/rape)
o P v. Abdul (1999), robbery which resulted to 2 dead and 3 mortally wounded, Court said yes,
extra killings should be appreciated as an AC, to avoid the anomalous situation where from
the standpoint of the gravity of the offense, robbery with one killing would be on the same
level as robbery with multiple killings.
o P v. Regala (2000), robbery occasioned with 2 rapes, Court said no. Enumeration of Art 14
exclusive. Additional rapes absorbed by robbery with rape. Remedy to the anomalous
situation lies with legislature. [en banc decision!]
o P v. De Jesus (2004), robbery with 2 dead (hold-up cases, tapos P5000 lang nakuha), no,
additional killing not an aggravating circumstance.
Weird case: accused robbed victim, raped her and then killed her. Court convicted him
of robbery with homicide, and counted the rape as ignominy. WRONG. Should not
prevail over P. v Regala. It was only a division ruling.
Qualifying aggravating.
Used in P v. Belgar, rape of mental 12-year old mental retardate
Not used in P v. Sitchon, because prosecution used drugs under intoxication. It was not considered.
Teacher considered a person-in-authority under DDA
44
Section 1. Sec. 1 Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 1. Unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition, disposition or possession of firearms or ammunition or
instruments used or intended to be used in the manufacture of firearms or ammunition. The penalty of
prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not less than Fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000)
shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose, or possess
any low powered firearm, such as rimfire handgun, .380 or .32 and other firearm of similar firepower, part
of firearm, ammunition, or machinery, tool or instrument used or intended to be used in the manufacture
of any firearm or ammunition: Provided, That no other crime was committed.
"The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine of Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000) shall
be imposed if the firearm is classified as high powered firearm which includes those with bores bigger in
diameter than .38 caliber and 9 millimeter such as caliber .40, .41, .44, .45 and also lesser calibered
firearms but considered powerful such as caliber .357 and caliber .22 center-fire magnum and other
firearms with firing capability of full automatic and by burst of two or three: Provided, however, That no
other crime was committed by the person arrested.
"If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed
firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
"If the violation of this Sec. is in furtherance of or incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion
or insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup d'etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an element of the
crime of rebellion, or insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup d'etat.
"The same penalty shall be imposed upon the owner, president, manager, director or other responsible
officer of any public or private firm, company, corporation or entity, who shall willfully or knowingly allow
any of the firearms owned by such firm, company, corporation or entity to be used by any person or
persons found guilty of violating the provisions of the preceding paragraphs or willfully or knowingly allow
any of them to use unlicensed firearms or firearms without any legal authority to be carried outside of
their residence in the course of their employment.
"The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall carry any licensed firearm
outside his residence without legal authority therefor."
Sec. 2. Sec. 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 3. Unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition, disposition or possession of explosives. The penalty of
prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000) shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully manufacture, assemble, deal in,
acquire, dispose or possess hand grenade(s), rifle grenade(s), and other explosives, including but not
limited to 'pillbox,' 'molotov cocktail bombs,' 'fire bombs,' or other incendiary devices capable of
producing destructive effect on contiguous objects or causing injury or death to any person.
"When a person commits any of the crimes defined in the Revised Penal Code or special laws with the use
of the aforementioned explosives, detonation agents or incendiary devices, which results in the death of
any person or persons, the use of such explosives, detonation agents or incendiary devices shall be
considered as an aggravating circumstance.
"If the violation of this Sec. is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion,
insurrection, sedition or attempted coup d'etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an element of the
crimes of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup d'etat.
"The same penalty shall be imposed upon the owner, president, manager, director or other responsible
officer of any public or private firm, company, corporation or entity, who shall willfully or knowingly allow
any of the explosives owned by such firm, company, corporation or entity, to be used by any person or
persons found guilty of violating the provisions of the preceding paragraphs."
What happens?
Unlicensed Firearms
Special AC
Absorbed
Not AC, not even separate
offense
For unlicensed explosives, becomes a special AC only when:
o Used to commit ANY crime (RPC or SPL), and
Homicide or murder
Political crimes
Used in other crime
45
Someone dies.
Mickey Note: This was the ruling before RA 9516. Now, RA 9516 has removed
any mentioned of explosives being absorbed by political crimes or being
aggravating only when death arises.
Intent to possess firearm essential (P. v Dela Rosa)
o Temporary possession not covered.
o So if you grabbed the gun from an assailant to protect yourself, youre not guilty of illegal
possession.
In P v. Comadre, the Court said that 8294 amended Art 14 (12) by adding the use of unlicensed
explosives as an aggravating circumstance.
o Dissent: Absurd. If illegally possessed, only aggravating. But if legally possessed, qualified to
murder.
Use of an unlicensed explosives is aggravating, because it says any crime in the RPC.
So that should include murder, it shouldnt be qualifying.
Take note that if unlicensed firearm is used to commit murder or homicide, it is merely an
aggravating circumstance.
o The murder or homicide must be consummated. If crime merely attempted or frustrated, this
AC does not apply.
o Take note of the phrase that no other crime was committed. This means that if an
unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any crime (not murder or homicide since it
has its own paragraph), there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of
firearms.
Hence, if the crime was direct assault and multiple attempted homicide, the accused
can no longer be charged with the separate offense of illegal possession of firearms,
even if its penalty is heavier than direct assault. (P v Ladjaalam)
Nor can use of an unlicensed firearm be used as an AC against him (since it only
pertains to murder and homicide). But the use of arms can be used against him
homicide with use of weapon. (P v Ladjaalam)
Moreover, an accused may evade conviction for illegal possession by using such
weapons in committing an even lighter offense, like alarm and scandal or slight
physical injuries. Remedy is with Congress.
o Note that the person must first be convicted for that other crime, before this anomaly in the
law can be used by the accused.
o Murder or homicide includes parricide or infanticide. (P v. Mendoza, where husband shot
wife. But can be argued that the broad interpretation is wrong. Interpretation of doubts must
be always for the accused.)
It is a special AC, not merely generic. Cant be offset.(P v. de Leon, P. v Palaganas)
What if robbery with homicide? The use of illegal firearms is not an AC. Only considered if murder or
homicide. Thats it. (P v. Sabadao)
o But in People v. Abdul (2000), the SC 1st division affirmed the RTC ruling which considered it
as an AC. This is wrong.
o In People v. Domacyong (2003), the SC ruled that that the AC of illegal possession can be
considered in robbery with homicide. This is wrong. (The Court was right though for
acquitting them of the separate charge of illegal possession)
Security agency has license to possess firearm, guard does not. Guard uses gun to commit murder.
AC? Yes, guard has no license to possess that firearm, only the employer. (Catalina v Decano,
Pursuant to Section 1 in relation to Section 5, the firearm used in an unauthorized manner shall be
considered an aggravating circumstance. We are in agreement that even if the firearm used was
properly licensed to the security agency, its unauthorized use by the appellant aggravated his
offense.)
o Compare to Cuenca v People (1970), where security guard was charged for illegal possession.
He did not know that agency did not have the proper license. He was acquitted.
Does the firearm have to be presented during trial?
o
46
No! The corpus delicti is the possession of the firearm. Not the firearm. You just have to prove
possession without license. You can do this through a certification from the PNP that accused
did not have a license.
Are paltiks covered? Yes.
You have a license, but no permit to bring it out of your house, and then you bring it out. What
happens? Liable ka boy. (Pastrano v CA)
Accused in possession of two guns, one high-powered and the other low-powered. Can he be charged
for 2 crimes? Yes! Different penalty for high-powered and low-powered eh!
o What if he has 3 high-powered guns, can he be charge for 3 crimes? No, just 1 crime. Since it
only has one penalty!
Gun ban during election, right? Accused brings out his unlicensed firearm. Solve.
o Not AC (not murder or homicide) and not even considered separate (used in other crime eh!)
o Guilty of violating the gun ban.
o
Anti-Rape Law
Article 266-B. Penalties. Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by
reclusion perpetua to death.
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty
shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty
shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following
aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent,
guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of
the parent of the victim;
When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities or any law enforcement or penal
institution;
When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the children or relatives within the
third civil degree of consanguinity;
When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or calling and is personally known
to be such by the offender before or at the time of the commission of the crime;
When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old;
When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus (HIV) Acquired
Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually transmissible disease and the virus or disease
is transmitted to the victim;
When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines of para-military units thereof or
the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency or penal institution, when the offender took
advantage of his position to facilitate the commission of the crime;
When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the commission of the
crime; and
When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the
offended party at the time of the commission of crime.
Rape under paragraph 2 of the next preceding article shall be punished by prison mayor.
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty
shall be prision mayor to reclusion temporal.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be
reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed , the penalty shall be reclusion
perpetua.
Reclusion temporal shall also be imposed if the rape is committed with any of the ten
aggravating/qualifying circumstances mentioned in this article.
RA 8353 is found in Art 266-B of the RPC. Crime of simple rape becomes qualified, becomes RP to
death.
Did RA 8353 amend Art 14?
o In sense, RA 8353 amended Art 14.
o In 266-B, the use of a deadly weapon to commit rape is a special qualifying circumstance. It
is not anymore an AC under Art 14, but is under 266-B.
47
Alternative Circumstances
Art. 15. Their concept. Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as
aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions
attending its commission. They are the relationship, intoxication and the degree of instruction and
education of the offender.
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration when the offended party in
the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity
in the same degrees of the offender.
The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstances when the
offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the
plan to commit said felony but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance.
Always generic
Denominated as AC or MC, as the case may be
Relationship
o Exclusively: (SADBRoSA)
Spouse
Ascendant
Descendant
Since Art 15 does not say when relationship is an AC and when its an MC,
and rape was punishable by death, relationship should not be deemed an AC.
In case of doubt, you must favor the accused, hence, it should not be
considered an AC. (discussion academic since no more death penalty and
because of 266-B)
o But see Art 266-B which now makes relationship in rape cases a
special qualifying circumstance.
But see People v Velarde (36 Phil 991), where dude struck his brother in law. Court
considered it mitigating since it was for a laudible purpose. (exceptional case!)
o In crimes against property, it depends.
30
The penalty provided herein shall be imposed in its maximum period when the perpetrator is an ascendant, parent guardian, stepparent or collateral
relative within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity, or a manager or owner of an establishment which has no license to operate or its license
has expired or has been revoked
48
Art 247 (legally married spouse catching spouse having sex with another)
Sec 6, RA 9372 (relatives who are accessories in the Human Securities Act except
those who profited)31
Not a habitual drinker and did not take the alcoholic drink with the intention to
reinforce his resolve to commit the crime
o To be aggravating:
Habitual drunk
But see People v Limaco (83 Phil 85) where dude butchered his kids and he only
finished grade 1. Court considered mitigating.
Also People v. Ramos where robbers killed a 96 year old man. Court considered lack
of education mitigating. Both are unusual cases.
o It is not illiteracy alone but the lack of intelligence of the offender that is considered.
o The high degree of learning should be taken in relation to the crime committed whether his
education puts him into a better position than the ordinary offenders.
But if a lawyer punches an annoying person, high degree of learning should not be
considered aggravating. Walang kinalaman eh.
o High degree of learning should also not be considered aggravating for abortion practiced by a
physician or midwife, since their skills are already inherent in that crime.
o GR: Low degree of learning may be mitigating, never aggravating.
o GR: High degree of learning may be aggravating, never mitigating.
o
Title Two
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES
31
Any person who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, and without having participated
therein, either as principal or accomplice under Articles 17 and 18 of the Revised Penal Code, takes part subsequent to its commission in any of the
following manner: (a) by profiting himself or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime; (b) by concealing or destroying the body of
the crime, or the effects, or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery; (c) by harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the
principal or conspirator of the crime, shall suffer the penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment.
Notwithstanding the above paragraph, the penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their
spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single
exception of accessories falling within the provisions of subparagraph (a).
32
SECTION 27. Prohibited Defense. Being under the influence of alcohol, any illicit drug, or any other mind-altering substance shall not be a
defense under this Act.
49
Art. 16. Who are criminally liable. The following are criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies:
1. Principals.
2. Accomplices.
3. Accessories.
The following are criminally liable for light felonies:
1. Principals 2. Accomplices.
For light felonies, accessories are not liable because the light felonies are punished with arresto
menor. Accessories are given the penalty two degrees lower than the principals. There is nothing two
degrees below arresto menor.
First off, may a private corporation, partnership or association or other juridical entity be criminally
liable?
o Yes, if the law provides a penalty for the corporation. Or even if the crime is committed by a
corporation, but prescribes a penalty on the officers or directors or employees. The state is
not prevented from penalizing a corporation for violation of a penal law, even if the crime is
committed by its agents. (P. v Chow Duri and Ching v Sec of Justice)
o Principle applied in the Trust Receipts Law, and the Labor Code (where the license of one
found to be an illegal recruiter can be revoked).
o Also applied in the Dangerous Drugs Act (Sec 30). Officers liable. 33
What about in the Anti-Hazing Law (RA 8049), what are the rules?
o Principals:
Parent of a frat/sorority member who owned the place where the hazing occurred,
knew of it but still did not do anything to stop it
Officers, former officers, alumni who planned it, even if they werent there
Owner of the place where the hazing occurred and who knew of the hazing and did
not stop it
EXCEPT: in the Genocide Law (RA 9851), the superiors are liable for the acts of their
subordinates.34 Keep in mind that this only applies to RA 9851.
In the Anti-Torture Act of 2009, senior officers who give orders to their minions to torture people are
liable as principals.35
33
Section 30. Criminal Liability of Officers of Partnerships, Corporations, Associations or Other Juridical Entities. In case any violation of this
Act is committed by a partnership, corporation, association or any juridical entity, the partner, president, director, manager, trustee, estate
administrator, or officer who consents to or knowingly tolerates such violation shall be held criminally liable as a co-principal.
The penalty provided for the offense under this Act shall be imposed upon the partner, president, director, manager, trustee, estate administrator, or
officer who knowingly authorizes, tolerates or consents to the use of a vehicle, vessel, aircraft, equipment or other facility, as an instrument in the
importation, sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution, transportation or manufacture of dangerous drugs, or chemical
diversion, if such vehicle, vessel, aircraft, equipment or other instrument is owned by or under the control or supervision of the partnership,
corporation, association or juridical entity to which they are affiliated.
34
Section 10. Responsibility of Superiors. - In addition to other grounds of criminal responsibility for crimes defined and penalized under this Act, a
superior shall be criminally responsible as a principal for such crimes committed by subordinates under his/her effective command and control, or
effective authority and control as the case may be, as a result of his/her failure to properly exercise control over such subordinates, where:
(a) That superior either knew or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that the subordinates were committing or about to
commit such crimes;
(b) That superior failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his/her power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit the
matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.
35
Section 13. Who are Criminally Liable. - Any person who actually participated Or induced another in the commission of torture or other cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment or who cooperated in the execution of the act of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment or punishment by previous or simultaneous acts shall be liable as principal
50
Yes! Two guys, who dont know each other, get pissed at some dude at a bar.
They shot him at the same time. Nagkataon lang. Both are liable as PDP. (P. v.
Figueroa)
What about the mastermind, does he have to commit an overt act in the execution of
the planned conspiracy?
What do you mean by an overt act, or an act which materially executes the crime?
Moral assistance to the other conspirators (other dudes cheered him on).
Also, moral support or exercising moral ascendancy.
o But keep in mind that mere presence doesnt make him PDP unless he
gave moral assistance or exercised moral ascendancy. (P. v. Flores)
Can someone not be in the scene of the crime and still be a principal?
Opowz koyah/ateh.
The general rule is that the PDP must be at the place of the commission of the
crime. However, the law does not require that PDP is there in the scene of the
crime (locus ciminis).
For as long as the conspirators perform specific acts that were coordinated
pursuant to the conspiracy, they are all principals. Even if their acts are
performed in different places.
Masterminds are principals even if theyre not actually there. Look-outs who
are conspirators are also principals are also principals even if they just stand
outside the scene of the crime.
Qualifying circumstance. If husband rapes the victim, while sick wife holds the
victims arms, husband PDP, wife PIC. (P. v. Hofilenia)
Is it possible that 2 persons are conspirators but are liable for different crimes? i.e.
same over act, but different liabilities.
Any superior military, police or law enforcement officer or senior government official who issued an order to any lower ranking personnel to commit
torture for whatever purpose shall be held equally liable as principals.
The immediate commanding officer of the unit concerned of the AFP or the immediate senior public official of the PNP and other law enforcement
agencies shall be held liable as a principal to the crime of torture or other cruel or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment for any act or
omission, or negligence committed by him/her that shall have led, assisted, abetted or allowed, whether directly or indirectly, the commission thereof
by his/her subordinates. If he/she has knowledge of or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that acts of torture or other cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment shall be committed, is being committed, or has been committed by his/her subordinates or by others
within his/her area of responsibility and, despite such knowledge, did not take preventive or corrective action either before, during or immediately
after its commission, when he/she has the authority to prevent or investigate allegations of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment but failed to prevent or investigate allegations of such act, whether deliberately or due to negligence shall also be liable as principals.
51
Direct
o
o
Yes.
o
GR: in robbery with homicide, when persons conspire to commit robbery, they
expect that it can be attended by violence.
o EX: one desisted before the homicide was committed. (P. v. Napalit).
Hence, its possible that one is liable for robbery only, while the others
are liable for robbery with homicide.
Same rule with robbery with rape. All are liable for robbery with rape, even
those who didnt put their peepees in the victims vajayjays. (P v Verseles, P v
Punsalan)
o EX: those who endeavored to prevent the rape by overt acts will not
be liable for the rape, just robbery.
Inducement be made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the
crime, and
Inducement be the determining cause of the commission othe crime by the material
execution.
As to the first requisite, the PDI must intend that his inducement should be obeyed. Mere
careless comment made by one who does not possess dominance or moral ascendancy over
the offender will not make the former a PDI. The one who made the careless comment is not
even criminally liable. Masama bang magcomment?
It is essential that the inducement must be the sole cause that the crime was committed.
A offered B P50 to kill C. B accepted it, but in truth, he had been wanting to kill C
ever since. B killed C. B was not paid. Is A a PDI?
No. As offer was not the determining cause. B had two motives money and
revenge. Inducement must be the sole cause. (P. v. Laohas)
52
The use or words must have actually moved the hands of the PDP, such that the PDP has no
other recourse but to obey the command. PDI must have moral dominance over the PDP.
No. they are liable even if they did not appear in the scene. The reason they induce
people to do their dirty work is so that they dont have to be there in the first place.
o Can the PDP be exempt, while the PDI/PIC still held liable?
Also when a guy lies about this details to a clerk to get his residence permit. Clerk is
not liable because he was in good faith, but liar liable as a PDI.
Also when the PDP can make use of exempting circumstances. (bad dude induces 8year old kid to do some crime.)
o How does error in personae affect the PDI?
Yes. A has a paramour B, who loved C. A told D to kill B with the promise that if he
does, ako ay sa iyo na, buong buo. D killed B. A is PDI. (P v Ramos, 91 Phil 678).36
Hence, even if he wasnt there while the others were planning, if his act showed that
it was indispensable to the criminal design of the PDPs, he will be liable as a PDI.
o Does the PIC have to be in the scene of the crime?
No.
A, who lives in the US, gives B poison to kill C. B used the poison to kill C here in the
Philippines. A is PIC. B is PDP.
o Can a PIC commit a crime different from the PDP?
Husband gives poison to friend to kill wife. Friend homicide. Husband parricide.
o Can the PDP be liable by dolo, yet the PIC by culpa?
A made check payable to X. A went to the drawee bank, talked to employee B, and
convinced B that she was X. B allowed without verifying the identity. A got to encash
the check.
A liable for dolo. B by culpa. A would not have been able to achieve his
criminal scheme were it not for Bs negligence.
A convinced B to give him a check worth P500. B gave it to him, telling him that he
didnt have any money it that account. A said, ako bahala sa iyo pre. A negotiated
the check to C for P1m. Both are liable for estafa. A as PDP. B as PIC, even if he was
only negligent.
o
36
"Ahas na kung ahas, mali na rin kung mali. Pero sinunod ko lang ang puso ko. Mali ba un?" - Angelu de Leon, Wala Na Bang Pag-ibig? (1997)
@PinoyMovieQuotes
53
Art. 18. Accomplices. Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in Art. 17, cooperate in the
execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.
As to
Inducement
Cooperation
When acts are committed
Conspiracy
Principals
Without such inducement,
crime would not be
committed
Accomplices
Inducement or utterance is
not indispensable; with or
without such, the crime
would still be committed
(since principal already
determined to commit the
crime)
Indispensable
Minor
Both act before or during the commission of the crime
Decide that the crime should Merely concur it in and
be committed
cooperate in the
accomplishment
Authors of the crime
Mere instruments who
perform acts not essential to
the perpetration
Mere knowledge and participation therefore do not suffice to make one a conspirator, for such are
elements also of an accomplice, especially if even without his participation (like a look-out), the crime
could have been accomplished.
However, where the acts of the accused show that he shared in the community of purpose with the
principals and their acts collectively demonstrate the existence of a common design, conspiracy
becomes evident and all will be liable as principals.
54
Principals and accomplices both know and agree with the criminal design. They have that in common.
o Difference lies in the fact that conspirators know the criminal intention because they
themselves have decided to commit the crime; accomplices just come to know about it after.
May one be charged and convicted as accomplice/accessory even before the principal is charged or
convicted? Should the PDP first be convicted before the accomplice/accessory be charged or
convicted?
o As long as the commission of the crime is proven beyond reasonable doubt, determination of
criminal responsibility of accessory/accomplice may be determined independently of and
separately from liability of PDP. (P v. Rafael)
But if the case is dismissed against the PDP, the case against the
accessory/accomplice must also be dismissed because the liability of the
accomplice/accessory is subordinate to that of the PDP. The accomplice/accessory is
like a shadow that follows the PDP and not the other way around. (PCGG v Desierto)
BUT if the PDP is exempted from the crime, it does not follow that the
accomplice/accessory is exempted, or that the case against the
accomplice/accessory should be dismissed as well.
AND dismissal of the case against the accomplice/accessory does not result to
the dismissal of the case against the PDP.
o PDP acquitted because crime was not committed at all. What happens to
accomplice/accessory?
Art. 19. Accessories. Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and
without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its
commission in any of the following manners:
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to
prevent its discovery.
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime, provided the
accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason,
parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty
of some other crime.
37
Section 4. Aiding pirates or highway robbers/brigands or abetting piracy or highway robbery/brigandage. Any person who knowingly and in any
manner aids or protects pirates or highway robbers/brigands, such as giving them information about the movement of police or other peace officers of
the government, or acquires or receives property taken by such pirates or brigands or in any manner derives any benefit therefrom; or any person who
directly or indirectly abets the commission of piracy or highway robbery or brigandage, shall be considered as an accomplice of the principal
offenders and be punished in accordance with the Rules prescribed by the Revised Penal Code.
It shall be presumed that any person who does any of the acts provided in this Section has performed knowingly, unless the contrary is proven.
38
Section 5. Any person who, not being a principal under Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code or a conspirator as defined in Section 4 hereof,
cooperates in the execution of either the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism by previous or simultaneous acts shall suffer the penalty
of from seventeen (17) years, four (4) months one day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment.
39
Section 8 (b) A person shall be criminally liable as accomplice for facilitating the commission of a crime defined and penalized in this Act if he/she
aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission or attempted commission, including providing the means for its commission.
55
Profiting or assisting the offender to profit from the effects of the crime
Concealing the body of the crime or effects or the instruments thereof to prevent its
discovery
Harboring, concealing or assisting the escape of the principal (see two kinds below)
By a private individual and only when the author of the crime is guilty of
treason, attempt on the life of the Chief Exec, murder, parricide or is known to
be habitually guilty of some other crime
o So a private individual will only be liable as an accessory for harboring
the escape of the offender for those crimes enumerated. Compare this
to the public officer who is guilty for whatever crime.
o Take note that in the second instance, the principal must have been
adjudged guilty.
Profiting or assisting the offender to profit
o Intent to gain not enough, there must have been some gain or material benefit.
o A person who received any property from another and used it, knowing the property was
stolen, is guilty as an accessory by profiting.
o If the crime is robbery/theft and one bought, sold, possessed, or profited from the goods
stolen, what is he guilty of?
Existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge, (criminal
event) and
40
Elements of Fencing: robbery or theft committed, accused does not participate in the robbery or theft, accused acquires proceeds of robbery or theft,
has actual knowledge or should have known subject is from robbery or theft, intent to acquire.
56
Participation
Knowledge
Acts
Liability
Penalty
Boado: those who assist the principal to escape maybe prosecuted under PD
1829 on obstruction of justice not as accessory but as a principal, provided
that a separate information shall be prepared for the crime of obstruction.
Accomplice
Before or during the
commission of the offense
Knows the criminal design of
the principal
Provides material or moral
aid in an efficacious way but
not in a manner
indispensable to the offense
No exemption
1 degree lower than
principals
Accessory
Subsequent to the
commission of the offense
Knows the commission of
the offense
Acts in the 3 ways in Art 19
Art. 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. The penalties prescribed for accessories
shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants,
legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees,
with the single exception of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding
article.
Penalties
Title Three
PENALTIES
Chapter One
PENALTIES IN GENERAL
57
Art. 21. Penalties that may be imposed. No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by
law prior to its commission.
Only penalties prescribed by law prior to its commission can be imposed on the offender.
No imprisonment at the discretion of the court. There must be limits imposed by law.
In BP22 and libel, the SC issued admin orders giving preference to fine over imprisonment. This
doesnt mean that the SC abolished imprisonment.
The favorable judgment by the appellate court on an accused will be applied to his co-accused if it is
favorable and applicable to the latter.
Court can impose either fine or imprisonment. But it can never imposed fine and/or imprisonment.
Accused cant choose how he wants to serve his sentence.
Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor
the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62
of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced
and the convict is serving the same.
RA 9346 which prevents the imposition of the death penalty could be apply retroactively because it
favors the accused.
o Even if no more death penalty, the classification of heinous crimes still remains because of the
possibility that it will once again be revived. Moreover, civil liability is still dependent on the
nature of heinous crimes. (P v Bon)
o Even if the offender is a habitual delinquent, RA 9346 will still benefit him. Congress intended
it to benefit even the habitual delinquent.
This article applies equally to the RPC and to SPLs.
o See Juvenile Justice Act (RA 9344) which was applied retroactively to kids who were below 18
at the commission of the crime
o Sir also mentioned VAWC (RA 9262), I dont know why.
Court can apply even if not invoked by the accused.
What is the effect of an absolute repeal of penal laws?
o Extinguishes liability of accused, EXCEPT
When repealing statute re-enacts the former statute and punishes the act previously
penalized under the old law
What if implied repeal or repeal by re-enactment?
o The first law will govern if the accused is a habitual delinquent or the favorable second law
prohibits retroactivity.
o While the second law will govern if favorable to the offender who is not a habitual delinquent
or the law is silent as to its retroactivity.
Art. 23. Effect of pardon by the offended party. A pardon of the offended party does not extinguish
criminal action except as provided in Article 344 of this Code; but civil liability with regard to the interest
of the injured party is extinguished by his express waiver.
Amended by RA 8353
See Art 89
Art. 24. Measures of prevention or safety which are nor considered penalties. The following shall not be
considered as penalties:
1. The arrest and temporary detention of accused persons, as well as their detention by reason of insanity
or imbecility, or illness requiring their confinement in a hospital.
2. The commitment of a minor to any of the institutions mentioned in Article 80 and for the purposes
specified therein. (repealed! See Art 9344)
3. Suspension from the employment of public office during the trial or in order to institute proceedings.
4. Fines and other corrective measures which, in the exercise of their administrative disciplinary powers,
superior officials may impose upon their subordinates.
5. Deprivation of rights and the reparations which the civil laws may establish in penal form.
58
Paragraph 2 has been repealed by the Juvenile Justice Act. Not a penalty but a measure to enhance
the person of a minor.
Other relevant special laws:
o PNP Act (RA 6975) preventive suspension of policemen during criminal trials (Sec 41 and
47)
o Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) suspension of public official after filing of a
valid information
o Plunder Act (RA 7080) - suspension of public official after filing of a valid information
o VAWC (RA 9262) offended party entitled to protection orders, or accused must file a bond
to keep the peace
Chapter Two
CLASSIFICATION OF PENALTIES
Art. 25. Penalties which may be imposed. The penalties which may be imposed according to this Code,
and their different classes, are those included in the following:
Scale
Principal Penalties
Capital punishment:
Death.
Afflictive penalties:
Reclusion perpetua, Reclusion temporal, Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, Perpetual or
temporary special disqualification, Prision mayor.
Correctional penalties:
Prision correccional, Arresto mayor, Suspension, Destierro.
Light penalties:
Arresto menor, Public censure.
Penalties common to the three preceding classes:
Fine, and Bond to keep the peace.
Accessory Penalties
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the profession or calling. Civil
interdiction, Indemnification, Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense,
Payment of costs.
Impose penalty in its entirety, even if there is special aggravating or two mitigating, it
will not be affected
Court may not impose 30 years of RP, they should just impose RP. There 30 years
doesnt refer to the duration of RP, but to the eligibility of parole and for purposes of
computing the 3-fold rule.
59
Under Art 309, theft is punishable by RT. But for qualified theft, penalty is 2 degress
higher, which is death.
But under Art 74, if the next higher penalty is death, then it becomes RP, with
accessory penalty of death. This is also the reason why he cant be pardoned before
40 years, instead of the usual 30 years.
Court can not extend the DQ or suspension if it merely follows the principal penalty,
cant extend beyond principal penalty.
Suspension
o All prisoners whether under preventive detention or serving final sentence, cannot practice
their profession or engage in any business or occupation, or hold office, elective or
appointive, while in detention.
Bond to keep the peace is a principal penalty yet there is no crime in Book II which imposes it. No
occasion to mete this penalty on a convict.
o Compare with bond for good behavior (Art 248 for grave and light threats only). Failure to
post bond for good behavior means destierro for accused. Failure to post bond to keep the
peace means detention for accused.
What are some instances when a lesser offense absorbs the graver offense?
o Rebellion (RT) absorbs murder (RP)
o Forcible abduction (RT) absorbs illegal detention of a woman (RP)
o Slavery involving kidnapping of a person (PM) absorbs kidnapping (RP)
o
Art. 26. When afflictive, correctional, or light penalty. A fine, whether imposed as a single of as an
alternative penalty, shall be considered an afflictive penalty, if it exceeds 6,000 pesos; a correctional
penalty, if it does not exceed 6,000 pesos but is not less than 200 pesos; and a light penalty if it less than
200 pesos.
Chapter Three
DURATION AND EFFECTS OF PENALTIES
Section One. Duration of Penalties
60
Art. 27. Reclusion perpetua. Any person sentenced to any of the perpetual penalties shall be pardoned
after undergoing the penalty for thirty years, unless such person by reason of his conduct or some other
serious cause shall be considered by the Chief Executive as unworthy of pardon.
Reclusion temporal. The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be from twelve years and one day to twenty
years.
Prision mayor and temporary disqualification. The duration of the penalties of prision mayor and
temporary disqualification shall be from six years and one day to twelve years, except when the penalty of
disqualification is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case its duration shall be that of the principal
penalty.
Prision correccional, suspension, and destierro. The duration of the penalties of prision correccional,
suspension and destierro shall be from six months and one day to six years, except when suspension is
imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case, its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.
Arresto mayor. The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor shall be from one month and one day to six
months.
Arresto menor. The duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall be from one day to thirty days.
Bond to keep the peace. The bond to keep the peace shall be required to cover such period of time as
the court may determine.
Art. 28. Computation of penalties. If the offender shall be in prison, the term of the duration of the
temporary penalties shall be computed from the day on which the judgment of conviction shall have
become final.
If the offender be not in prison, the term of the duration of the penalty consisting of deprivation of liberty
shall be computed from the day that the offender is placed at the disposal of the judicial authorities for the
enforcement of the penalty. The duration of the other penalties shall be computed only from the day on
which the defendant commences to serve his sentence.
How do you compute the penalty if the accused is not in jail during trial?
o If absent during trial, time from arrest
What if he was in prison?
o From finality of date of conviction. If he appeals, he has to wait until the finality of conviction.
Art. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of imprisonment. Offenders who have
undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentence consisting of
deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which they have undergone preventive imprisonment, if
the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon
convicted prisoners, except in the following cases:
1. When they are recidivists or have been convicted previously twice or more times of any crime; and
2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence they have failed to surrender
voluntarily.
If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted
prisoners, he shall be credited in the service of his sentence with four-fifths of the time during which he
has undergone preventive imprisonment. (As amended by Republic Act 6127, June 17, 1970).
Whenever an accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to or more than the
possible maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to which he may be sentenced and his case is not
yet terminated, he shall be released immediately without prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof
or the proceeding on appeal, if the same is under review. In case the maximum penalty to which the
accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty (30) days of preventive
imprisonment. (As amended by E.O. No. 214, July 10, 1988).
Preventive imprisonment is not a penalty. It usually occurs if the accused is unable to post bond, or
the crime charged is not bailable.
If accused is preventively detained during trial, he can get full credit for the time he spent there if he
voluntarily agrees in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed on convicts.
o He cant get full credit if:
He fails to surrender voluntarily upon being summoned for the execution of the
sentence.
61
Convict can prepare a will since its not a donation inter vivos
Read codal na lang.
Art. 35. Effects of bond to keep the peace. It shall be the duty of any person sentenced to give bond to
keep the peace, to present two sufficient sureties who shall undertake that such person will not commit
the offense sought to be prevented, and that in case such offense be committed they will pay the amount
determined by the court in the judgment, or otherwise to deposit such amount in the office of the clerk of
the court to guarantee said undertaking.
The court shall determine, according to its discretion, the period of duration of the bond.
Should the person sentenced fail to give the bond as required he shall be detained for a period which shall
in no case exceed six months, is he shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall
not exceed thirty days, if for a light felony.
62
Art. 37. Cost; What are included. Costs shall include fees and indemnities in the course of the judicial
proceedings, whether they be fixed or unalterable amounts previously determined by law or regulations in
force, or amounts not subject to schedule.
Art. 38. Pecuniary liabilities; Order of payment. In case the property of the offender should not be
sufficient for the payment of all his pecuniary liabilities, the same shall be met in the following order:
1. The reparation of the damage caused. 2. Indemnification of consequential damages. 3. The fine. 4. The
cost of the proceedings.
Art. 39. Subsidiary penalty. If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine mentioned in the
paragraph 3 of the nest preceding article, he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate
of one day for each eight pesos, subject to the following rules:
1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correccional or arresto and fine, he shall remain under
confinement until his fine referred to in the preceding paragraph is satisfied, but his subsidiary
imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of the term of the sentence, and in no case shall it continue for
more than one year, and no fraction or part of a day shall be counted against the prisoner.
2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six
months, if the culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall not exceed
fifteen days, if for a light felony.
3. When the principal imposed is higher than prision correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be
imposed upon the culprit.
4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed by confinement in a penal institution, but such
penalty is of fixed duration, the convict, during the period of time established in the preceding rules, shall
continue to suffer the same deprivations as those of which the principal penalty consists.
5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may have suffered by reason of his insolvency shall
not relieve him, from the fine in case his financial circumstances should improve. (As amended by RA
5465, April 21, 1969).
Subsidiary imprisonment can only be imposed if the accused is penalized with a fine (either fine only,
or fine and imprisonment) and because of insolvency, he cannot pay it.
Since it is a penalty, Court must EXPRESSLY state that subsidiary imprisonment shall be served in
case of insolvency.
o It is not an accessory penalty that follows the principal penalty as a matter of course.
He cant be ordered to serve subsidiary imprisonment for failure to pay pecuniary liability
(reparations), but he can serve for pecuniary penalty (fine).
Subsidiary penalty not proper in the following cases:
o Principal penalty imposed is more than PC (6 years and 1 day or more)
o Principal penalty is other than prison sentence which is not of fixed duration
o Subsidiary penalty is not expressly stated in the sentence
o Sentence imposed does not include fine
o Convict has the means to pay the fine
Follow the actual penalty meted out in determining whether subsidiary imprisonment can be applied.
Not the penalty prescribed by law.
Can the accused, who has money, choose not to pay the fine and go to jail instead? No. He has no
choice but to pay the fine.
o But see P v Subido where the court allowed him to choose. Justice Callejo doesnt agree with
that.
Subsidiary imprisonment also applies to SPL, like BP 22 or possession of illegal firearms.
Supposing the accused is charged with 2 or more offenses and there was just 1 decision which
convicted him of all the charges. How do we determine the 6-year limit?
o The 6-year period shall be based on the total duration of the penalties imposed by court
(after joint trial) based on the 3-fold rule under Art 70. Hence, if the total of the penalties
63
exceed 6 years, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed, even if the penalty for each of
the crimes is less than 6 years.
Section Three. Penalties in which other accessory penalties
are inherent
Art. 40. Death; Its accessory penalties. The death penalty, when it is not executed by reason of
commutation or pardon shall carry with it that of perpetual absolute disqualification and that of civil
interdiction during thirty years following the date sentence, unless such accessory penalties have been
expressly remitted in the pardon.
Art. 41. Reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal; Their accessory penalties. The penalties of reclusion
perpetua and reclusion temporal shall carry with them that of civil interdiction for life or during the period
of the sentence as the case may be, and that of perpetual absolute disqualification which the offender
shall suffer even though pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly
remitted in the pardon.
When the penalty imposed is RP as a penalty next higher in degree, the accessory penalty shall be
that under Art 40 but the offender shall not be given the benefit of the provision of Art 27 until 40
years have elapsed, otherwise, there could be no difference at all between RP when imposed as
apenalty next higher in degree and when it is imposed as a penalty fixed by law. (P v Bago)
Art. 42. Prision mayor; Its accessory penalties. The penalty of prision mayor, shall carry with it that of
temporary absolute disqualification and that of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage
which the offender shall suffer although pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have
been expressly remitted in the pardon.
Art. 43. Prision correccional; Its accessory penalties. The penalty of prision correccional shall carry with
it that of suspension from public office, from the right to follow a profession or calling, and that of
perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage, if the duration of said imprisonment shall
exceed eighteen months. The offender shall suffer the disqualification provided in the article although
pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon.
Art. 44. Arresto; Its accessory penalties. The penalty of arresto shall carry with it that of suspension of
the right too hold office and the right of suffrage during the term of the sentence.
Art. 45. Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of the crime. Every penalty imposed
for the commission of a felony shall carry with it the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and the
instruments or tools with which it was committed.
Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government,
unless they be property of a third person not liable for the offense, but those articles which are not subject
of lawful commerce shall be destroyed.
Only the trial court who convicted the accused may order the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime
and the instruments or tools used in the crime.
o But before the court may do so, the tools/instruments must be presented to the court as
evidence. Otherwise, the court has no jd to order the forfeiture or destruction of such. (P v
Singson)
o In case of bribery, the money used may be forfeited in favor of the state.
The tool/instrument must belong to the accused himself. If it belongs to someone else and he has no
involvement in the crime, there can be no such declaration. (P v. Elona)
Applicable also to SPL.
The court may order destruction nonetheless if the items are contraband.
Dangerous Drugs Act, Sec 20 those subject of the crime, including proceeds derived from drug
trafficking and even money and assets acquired in violation of the DDA, can be ordered forfeited in
favor of the government, unless belonging to the third persons without involvement of the crime.
o EXCEPTION to the third person rule if the items are beyond lawful commerce, still forfeited
o Proceeds of sale or disposition of the property forfeited must be used to pay the expenses
incurred in the proceedings including cost of the proceedings
Chapter Four
64
APPLICATION OF PENALTIES
Section One. Rules for the application of penalties
to the persons criminally liable and for the graduation of the same.
Art. 46. Penalty to be imposed upon principals in general. The penalty prescribed by law for the
commission of a felony shall be imposed upon the principals in the commission of such felony.
Whenever the law prescribes a penalty for a felony is general terms, it shall be understood as applicable to
the consummated felony.
Art. 47. In what cases the death penalty shall not be imposed. The death penalty shall be imposed in all
cases in which it must be imposed under existing laws, except in the following cases:
1. When the guilty person be more than seventy years of age.
2. When upon appeal or revision of the case by the Supreme court, all the members thereof are not
unanimous in their voting as to the propriety of the imposition of the death penalty. For the imposition of
said penalty or for the confirmation of a judgment of the inferior court imposing the death sentence, the
Supreme Court shall render its decision per curiam, which shall be signed by all justices of said court,
unless some member or members thereof shall have been disqualified from taking part in the
consideration of the case, in which even the unanimous vote and signature of only the remaining justices
shall be required.
RA 9346 has proscribed the imposition of the death penalty and in its steal shall be RP or life
imprisonment as the case may be without any right of the offender to avail of the benefit of parole
under Act 4103, the ISL.
Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most
serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.
If a light felony likewise resulted, the light felony shall be treated as a separate
offense. A separate information must be filed for them.
o Take note of the word felonies. This precludes application to ordinances and SPLs.
The felonies resulting from the single act must be felonies in the RPC.
If punishable under the RPC and an SPL (or an ordinance), Art 48 will not apply. The
offender may be charged and convicted for both crimes, separately without double
jeopardy.
Estafa and BP 22
65
Accused inserted his fingers, and then his penis to victims vagina.
NOT complex crime. One count rape, one count sexual assault. Not a
complex crime. (P v Nequia)
Can be either dolo or culpa
Person was convicted for reckless imprudence resulting into homicide and destruction
of property (P v de los Santos)
Man threw a grenade, killed two people. Complex crime of double murder. (P v
Comadre)
Man threw a pillbox, killed some people, injured others. Complex crime of murder
with attempted murder. (P v. dela Rosa)
Can it be two different crimes, and still complex? Yes. Man threw a grenade,
killed his father and his fathers friend. Complex crime of parricide with
murder.
Does it have to be consummated? No. Man threw hand grenade to a group of people. Some
died, some didnt. Complex crime of multiple murder with double frustrated murder and
double attempted murder. (P v Magalona)
What if only one victim, will Art 48 apply? Yes. Governor was performing duties and was killed
by accused. Complex crime of direct assault with homicide.
Supposing one wants to kill another with treachery, but there abberatio ictus or error in
personae, can the crime committed by the accused be a complex crime?
Dude stabbed victim with a bolo, the bolo hit both the victim and the person behind
him. Complex rime of murder and serious physical injuries. (P v Patrolla)
Accused forcibly inserted his penis into the vagina of the woman. She sustained less
serious physical injuries in her vagina. Complex crime of rape with less serious
physical injuries. (P v. Andaya)
What if there was no intent to kill, but two people died because of the acts of the accused,
will Art 48 apply?
Example: dude stabbed wife who was 7 months pregnant. Both wife and baby died.
Complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion. (P v Paycana, Jr)
BUT remember: NO COMPLEX CRIME of ARSON with MURDER (P v Malngan, look at intent)
What is the test to determine whether Art 48 will apply single criminal act or single criminal
intent/impulse?
The SC, however, has applied the single impulse test in some cases, as in the
following:
o Stealing of 13 cows (P v Tulos)
o Taking two roosters on one occasion (P v de Leon, convicted of just
one theft)
o Raped niece at 10 am, 11 am, 12 pm at same grassy area. (P v
Obrique. This is a unique case)
For cases of RAPE, SC has used the single act test.
Hence, when accused inserted private organ and raped the victim, and then inserted
his finger twice into the vagina at the same place and same occasion. SC said no
complex crime. Accused guilty of one count of rape and two counts of sexual assault,
even if same place and same occasiln. (P v Intong)
Hence, when the accused inserted his penis into the vagina of the victim and made
several push and pull movements but without removing his organ until he reached
orgams, the accused is guilty of only one count of rape. (P v Avaron wherein the
prosecutor argued that there should be as many crimes of rape as to the number of
pushes and pulls) [dont remove it!]
o
o
o
o
o
66
One count of rape = putting it in. if you take it out, then put it back in, how
many counts of rape?
Accused raped his niece once a day, inserting his finger once a day, for 16 consecutive
days in different locations. SC held as many crimes of rape and sexual assault equal
to how many times he inserted his organ and finger.
No single criminal intent because each time he committed the crime was on
different days, he was animated by separate criminal intents on each
occasion. (P v. Sollano)
Accused raped his daughter every day for a week against the wishes of his wife. SC
held 7 counts of rape. (P v Gorbida)
Accused raped victim 5 times in the same place and on the same night. Convicted of
5 counts of rape. (P v Escoton)
For cases of KIDNAPPING, SC has used the single act test.
Even if the persons were kidnapped on the same occasion and place, there was as
many crimes of kidnapping as there were persons. (P v Laranaga)
Same rule for kidnapping for ransom. Even if it is in the same situs, the
number of crimes of kidnapping will depend on the number of persons
kidnapped.
What test will you apply to BP 22?
Single act. Cant apply criminal intent test because its mala prohibita and a SPL.
Hence, number of bouncing checks equals number of violations of BP 22.
For cases of FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS, SC has used the single act test.
Accused falsified three money orders separately. Each constitutes separate crimes. (P
v Villanueva)
Accused falsified the roll of attorneys by including 3 names. Each constitutes separate
crimes. (P v Segovia)
Important case: relatives died leaving 3 parcels of land. Accused executed three
separate deeds of sale on the same day, making it appear that the relatives-vendors
were still alive at time of sale. Convicted of 3 charges of falsification because 3
documents falsified. (Lastrilla v Granda)
Accused did it by antedating, forging and making it appear that the relatives
were still alive. In other words, he falsified each document in 3 modes. Is he
guilty of 3 counts of falsification per document? NO. Only one crime of
falsification of public document even if there were multiple modes.
In Ilagan v CA, the accused swindled both the lot buyers and the corporation he was
working for.
As far as the lot buyers were concerned, there were as many crimes of estafa
as the number of times the accused fraudulently collected from the victims.
67
There are as many crimes of estafa through forgery as there are acts.
For cases of LIBEL, SC has used the single act test.
One count of libel doesnt depend on persons damaged, but on the number of
publications.
Even if two or more persons were subject to libel, if there was only one publication,
there is only one crime of libel. (P v Aquino)
For crimes against persons, the court has applied both, but the correct test is the single act
test.
When the constabulary officers killed around 50 Maranaws with guns, the Court
convicted them all under the complex crime of multiple murder, using the single
impulse test. But the Court only did this because it was impossible to determine who
killed who. (P v Lawas)
When there were several killings inside Bilibid prison, the Court held the accused
guilty for multiple murder with multiple frustrated/attempted murder, applying the
single impulse test (P v Pingcalin)
In P v Pineda, wherein the accused shot once and killed two people with one bullet,
the SC finally said that Art 48 talks of a single act. Do not apply the single impulse
test.
Hence, when with one thrust of a knife, two people get hurt, Art 48 will apply.
So with the use of one bomb and lots get injured, Art 48 will apply.
For automatic weapons, what is the rule?
This was also the case of P v Pacificador, Dalmacio [2002, division], et al,
where the victims were killed after a series of gunshots (armalites fired
successively). The accused were guilty of as many crimes as how many
people were injured.
According to Justice Callejo, the single act of pulling the trigger, even if lots of bullets
are fired, will place it under Art 48.
Justice Callejo also cited the cases of Manghoy and Mision, but I cant find it.
41
We fully agree with the lower court that the instant case comes within the purview of Art. 48 of The Revised Penal Code which, speaking of
complex crimes, provides that when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for
committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed in its maximum period. In a complex crime, although two or more
crimes are actually committed, they constitute only one crime in the eyes of the law as well as in the conscience of the offender.
Although several independent acts were performed by the accused in firing separate shots from their individual firearms, it was not possible to
determine who among them actually killed victim Rolando Tugadi. Moreover, there is no evidence that accused-appellants intended to fire at each and
every one of the victims separately and distinctly from each other. On the contrary, the evidence clearly shows a single criminal impulse to kill Marlon
Tugadis group as a whole. Thus, one of accused-appellants exclaimed in frustration after the ambush: My gosh, we were not able to kill all of them.
Where a conspiracy animates several persons with a single purpose, their individual acts done in pursuance of that purpose are looked upon as a single
act, the act of execution, giving rise to a single complex offense
68
If there are different kinds of property malversed in one occasion, theres only one
crime
The first is committed to insure and facilitate the commission of the next crime
Yes. accused cashed check on behalf of an impostor. The employee of the bank did
not bother to check since they were friends. The employees failure to ascertain the
identity of payee was falsification by culpa. It was the means to commit estafa.
Hence, estafa, through falsification by culpa. (Samson v CA)
If the intent was to rape, and the victim was brought to a place to rape her, no
complex crime. Only rape. Abduction is absorbed by rape. (P v Almanzor)
Victim was abducted and brought to a grassy area near her house. She was
raped. Abduction was absorbed. (P v Mojerada)
Victim brought 600m from her house where she was raped. Abduction still
absorbed by rape. (P v Godinez)
Abducted to place 100m from her house. Court said forcible abduction with
rape. (P v Abarquez)
Main determinant is the specific intention of the offender, and not the distance.
What if there was abduction (which was necessary to commit the rape) and then
there were three rapes done after?
o
69
The moment the first rape was committed, then forcible abduction with rape
was consummated. The second and third rapes were separate crimes. Hence,
one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, and then two separate
simple crimes of rape. (P v Garcia, P v Caraang)
If accused abducted two women at the same time, and then raped both, hows that?
Compare with kidnapping with rape which is a special complex crime (not a complex
crime under Art 48). (P v Laranaga)
Intent to take woman against her will with lewd designs: forcible abduction
with rape (information must allege lewd designs)
o If multiple rapes, complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, then
other rapes file separately.
Intent was to kidnap for ransom, but after rape was committed as an
afterthought: special complex crime of kidnapping with rape
Give examples of crimes that look complex, but are not complex under Art 48:
Art 48 wont apply because the law provides a penalty for it already.
Art 48 wont apply because Art 129 already provides a penalty for it.
Art 48, you aint gonna be bringin yo shiznat to these crimes. Common crimes
are absorbed in political crimes. (P v Hernandez)
For rape with homicide, if 2 people raped victim, but only one killed her, both
will still be liable for rape with homicide (even if only one killed the victim)
42
Section 15. Torture as a Separate and Independent Crime. - Torture as a crime shall not absorb or shall not be absorbed by any other crime or felony
committed as a consequence, or as a means in the conduct or commission thereof. In which case, torture shall be treated as a separate and independent
criminal act whose penalties shall be imposable without prejudice to any other criminal liability provided for by domestic and international laws.
70
Torture against kids
Plunder
Art 48 wont apply. Other crimes are merely predicate crimes. Only one crime
is committed.
o Will Art 332 (exempting relatives from certain crimes) still lie in complex crimes?
No. If the accused swindles her brother-in-law by falsifying a public document, she
can be guilty of estafa through falsification of a public document. The exemption will
not lie. If constitutive of a complex crime, Art 332 will no longer apply. Hence the
relative will be liable of estafa through falsification of a public document.
Break muna.
Okay, besides complex crimes and compound crimes, what are the other kinds of plurality of crimes
where a single penalty is imposed? (Take note that these arent covered by Art 48, but only bear a
semblance to complex crimes, hence commentators usually discuss them together)
o Composite crimes or special complex crimes
o Continued crime or delito continuado
o Continuing crimes or transitory crimes
NOTE: Justice Callejo did not distinguish between continued crimes and continuing
crimes, he lumped them together as delito continuado. Boado, however, distinguished
between the two. The distinction it seems is academic, the effect being the same
that only one crime is considered committed.
Composite crimes
o those which in the eyes of the law are treated as single indivisible offenses although in reality
are made up of more than one crime.
Composite
Complex
Combo of offenses is fixed by law
Combo is not specified but generalized
Penalty is specific
Not specific, but for the most serious offense in the
max period
Even if there are more than one count of the
If more than one count of the crime forming part of
component crime (like several rapes), still just one
the complex crime, the first shall be complexed,
composite crime to be charged
while the other counts are treated as separate
crimes (forcible abduction with rape, with
subsequent rapes charged separately)
If light felony accompanies the commission of the
Light felonies are not absorbed, they have to be
composite offence, such is absorbed
filed separately
Theft of 6 roosters belonging to 2 different owners from the same coop and at the
same time
Mallari v People. Mallari wanted to borrow P300k, but the lender only wanted to give
him P150k. he mortgaged two lots to secure the debt, went to the aunt to borrow
instead, and mortgaged the same two lots. The titles were falsified. (Not sure about
the facts, just copied from Glenn). There was delito continuado even if there were two
transactions because there was a single criminal resolution leading to a single crime
of estafa throught falsification of public document.
o Does NOT apply to formal/instantaneous crimes. Adultery is not a delito continuado. Each
sexual act is an offense. It is consummated and exhausted (like the accuseds) at the time of
carnal union.
Continuing Crime
71
o
o
o
One where any of the elements of the offense was committed in different localities such that
the accused may be indicted in any of those localities
Only considered as one crime.
May also refer to any offense which is continuing in time
Rebellion
Squatting
Violation of BP 22
Art. 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime committed is different from that
intended. In cases in which the felony committed is different from that which the offender intended to
commit, the following rules shall be observed:
1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher than that corresponding to the offense
which the accused intended to commit, the penalty corresponding to the latter shall be imposed in its
maximum period.
2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower than that corresponding to the one which
the accused intended to commit, the penalty for the former shall be imposed in its maximum period.
3. The rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall not be applicable if the acts committed by
the guilty person shall also constitute an attempt or frustration of another crime, if the law prescribes a
higher penalty for either of the latter offenses, in which case the penalty provided for the attempted or the
frustrated crime shall be imposed in its maximum period.
Art. 50. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of a frustrated crime. The penalty next lower in degree
than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principal in a
frustrated felony.
Art. 51. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of attempted crimes. A penalty lower by two degrees
than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals in an
attempt to commit a felony.
Art. 52. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in consummated crime. The penalty next lower in
degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated shall be imposed upon the accomplices in the
commission of a consummated felony.
Art. 53. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories to the commission of a consummated felony. The
penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed
upon the accessories to the commission of a consummated felony.
Art. 54. Penalty to imposed upon accomplices in a frustrated crime. The penalty next lower in degree
than prescribed by law for the frustrated felony shall be imposed upon the accomplices in the commission
of a frustrated felony.
Art. 55. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of a frustrated crime. The penalty lower by two
degrees than that prescribed by law for the frustrated felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the
commission of a frustrated felony.
Art. 56. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in an attempted crime. The penalty next lower in
degree than that prescribed by law for an attempt to commit a felony shall be imposed upon the
accomplices in an attempt to commit the felony.
Art. 57. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of an attempted crime. The penalty lower by two
degrees than that prescribed by law for the attempted felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the
72
For Art 59 (impossible crimes), it does not apply if the intended crime is a light felony.
So death penalty cannot be imposed anymore, right? If the penalty prescribed by law is death, where
do we start counting from, death or rp?
o In People v Bon (2003), court counted from RP.
o HOWEVER, in P v Sarcia (2009) and P v Jacinto (2011), both cases were for qualified rape by
a minor on a minor, in appreciating the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority (Art 68)
court counted from DEATH. 43
So start counting from DEATH. Sarcia was en banc. Jacinto was by division.
Art. 61. Rules for graduating penalties. For the purpose of graduating the penalties which, according to
the provisions of Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this Code, are to be imposed upon persons guilty as
principals of any frustrated or attempted felony, or as accomplices or accessories, the following rules shall
be observed:
1. When the penalty prescribed for the felony is single and indivisible, the penalty next lower in degrees
shall be that immediately following that indivisible penalty in the respective graduated scale prescribed in
Article 71 of this Code.
2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of two indivisible penalties, or of one or more
divisible penalties to be impose to their full extent, the penalty next lower in degree shall be that
immediately following the lesser of the penalties prescribed in the respective graduated scale.
3. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of one or two indivisible penalties and the
maximum period of another divisible penalty, the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the
medium and minimum periods of the proper divisible penalty and the maximum periods of the proper
divisible penalty and the maximum period of that immediately following in said respective graduated
scale.
4. when the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of several periods, corresponding to different
divisible penalties, the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the period immediately
following the minimum prescribed and of the two next following, which shall be taken from the penalty
prescribed, if possible; otherwise from the penalty immediately following in the above mentioned
respective graduated scale.
43
Under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, when the offender is a minor under 18 years, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall
be imposed, but always in the proper period. However, for purposes of determining the proper penalty because of the privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority, the penalty of death is still the penalty to be reckoned with. Thus, the proper imposable penalty for the accusedappellant is reclusion perpetua.
73
5. When the law prescribes a penalty for a crime in some manner not especially provided for in the four
preceding rules, the courts, proceeding by analogy, shall impose corresponding penalties upon those
guilty as principals of the frustrated felony, or of attempt to commit the same, and upon accomplices and
accessories.
Just read the codal for the rules. Sir didnt really discuss this anyway.
Read with Art 71.
Art. 62. Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of habitual delinquency.
Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken into account for the
purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity with the following rules:
1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by law or which
are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be taken into
account for the purpose of increasing the penalty.
1 (a). When in the commission of the crime, advantage was taken by the offender of his public position,
the penalty to be imposed shall be in its maximum regardless of mitigating circumstances.
The maximum penalty shall be imposed it the offense was committed by any person who belongs
to an organized/syndicated crime group.
An organized/syndicated crime group means a group of 2 or more persons collaborating,
confederating or mutually helping one another for puposes of gain in the commission of any crime.
2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such a
degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission thereof.
3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the moral attributes of the offender, or from
his private relations with the offended party, or from any other personal cause, shall only serve to
aggravate or mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices and accessories as to whom such
circumstances are attendant.
4. The circumstances which consist in the material execution of the act, or in the means employed to
accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons only who had knowledge
of them at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein.
5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:
(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided by law for the last crime
of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods;
(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of
which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium
periods; and
(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last
crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to
reclusion temporal in its minimum period.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two penalties to be imposed upon the
offender, in conformity herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years.
For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, is within a period of
ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical
injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.
This article gives the rules on when not to consider stuff as aggravating:
o If element of the crime (included by the law in defining the crime and prescribing its penalty)
o Inherent in the crime
Additional rule: those which are caused by the moral attributes of the offender or his relations with
the offended or any other personal causes will only affect the offender having such attribute.
o Passion and obfuscation will only apply to the one who was actually enraged; so with
relationship
Take note that this article made the following SPECIAL aggravating circumstances:
o Abuse of public position
o Committed by organized/syndicated crime group
Art. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. In all cases in which the law prescribes a single
indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.
74
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following
rules shall be observed in the application thereof:
1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance, the greater
penalty shall be applied.
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances and there is no aggravating
circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
3. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstances and there is no
aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the act, the court
shall reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideration of their number and importance, for the
purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the preceding rules, according to the result of such
compensation.
Art. 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. In cases in which the
penalties prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of
three different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of Articles 76
and 77, the court shall observe for the application of the penalty the following rules, according to whether
there are or are not mitigating or aggravating circumstances:
1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty
prescribed by law in its medium period.
2. When only a mitigating circumstances is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the
penalty in its minimum period.
3. When an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the
penalty in its maximum period.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall reasonably offset
those of one class against the other according to their relative weight.
5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present,
the court shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem
applicable, according to the number and nature of such circumstances.
6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating circumstances, the courts shall not impose
a greater penalty than that prescribed by law, in its maximum period.
7. Within the limits of each period, the court shall determine the extent of the penalty according to the
number and nature of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater and lesser extent of
the evil produced by the crime.
Lower to PM. Then use the 2 remaining mitigating to find the period. So PM minimum.
Art 64 is important in the ISL because the modifying circumstances are first considered in the
determination of the maximum penalty in the ISL. (sir wont ask to compute ISL)
75
Art 64 is not considered in the determination of the minimum penalty in the ISL. The
minimum penalty in the ISL must be within the whole range of the penalty next lower in
degree.
If the accused is sentenced to RP and has two generic mitigating circumstances (and no AC), penalty
can NOT be lowered by one degree since its an indivisible penalty. (Only a privileged mitigating can
give a penalty lower for an indivisible penalty)
This article doesnt apply to Art 365 because modifying circumstances dont apply to quasi-offfenses.
o
Art. 65. Rule in cases in which the penalty is not composed of three periods. In cases in which the
penalty prescribed by law is not composed of three periods, the courts shall apply the rules contained in
the foregoing articles, dividing into three equal portions of time included in the penalty prescribed, and
forming one period of each of the three portions.
This is applied when the law prescribes a penalty not composed of three periods (like robbery in an
uninhabited place whose penalty is PC in medium to maximum.)
o Just divide the period given by 3 to get the min, med and max.
Art. 66. Imposition of fines. In imposing fines the courts may fix any amount within the limits
established by law; in fixing the amount in each case attention shall be given, not only to the mitigating
and aggravating circumstances, but more particularly to the wealth or means of the culprit.
Art. 67. Penalty to be imposed when not all the requisites of exemption of the fourth circumstance of
Article 12 are present. When all the conditions required in circumstances Number 4 of Article 12 of this
Code to exempt from criminal liability are not present, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period
to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon the culprit if he shall have been guilty
of a grave felony, and arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if of a less grave felony.
Lack of requisites in performance of lawful act AM max to PC minimum (if grave), AM min to med (if
less grave)
Art. 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen years of age. When the offender is a minor
under eighteen years and his case is one coming under the provisions of the paragraphs next to the last of
Article 80 of this Code, the following rules shall be observed:
1. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years of age, who is not exempted from liability by reason of
the court having declared that he acted with discernment, a discretionary penalty shall be imposed, but
always lower by two degrees at least than that prescribed by law for the crime which he committed.
2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age the penalty next lower than that prescribed
by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period.
76
After the suspension, child may serve his sentence in agricultural camps or other
training facilities.45
Art. 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not wholly excusable. A penalty lower by
one or two degrees than that prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly excusable by
reason of the lack of some of the conditions required to justify the same or to exempt from criminal
liability in the several cases mentioned in Article 11 and 12, provided that the majority of such conditions
be present. The courts shall impose the penalty in the period which may be deemed proper, in view of the
number and nature of the conditions of exemption present or lacking.
Art 69 applies when the majority of requisites for justifying and exempting circumstances are
present.
Art 69 makes it privileged mitigating because the penalty is lowered by one or two degrees.
o Hence, incomplete self-defense (for example) cant be offset by any aggravating
circumstances.
Remember, however, that for incomplete self-defense to be privileged mitigating, there must be
unlawful aggression for Art 69 to apply.
o Unlawful aggression in self-defense is a condition sine qua non to justify the act.
What if not majority of requisites, like isa lang? Ordinary mitigating only. Lower to minimum period.
Example: guilty of homicide, RT. But incomplete self-defense, plus two generic mitigating
circumstances.
o Lower by two degrees (dont know why 2, but basta lowered degree) to PC.
o Then since there are 2 generic mitigating, lower by another degree (Art 64) to AM. (People v
Narvaez)
Art. 70. Successive service of sentence. When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall
serve them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit otherwise, the following rules shall
be observed:
In the imposition of the penalties, the order of their respective severity shall be followed so that they may
be executed successively or as nearly as may be possible, should a pardon have been granted as to the
penalty or penalties first imposed, or should they have been served out.
For the purpose of applying the provisions of the next preceding paragraph the respective severity of the
44
SEC. 40. Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court. - If the court finds that the objective of the disposition measures imposed upon the
child in conflict with the law have not been fulfilled, or if the child in conflict with the law has willfully failed to comply with the conditions of
his/her disposition or rehabilitation program, the child in conflict with the law shall be brought before the court for execution of judgment.
If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18) years of age while under suspended sentence, the court shall determine whether to
discharge the child in accordance with this Act, to order execution of sentence, or to extend the suspended sentence for a certain specified period or
until the child reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years.
45
SEC. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps and other Training Facilities. - A child
in conflict with the law may, after conviction and upon order of the court, be made to serve his/her sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal
institution, in an agricultural camp and other training facilities that may be established, maintained, supervised and controlled by the BUCOR, in
coordination with the DSWD.
46
SEC. 42. Probation as an Alternative to Imprisonment. - The court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a child in conflict with the law,
and upon application at any time, place the child on probation in lieu of service of his/her sentence taking into account the best interest of the child.
For this purpose, Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 968, otherwise known as the "Probation Law of 1976", is hereby amended accordingly
77
When a convict is given multiple sentences, he shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of the
penalties permits simultaneous service of sentence.
Otherwise, the penalties shall be served successively in the order of severity as prescribed above.
o You cant serve 3 reclusion perpetuas simultaneously. Hence they should be served
successively, starting from the most severe, if penalties of different degrees of severity are
imposed.
Limitations on the service of sentence:
o 3-fold rule: maximum duration of the convicts sentence shall not be more than 3-fold of the
length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him.
i.e. the maximum penalty is three times the most severe or the total of the penalties
imposed, whichever is lower.
o Such max period shall not exceed 40 years. Whatever is lower between the total penalties
and 3x the most sever, it shall not be more than 40 years.
How to compute:
o Step 1: get the most severe penalty meted out as listed in Art 70
o Step 2: Multiply the duration of that by 3
o Step 3: Add the duration of all the different sentences
o Step 4: Compare the results of 2 and 3
o Step 5: Accused to serve the lesser period, unless it is in excess of 40 years in which case the
culprit shall serve only 40 years.
Do not include subsidiary imprisonment penalty in the computation of the 40 years because
subsidiary liability is uncertain if it will even happen. (Director v Bagtas)
If the penalty is complex, the three-fold penalty is three times the indeterminate sentence also. (see
boado for example)
If ISL is imposed, use the max period in computing because the max period is the most severe.
What are the penalties that can be served simultaneously with penalty of imprisonment?
o Perpetual absolute DQ
o Perpetual special DQ
o Temporary absolute DQ
o Temporary special DQ
o Suspension
o Public censure
o Fine
o Bond to keep the peace
o Civil interdiction
o Confiscation and payment of costs
78
Art. 71. Graduated scales. In the case in which the law prescribed a penalty lower or higher by one or
more degrees than another given penalty, the rules prescribed in Article 61 shall be observed in
graduating such penalty.
The lower or higher penalty shall be taken from the graduated scale in which is comprised the given
penalty.
The courts, in applying such lower or higher penalty, shall observe the following graduated scales:
SCALE NO. 1
1. Death,
2. Reclusion perpetua,
3. Reclusion temporal,
4. Prision mayor,
5. Prision correccional,
6. Arresto mayor,
7. Destierro,
8. Arresto menor,
9. Public censure,
10. Fine.
SCALE NO. 2
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification,
2. Temporal absolute disqualification
3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the right to follow a profession or
calling,
4. Public censure,
5. Fine.
Note that in Art 71, the penalty next lower than arresto mayor is destierro, not arresto menor. But
in Art 70, destierro follows arresto menor in the degree of severity. Why?
o Arresto mayor is imprisonment or complete deprivation of liberty. Destierro means
banishment for a specified length of time. They must not be judged by the duration of each of
these penalties, but by degree of deprivation of liberty involved. Destierro is considered
lighter than arresto mayor.
Art. 72. Preference in the payment of the civil liabilities. The civil liabilities of a person found guilty of
two or more offenses shall be satisfied by following the chronological order of the dates of the judgments
rendered against him, beginning with the first in order of time.
Section Three. Provisions common in the last two preceding sections
Art. 73. Presumption in regard to the imposition of accessory penalties. Whenever the courts shall
impose a penalty which, by provision of law, carries with it other penalties, according to the provisions of
Articles 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44 of this Code, it must be understood that the accessory penalties are also
79
The accessory penalties are automatically imposed because of this article, even if not indicated in the
decision.
o Compare this with subsidiary imprisonment, which must be in the decision for it to be
imposed.
Art. 74. Penalty higher than reclusion perpetua in certain cases. In cases in which the law prescribes a
penalty higher than another given penalty, without specially designating the name of the former, if such
higher penalty should be that of death, the same penalty and the accessory penalties of Article 40, shall be
considered as the next higher penalty. (REPEALED)
Art. 75. Increasing or reducing the penalty of fine by one or more degrees. Whenever it may be
necessary to increase or reduce the penalty of fine by one or more degrees, it shall be increased or
reduced, respectively, for each degree, by one-fourth of the maximum amount prescribed by law, without
however, changing the minimum.
The same rules shall be observed with regard of fines that do not consist of a fixed amount, but are made
proportional.
This deals with the reduction of fines when the felony is attempted or frustrated or when imposed
upon the accessory or the accomplice.
For each degree, of the max amount is taken.
In no case shall the penalty computed be lower than the minimum prescribed by law.
o Fine by law is 200-600.
o Example, it has to be reduced by two degrees. (So get of 600, then subtract it twice from
600, thatll be your penalty.)
o Youll end up with 200-300, thats the range of the fine.
Sir said he wont ask this.
Art. 76. Legal period of duration of divisible penalties. The legal period of duration of divisible penalties
shall be considered as divided into three parts, forming three periods, the minimum, the medium, and the
maximum in the manner shown in the following table:
TABLE SHOWING THE DURATION OF DIVISIBLE PENALTIES AND THE TIME INCLUDED IN EACH OF THEIR
PERIODS
Penalties
Reclusion
Temporal
Full Period
12 years and 1
day to 20 years
Minimum
12 years and 1
day to 14 years
and 8 months
Prision mayor,
absolute
disqualification
and special
temporary
disqualification
6 years and 1
day to 12 years.
6 years and 1
day to 8 years.
Prision
correccional,
suspension and
destierro
6 months and 1
day to 6 years.
Arresto mayor
1 month and 1
day to 6
months.
From 1 to 30
days.
Arresto menor
Medium
14 years, 8
months, 1 day
to 17 years and
4 months
8 years and 1
day to 10 years.
Max
17 years, 4
months and 1
day to 20 years
6 months and 1
day to 2 years
and 4 months.
2 years, 4
months and 1
day to 4 years
and 2 months.
4 years, 2
months and 1
day to 6 years.
1 to 2 months.
2 months and 1
day to 4
months.
11 to 20 days.
4 months and 1
day to 6
months.
21 to 30 days.
1 to 10 days.
10 years and 1
day to 12 years.
80
Art. 77. When the penalty is a complex one composed of three distinct penalties. In cases in which the
law prescribes a penalty composed of three distinct penalties, each one shall form a period; the lightest of
them shall be the minimum the next the medium, and the most severe the maximum period.
Whenever the penalty prescribed does not have one of the forms specially provided for in this Code, the
periods shall be distributed, applying by analogy the prescribed rules.
For example, law says penalty is RT, PM, and PC. RT will be max, PM medium, PC minimum.
Chapter Five
EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF PENALTIES
Section One. General Provisions
Art. 78. When and how a penalty is to be executed. No penalty shall be executed except by virtue of a
final judgment.
A penalty shall not be executed in any other form than that prescribed by law, nor with any other
circumstances or incidents than those expressly authorized thereby.
In addition to the provisions of the law, the special regulations prescribed for the government of the
institutions in which the penalties are to be suffered shall be observed with regard to the character of the
work to be performed, the time of its performance, and other incidents connected therewith, the relations
of the convicts among themselves and other persons, the relief which they may receive, and their diet.
The regulations shall make provision for the separation of the sexes in different institutions, or at least
into different departments and also for the correction and reform of the convicts.
Art. 79. Suspension of the execution and service of the penalties in case of insanity. When a convict
shall become insane or an imbecile after final sentence has been pronounced, the execution of said
sentence shall be suspended only with regard to the personal penalty, the provisions of the second
paragraph of circumstance number 1 of Article 12 being observed in the corresponding cases.
If at any time the convict shall recover his reason, his sentence shall be executed, unless the penalty shall
have prescribed in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
The respective provisions of this section shall also be observed if the insanity or imbecility occurs while
the convict is serving his sentence.
If the convict becomes insane or an imbecile: suspend service of sentence and send to hospital for treatment
But civil liability shall still be enforced in spite of insanity and imbecility.
o
Guardian can be appointed to administer the property, so civil liability can be imposed.
Art 80 repealed.
81
Art. 83. Suspension of the execution of the death sentence. The death sentence shall not be inflicted
upon a woman within the three years next following the date of the sentence or while she is pregnant, nor
upon any person over seventy years of age. In this last case, the death sentence shall be commuted to the
penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties provided in Article 40.
Art. 84. Place of execution and persons who may witness the same. The execution shall take place in the
penitentiary of Bilibid in a space closed to the public view and shall be witnessed only by the priests
assisting the offender and by his lawyers, and by his relatives, not exceeding six, if he so request, by the
physician and the necessary personnel of the penal establishment, and by such persons as the Director of
Prisons may authorize.
Art. 85. Provisions relative to the corpse of the person executed and its burial. Unless claimed by his
family, the corpse of the culprit shall, upon the completion of the legal proceedings subsequent to the
execution, be turned over to the institute of learning or scientific research first applying for it, for the
purpose of study and investigation, provided that such institute shall take charge of the decent burial of
the remains. Otherwise, the Director of Prisons shall order the burial of the body of the culprit at
government expense, granting permission to be present thereat to the members of the family of the
culprit and the friends of the latter. In no case shall the burial of the body of a person sentenced to death
be held with pomp.
Art. 86. Reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor, prision correccional and arresto mayor.
The penalties of reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor, prision correccional and arresto
mayor, shall be executed and served in the places and penal establishments provided by the
Administrative Code in force or which may be provided by law in the future.
Art. 87. Destierro. Any person sentenced to destierro shall not be permitted to enter the place or places
designated in the sentence, nor within the radius therein specified, which shall be not more than 250 and
not less than 25 kilometers from the place designated.
Memorize this.
Destierro is a correctional penalty (6 months 6 years)
Violation of destierro will give rise to evasion of sentence (Art 156-159).
Art. 88. Arresto menor. The penalty of arresto menor shall be served in the municipal jail, or in the
house of the defendant himself under the surveillance of an officer of the law, when the court so provides
in its decision, taking into consideration the health of the offender and other reasons which may seem
satisfactory to it.
82
Art. 23. Effect of pardon by the offended party. A pardon of the offended party does not extinguish
criminal action except as provided in Article 344 of this Code; but civil liability with regard to the interest
of the injured party is extinguished by his express waiver.
Whether asserted in a criminal action or in a separate civil action, civil liability exdelicto is extinguished by the death of the accused while is his conviction is on appeal.
o But if civil liability predicated on a source other than the delict, then it survives. It can be
executed against the estate. (de Guzman v People)
EX: Art 266-C (valid marriage between offender and victim in rape), and Art 344
(seduction, acts of lasciviousness, adultery, concubinage, abduction)
Art 266-C: VALID marriage between offender and offended party in rape or
sexual assault will extinguish
o criminal liability and
o even the penalty already imposed.
Yes. This was the intent of the Senate when they removed the
original proviso stating that the co-principal, etc are not
benefited, as manifested by Senator Enriles statement in SB
950.
o Marriage must be valid. If void, no extinguishment of crim liability.
(Upon declaration of the court that it was void, does the accused go
back to prison?)
o In rape cases, is the pardon of the parents of the victim without the
concurrence of the minor victim herself effective?
Boado says no. Offended minor must also give her express
pardon.
Art 344: Offended party may pardon before institution of criminal case (filing
of complaint)
83
Right to suffrage
Pardon by
General rule
When
Civil liability
Effect
Congress
When given
To whom given
Nature
President
Any crime
After final judgment
Doesnt extinguish civil
liability
Amnesty
o Act of grace, relieves the offender not only from suffering the penalty but obliterates the
effects of the conviction as if the act were not criminal
o Usually given to political offenders
o Looks backward, abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself, as if no offense ever
happened
o Public act, must be concurred to by the Congress
o Ramos issued a proclamation granting amnesty to Honasan, Kapunan, etc. Does the amnest
cover other members of the AFP (any person who may have been involved in the rebellion?)
Yes. But the amnesty does not include any crime not covered by the proclamation
itself. The latter msut specify the crimes to which amnesty is extended.
Application
Offended Party
Cant pardon, except in Art
266-C and Art 344
Before institution of criminal
action
GR: doesnt extinguish but
can be waived by offended
party
Amnesty
Generally to political crimes
and offenders
Obliterates the effects of
conviction as if the act were
not criminal
Concurrence required
Even before conviction
Class of persons
Public act of the President,
courts can take judicial
notice
Pardon
Generally to ordinary crimes
and offenders
Relieves the offender of
penalty but the effects of
conviction stay
Concurrence not needed
After final conviction
Specific individual
Private act of the President,
no judicial notice
Suppose an accused made perjurious statements in petition for naturalization, and its discovered. He
withdraws the petition for naturalization. Does this extinguish liability?
o No. crime already committed. Application is the only one extinguished. (Chua v People)
Take note of BP 22: theres an amnesty period of 5 days from notice of dishonor for the issuer to pay.
If he pays within this period, he has no liability.
What if accused returns property in malversation?
84
Not extinguished. It can be mitigating if done before the institution of the criminal complaint
(analogous to voluntary surrender) (Sajop v People)
Public officer charged with Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019), but returns money. What
happens?
o Crim liability remains. But civil liability extinguished.
o
Art. 90. Prescription of crime. Crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal
shall prescribe in twenty years.
Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in fifteen years.
Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten years; with the exception of those
punishable by arresto mayor, which shall prescribe in five years.
The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year.
The crime of oral defamation and slander by deed shall prescribe in six months.
Light offenses prescribe in two months.
When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the highest penalty shall be made the basis of the
application of the rules contained in the first, second and third paragraphs of this article. (As amended by
RA 4661, approved June 19, 1966).
Art. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. The period of prescription shall commence to run from
the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall
be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall commence to run again when such
proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for
any reason not imputable to him.
The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago.
When a crime has prescribed, the State loses its right to prosecute.
If the penalty imposed on the convict is a compound one, the basis for prescription is the highest
penalty.
Destierro is correctional, so it prescribes in 10 years.
Consider the following to determine if a crime has prescribed:
o Period of the offense charged
o Period when it begins to run
o Period when it is interrupted
When does the period begin to run?
o Upon discovery of the crime by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents
How do you discover a crime? By learning of the corpus delicti, even if you dont
know who did it. (Domingo v Sandiganbayan)
For a continuing crime, when does it start? Prescription period runs after the
occurrence of the last act.
See the Ad Hoc Commission v Ombudsman Desierto, where the court said that the
crimes could not have been discovered because of the unique situation of the Marcos
era.
When is the period interrupted?
o Upon filing of the complaint for filing of preliminary investigation with the public prosecutor or
Ombudsman.
When does it resume again?
o When the proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or
o When the proceedings terminate for any reason not imputable to the accused
o Duration of the resumed period should be the unexpended portion only for to give the period
a fresh start every time it is interrupted is prejudicial to the offender.
When does it not run?
o When the offender is absent from the Philippines
Supposing a real estate document is executed (like a REM, deed of sale) and it is falsified. When does
the period run?
o For documents required to be filed with the Register of Deeds, the period begins to run upon
filing with the RD. Why? Because PD 1529 says that filing with the RD is constructive notice to
all persons. (P v Reyes)
85
Human Security Act (RA 9372) RPC to apply suppletorily (RPC prescription will
apply)
o In Act 3326, what does proceedings mean?
See also Panaguiton v DOJ (2008) which said the same thing.
For cases under the Rules on Summary Procedure, the prescriptive period is interrupted when the
information is filed in the MTC (no preliminary investigation eh.)
Art. 92. When and how penalties prescribe. The penalties imposed by final sentence prescribe as
follows:
1. Death and reclusion perpetua, in twenty years;
2. Other afflictive penalties, in fifteen years;
3. Correctional penalties, in ten years; with the exception of the penalty of arresto mayor, which
prescribes in five years;
4. Light penalties, in one year.
Art. 93. Computation of the prescription of penalties. The period of prescription of penalties shall
commence to run from the date when the culprit should evade the service of his sentence, and it shall be
interrupted if the defendant should give himself up, be captured, should go to some foreign country with
47
Section 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise provided in such acts, prescribe in accordance with the following rules: (a)
after a year for offenses punished only by a fine or by imprisonment for not more than one month, or both; (b) after four years for those punished by
imprisonment for more than one month, but less than two years; (c) after eight years for those punished by imprisonment for two years or more, but
less than six years; and (d) after twelve years for any other offense punished by imprisonment for six years or more, except the crime of treason,
which shall prescribe after twenty years. Violations penalized by municipal ordinances shall prescribe after two months.
Sec. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not known at the time, from the
discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceeding for its investigation and punishment.
The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are
dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy.
48
Section 11. Non-prescription. - The crimes defined and penalized under this Act, their prosecution, and the execution of sentences imposed on their
account, shall not be subject to any prescription.
49
Indubitably, the prescription period is interrupted by commencing the proceedings for the prosecution of the accused. In criminal cases, this is
accomplished by initiating the preliminary investigation. The prosecution of offenses punishable under the Revised Securities Act and the Securities
Regulations Code is initiated by the filing of a complaint with the SEC or by an investigation conducted by the SEC motu proprio. Only after a
finding of probable cause is made by the SEC can the DOJ instigate a preliminary investigation. Thus, the investigation that was commenced by the
SEC in 1995, soon after it discovered the questionable acts of the respondents, effectively interrupted the prescription period. Given the nature and
purpose of the investigation conducted by the SEC, which is equivalent to the preliminary investigation conducted by the DOJ in criminal cases, such
investigation would surely interrupt the prescription period.
86
which this Government has no extradition treaty, or should commit another crime before the expiration of
the period of prescription.
Loss of the State of the right to make the convict serve his sentence by the lapse of time.
When does it start?
o When the culprit evades the service of his sentence
When is it interrupted?
o Convict gives himself up
o Hes captured
o Goes to a country which has no extradition treaty
If it has an extradition treaty, but does not cover the said crime, period is interrupted
o Commits another crime (other than evasion of sentence) before the expiration of the period
of prescription
o Acceptance of conditional pardon (Pontillas)
Applicable to destierro
Prescription of Crime
Loss of right to proscute
Prosecution has yet to begin
Convict may not have been under custody
Begins when corpus delicti discovered
Prescription of Penalty
Loss of right to enforce the penalty
Trial on the merits already concluded
Convict already was in custody
Begins when crime of evasion of service of
sentence is done
Chapter Two
PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Art. 94. Partial Extinction of criminal liability. Criminal liability is extinguished partially:
1. By conditional pardon;
2. By commutation of the sentence; and
3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is serving his sentence.
Causes
o
o
o
o
o
o
of partial extinction:
Conditional pardon
Commutation
Good conduct allowances
Parole under the ISL
Probation
Partial repeal of a penal law
Art. 95. Obligation incurred by person granted conditional pardon. Any person who has been granted
conditional pardon shall incur the obligation of complying strictly with the conditions imposed therein
otherwise, his non-compliance with any of the conditions specified shall result in the revocation of the
pardon and the provisions of Article 159 shall be applied to him.
Art. 96. Effect of commutation of sentence. The commutation of the original sentence for another of a
different length and nature shall have the legal effect of substituting the latter in the place of the former.
87
Art. 97. Allowance for good conduct. The good conduct of any prisoner in any penal institution shall
entitle him to the following deductions from the period of his sentence:
1. During the first two years of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of five days for each
month of good behavior;
2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of eight
days for each month of good behavior;
3. During the following years until the tenth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a
deduction of ten days for each month of good behavior; and
4. During the eleventh and successive years of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of fifteen
days for each month of good behavior.
Art. 98. Special time allowance for loyalty. A deduction of one-fifth of the period of his sentence shall be
granted to any prisoner who, having evaded the service of his sentence under the circumstances
mentioned in Article 58 of this Code, gives himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the
issuance of a proclamation announcing the passing away of the calamity or catastrophe to in said article.
Art. 99. Who grants time allowances. Whenever lawfully justified, the Director of Prisons shall grant
allowances for good conduct. Such allowances once granted shall not be revoked.
88
Based on Penalties
Convicted and punished with death, LI, RP (for purposes of ISL: LI and RP are
synonymous)
Habitual delinquents
Parole50
When the person serves the minimum of the ISL, he may apply for parole. He will be allowed to leave
the penal institution under certain conditions.
Sec. 5. It shall be the duty of the Board of Indeterminate Sentence to look into the physical, mental and moral record of the prisoners who shall be
eligible to parole and to determine the proper time of release of such prisoners. Whenever any prisoner shall have served the minimum penalty
imposed on him, and it shall appear to the Board of Indeterminate Sentence, from the reports of the prisoner's work and conduct which may be
received in accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed, and from the study and investigation made by the Board itself, that such prisoner is
fitted by his training for release, that there is a reasonable probability that such prisoner will live and remain at liberty without violating the law, and
that such release will not be incompatible with the welfare of society, said Board of Indeterminate Sentence may, in its discretion, and in accordance
with the rules and regulations adopted hereunder, authorize the release of such prisoner on parole, upon such terms and conditions as are herein
prescribed and as may be prescribed by the Board. The said Board of Indeterminate Sentence shall also examine the records and status of prisoners
who shall have been convicted of any offense other than those named in Section 2 hereof, and have been sentenced for more than one year by final
judgment prior to the date on which this Act shall take effect, and shall make recommendation in all such cases to the Governor-General with regard
to the parole of such prisoners as they shall deem qualified for parole as herein provided, after they shall have served a period of imprisonment not
less than the minimum period for which they might have been sentenced under this Act for the same offense.
Sec. 6. Every prisoner released from confinement on parole by virtue of this Act shall, at such times and in such manner as may be required by the
conditions of his parole, as may be designated by the said Board for such purpose, report personally to such government officials or other parole
officers hereafter appointed by the Board of Indeterminate Sentence for a period of surveillance equivalent to the remaining portion of the maximum
sentence imposed upon him or until final release and discharge by the Board of Indeterminate Sentence as herein provided. The officials so designated
shall keep such records and make such reports and perform such other duties hereunder as may be required by said Board. The limits of residence of
such paroled prisoner during his parole may be fixed and from time to time changed by the said Board in its discretion. If during the period of
surveillance such paroled prisoner shall show himself to be a law-abiding citizen and shall not violate any of the laws of the Philippine Islands, the
Board of Indeterminate Sentence may issue a final certificate of release in his favor, which shall entitle him to final release and discharge
Sec. 7. The Board shall file with the court which passed judgment on the case, and with the Chief of Constabulary, a certified copy of each order of
conditional or final release and discharge issued in accordance with the provisions of the next preceding two sections.
Sec. 8. Whenever any prisoner released on parole by virtue of this Act shall, during the period of surveillance, violate any of the conditions of his
parole, the Board of Indeterminate Sentence may issue an order for his re-arrest which may be served in any part of the Philippine Islands by any
police officer. In such case the prisoner so re-arrested shall serve the remaining unexpired portion of the maximum sentence for which he was
originally committed to prison, unless the Board of Indeterminate Sentence shall, in its discretion, grant a new parole to the said prisoner
89
If he complies with the conditions of the parole, the Board of Pardons and Parole will give out final
release and discharge.
Parole
Minimum sentence must be served
Granted by law
Pardon
Service not required for grant
By Pres
Probation Law
Section 1. Title and Scope of the Decree. This Decree shall be known as the Probation Law of 1976. It
shall apply to all offenders except those entitled to the benefits under the provisions of Presidential
Decree numbered Six Hundred and three and similar laws.
Sec. 2. Purpose. This Decree shall be interpreted so as to:
(a) promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by providing him with individualized
treatment;
(b) provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender which might be less probable if he
were to serve a prison sentence; and
(c) prevent the commission of offenses
Sec. 3. Meaning of Terms. As used in this Decree, the following shall, unless the context otherwise
requires, be construed thus:
(a) "Probation" is a disposition under which a defendant, after conviction and sentence, is released
subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the supervision of a probation officer.
(b) "Probationer" means a person placed on probation.
(c) "Probation Officer" means one who investigates for the court a referral for probation or supervises a
probationer or both.
Sec. 4. Grant of Probation. Subject to the provisions of this Decree, the court may, after it shall have
convicted and sentenced a defendant and upon application at any time of said defendant, suspend the
execution of said sentence and place the defendant on probation for such period and upon such terms and
conditions as it may deem best.
Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine only. An
application for probation shall be filed with the trial court, with notice to the appellate court if an appeal
has been taken from the sentence of conviction. The filing of the application shall be deemed a waver of
the right to appeal, or the automatic withdrawal of a pending appeal.
An order granting or denying probation shall not be appealable.
Sec. 5. Post-sentence Investigation. No person shall be placed on probation except upon prior
investigation by the probation officer and a determination by the court that the ends of justice and the
best interest of the public as well as that of the defendant will be served thereby.
Sec. 8. Criteria for Placing an Offender on Probation. In determining whether an offender may be
placed on probation, the court shall consider all information relative, to the character, antecedents,
environment, mental and physical condition of the offender, and available institutional and community
resources. Probation shall be denied if the court finds that:
(a) the offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be provided most effectively by his
commitment to an institution; or
(b) there is undue risk that during the period of probation the offender will commit another crime; or
(c) probation will depreciate the seriousness of the offense committed.
Sec. 9. Disqualified Offenders. The benefits of this Decree shall not be extended to those:
(a) sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years;
(b) convicted of any offense against the security of the State;
(c) who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of not
less than one month and one day and/or a fine of not less than Two Hundred Pesos;
(d) who have been once on probation under the provisions of this Decree; and
(e) who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions of this Decree became
applicable pursuant to Section 33 hereof.
Sec. 10. Conditions of Probation. Every probation order issued by the court shall contain conditions
requiring that the probationer shall:
(a) present himself to the probation officer designated to undertake his supervision at such place as may
be specified in the order within seventy-two hours from receipt of said order;
(b) report to the probation officer at least once a month at such time and place as specified by said officer.
The court may also require the probationer to:
(a) cooperate with a program of supervision;
(b) meet his family responsibilities;
90
(c) devote himself to a specific employment and not to change said employment without the prior written
approval of the probation officer;
(d) undergo medical, psychological or psychiatric examination and treatment and enter and remain in a
specified institution, when required for that purpose;
(e) pursue a prescribed secular study or vocational training;
(f) attend or reside in a facility established for instruction, recreation or residence of persons on
probation;
(g) refrain from visiting houses of ill-repute;
(h) abstain from drinking intoxicating beverages to excess;
(i) permit the probation officer or an authorized social worker to visit his home and place of work;
(j) reside at premises approved by it and not to change his residence without its prior written approval; or
(k) satisfy any other condition related to the rehabilitation of the defendant and not unduly restrictive of
his liberty or incompatible with his freedom of conscience.
Sec. 11. Effectivity of Probation Order. A probation order shall take effect upon its issuance, at which
time the court shall inform the offender of the consequences thereof and explain that upon his failure to
comply with any of the conditions prescribed in the said order or his commission of another offense, he
shall serve the penalty imposed for the offense under which he was placed on probation.
Sec. 14. Period of Probation.
(a) The period of probation of a defendant sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than one year
shall not exceed two years, and in all other cases, said period shall not exceed six years.
(b) When the sentence imposes a fine only and the offender is made to serve subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency, the period of probation shall not be less than nor to be more than twice the total
number of days of subsidiary imprisonment as computed at the rate established, in Article thirty-nine of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
Sec. 15. Arrest of Probationer; Subsequent Disposition. At any time during probation, the court may
issue a warrant for the arrest of a probationer for violation of any of the conditions of probation. The
probationer, once arrested and detained, shall immediately be brought before the court for a hearing,
which may be informal and summary, of the violation charged. The defendant may be admitted to bail
pending such hearing. In such a case, the provisions regarding release on bail of persons charged with a
crime shall be applicable to probationers arrested under this provision. If the violation is established, the
court may revoke or continue his probation and modify the conditions thereof. If revoked, the court shall
order the probationer to serve the sentence originally imposed. An order revoking the grant of probation
or modifying the terms and conditions thereof shall not be appealable.
Sec. 16. Termination of Probation. After the period of probation and upon consideration of the report
and recommendation of the probation officer, the court may order the final discharge of the probationer
upon finding that he has fulfilled the terms and conditions of his probation and thereupon the case is
deemed terminated.
The final discharge of the probationer shall operate to restore to him all civil rights lost or suspend as a
result of his conviction and to fully discharge his liability for any fine imposed as to the offense for which
probation was granted.
The probationer and the probation officer shall each be furnished with a copy of such order.
Even when the probation is granted, a writ of execution for the civil liability can still
be enforced. Civil liability is not extinguished by a grant of probation.
Following are disqualified from applying for probation:
o Sentenced to a max term of more than 6 years imprisonment
o Convicted of subversion or any crime against national security or the public order
o Previously convicted by fj of offense punished by imprisonment of not less than 1 month and
1 day and/or fine of not less than P200
o Once been on probation (you can do probation once)
o Convicted of drug pushing (DDA)
o Convicted of terrorism (Anti-Terrorism Act)
o Already serving sentence upon the effectivity of the law
o Those who already perfected appeals
91
6 years lang, right? What if he was sentenced for 3 crimes tried jointly, each having less than a 6
year penalty, but if you add them, the penalties exceed 6 years.
o Accused still entitled to probation. Consider the penalty for each crime, not the aggregate.
(Pablo Francisco v CA)
What if on appeal, the CA reduces the penalty?
o Cant apply for probation. You already appealed. Even if purpose of appeal is to reduce the
penalty, the moment one appeals, you lose probation.
o If you file for probation, judgment is deemed final.
o If you file for appeal, it forecloses application to probation.
You cant have your red velvet cake and eat it too.
o The appeal here is the appeal from the trial court to the CA. (P v Evangelista)
What if you withdrew the appeal within 15 days, pwede pa ba? Pwede! Should be a perfected appeal.
(Llamado v CA)
If the application for probation is sufficient in form, the convict may be allowed to post bail.
o But the court cannot extend beyond the period beyond the period to study the application.
Court can give conditions for the probation. (Mandatory conditions are to present himself to probation
officer and report to prob officer once a month)
o Condition was to submit a program for payment of the civil liability. Accused didnt pay and
his probation was revoked. He claimed he was being imprisoned for nonpayment of debt. SC:
Mali ka boy. Imprisoned for not complying with condition, not for nonpayment. (Salgado v
CA)
o But a condition which prohibits a teacher from teaching again is wrong. Court must think of
the accused. (Baclayon v Mutia)
If the court approves/denies the application, is it appealable? No. its an order. So, go for Rule 65.
Can court grant shorter periods of probation?
o Yes. but they cannot extend it.
o Imprisonment of not more than one year, probation shall not exceed two years.
o More than one year, probation period shall not exceed 6 years.
o Fine only (with subsidiary imprisonment), probation shall be twice the number of days of
subsidiary imprisonment.
Mere expiry of probation period does NOT automatically terminate probation. (Bala v Martinez)
o Court must still determine if accused complied with the conditions of the probation. Need for
a final discharge from the court.
o Once discharged, ok na! he cant be compelled to do the conditions or go back to jail.
Moreover, he recovers whatever he lost due to his accessory penalties.
Sentence
Penalty
Disposition
Violation
Appeal
Availability
Nature
Probation
Must not be more than 6 years
Imprisonment or fine
Sentence is suspended
Entire sentence shall be served
Forecloses privilege of probation
Only once
Mere privilege, must be applied for by
the convict
ISL
Max must be more than 1 year
Imprisonment only
Minimum to be served
Unexpired portion only to be served
No effect on the operation of the law
Everytime as long as the offender is not dqd
Mandatory, need not be applied for by the
convict
Civil Liability
Title Five
CIVIL LIABILITY
Chapter One
PERSON CIVILLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES
Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. Every person criminally liable for a felony is also
civilly liable.
92
Civil liability can be incurred whether the act is punishable by law or not (since it can be based on
felonies or quasi-delicts/torts)
The moment the criminal action is instituted, the civil action is instituted along with it.
o Remember torts principles and independent civil actions.
Possible that theres a crime but no civil liability, like in victimless crimes.
o But if the state is the one aggrieved, the state can recover civil liability. (Malversation)
Also possible that theres no crime, but theres still civil liability. (Art 332 swindling relatives)
What if the accused is acquitted? 51
o If based on the ground that accused was not the author of the act/omission complained of:
no civil liability based on delict
o If based on reasonable doubt: civil liability still possible by a preponderance of evidence
If SPL, is there civil liabilities?
o Yes. there must be evidence that a party including the government sustained substantial
injury so that the accused may be civilly liable.
BP 22
Anti-Fencing (PD 1612) Sec 3(a) includes accessory penalty of RPC (hence, civil
liability under Art 104 [restitution]) 52
Dude shot one bullet, killed two people. Civilly liable to both victims.
If two crimes (one SPL and one RPC), can there be more than 1 civil liability?
o No. See BP22/estafa example.
o Same when estafa and illegal recruitment, just one civil liability.
Art. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. The exemption from criminal liability established
in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 12 and in subdivision 4 of Article 11 of this Code does not include
exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced subject to the following rules:
First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article 12, the civil liability for acts committed by an imbecile
or insane person, and by a person under nine years of age, or by one over nine but under fifteen years of
age, who has acted without discernment, shall devolve upon those having such person under their legal
authority or control, unless it appears that there was no fault or negligence on their part.
Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor under his authority, legal guardianship or
control, or if such person be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own
property, excepting property exempt from execution, in accordance with the civil law.
Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has
been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have received.
The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, the proportionate amount for which each one shall be
51
Civil Code Art. 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable
doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence. Upon motion
of the defendant, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages in case the complaint should be found to be malicious.
If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon reasonable doubt, the court shall so declare. In the absence of any declaration to that
effect, it may be inferred from the text of the decision whether or not the acquittal is due to that ground.
52
a) The penalty of prision mayor, if the value of the property involved is more than 12,000 pesos but not exceeding 22,000 pesos; if the value of
such property exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each
additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, the penalty shall be termed
reclusion temporal and the accessory penalty pertaining thereto provided in the Revised Penal Code shall also be imposed.
93
liable.
When the respective shares cannot be equitably determined, even approximately, or when the liability
also attaches to the Government, or to the majority of the inhabitants of the town, and, in all events,
whenever the damages have been caused with the consent of the authorities or their agents,
indemnification shall be made in the manner prescribed by special laws or regulations.
Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of Article 12, the persons using violence or causing the
fears shall be primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there be no such persons, those doing the act shall be
liable, saving always to the latter that part of their property exempt from execution.
Secondary liability is on the person doing the act, save for their property exempt from
execution
o Doing a lawful act, failure to do an act because of some lawful insuperable cause (Art 12, Par
4 and 7): no civil liability!
The great Justice Regalado says these are actually justifying circumstances and
shouldve been under Art 11.
Art. 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments. In
default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other persons or corporations
shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in their establishments, in all cases where a violation of
municipal ordinances or some general or special police regulation shall have been committed by them or
their employees.
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft within their
houses from guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the value thereof, provided that such guests
shall have notified in advance the innkeeper himself, or the person representing him, of the deposit of
such goods within the inn; and shall furthermore have followed the directions which such innkeeper or his
representative may have given them with respect to the care and vigilance over such goods. No liability
shall attach in case of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons unless committed by the
innkeeper's employees.
53
RA 9344: The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in
accordance with existing laws.
94
Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. The subsidiary liability established in the next
preceding article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind of
industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the
discharge of their duties.
Is the adopter civilly liable for the damage caused by the adopted minor? Yes.
Requirements for subsidiary civil liability of the employer:
o EE-ER Relationship
o ER engaged in some kind of industry
engaged in some kind of industry: capital and labor are habitually employed for the
purpose of gain/profit
o EE guilty of the wrongful act and found to have committed the offense in the discharge of his
duties (not necessarily any offense he commits while in the discharge of such duties)
o EE is insolvent as shown by the non-satisfaction of the execution against him
o Conviction attained finality
No need for court to pronounce subsidiary liability of the employee. It is deemed written into the
judgments of the cases.
Can the ER challenge the sheriffs return which showed non-satisfaction? Yes! He must do it upon
submission of the sheriffs return.
Is teacher liable for students acts? Only when engaged in industry. (Compare with 2180 which talks
of quasi-delicts)
Visiting doctor left gauze in stomach of patient. Patient died. Are hospitals liable for
consulting/visiting doctors? (Ramos v CA/Pro Services v Agana)
o Yes, because of:
Except if theres collusion between the offended and the erring EE.
o Extent of liability of ER: only in terms of civil liability (he cant be jailed) and the amount of
the civil liability. His civil liability cant be separated from his EE.
If the employee is acquitted based on reasonable doubt, is there civil liability for the employer?
o Yes. Only time when no civil liability is when the court says that he did not actually commit
the acts on which the charge is based on.
Regardless as to who the actual owner of the car is, the registered owner is the operator of the same
with respect to the public or 3rd persons.
o Registered owner liable, but can recover from the actual owner. (transpo cases)
Chapter Two
WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES
Art. 104. What is included in civil liability. The civil liability established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and
103 of this Code includes:
1. Restitution;
2. Reparation of the damage caused;
3. Indemnification for consequential damages.
Art. 105. Restitution; How made. The restitution of the thing itself must be made whenever possible,
with allowance for any deterioration, or diminution of value as determined by the court.
The thing itself shall be restored, even though it be found in the possession of a third person who has
95
acquired it by lawful means, saving to the latter his action against the proper person, who may be liable to
him.
This provision is not applicable in cases in which the thing has been acquired by the third person in the
manner and under the requirements which, by law, bar an action for its recovery.
Art. 106. Reparation; How made. The court shall determine the amount of damage, taking into
consideration the price of the thing, whenever possible, and its special sentimental value to the injured
party, and reparation shall be made accordingly.
Art. 107. Indemnification; What is included. Indemnification for consequential damages shall include
not only those caused the injured party, but also those suffered by his family or by a third person by
reason of the crime.
But the buyer in good faith is entitled to reimbursement from thief or criminal
If stolen property cannot be returned anymore, the value of the thing taken will do
What is basis for the value? Value at the time of the commission of the crime.
With 12% interest from the time of filing of the case until amount has been
paid.
In BP 22, 6% from filing of information until finality of decision, then get the whole
amount then 12% until amount was paid (Palana v P)
Damages
o Actual, moral, exemplary, temperate, nominal
o In crimes and quasi-delicts, liable for all natural and probable consequences of act or
omission54
o May be increased or decreased depending on aggravating or mitigating circumstances 55
o Also includes lost profits, not only value lost 56
Civil indemnity
o As long as the crime results to death, civil indemnity will be awarded
o Also been granted in rape
Actual damages
o Must be proved
Moral damages
o Because of physical suffering, besmirched repuration, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
wounded feelings
o Recovered in:
Adultery, concubinage
54
Art. 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of
the act or omission complained of. It is not necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the
defendan
55
Art. 2204. In crimes, the damages to be adjudicated may be respectively increased or lessened according to the aggravating or mitigating
circumstances.
56
Art. 2200. Indemnification for damages shall comprehend not only the value of the loss suffered, but also that of the profits which the
obligee failed to obtain
96
Illegal/arbitrary detention/arrests
Illegal search
Malicious prosecution
However, there are some cases which say that heirs must prove that they suffered
emotional pain, etc.
But basta ikaw yung victim, you can get moral damages.
Exemplary damages
o Imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral,
temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.
o To serve as a deterrent to serious wrong doings and vindication
o No need for proof of actual loss
o Distinct and separate from penalty of fine.
o When a crime has one or more ACs, exemplary damages may be imposed (Civ Code, 2230)
o What if the AC was not alleged in the information (hence, cant be used against accused for
his penalty), but proved during trial, can exemplary damages still be imposed?
Hence, even if treachery is qualifying in Art 248, it can still be treated as aggravating
for imposing exemplary damages.
As many as the number of crimes committed, even if the victim was the same.
o In reckless imprudence, exemplary damages may be imposed if shown to have had gross
negligence.
Temperate damages
o More than nominal but less than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court
finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount can not, from the nature of
the case, be provided with certainty
o Must be reasonable
o For example, the heirs of a deceased in homicide, murder, parricide are entitled to actual
damages.
But if they cant prove actual damages, the court may give temperate damages.
Attorneys fees
o Must be reasonable
o Discretionary upon the court
Interest
o 12% from date of final judgment
Even with RA 9346, the classification of crimes as heinous (death) and quasi-heinous (RP) still
remains. It is important in determining the civil indemnity and moral damages of the crime.
o Heinous:
97
Indemnity: P75k
Indemnity: P50k
Crime
Indemnity
Rape with homicide
100k
Qualified rape
75k
Simple rape
50k
Moral Damages
50k
50k
50k
Sexual assault
(fingered)
Attempted rape
Acts of lasciviousness
(for each count)
Murder
Parricide
30k
30k
30K
None
25k
5k
75k
50k
75k
50k
Homicide
Frustrated homicide
Attempted homicide
50k
None, no one died
None
50k
30k
30k (one case 10k,
depends talaga!)
75k (death) 50k (RP)
50k
75k
75k
75k
75k
50k
200k
75k
20k
50k
15k
Zombie apocalypse
0k
0k
Others
10k exemplary
2k exemplary
Shouldnt there be
exemplary here?
100k exemplary
(because of ransom)
Not sure, just got this
from J. Callejo
Eow powz.
98
Art. 108. Obligation to make restoration, reparation for damages, or indemnification for consequential
damages and actions to demand the same; Upon whom it devolves . The obligation to make restoration
or reparation for damages and indemnification for consequential damages devolves upon the heirs of the
person liable.
The action to demand restoration, reparation, and indemnification likewise descends to the heirs of the
person injured.
Art. 109. Share of each person civilly liable. If there are two or more persons civilly liable for a felony,
the courts shall determine the amount for which each must respond.
Art. 110. Several and subsidiary liability of principals, accomplices and accessories of a felony; Preference
in payment. Notwithstanding the provisions of the next preceding article, the principals, accomplices,
and accessories, each within their respective class, shall be liable severally (in solidum) among
themselves for their quotas, and subsidiaries for those of the other persons liable.
The subsidiary liability shall be enforced, first against the property of the principals; next, against that of
the accomplices, and, lastly, against that of the accessories.
Whenever the liability in solidum or the subsidiary liability has been enforced, the person by whom
payment has been made shall have a right of action against the others for the amount of their respective
shares.
Art. 111. Obligation to make restitution in certain cases. Any person who has participated gratuitously
in the proceeds of a felony shall be bound to make restitution in an amount equivalent to the extent of
such participation.
99