Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Ignominy
Par. 17. - THAT MEANS BE EMPLOYED OR CIRCUMSTANCES BROUGHT ABOUT WHICH ADD
IGNOMINY TO THE NATURAL EFFECTS OF THE ACT.
IGNOMINY – it is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which adds disgrace ad obloquy to the
material injury caused by the crime.
• When the accused raped a woman after winding cogon grass around his genital organ, he thereby
augmented the wrong done by increasing its pain and adding ignominy there to (People v. Torrefiel).
* NOTE: According to Professor Ambion, this is not ignominy but cruelty.
• The means employed or the circumstances brought about must tend to make the effects of the crime
MORE HUMILIATING or TO PUT THE OFFENDED PARTY TO SHAME.
ex. When the accused raped a married woman in the presence of her husband.
IGNOMINY is present.
o The novelty of the act of winding cogon grass on his genitals before raping the victim augmented the
wrong done by increasing its pain and adding moral disgrace thereto.
2. WON the trial court erred in admitting in evidence the alleged extra-judicial admission of the accused and appreciating it
against him
- Contrary to what the counsel for the accused-appellant contends, there is no evidence showing that the accused was
roughly handed from the very start. Neither is there any evidence to prove that he was first handcuffed and informed that
he was first handcuffed and informed that he was a suspect in a murder case before he was warned of his rights.
- While it may be true that a considerable span of time elapsed from the moment the accused was brought to the NISRA
office to the time the interrogation was begun and reduced to writing, there is no competent evidence presented to support
the allegation that the statement made by the accused was a result of pressure and badgerings.
3. WON the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength
- The Court holds that there was an abuse of superior strength attending the commission of the crime. It is not only the
notorious advantage of height that the accused had over the hapless victim, but also his strength which he wielded in
striking her with the figurine on the head and in shoving her head and pressing her mouth and nose against the bed
mattress.
4. WON the trial court erred in appreciating treachery and abuse of superior strength simultaneously and separately
- The evidence on record, however, is not sufficient to show clearly and prove distinctly that treachery attended the
commission of the crime since there was no eyewitness account of the killing.
5. WON the trial court erred in accepting the testimony of Dr. Roxas, the medico-legal Officer, that asphyxiation by
suffocation was the cause of death of the victim
- The Court sustains the finding of the lower court that the aggravating circumstance of outraging or scoffing at the corpse of
the deceased applies against the accused since it is established that he mocked or outraged the person or corpse of his
victim by having an anal intercourse with her after she was already dead.
- The fact that the muscles of the anus did not close and also the presence of spermatozoa in the anal region as testified to by
Dr. Roxas and confirmed to be positive in the Laboratory Report clearly establishes the coitus after death.
6. WON the trial court erred in denying the accused the benefits of Sec. 192 of PD 603 before its amendment by PD 1179 on
Aug. 15, 1977
- At the time of the commission of the offense, the trial and rendition of judgment, the applicable law was PD 603. The
Court does not agree with the reasoning of the trial court that the accused did not invoke the law because the records
manifestly show the vigorous plea of the accused for its application.
- The Court likewise holds that the penalty of death was not justified. The accused is a minor and he is entitled to the
mitigating circumstance of minority.
- The amendment to keep away from its beneficient provision cases of conviction of a minor when penalty imposed is death
cannot prejudice the accused whose case was pending appeal when the amendment took effect.
Disposition: The case against the accused is DISMISSED. Civil liability imposed upon him by the lower court shall remain.
DISSENTING OPINION
Aquino, J
- The speculations of the medico-legal officer and the trial judge that there was posthumous sodomy are unwarranted. The
prosecution is bound by Butler’s confession. He alleged that the squabble over his five-peso bill which the victim took
without his consent, was the cause of the fight which he had with the victim.
- The confession also proves that Butler did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that which he committed and that he
was intoxicated at the time the killing was perpetrated.
- I dissent from the ponente’s opinion that Butler should have been given a suspended sentence and that, by reason of his
good behavior while confined in the Subic Naval Base Stockade , he should now be released and discharged.
- If at the time the case is decided by this Court, the accused is no longer a minor with more reason, he is not entitled to a
suspended sentence.
l. Unlawful entry
Par. 18. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED AFTER AN UNLAWFUL ENTRY.
THERE IS AN UNLAWFUL ENTRY WHEN AN ENTRANCE OF A CRIME A WALL, ROOF,
FLOOR, DOOR, OR WINDOW BE BROKEN.
• There is unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose.
• Unlawful entry must be a means to effect entrance and not for escape.
• There is no unlawful entry when the door is broken and thereafter the accused made an entry thru the
broken door. The breaking of the door is covered by paragraph 19.
RATIONALE FOR PAR. 18: One who acts, not respecting the walls erected by men to guard their property
and provide for their personal safety, shows a greater perversity, a greater audacity; hence, the law
punishes him with more severity.
• This AC is inherent in robbery with force upon things.
• Dwelling and unlawful entry is taken separately in murders committed in a dwelling.
• Unlawful entry is not aggravating in trespass to dwelling.
• To be considered as an AC, breaking the door must be utilized as a means to the commission of the
crime.
• It is only aggravating in cases where the offender resorted to any of said means TO ENTER the house. If
the wall, etc. is broken in order to get out of the place, it is not aggravating.
o. Cruelty
Par. 21. - THAT THE WRONG DONE IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME BE DELIBERATELY
AUGMENTED BY CAUSING OTHER WRONG NOT NECESSARY FOR ITS COMMISSIONS.
CRUELTY
• There is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and
gradually, causing him unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of the criminal act.
• For cruelty to exist, it must be shown that the accused enjoyed and delighted in making his victim
suffer.
REQUISITES:
1. That the injury caused be deliberately increased by causing other wrong;
2. That the other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of the purpose of the offender.
• There is no cruelty when other wrong was done after the victim was dead.
IGNOMINY CRUELTY
Involves moral suffering. Refers to physical
suffering.
- Use of dangerous drugs while committing a felony – Sec. 25, R.A. 8165,
The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
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.
1. Relationship
This is taken into consideration when the offended party is the:
a. spouse
b. ascendant
c. descendant
d. legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister
e. relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender
• As a rule, relationship is MITIGATING in crimes against property by analogy to the provisions of Art.
332.
- Under Art. 332 of the RPC, no criminal, but only civil, liability shall result from commission of
the crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by spouses, ascendants,
and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line; brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and
sisters-in-law, if living together.
- Relationship becomes actually an exempting circumstance since there is no occasion to consider
a mitigating or an aggravating circumstance because there is no criminal liability.
♣ It is aggravating in CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS in cases where the offended party is a relative of a
higher degree than the offender, or when the offender and the offended party are relatives of the same
level, as killing a brother, a brother-in-law, a half-brother or adopted brother.
♣ When the CRIME AGAINST PERSONS is any of the SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES (Art. 263), even if the
offended party is a descendant of the offender, relationship is an AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE.
- But the serious physical injuries must not be inflicted by a parent upon his child by excessive
chastisement.
♣ When the crime is less serious physical injuries or slight physical injuries, ordinary rule applies;
relationship is MITIGATING if the offended party is a relative of lower degree and AGGRAVATING if the
offended party is a relative of a higher degree than the offender.
♣ When the crime against persons is homicide or murder, relationship is aggravating even if the victim of
the crime is a relative of lower degree.
• Relationship is mitigating in trespass to dwelling.
• Relationship is neither mitigating nor aggravating, when relationship is an element of the offense.
2. Intoxication
MITIGATING
a. if intoxication is not habitual, or
b. if intoxication is not subsequent to the plan to commit a felony.
AGGRAVATING
a. if intoxication is habitual; or
b. if it is intentional (subsequent to the plan to commit a felony)
- It is intentional when the offender drinks liquor fully knowing its effects, to find in the
liquor a stimulant to commit a crime or a means to suffocate any remorse.
3. Degree of instruction
Low degree of instruction and education or lack of it is generally mitigating. High degree of instruction and
education is aggravating, when the offender avails himself of his learning in committing the crime.
• Not illiteracy alone, but also lack of sufficient intelligence are necessary to invoke the benefit of the
alternative circumstance of lack of instruction, the determination of which is left to the trial court.
• Lack of sufficient instruction is not mitigating when the offender is a city resident who knows how to sign
his name.
• Lack of instruction must be proved positively and directly and cannot be based on mere deduction or
inference.
• The question of lack of instruction cannot be raised for the first time in appellate court.
Degree of instruction is aggravating when the offender availed himself or took advantage of it in
committing the crime.
A. Conspirators - Art. 8
RPC 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.
Important Words
1. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony
Conspiracy and proposal are two different felonies.
2. Only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty thereof
Unless there is a specific provision in the RPC providing a penalty for conspiracy or proposal to commit a
felony, mere conspiracy or proposal is not a felony.
General Rule: Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are not punishable.
Exception: They are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty thereof.
(Conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime are only preparatory acts and the law regards them as
innocent or at least permissible except in rare and exceptional cases)
Requisites of conspiracy
1. That two or more persons came to an agreement (meeting of the minds of two or more persons);
2. That the agreement concerned the commission of a felony ( the agreement must refer to the
commission of a crime); and
3. That the execution of a felony be decided upon (the conspirators have made up their minds to
commit the crime)
C. Accomplices - Art. 18
Accomplices are the persons who, not being included in Art. 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense
by previous or simultaneous acts.
- Quasi-collective responsibility- between collective and individual
- Why not included in Art. 17- When there is no conspiracy between or among the defendants but
they were animated by one and the same purpose to accomplish the criminal objective, those
who cooperated by previous or simultaneous acts but cannot be held liable as principals are
accomplices.
- In case of doubt, one will be considered an accomplice rather than a principal.
- Distinction between accomplice and conspirator
Common- They know and agree with the criminal design
Difference- Conspirators know the criminal intent because they themselves
have decided upon such course of action. Accomplices come to know about it
after the principals have reached the decision and only then do they agree to
cooperate in its execution.
- Requisites
That there be community of design; that is, knowing the criminal design of the
principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose
That he cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous
acts, with the intention of supplying material or moral aid in the execution of
the crime in an efficacious way; and
That there be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those
attributed to the person charged as accomplice.
Abejuela vs. People, 200 SCRA 806
FACTS: Balo, an employee of Banco Filipino befriended businessman Abejuela. One day, Balo went to
Abejuela’s welding shop and asked him if he could borrow his passbook so he could deposit a sum of
money. Abejuela reluctantly agreed. This practice lasted for quite some time. Abejuela decided to close his
account. The bank noticed discrepancies in his account. As a result, it confronted Balo and the latter
admitted the offense. An action for estafa was filed against the two. During the trial, Balo was killed by the
NPA. Abejuela was found guilty of the crime.
HELD: In a number of cases decided by the court, it has been held that knowledge of the criminal intention
of the principal is indispensable in order to hold a person liable as an accomplice. It has been satisfactorily
established that Banco Filipino suffered damage. Although abejuela was unaware of the criminal workings
of Balo, he nevertheless contributed to their eventual consummation by recklessly entrusting his passbook
to Balo and by signing the withdrawal slips. He failed to exercise prudence and care. Therefore he must be
held civilly accountable.
PD No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law of 1979)- Heavy penalties for accessories in robbery and theft
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.
- Ground: Based on ties of blood and the preservation of the cleanliness of one’s name
- Accessory is not exempt from criminal liability even if the principal is related to him if such
accessory 1) profited by the effects of the crime, or 2) assisted the offender to profit by the
effects of the crime.
- Liability of a public officer when related to the principal- Such a public officer does not incur any
criminal liability. Ties of blood or relationship constitutes a more powerful incentive than the call
of duty.
E. Proponents - Art. 8
- RPC provides a penalty for mere proposal in the ff:
- Art. 115- Proposal to commit treason
- Art. 136- Proposal to commit coup d’etat rebellion or insurrection
- Requisites of proposal
1. That a person has decided to commit a felony and
2. That he proposes its execution to some other person or persons
- There is no criminal proposal when—
1. The person who proposes is not determined to commit the felony.
2. There is no decided, concrete and formal proposal.
3. It is not the execution of a felony that is proposed.
- The crimes in which conspiracy and proposal are punishable are against the security of the state or
economic security
- Treason- against external security
- Coup, rebellion and sedition- against internal security
- Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade- against economic security