Q: A is an Italian Diplomat/Ambassador. From his hotel xxxxx
(sorry malabo talaga po). Since his bodyguards were not yet ready,
he decided to drive his car by himself. He drove the car however,
he hit a pedestrian. The latter died. Can A be prosecuted for
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide?
A: The said Italian Ambassador cannot be prosecuted. He enjoys
Diplomatic Immunity from Suit. Hence, he cannot be arrested,
prosecuted and punished.
Q: If the Italian Ambassador arrived at the NAIA Terminal 1. He has
two (2) attache cases. The sniffing dogs were trained to sniff
dangerous drugs and the dogs were following him, which means he
has in possession of dangerous drugs. So the NAIA personnel
confiscated the cases, and when they opened it, it contains drugs
in the amount of more or less three-hundred million Pesos. Can he
be prosecuted for illegal possession/importation of dangerous
drugs?
A: Yes. Diplomatic Immunity from Suit is not absolute, it is subject to
the exception that the act must be done in the performance of his
function.
Senator X delivered a privilege speech in Senate. Sen. X called Sen. Y
a womanizer, a smuggler. These are slanderous remarks to Sen. Y.
But Sen. Y cannot file a case of Slander or Libel against Sen. X
because these slanderous remarks were made in the halls of
congress while the congress is in regular or special session. Hence,
he cannot be prosecuted.
Many heads of state arrived here for the 2017 Ms. Universe.
Among these was Pres. X, of X state. He found Ms Portugal very
attractive and invited her to a date in a hotel. Afterwards, Pres. X
raped her. Can Pres. X be prosecuted for rape?
A: YES. Immunity is NOT absolute, limited only to official functions.
As rape is outside of the functions of the head of state, Pres. X may
be prosecuted here.
Q: Pres. X was driving his car on his way to the pageant, and he hit
a pedestrian, who died. May Pres. X be prosecuted?
A: No. This time he is performing official functions, thus he cannot
be prosecuted in Philippine courts.
Example: X was arrested for Vagrancy under Art. 202 of RPC in
March 2013. In July 2013, a new law enacted by Congress
decriminalizing vagrancy which amende Art 202. This new law will
apply in favor of X because this new law is favorable to him and X is
not a habitual criminal.
The Anti-Subversion Law had long been repealed. Congress
recently revived this law and makes it criminal for being a member
of the CCP-NPA. Upon the passage of this new law, the police
officers immediately went to the house of X, a known member of
CCP during his younger years and he was arrested. He challenged
this new law, what are his grounds?
A: First, his argument is that this new law is in violative of the
prospectivity characteristic of penal law. This is violative because
penal law cannot be given retroactive application except that if the
law expressly provides and it is favorable to him. Hence, it cannot be
given retroactive application. Second, he can invoke the provision in
the constitution against ex post facto law. It is an ex-post facto law
because at the time that he was a member of CCP, there was no law
punishing subversion. Therefore, he cannot be prosecuted under
this new law.
Example in Equipose Rule X is being prosecuted for illegal
possession of dangerous drugs. During the trial, the prosecution
presented a forensic chemist who tested the dangerous drug,
presented the arresting officer and the latter testified that he got a
tip from an informant that X bought shabu from a drug pusher.
They saw X in the canteen, while X was eating they arrested X,
frisked X and bodily searched X and found 2 sachets of shabu. At
the time of the presentation of the evidence for the defense, the
defense counsel presented the accused. He testified that he was
not in possession of dangerous drug. According to him, he was
merely eating at the canteen when suddenly the Police Officers
Compiled by: Gomez, Karunungan, Matobato, Palacol, Ramos, Santiaguel
arrived and arrested him and proceeded in the Police station.
While at the station, suddenly, there were 2 plastic sachets of
shabu which were taken out and allegedly this was found from the
accused. Aside from the accused, the defense presented the
owner and the waiter of the canteen. Both corroborated the
testimony of the accused that X was arrested and they did not see
any act of body search, frisking and dangerous drug taken out from
the accused. If you were the Judge, will you convict or acquit the
accused?
A: Here, the evidence of the prosecution is equally balanced with
the evidence of the defense. Therefore, based on the so called
equipoise rule, the accused has to be acquitted. The prosecution
failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt
Ex. A foreign merchant vessel is on Manila Bay. A crime was
committed on board, the Philippines will have jurisdiction over the
said crime and criminal because we follow the English Rule.
Ex. So X was in Japan. He counterfeited Philippine coins. He then
introduced these coins in to the Philippine Islands. Although the
crime has been committed in Japan, he can be held liable before
Philippine courts. This is necessary in order to maintain and
preserve the financial circulation and financial stability of the
Philippines. Otherwise, no other country would be interested in
prosecuting him except the Philippines because it is only the
Philippines will be affected by the said counterfeiting of coins.
Ex. [An] OFW lost his passport, he went to the Philippine Embassy
in Japan applying for a new passport. He has been going there back
and forth that it has not it was not yet approved or it was not yet
released. On his way out, he saw the approving authority (AA). He
talked to AA requesting and begging him that it be immediately
approved and released. He was invited to a coffee shop, while
having coffee, AA asked $500 from him and promised on that same
afternoon, his passport would be released. So the poor OFW gave
AA the $500. Where may this AA be prosecuted? Before Philippine
courts or before the courts of Japan?
AA may be prosecuted before the Philippine courts. He did not
commit in effect a crime in approving the said passport because it
his obligation to approve the said passport. However, he would not
perform his obligation without a bribe. He would not perform his
function without the money given by the said OFW. So in effect, he
committed bribery in its 2nd form - he performs an act not
constituting a crime in connection with the exercise of his function
in consideration of the bribe money. So here, he committed bribery,
he can be prosecuted before Philippine courts. His act is in
connection with the exercise of his functions.
What if a beautiful and attractive OFW was following up her
passport to the Phil Amb. to Japan, and the latter asked for sex in
exchange of the release. In desperation, the OFW accepted the
deal, and they went to a motel for sex. Later she went back to the
Phils and filed a case for sexual harassment. Will the case prosper?
A: the case will prosper, as he asked for sex in return of the release
of the passport. This is in connection with his official duties. Thus
Phil. Courts have jurisdiction.
What if instead of the AA, here comes a Filipino filing clerk (FC)
inside the Philippine Embassy. The FC followed the OFW, the FC
told him that he can facilitate the release of his passport if he will
him $50. Desperate, the OFW gave him the money. However, that
afternoon, the passport was still not released. He wanted to file a
case against the FC. Where can he file a case? Before courts of
Japan or Philippines?
It should be filed before the courts of Japan because the act
performed by FC has nothing to do with the exercise of his official
functions. In effect, what he has committed is estafa because he
made this OFW believe that he has the authority to facilitate the
release of the said passport but he did not have such qualification.
He committed estafa under Art.315(2)(a). Therefore, he should be
prosecuted before the courts of Japan.
What if there is this Philippine consul (PC). The PC told his
secretary (S) to work overtime. So S followed PC. In the evening, PC
gave coffee to S. Unknown to S, there was something mixed in the
coffee to make her unconscious. So after drinking the coffee, she
became unconscious and she was raped by PC. Snow wanted to file
a case against PC. Where may she file the case?
The act of rape committed has nothing to do with the exercise of
PC's functions. Therefore, it should be filed before the courts of
Japan. However, it was committed inside the Philippine Embassy.
The Philippine Embassy which is considered an extension of the
Philippine sovereignty, then it is as if the crime was committed
within the Philippine territory. Therefore, S should file the case
before the Philippine courts because it is as if the crime was
committed within the Philippine archipelago. The reason for this is
the intraterritorial application of the RPC. But if the rape was
committed at any other place outside the Philippine Embassy, then
PC should be prosecuted before the courts of Japan because rape is
in no way connected with the exercise of his functions and a consul
does not enjoy diplomatic immunity.
Example: X is a US citizen born in the USA of Filipino parents
wanted to visit the Philippines. So he applied for passport in Phil.
Embassy in California USA. The passport has not yet been
approved, so he asked the Secretary when his passport will be
approved. The secretary said that his application is at the bottom
of the papers to be signed by the approving authority. The
secretary also said that it will be approved more than a month. She
invited X to a coffee shop and told X that she was the secretary of
the Approving Officer and offered that she can place his passport
on top of the documents to be approved by her boss, that is, if X
will gave the secretary 500 USD. Then X gave her the money. So as
promised, she did place it on top of the documents and was
approved immediately. Can the said secretary be prosecuted in
Phil. Courts? or US Courts?
A: She can be prosecuted before the Philippine Courts. As a
secretary it is her duty to place the documents on the table of the
approving authority and the latter approved the documents based
on where they are placed. The secretary committed the crime of
Bribery (Direct Bribery) because she accepted money in exchange of
doing it which is not prohibited under the law but she favored X. It is
connected with her official function being the secretary of the
approving authority.
Q: Under the same case and the same facts but the offender is a
Janitor of the Phil. Embassy, Where can the janitor be prosecuted?
A: In the US Courts because it is not in any way connected with his
job as a janitor.
Q: What if in the same problem, while the Janitor saw X leaving the
embassy, he told X to follow him in the janitorial services room
inside the Phil. Embassy and told X that by giving him 200USD he
can guaranty that his passport will be released in a week, so X gave
the Janitor the money. Where can the janitor be prosecuted?
A: In the Philippine Courts. Even if the crime is not in any way
connected to his functions as a janitor, since it is committed inside
the Phil. Embassy it is considered to have been committed within
the Philippine Territory because the Phil embassy is an extension of
the sovereignty. Even if the crime committed is not in any way
connected with the function of the public employee, if it is
committed in Phil. Embassy, he can be prosecuted before the
Philippine Courts.
Ex. A lust[s] for his neighbor. Whenever the neighbor would pass
by going to work, A would always look at the neighbor. And for the
whole day, he would think of the neighbor with nothing but lust.
No matter how criminal his thoughts are it will never give rise to a
crime because it is merely an internal unless he performs an
external act or an overt act related to acts of lasciviousness or
attempted rape or rape. The law requires an act.
Ex. If a person found, any personal property on the street or on any
place and he failed to deliver the same to the owner or to the local
authorities. Under Art.308 he becomes liable for theft. Or if a
person was driving his vehicle, then he bumped and hit another
person. And instead of helping that person, he increased his speed
and left. It is a hit-and-run situation. Such fact that he failed to lend
Compiled by: Gomez, Karunungan, Matobato, Palacol, Ramos, Santiaguel
help and assistance to that victim will aggravate his criminal
liability under Art. 365. So here, for failing to perform an act which
is required by law to be done. He commits a felony. So felonies are
acts or omissions punishable by the RPC.
Ex. Intent to kill must be proven in frustrated/attempted homicide.
A and B were fighting. A was losing and so A shot B. B was hit on
the left arm. He was brought to the hospital. Thereafter, after B's
release from thehospital, he filed a case against Afor attempted
homicide. Since the case filed is attempted homicide. The
prosecution has the burden of proving intent to kill on the part of A
when he shot B and hit him on the left arm. Otherwise, if the
prosecution failed to prove intent to kill on the part of A. Then A
can only be convicted of serious/less serious/slight physical injuries
depending on the date required for medical intervention or he
should be acquitted of the crime. Intent to kill must be proven.
But what if in the course of their fight, A was losing and so A took
out his pistol and he shot B. B was shot on the heart, a fatal
wound, a mortal wound was sustained because it was a vital organ
which was hit. A immediately bought B to the hospital. However,
upon arrival, he was pronounced dead. Therefore, the heirs of B
filed a case for homicide against A. A's defense, I have no intention
to kill B. According to him, he only intended to threaten B because
they were fighting. Will this defense lie?
A's defense that he has not intent to kill B will not lie. The reason is
since the victim died, intent to kill becomes a GCI which is
presumed by law. Prosecution need not prove intent to kill in
homicide, parricide, murder, infanticide (HPMI) because the victim
died. It is only in the attempted and frustrated stages of the HPMI
wherein intent to kill is considered an element.
X and Y are fighting, X is a karate master. X kickboxed the neck of
Y, the chest of Y and both legs of Y.
Y was rushed to the hospital and survived, but he was hospitalized
for a period of 2 months or 60 days. And so a case of frustrated
homicide was filed against X. X however contended he has no intent
to kill, because it was a fight. He never intended to kill, he only
intended to injure. Here intent to kill is a specific criminal intent
which must be proven by the prosecution. If the prosecution failed
to prove specific criminal intent on the part of X when he kickboxed
the neck, chest and legs of Y, then the court can only convict X of
Serious Physical Injuries. Because said criminal intent was not
proven by the prosecution.
What if in the same problem. When X kickboxed, the neck, chest and
legs of Y. Y was put to the hospitalized, but 2 days after, Y died
because of the injuries sustained. And so, a case of homicide was
filed against X. Here, the prosecution need not prove the intent to
kill, because the Victim Y died, intent to kill becomes a GENERAL
CRIMINAL INTENT which is presumed by law. It is the accused X,
who has the burden of evidence to prove that when he inflicted
physical injuries to Y, there was no intent to kill. The best evidence
of intent to kill is when the victim died.
Ex. City mayor (CM) was jogging near the seashore. Here comes X
who went to CM and him. CM was not in the performance of his
official duty when he was shot. Therefore, the act of X in killing and
shooting CM may result to variant crimes depending on the
motive, depending on the reason of X of killing. If the reason is a
personal grudge/vendetta, murder is committed. But if the reason
is because of CM's past performance of his duty, then the crime
committed is direct assault with homicide.
Ex. There are so many suspects, A, B, C, D and E. There's doubt as
to who among the committed the crime. Then motive will become
material in determining the criminal liability of the offender.
De Guzman, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 178512, 26 November 2014
Facts: One evening the victim Alexander Flojo (Alex) was fetching
water below his rented house in Mandaluyong City when accused
Alfredo De Guzman, Jr. suddenly appeared and hit him on the nape.
The sister of Alfredo and Alex’s landlady Lucila apologized on
Alfredo’s behalf and told Alex to go upstairs, which the latter did.
Two hours later Alex resumed fetching water, when suddenly
Alfredo appeared again and stabbed Alex on his face and chest. Alex
was rushed to hospital where he received timely medical treatment,
which prevented his death. Alfredo on the other hand, denied
stabbing Alex.
The RTC Mandaluyong City convicted Alfredo of frustrated homicide,
and the CA confirmed the conviction.
Issue: Was De Guzman, Jr. not properly found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of frustrated homicide?
Ruling: Petition DENIED. The essential element in frustrated or
attempted homicide is the intent of the offender to kill the
victim immediately before or simultaneously with the infliction
of injuries. Intent to kill is a specific intent that the State must
allege in the information, and then prove by either direct or
circumstantial evidence, as differentiated from a general criminal
intent, which is presumed from the commission of a felony by
dolo.
Intent to kill, being a state of mind, is discerned by the courts
only through external manifestations, i.e., the acts and conduct
of the accused at the time of the assault and immediately
thereafter.
Roque v. People, G.R. No. 193169, 6 April 2015
Facts: Petitioner Rogelio Roque was charged with frustrated
homicide in the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan. The prosecution averred
that Reynaldo Marquez sought to settle a misunderstanding with
Roque, and with the assistance of the barangay chairman Tayao, he
went to Roque’s house to talk to the latter. Marquez apologized to
Roque, but the latter shot at Marquez, who was hit in the right ear
and nape. Unsatisfied, Roque kicked Reynaldo- who was then on the
ground-on the face and back. Marquez pleaded for help from Tayao
but Roque warned those around not to get involved. Fortunately,
Marquez’s parents arrived and brought him to the hospital, and he
survived.
Roque, on the other hand, alleged that Reynaldo and his brother
Rodolfo, who were both drunk, cursed Roque. The latter ignored the
two and just went home. Later, the Marquez brothers went to
Roque’s house, still shouting invectives at the latter. The Marquez
brothers were persuaded to leave, but not without threatening to
kill Roque. They did return and challenged Roque to a gun duel, and
Reynaldo fired his gun. As an act of self-
defense, Roque fired back twice.
The RTC found Roque guilty as charged, and the CA affirmed the
conviction.
Issue: Whether Roque is guilty only of less serious physical injuries,
not frustrated homicide.
Ruling: Petition DENIED. The CA correctly affirmed the RTC’s ruling
that Roque is guilty of frustrated homicide and not merely of less
serious physical injuries as the latter insists. As aptly stated by the
CA: In attempted or frustrated homicide, the offender must have the
intent to kill the victim. If there is no intent to kill on the part of the
offender, he is liable for physical injuries only. Vice-versa, regardless
of whether the victim only suffered injuries that would have healed
in nine to thirty days, if intent to kill is sufficiently borne out, the
crime committed is frustrated homicide (Arts. 263-266). Usually, the
intent to kill is shown by the kind of weapon used by the offender
and the parts of the victim’s body at which the weapon was aimed,
as shown by the wounds inflicted. Hence, when a deadly weapon,
like a bolo, is used to stab the victim in the latter’s abdomen, the
intent to kill can be presumed (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, 13TH
ED., P. 431). It is worth highlighting that the victim received two
gunshot wounds in the head. Indeed the location of the wounds plus
the nature of the weapon used are ready indications that Roque’s
objective is not merely to warn or incapacitate a supposed
aggressor. Verily, had Roque been slightly better with his aim, any of
the two bullets surely would have killed Marquez outright. Also, the
intent to kill is further exhibited by the fact that Roque even
prevented barangay officials from intervening and helping the
bleeding victim. Indeed, the fact that Reynaldo Marquez was
miraculously able to live through the ordeal and sustain only
Compiled by: Gomez, Karunungan, Matobato, Palacol, Ramos, Santiaguel
modicum injuries does not mean that the crime ought to be
downgraded from frustrated homicide to less serious physical
injuries. After all, as was mentioned above, what should be
determinative of the crime is not the gravity of the resulting injury
but the criminal intent that animated the hand that pulled the
trigger [end].
A was walking. Then here comes B with a lead pipe and hit the
head of A with it. B hit it hard and thereafter ran away. A went to
the hospital, however, based on the medical certificate no injury
whatsoever was sustained by the head of A. So there was no
injury. Nevertheless, A filed a case for attempted homicide against
B. Therefore, intent to kill is incumbent to be proven by the
prosecution because the case filed is attempted homicide. Will B
be held liable for attempted homicide? Was there intent to kill?
There was no intent to kill. Intent to kill is determined by the
following factors: 1. The nature and number of the weapon used by
the offender in the commission of the crime 2. The nature, number
and location of wounds inflicted/sustained by the victim 3. The
manner of committing the crime 4. The acts, deeds or words stated
by the offender before, during or immediately after the commission
of the crime 5. Proof of the victim (?)
Let us apply this in the case - B hit A with a lead pipe. Was there
motive? >In the problem, there was no motive.
Nature and number of weapon used? >B used a lead pipe. Nature,
number and location of wound inflicted on the victim? >The victim
did not sustain any wound despite the fact that it was hit with a lead
pipe.
Manner of committing the crime. >After hitting A once, B ran away.
If he had intended to kill the victim, he would have hit A several
times. Act, deeds and words made by the offender before, during or
after the commission of the crime. >He just saw the victim, hit the
victim thereafter ran away. All of these would show there was no
intent to kill on the part of said offender.
Therefore, B should not be convicted of attempted homicide.
Ex. Before the killing of A, a witness saw B threatening to kill A.
Therefore, B would have the motive because of his acts prior to the
commission of the crime. Or right after the killing of A, a witness
saw B running away from the scene of the crime laughing saying
"finally, I have my revenge" there is the motive. So here motive is
established by the acts or statements made by the accused prior to
or after the commission of the crime.
NOT DURING because in motive, there is no direct evidence. The
witness did not see how the crime was committed. You don't need
proof of motive if the crime committed is an act malum prohibitum.
As a general rule motive is immaterial to prove the criminal liability
of the offender.
The victim was found on a vacant lot. He has 5 stab wounds. He
was already dead. With 5 fatal stab wounds. No one saw who
stabbed the victim. But the mother said, X Y and Z fetched the
victim from their house at 10oclock in the evening. A neighbor
said, he saw X Y and Z on board in the same jeepney with the
victim. Another neighbor appeared and made a statement, he said,
he saw X Y and Z having a heated argument with the victim about 5
meters away from where the victim was found dead.
Here motive is material to determine the criminal liability of the
offender because since no one has seen, there was no eye witness
to the commission of the crime, proof is done solely by
circumstantial evidence.
Garcia v. CA
Garcia was the head of the board of canvassers. The number of
votes of Sen. Pimentel was decreased. In decreasing the number of
votes, the said votes were not added to any candidate. So it did not
favor any candidate. So according to him, he acted in good faith, no
criminal intent. But according to the other side, it is a special penal
law, therefore they should be held criminally liable. What did the SC
say?
>The act of decreasing or increasing a candidate's vote although
punished by special penal law is a malum in se. it is inherently evil or
wrong. What about in this case, it is a malum in se. And Garcia and
company said, they acted in good faith, they were already so tired,
because of the counting. So how come they were still convicted?
>According to the SC: They should exercise extraordinary diligence in
the counting of the votes. Hence, they are still held criminally liable.
The defense of good faith would not lie in their favor as board of
canvassers.
X killed B with the use of motor vehicle. X hit and bumped B. X was
charged with murder. So the information charges an intentional
felony of murder. Trial on merits ensued, after the prosecution
presented evidence, the defense presented evidence.
The defense was able to show, to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that the reason for the said act of killing B was because X lost
control of his brake. Therefore, according to them, there was only
imprudence and so X should only be held liable for reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2017
Page 30 of 221
The judge believed the defense. So in an information for an
intentional felony of murder, the said court convicted X only of
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, a culpable felony.
Is the judge correct? Can the judge convict a person of a culpable
felony in an information that charges him of intentional felony?
>Yes. The reason is that a culpable felony is necessarily included in
an intentional felony because a culpable felony is of lesser offense
than that of intentional felony.
Ex. A was driving his car along SLEX followed by B, by C, by D, by E.
When A reached the tollgate, he stopped to pay the toll, so B
stopped as well as C and D. E however was very sleepy, he did not
put to stop so he hit D, D hit C, C hit B, B hit A. Because of the
impact the car of A sustained serious damage.
Ex. A bus was going to Quezon, suddenly 4 men boarded a bus, 2
mean seated at front seats and the other 2 seated at back. While
they were traversing a zigzag portion on the road, the 4 men stood
up and announced a hold up. One passengers was so afraid of
holdupper as he had a previous experience of holduppers. He was
so afraid that he opened a window and he jumped out of a
window, he fell on a cliff and he died.
Q: Are the holduppers liable for the death of the passenger?
Yes. The holduppers in announcing a holdup are committing a
felonious act. The resulting act was a felony, the resulting felony was
the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felonious act of
the offenders. Were it not for the holduppers announcing a hold up,
there would be no fear on the mind of the passenger. But because
of the announcement, there was fear on the mind of passenger and
by reason of that fear, he made risk that caused his death. The
holduppers are liable for robbery with homicide because they are
liable for the death of the passenger.
Ex. X was having a siesta on the terrace of their house on a rocking
chair. Suddenly he was awakened by the noise of the children. He
found out that it was coming from the backyard of their house,
saw 4 boys harvesting his mango tree. So he told the boys to come
down the tree, otherwise, he will be calling the police and let them
be arrested. The boys hurriedly went down the tree. One boy from
the top most portion of the tree jumped down and his head hit a
big stone. He suffered hemorrhage, thereafter he died.
Q: Is X criminally liable for the death of the boy?
First element, the intended act is a felonious act. He was not
committing a felonious act. He was just acting his right when he said
he will call the police considering that the boys were taking his
mangoes, they were committing theft. Therefore, he was just acting
within his right. Since X was not committing a felonious act, he
cannot be held criminally liable for the resulting felony.
Compiled by: Gomez, Karunungan, Matobato, Palacol, Ramos, Santiaguel
So if you are given a problem, the first thing you should do is to
determine if the person is committing a felonious act. If not, a
person cannot be held liable for the resulting felony. If he is, then he
is liable for the resulting felony.
In the same case, X told the boys, if you will not come down I have
here my shotgun, I will shoot each one of you and he fired shots in
the air. The boys were so afraid and hurriedly went down, one of
them jumped, fell and suffered serious physical injuries because of
his broken legs. Is X criminally liable for the injuries sustained by
the boy?
Yes. Because this time he was committing a felonious act. He was
threatening to shoot the children. It is a felonious act amounting to
grave threats. Therefore, this time he is criminally liable for the
resulting felony although different from that which he intended.
A and B, they are bf and gf. The bf promised to _________marry B
at night. But B waited in vain, A did not arrive. Instead she only
received a text message saying that A would not be able to come,
A could not marry B because A is already a married man with 5
children. So B became so sad. Frustrated, she began crying terribly
and went out of the house, walked on the streets, not on her own
rightful self. She fell on a canal and she died. Is A the bf, then
author of the death of the said victim?
In the first place, the bf, when he divulged that he is a married man
and could not marry the girl is NOT committing a felonious act. Since
in the first place he is not committing a felonious act, therefore, he
cannot be liable for any resulting felony. As such, he cannot be liable
for the death of the said girl.
Same problem, but with added facts. So this time, when the girl
learned that the man could not marry her. She went on the top
most portion of the building, decided to commit suicide to take her
own life. She jumped. However, as she was falling, she fell on a
child. The girl was saved but the child was pinned down and died.
Is A the bf liable for the death of the child? How about the woman,
is the woman liable for the death of the child?
Again, the man is not liable. He was not performing any felonious
act, therefore he is not liable for any resulting felony.
How about the said woman?
When the said woman was committing suicide, she was not
committing a felonious act, because suicide is not a felony either the
RPC or any special penal law in PH jurisdiction. It is not a felonious
act.
However, in performing said lawful act, she did not do so with due
care. Since she did not do so with due care. Since she did not do so
with due care, she becomes liable for a CULPABLE FELONY.
Ex. A and B were friends. After farming while they were having a
drinking spree, they had a political discussion, A was pro PNoy and
B was pro GMA. Their agreement heated, B stood up and broke a
bottle of beer, stabbed A. A was wounded. They parted ways. A
was on his way home when suddenly it rained. After it rained there
was lightning and A was hit by lightning. A died. The heirs of A filed
a case of homicide against B. Is B criminally liable for the death of
A?
Under the PCD, B is not criminally liable for the death of A because
there was an EIC that is the lightning. The lightning was an active
force which is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the
felonious act of the offender which was the stabbing of the victim.
Therefore he cannot be held liable for the death of A but only
physical injuries sustained by the victim.
Ex. A saw his enemy B walking on the pedestrian lane. With intent
to kill, A pulled out his pistol and shot B. However, he has poor
aim, so instead of hitting his target B, the bullet landed on C. C
died. B was not hit at all. What are the crimes or crime committed
by A?
In so far as B is concerned, A is liable for attempted murder because
he intended to kill B. he already performed an overt act when he
fired the gun with intent to kill against B. there was treachery, the
victim was totally defenseless. However because of poor aim it was
C who died. In so far as C is concerned, the crime committed is
homicide.
Therefore, of what crime will you charge and convict A?
There are two crimes committed. Against B attempted murder,
against C homicide. But since this 2 crimes were brought about by a
single act, it will give rise to a complex crime under Art. 48. Under
Art. 48 when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies, we have compound crime or a complex crime.
The crime committed by A is attempted murder with homicide. This
is because it results from the single act of the crime.
Ex. A fired B, but because of poor aim, C was hit. C sustained a fatal
wound, a mortal wound. However, C was immediately brought to
the hospital and he survived because of immediate medical
intervention. In so far B is concerned, the crime committed is
attempted murder.
In so far as C, what crime is committed? Is it frustrated homicide?
It is not frustrated homicide because in so far as C is concerned,
there was no intent to kill on the part of C but since C suffered a
fatal wound but survived, he is liable for serious physical injuries.
Therefore the crime committed by A is a complex crime of
attempted murder with serious physical injuries. A single act
constitutes one grave felony which is attempted murder and one
less grave felony which is serious physical injuries.
What if he sustained a less serious wound?
with less serious physical injuries.
What if when C was hit by the bullet, C only sustained a slight
physical injury which is a light felony, are you going to complex?
This time you cannot complex because under Art. 48, you can only
complex grave and less grave felonies. You cannot complex a light
felony. Therefore, there would be 2 cases filed separately.
Attempted murder in so far as B is concerned. Slight physical injury
in so far as C is concerned. So 2 informations, 2 cases must be filed
in the court.
X molested the daughter of Y. Y wanted to kill X, to take a revenge.
Y looked for X, Y saw X on board a tricycle. And so Y went near X
and fired a shot at X. but because of lack of precision, the bullet
landed on the driver of the tricycle and not on X. The driver died.
What crime or crimes have been committed by Y?
In so far as X, the intended victim is concerned, the crime committed
is attempted murder. There was intent to kill X, however X was not
injured because of poor aim. The actual victim is the driver, since
the driver died, the intent to kill becomes a general criminal intent.
Therefore in so far as the driver is concerned, the crime committed
is MURDER. These are 2 grave felonies arising from a single act of
shooting. Therefore, art.48 comes in, the crime committed is
MURDER with ATTEMPTED MURDER.
X wanted to kill Y, so he waited in a corner behind an unlighted
electric post, he knew that every day, Y would pass by the said
place. When a man arrived, resembling Y, X immediately appeared
and stabbed the man. It turned out that the man was not Y. it
turned out to be his own father.
So X can be prosecuted for the crime of parricide, the crime he
actually committed.
But the crime he intended to commit is murder, because in waiting
behind an unlighted electric post, there was treachery. Therefore
the crime he intended to commit is murder.
Would art. 49 apply? Would the lesser penalty be imposed?
Art.49 would not apply because both murder and parricide have the
same penalties Reclusion perpetua. Therefore, even if there is
variance in the title of the felonies, they have the same penalties.
Hence, Art.49 will not apply. It will not mitigate the criminal liability
of the offender
Compiled by: Gomez, Karunungan, Matobato, Palacol, Ramos, Santiaguel
Ex. A and B were fighting A boxed B. It was a strong box that B fell
on the ground, his face facing the ground. A left the scene of the
crime. At that precise moment when A left, here comes the father
of B who saw his poor son boxed by A so he came to the rescue of
his son and went near him. To retaliate, B took out his balisong and
stabbed the person next to him thinking that it was still his
opponent A but in truth it was already his father. Let's say the
father died. What was the intended crime committed by B?
Homicide because he intended to kill A, the person who boxed him.
What crime did he commit? Parricide because he killed his own
father.
Of what crime will you prosecute B? Parricide because that is the
[crime] he actually committed.
Ex. In the same problem, instead of the father coming to the rescue
of B, it was the friend of B who came to his rescue. So when A left,
the friend of B arrived and was the one stabbed by B and died.
Therefore, B killed his own best friend. the crime committed is
homicide
What was his intended crime? homicide What crime did he
actually commit? homicide because he killed his own best friend
What crime would you charge him of? After trial on the merits what
penalty will you impose? The penalty of homicide. Since there is
no variance between the intended felony and the felony actually
committed. In this case, Error in Personae will not mitigate the
liability of the offender. Art. 49 will not apply.
Ex. X saw his enemy Y lying on a bench. He went to Y and stabbed
Y 10x not knowing that Y had already long been dead for 2 hrs due
Attempted murder to a heart attack. Even if X performed all the acts amounting to
murder, still murder would not arise which is a crime against
persons because the victim is already deceased. He is no longer a
person in the eyes of criminal law. Therefore there is IC and what we
have is legal impossibility.
X removed the jalousies in the window of the house of Y. The
intent of X is to rob the house of its valuable things. After slowly
removing the jalousies and placing it on the ground, he was about
to enter, but he was arrested, he was apprehended. He was
charged of attempted robbery.
Yet, he cannot be held liable of the crime charged although the
intent of the offender is to rob the house since his overt act of
removing the jalousies and trying to enter the house are not overt
acts directly connected to robbery, he cannot be convicted. Instead,
it is only attempted trespass to dwelling because the overt act of
removing the jalousies and trying to enter are overt acts directly
connected to the act of entering the dwelling.
Ex. A shot B. B evaded the blow. He was not hit. What crime was
committed?
The crime committed was attempted homicide or murder as the
case may be. Even if the victim was not hit, since the act of
discharging the firearm was with intent to kill the victim, it was
already in the attempted stage. Such act of firing the fire arm was
already an OA directly connected to the act of homicide or murder
as the case may be.
Ex. A shot B with intent to kill, B sustained a wound, so he was hit.
However, the wound sustained by B was a non-fatal wound.
What crime was committed by A against B?
Attempted homicide or murder as the case may be. Because the
wound sustained was not fatal or non-mortal. It requires another act
for the crime to be consummated. No one would die by a non-
mortal or non-fatal wound.
Ex. A shot B with intent to kill. B was hit on a vital organ. So he
sustained a fatal, mortal wound. However, he survived due to
immediate medical intervention. What crime was committed by A
against B?
It is already frustrated homicide or murder as the case may be.
Ex. A wanted to kill his own father to get his inheritance
immediately and wanted to be rich. Went to drug store and bought
poison. Before going home, he went to the house of his friend and
told his friend "tonight I will be rich, I will be poisoning my father, I
will be a millionaire." After telling that to his friend, A ran to his
house. Upon reaching his house he was already taking the poison
out of the plastic. Meanwhile, the friend went to the police and
told plan of A to kill the father. The friend and the police went to
the house of A and the father. Upon reaching the house, they saw
A in the act of taking out the said poison from the plastic bag. A
was arrested. Is A liable of attempted parricide?
No. He is not yet liable of attempted parricide. The act of buying
poison, taking out of the plastic are only preparatory act. It is not yet
an OA directly connected to parricide. He may use the poison not
really to kill the father, he may use it to kill insects or pests.
Therefore, he cannot be liable of attempted parricide.
A mixed the poison to the juice of the father and then he gave it to
his father. The father was about to drink the juice with poison.
However, since the father was clumsy, the glass fell from the hands
of the father. Is A liable of attempted parricide?
Yes. He already liable. The moment he poured the poison in the juice
of the father and he gave it to the father for him to drink, he already
performed an OA directly connected to parricide. However, parricide
was not consummated and he was not able to perform all the acts of
execution by reason of an accident. It was purely accidental because
the father was clumsy and the glass slipped from his hands. In the
same problem, after mixing the poison in the juice, he gave it to his
father. The father was about to drink the juice with a poison when A
took pity on his father and had a change of heart. He immediately
grabbed the juice and threw it on the garden.
Is A liable of attempted parricide? No. He is not liable of attempted
parricide. The act of mixing of the poison with the juice is an OA
directly connected to parricide, however, he was not able to
perform all acts of execution by reason of his own spontaneous
desistance. Therefore, he is absolved of criminal lability. Because for
one to be liable in the attempted stage, the reason for the non-
consummation of the crime must not be his own spontaneous
desistance.
In the same problem, A mixed the poison with a juice and gave it
to his father. The father drank the juice and was poisoned.
Suddenly, he was already showing signs of being poisoned, he was
chilling. Upon seeing his father in that condition, A immediately
administered an antidote to his father, after that he immediately
rushed his father to the hospital. The father survived. The doctor
said, were it not for the antidote given by the son, the father
would have died. Is the son liable of attempted parricide? He is not
liable of attempted parricide. Because the moment the father
drank the juice, all the acts for the performance of the crime has
already been done. The offender has already performed all acts of
execution necessary to consummate the crime. However, the crime
was not consummated. Is the son liable of frustrated parricide?
He is NOT also liable of frustrated parricide because in frustrated
parricide although the offender has already performed all the acts of
execution, the reason for the non-consummation of the crime must
be a cause independent of his will. The reason for the non-
consummation of the crime is the own will of the son. Therefore, the
son is not liable of frustrated homicide.
Definitely he is also not liable of consummated parricide. The son is
liable of physical injuries depending on the required medical
intervention. 1-9 days slight physical injuries. 10-30 days less serious
physical injuries, more than 30 days serious physical injuries.
X saw his enemy Y. He went to his house to get his pistol, pointed
the gun at the head of Y and pulled the trigger. However the gun
jammed, no bullet came out.
X is liable of attempted homicide. The act of X of pointing the gun
and pulling the trigger with intent to kill are overt acts directly
connected to homicide. He was unable to perform all the acts of
execution because it is purely accidental that the gun did not fire. It
Compiled by: Gomez, Karunungan, Matobato, Palacol, Ramos, Santiaguel
was not by reason of his desistance. Therefore, he is liable for
attempted homicide.
Same problem: With intent to kill X pointed the gun to Y. He
pulled the trigger, no bullet came out. He again pulled the trigger
but no bullet came out. Then he looked at the gun, it was
unloaded. Is X liable of attempted homicide?
X is liable of an impossible crime. Why not attempted homicide?
Because when the gun has no bullet, there is inherent impossibility
to consummate the crime. Here, what is present is physical or
factual impossibility unknown to the offender. There was physical
impossibility and the same was not known to the offender. Under
any and all circumstances, it will never fire. Hence, what we have
now is an impossible crime and not anymore an attempted felony.
Example: X in the course of a fight stabbed Y but Y was able to
evade. What crime is committed by X?
Attempted homicide. The act of X in trying to stab Y with the use of
a knife is an overt aft directly connected to homicide yet he was not
able to perform all the acts of execution because it was purely
accidental that Y was able to evade the blow.
Same problem: Y was hit and sustained a wound. The wound was
in the chest. Doctor said that it would heal within a period of
60days. What crime was committed?
Attempted homicide. The act of stabbing Y and hitting him with the
effect of Y sustaining a wound which would heal within 60days are
overt acts directly connected with the crime of homicide. However,
he was not able to perform all the acts of execution because the
wound he inflicted on Y is a non-fatal wound.
Same problem: Y was hit and the knife pierced through the heart.
The wound was fatal but he survived because of the immediate
medical operation performed. What crime?
Frustrated homicide. When he stabbed Y, he hit a vital organ
thereby inflicting upon him a mortal wound. He has already
performed all the acts of execution but still the victim survived
because of a cause independent of his will which is the immediate
medical intervention.
Ex. A, B and C decided to kill X on a particular date and time. On
the said date and time, A and B arrived and killed X. However, C
failed to appear.
Although C was part of the agreement, he cannot be held criminally
liable as a conspirator for the crime of murder because he failed to
appear at the scene of the crime. His failure to appear is construed
by law as a desistance on his part. In the same problem but all were
present. A and B were about to kill X but C performed acts
preventing A and B from committing the crime. Although C was a
conspirator, part of the agreement, although he appeared at the
scene of the crime. Since C performed acts trying to prevent A and B
from committing the crime, he cannot be held criminally liable as a
conspirator for the crime of murder in the said case. For a
conspirator to be held liable, he must be part of the agreement and
he must be present at the scene of the crime to commit the crime.
His failure to appear is desistance and therefore, he cannot be held
criminally liable. Likewise even if he appeared at the scene of the
crime but he performed acts to prevent others from committing the
crime, he is also not criminally liable.
Ex. A, B and C decided to kill X. Went to the place where X will be
passing at night time. When they saw X, A B and C surrounded X
and they all stabbed X. When X was lying on the ground, A and B
left. C remained and took the valuables of X.
What is or are the criminal liabilities of A, B and C?
A, B and C are all liable for the crime of murder as conspirators
because it is the crime agreed upon.
Only C will be liable for the crime of theft. A and B cannot be held
liable for the crime of theft because theft was not a crime agreed
upon by all of them. Also, theft was committed in the absence of A
and B. Therefore, only C will be held liable for theft.
It cannot be robbery because the victim is already dead. There is no
longer force or intimidation to be used upon person or upon things if
the victim is already dead. The taking from the person is only theft
not robbery. In the same problem, C took the valuables of X in the
presence of A and B. While he was taking them, A said what about
the cellphone, B what about the ring, here take it also.
Although theft was not a crime agreed upon, all of them will be held
liable of the crime of theft because although theft was not agreed
upon, it was committed in the presence of A and B and they did not
perform acts to prevent C from committing theft.
Ex. A, B and C decided to injure X to teach him a lesson. When X
arrived, they surrounded him, boxed, punched, hit X. While X was
lying on the ground, seriously wounded, A inflicted a fatal wound
by kicking the neck of X. X died. Who is liable for the death of X?
All of them are criminally liable for the death of X. They all agreed to
injure X. That was their agreement. The death of X however was the
natural consequence of their agreement to injure X. Therefore, even
if it is not their intended act, since it is the natural consequence of
the crime, they are all criminally liable for the death of X.
Ex. A, B and C decided to rob the house of X. They went inside the
house of X. They have already taken the valuables. On their way
out however, C pushed a chair. The chair fell on floor and created a
noise. The owner of the house was awakened and began shouting
upon seeing A, B and C. C shot the owner of the house. The owner
died. What is or are the criminal liabilities of A, B and C? Who is
liable for the death of X? Are all of them liable for the death of X or
is it only C?
The crime agreed upon was robbery. However, by reason or on the
occasion of robbery, homicide was committed. Therefore, the
resulting felony is a special complex crime. Under Art. 294 it is
robbery with homicide. Since the resulting felony is a special
complex crime, which cannot be separated from each other, all of
them can be held criminally liable of the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide. Thus, base from the examples given, in case
of direct or express conspiracy, the conspirators are liable only for
the crime agreed upon.
Ex. X was trying to stab Y. Y evaded all the blows. Z saw that X was
having a hard time stabbing Y. Z was an enemy of Y. So Z went at
the back of Y and held both hands of Y at the back and told X to
stab Y which X did. Is Z a conspirator of X?
Yes. An implied conspiracy was established, instantly, impulsively, at
the spur of the moment. There was no pre conceived plan but the
act of Z of holding the hands of Y is a direct and positive overt act
showing that he has the same criminal design as That of X which is
to kill Y.
Ex. X was trying to stab Y. When Z saw that X was stabbing Y he
shouted "sige tirahin mo pa, sa kaliwa sa kanan..." X kept on
stabbing Y. Is Z a conspirator of X?
No. Absent any active participation, mere approval, mere
acquiescence, mere knowledge of the commission of the crime will
not make one a conspirator in case of implied or inferred conspiracy.
Ex. A saw his enemy B. B was fast approaching to A with a gun on
his hand. Upon seeing that B was about 10 feet away, A
immediately pulled out his balisong and he spin B who was hit on
the neck and died.
There was no unlawful aggression. The mere act of holding a gun will
not constitute imminent and immediate danger on the life of the
person unless the said gun is aimed at the said person. Same with
bolo or any weapon. If it is just being held by a person, it will not yet
produce any imminent or immediate danger.
SC: For a bolo to produce imminent and immediate danger, it must
be held in a hacking position. Only then that it will produce unlawful
aggression.
In the example, B was only walking with a gun on his hand and it was
not yet pointed or aimed to the offender. Therefore, there was no
unlawful aggression.
Compiled by: Gomez, Karunungan, Matobato, Palacol, Ramos, Santiaguel
If there is no unlawful aggression, that means that 2 is not present.
Although 3 would be present because there was sufficient
provocation on the part of the B.
Therefore, A should be convicted of homicide. Self-defense would
not lie in his favor.
Q: What if one night, A and B were on board a jeepney. Said
jeepney was flagged down by X. Upon reaching a dark portion of
the street, X pulled a balisong and declared a hold-up. X poked A
with his balisong and said "give me your cellphone". A did not
want to give her cellphone to X. X was about to stab A when B,
upon seeing that the latter was about to stab B, immediately
kicked X out of the jeepney. X, who fell from the jeepney suffered
physical injuries. B was prosecuted for serious physical injuries. B
invoked defense of a stranger.
Answer: We should go by the elements: 1st: Unlawful aggression.
Was there unlawful aggression? A: Yes, X was about to stab A
because A did not want to give her CP.
2nd: Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel said aggression A: Yes. Note that B was unarmed. All that he
did was he kicked X out of the jeepney. It was necessary for him to
do said act in order for him to prevent the aggression
3rd: The offender was induced by revenge, resentment, or motive A:
Yes. In the problem, there was no showing that B knows X, so it
cannot be said that B is induced by any motive.
A pregnant woman met an accident. She was immediately brought
to the hospital. Because of the said dire situation, the doctor who
was in charge of the pregnant woman has to make a decision,
which is to save only one life, either the life of the woman or the
baby that she is carrying. The doctor chose to save the life of the
woman. Because of that, the fetus died. Prosecuted for abortion,
the doctor invoked the doctrine of state of necessity.
LET'S GO BY THE ELEMENTS: 1st: That the evil sought to be avoided
actually exists; In this case, the life of the baby and the mother is in
danger
2nd: That the injury feared be greater than that to avoid it;
Elements of state of necessity: 1. The evil sought to be avoided
actually exists; 2. The injury feared be greater than that done to
avoid it; 3. There be no other practical and less harmful means of
preventing it.
The injury (death of the pregnant woman) is greater than that of the
death of the fetus 3rd that there be no other practical and less
harmful means of preventing it The situation was an emergency. The
woman had no relatives with her so the doctor has to decide
immediately—either to save the life of the mother or the fetus.
Therefore the doctor should be absolved from criminal liability.
A woman was riding a taxi. In order to avoid traffic in EDSA,
the taxi went to the streets along Mandaluyong. The taxi
entered a street with a signage stating: “do not enter.” The
driver disregarded the signage. The taxi then was pushed to
an emergency situation, there was a deep excavation and the
taxi will fall therein. He swerved to the right thereby hitting
several bystanders and the latter sustained serious physical
injuries. He was prosecuted for reckless imprudence resulting
to serious physical injuries. The driver invoked state of
necessity. Is the defense tenable?
Elements: 1st: That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; Yes,
there was a collision
2nd: That the injury feared be greater than that to avoid it; Yes,
there would be death or injury.
3rd that there be no other practical and less harmful means of
preventing it Yes.
However, this time the taxi driver would be liable. Aside from these
3 requisites stated by the law, it should be added that the necessity
must not be due to the negligence or violation of the law by the
actor. In this case, there was a warning to the taxi driver not to enter
the street, yet he proceeded. It is through his negligence that caused
the state of necessity, therefore he is criminally and civilly liable.
Q: Chief of police of QC gave a warrant of arrest to his
subordinates for the arrest of A. If A refuse to be arrested,
they can immobilize A. The police officers saw A watering the
plants. Upon seeing A, police officer B immediately fired at A.
B invoked obedience to an order by a superior and exercise of
a lawful duty. Are these circumstances present?
A: [Both are NOT present] Obedience to an order of a superior.
Although the officer acted upon the order of the superior, the
means employed by the subordinate to carry out said order
was unlawful. B immediately fired at A even before showing the
warrant of arrest. Therefore, this justifying circumstance is absent.
With regard to the lawful exercise of a duty, the second
element is absent—that the injury caused or offense committed
be the necessary (or unavoidable) consequence of the due
performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or
office. The killing of A in this case was not an unavoidable
consequence of the performance of B’s duty.
Example: X is a convict in the New Bilibid Prison. During an
opportunity X escaped. Prison guards learned of it and sought
the assistance of the police. They followed X. He went to the
public market because he saw the guards and policemen
following him. X took a child as a hostage and pointed an
icepick at the neck of the child. He told them that if they
would come near he would attack the child. The child sensing
that his life is in danger started to cry. The convict was
annoyed by the crying and tried to attack the child with the
icepick. A Policeman shot the prisoner. He died.
The police officer was prosecuted for the crime of homicide. As
his defense, he acted in the lawful performance of duty. Was
he right?
First element: the police officer acted in the performance of his
duty. He had an order to arrest and bring back to prison the
prisoner.
Second element: it is a necessary consequence of the due
performance of his duty. He was preventing the danger posed
by the imminent attack against the boy. He should be acquitted.
A and B are husband and wife. They had been living for 12 years. In
the course of their relationship, A would be hit by B for every
minor mistakes that she [would] commit. The wife would always
suffer physical injuries and would often go to her psychiatrist. One
time, the husband arrived home and drunk. This time, he did not
beat his wife, but immediately went to the bedroom and slept.
The wife took this opportunity to kill her husband. She took a bolo
and hacked her sleeping husband. Upon seeing her husband dead,
she wrapped him with their blanket. Thereafter, she took her
children and left the house. After some time, the neighbors of the
husband and wife noticed a foul smell coming from the house.
When they opened the house, they saw the body of the husband.
The wife was prosecuted for parricide. If you were the counsel,
what will be your defense?
You can have the defense of the Battered Woman Syndrome. What
is a battered woman? She is woman who is repeatedly subjected to
any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to
coerce her to do something he wants her to do without concern for
her rights.
Battered women includes wives or women in any form of intimate
relationship with men.
Furthermore, in order to be classified as a battered woman, the
couple must go through the battering cycle at least twice. Any
woman may find herself in an abusive relationship with a man once.
If it occurs a second time, and she remains in the situation, she is
defined as a battered woman. Note that battered woman syndrome
is akin to justifying. It is even better that self-defense because in
self-defense, you have to prove that the elements are present.
Compiled by: Gomez, Karunungan, Matobato, Palacol, Ramos, Santiaguel
However, in battered woman syndrome, what should be proven is
that the wife is suffering from battered woman syndrome. It is
through the expert testimony of the psychiatrist who will prove that
the wife is suffering from battered woman syndrome. If this is
proven, she is absolved from criminal and civil liability.
A: What if A killed B and stabbed him many times. A was
prosecuted for murder. The defense tried to prove that was he was
insane. To prove insanity, the defense presented the father of A,
who testified that his son would go out of their home naked and
thereafter return. Second, his son was in and out of the mental
institution. Third, his son would steal the jewelries of his mother
and would sell it at an extreme low price. These were the evidence
presented by the defense.
In this case, the accused cannot be considered to be insane. The
father’s testimony, instead of proving that A was insane, established
otherwise. First, an insane person would not know where his house
is. Second, A was in and out of the mental institution. Third, an
insane person would not know that a thing has value (considering
the evidence that the son sold the jewelries of the mother at a low
price)
What if A killed B. A stated that a week prior to the killing, he could
not sleep and there was a voice that kept nagging him, "Kill B, kill
B." And so he killed B, so he followed the voice. He pleaded guilty
but his defense was insanity.
The Supreme Court ruled that he is not insane. Mere mental
disturbance, mere craziness is not the insanity contemplated by the
law. It is the insanity which would deprive the offender the capacity
to distinguish right from wrong and the consequences of his act. In
an old case, sleep walking or somnambulism is also considered as
akin to insanity. He did not know what he was doing at that time
when he killed the victim. Therefore, there is no criminal liability.
Situation: A is a prisoner. He was about to be investigated and was
escorted to the investigation room. Before reaching the
investigating room, A grabbed the service pistol of the officer who
was accompanying him to the investigating room. The police tried
to get back his pistol, and in the course of the fight, the pistol was
fired accidentally and A was hit. Thereafter, A died. The police
officer was prosecuted for homicide.
Let's go by the elements: 1st: a person is performing a lawful act The
police officer was trying to get back his property, and that is his
pistol.
2nd performing a lawful act with due care. He caused an injury by
accident. He was performing an act with due care, and there's no
other way to get back the pistol. was no intention on his part to kill
A. What if a police officer saw two men fighting on a street. They
were hitting each other. The police tried to pacify the two men, but
they won’t stop. So what the police officer did was that he fired
shots to pacify the men. However, one of the stray bullets landed on
the child. Unfortunately the child died. The police officer was
prosecuted for homicide. As a defense, the police officer invoked
accident
Let's go by the elements: 1st: a person is performing a lawful act The
police officer is performing a lawful act. The two men are fighting on
the street
2nd: performing act with due care The second element is not
present. Considering that it was a community, he knew that a stray
bullet would have landed on any person. He should not have fired
shots. The police officer is liable for reckless imprudence resulting to
homicide, a culpable felony.
Ex. X went to the forest. In the said forest, hunting birds is allowed.
He was going to hunt birds in the forest. He forgot his rifle so he
passed by a nipa hut to borrow a rifle. He was given an armalite.
He went back to the forest and in the middle of the forest, he saw
birds so he pulled out the said armalite and fired at the birds. But a
bullet hit a stone and the stone flew hitting Y, one of those
manning the forest. Y died. X was arrested and prosecuted for
reckless imprudence resulting to homicide. X said he cannot be
held liable because it was merely an accident. Will the EC of
accident lie in his favor?
No, there was no accident and he should be held liable for reckless
imprudence resulting to homicide. The first element, he was
performing a lawful act. Hunting was allowed and he went there
precisely to hunt birds. Second, he must be performing a lawful act
with due care. This element is absent because in hunting birds, even
if allowed, you do not use armalite to hunt birds. Even if a person is
performing a lawful act, if he does not do so with due care, he would
be held criminally liable for a culpable felony (negligence on the part
of accused).
Ex. X tried to hack Y. Y evaded the blow. When X tried to hack Y
again, they grappled for the possession of the said bolo. Y with all
his might tried to obtain possession of the bolo and he did.
However, the tip of the bolo hit C, who was at the back of Y. C
unknown to Y was at the back. C obtained a fatal wound but
survived. So Y was prosecuted for frustrated homicide. He said it
was purely an accident. Will accident as an EC lie in favor of Y?
Y was performing a lawful act, he was trying to defend himself so he
was trying to get the bolo from X who was trying to hack him. Was
he performing it with due care? There is no other way to get that
bolo but to wrestle for its possession. He was performing it with due
care. The injury was caused by accident. He did not know that C was
passing by. There was no intent or fault on the part of Y so he is
civilly and criminally liable.
Five robbers entered a bank and they told the employees to lie on
the floor. One of the bank robbers was guarding the employees.
Then a robber took hold of an employee and placed him before the
bank manager. He threated the general manager that he will shoot
the employee if he does not open the vault. Only the manager
knew the combination of the said vault. The manager did not
believe so he did not open the vault. A who was true to his word
shot the employee who immediately died. He then pointed the gun
to the manager and said that if he did not open the vault, the next
bullet would be on his head. Afraid, the manger opened the said
vault and the robbers were able to take all the money. The robbers
escaped but were later apprehended. The manager was arrested
and charged as a principal by indispensable cooperation. Manager
however said that he acted based on uncontrollable fear and
irresistible force. Will he be exempted? Was there a physical force
employed on him? Was the physical force irresistible and did it
come from a third person?
The said physical force was irresistible that he would be killed is
irresistible. He knew that the employee was shot and he too can be
shot. And it comes from a third person
Likewise, there was uncontrollable fear. All the elements were
present. The bank robber already shot the employee and he too
could be shot. The fear is real and imminent and it is not in the
future, it is in the present. It is about to happen. And the fear for
his life is greater than all the money in that vault. Therefore, he is
exempt.
Another situation: A farmer and his carabao was on his way home.
On his way home, he heard gun shots, so he went to the place
where he heard the gun shots. He hid behind a tree and saw two
men shooting X. X way already lying on the ground. The farmer
was so shocked and afraid that he tried to leave the place.
However, when he was about to leave, he stepped on the dried
leaves and caused a noise. The two men saw him. One of the men
pointed the gun at the farmer and told him to come near them.
Afraid for his life, the farmer obeyed. The men, pointing the gun at
the farmer told him to bury X lying on the ground. The farmer said,
"No, I don't want to." "If you will not bury X, we will shoot you",
said one of the men. The farmer was so afraid and so he dug the
ground and buried X. Is the farmer criminally liable together with
the two men?
Let's go by the elements 1st Existence of an uncontrollable fear
There was an uncontrollable fear. The farmer saw that the two men
shot X. If the two men can shoot X, they can also shoot him.
Therefore, there was an uncontrollable fear
Compiled by: Gomez, Karunungan, Matobato, Palacol, Ramos, Santiaguel
2nd: Fear must be real and imminent It was present. And the fear
was present.
3rd Fear of an injury is greater than or equal to that committed It
was also present; his fear for his
Elements of uncontrollable fear: 1. Existence of an uncontrollable
fear, 2. Fear must be real and imminent, 3. Fear of an injury is
greater than or equal to that committed.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2017
Page 111 of 221
life satisfies this element. His life is more important. Therefore all
the elements are present, he is not liable SAME PROBLEM. "If you
will not bury X, we will shoot and kill your carabao". The farmer was
so afraid. His carabao was his only means of living. And so, he buried
X. Is he criminally liable together with the two men? 1st Existence of
an uncontrollable fear There was an uncontrollable fear, it is real
and imminent. The farmer saw that the two men shot X. If the two
men can shoot X, they can also shoot the carabao. Therefore, there
was an uncontrollable fear
2nd: Fear must be real and imminent It was present. Fear was
present in this case, as the men will shoot his carabao, his only
means of living.
3rd Fear of an injury is greater than or equal to that committed The
third element is wanting. The death of the carabao is not equal to or
greater than the life of the human.
For example, there is a war in which the Philippines is involved. A,
B, and C conspired to commit treason against the government. A,
one of the conspirators went to the priest and confided to the
priest that there was conspiracy between B and C to commit
treason against the government. Despite knowledge on the
conspiracy to commit treason, the priest did not immediately
divulge it to the police.
Under Art 116, the priest is criminally liable for misprision of
treason, for not divulging the conspiracy to commit treason.
However, the priest failed to perform such act due to a lawful cause.
Under your rules on evidence, a confession made to a priest is
considered as a privileged communication. Therefore the priest does
not incur any criminal liability.
Ex. A was running in a subdivision with a bolo, he was hacking all
those he passed by. So the residents called for police assistance.
The police arrived headed by police officer X. They called on A to
put down his weapon but A instead of laying down his weapon,
advanced towards the police with the bolo in his hands in a
hacking position in the act of hacking the police officers. So X
immediately fired at A. He hit the hands and legs of A. non-fatal
wounds. A slam on the ground face facing the ground. At that
particular moment, X went to A, got his bolo and then fired shot at
the head of A and A died. X was prosecuted for murder, police
officer invoked 2 JC. We have self- defense and fulfillment of duty.
Is there self- defense or at least inc. self-defense?
There's no self-defense because at the time X shot the head of A, A
was already lying on the ground.
Whatever inceptive unlawful aggression he has commenced, it has
ceased to exist from the time the fatal blow was inflicted on him.
Therefore, there was no unlawful aggression. Since unlawful
aggression is the element that is wanting. There's no self-defense,
neither is there inc. self-defense.
Second, is there fulfillment of duty or at least inc. fulfillment of
duty?
There are only 2 elements in fulfillment of duty, 1st element - that
the accused acted in the due performance of his duty or in lawful
exercise of his proper office. It is present right because the police
officer went there because the residents asked for police assistance.
They went there to maintain peace and order. The 1st element is
present.
Ex. A and B were fighting, A boxed B, B boxed A, A retaliated and
boxed B again. When A boxed B, B's head hit a cemented wall and
so he suffered cerebral hemorrhage and thereafter caused his
death. Is A criminally liable for the death of B?
Yes, because when he boxed B, he was committing a felonious act.
Therefore he is criminally liable for the resulting felony although it
be different from which he intended.
But can he be given the benefit of praeter intentionem that he has
no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed?
>Yes, because there was a notable disparity between the means
employed by the offender and the resulting felony. Who could have
anticipated that by the mere act of boxing death would result.
Therefore, he should be given the benefit of prater intentionem.
What if in the same problem A and B were fighting by means of
fist, the suddenly, A who was losing pulled out a balisong or a fan
knife and stabbed B on the neck, a fatal wound. B died. A was
prosecuted for homicide. He said he had no intention to commit a
wrong so grave as that committed, no intention to kill B. Will his
defense lie? Will the mc lie in his favor?
>No, because there was no notable disparity in the between means
employed - stabbing on the neck using a balisong or fan knife
resulting to death. In fact, the act of the victim of stabbing would
produce, and did produce the death of the victim. Therefore,
praeter intentionem would not lie in favor of the accused.
Ex. There was this long line of evacuees, victims of [typhoon] Pablo
who are to be given reliefs. A was 5th on the line, suddenly, X
inserted himself in front of A. This angered A, A told X to place
himself at the end of the line but X didn't want because he was so
hungry. This angered A, and so A pulled out his bolo and hacked X
at the back. A was prosecuted for homicide, is the mc of sufficient
provocation on the part of the offended party justified? Yes, there
was on the part of X. Nakakainis kaya. Nakapilakatapos may
sumingit. Sinong hindi maiinis, sinong hindi mae-excite. So the 1st
element is present, it is adequate to stir a person to commit a
wrongful act. However the 2nd element is absent - it is not
proportionate to the gravity of the act. The act of killing is not
proportionate to the act of X of placing himself in front of A in a long
line. Therefore, sufficient provocation as a MC is not present so as to
reduce the imposable penalty.
Elements of Art. 13, Par. 4: 1. The provocation must be sufficient; a.
Must be adequate to stir a person to commit a wrongful act; b. It
must be proportionate to the gravity of the crime. 2. The
provocation must originate from the offended party; 3. The
provocation must be immediate from the commission of the
criminal act by the person who was provoked.
Ex. Husband and wife were about to have dinner. Then someone
was calling the name of the husband outside their house. The wife
opened the door, upon opening, the neighbor who was calling the
name tried to hack the wife. Good enough, the wife was able to
reach and close the door and the wife was not hacked. The
neighbor however with a use of a bolo continuously hacked the
wooden or the bamboo door and walls of the house. And so,
considering that his house was being damaged, the husband was
forced to go outside to confront the neighbor. He used the kitchen
door. He called the neighbor and asked what was the reason why
he was hacking. The neighbor instead
of answering tried to hack the husband. They struggled for the
possession of the bolo, and in the course the husband gained
possession of the bolo. Once in the possession of the bolo, the
husband hacked the neighbor. The neighbor suffered a fatal wound
but was brought to the hospital by the husband and so he
survived. Husband was prosecuted for frustrated homicide, the
husband as a defense invoked 2 MCs - 1st, there was sudden
impulse of passion and obfuscation, 2nd that there was sufficient
provocation on the part of the offended party immediately
preceded the action. Is sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation
present? Is sufficient provocation present?
Compiled by: Gomez, Karunungan, Matobato, Palacol, Ramos, Santiaguel
Yes, they are both present. There is sufficient provocation because
of the act of the neighbor trying to hack the wife. And his act of
continuously hacking the wooden door and walls of the house - that
is sufficient provocation.
How about sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation?
Yes, it is also present. The act of the neighbor trying to hack the wife
and his act of continuously hacking the wooden door and walls. Now
these 2 MC are based on the same facts and circumstances.
So if the question is 'what are the MCs present?' or 'is the MC of
sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation present? Is the MC of
sufficient provocation present?'
Yes, yes. But if the question is 'what MC would you consider?'
Although both are present, you should only consider them as 1 MC.
Ex. A case was filed against B in the fiscal’s office. A warrant of
arrest was requested, the fiscal found probable cause. The
information filed in court, the court agreed with the fiscal, a
warrant of arrest was issued. B got a tip from the court employee
that a warrant of arrest was now in possession of the police
officers. And so B upon learning that there was already an issued
warrant of arrest, immediately went to the police station and
surrendered himself to the authorities. Then trial against him
proceeded, and after trial on the merits, he was convicted. But the
judge did not consider voluntary surrender in reducing his
imposable penalty. Is the judge correct?
The judge is wrong because voluntary surrender is present as a MC.
Although there is already a warrant of arrest issued. The police
officers have not yet gone out looking for him. Therefore, any
surrender would still be considered as voluntary surrender even if
there is already a warrant of arrest against the said offender.
Ex. A was charged with the crime of frustrated murder. During the
plea bargaining, with the consent of the judge, the fiscal and the
offended party, he said that he had plead guilty to attempted
murder. And so he pleaded guilty to attempted murder. The judge
rendered judgment without considering voluntary plea of guilt so
as to reduce his penalty. Is the judge correct?
Yes. For said plea of guilty to be considered voluntary, it must be
done spontaneously. It must be the original crime charged. A was
charged with the crime of frustrated homicide. On plea bargaining,
with the consent of the judge, the fiscal and the offended party, he
said that he had plead guilty to a lesser crime of serious physical
injuries. So he was rearraigned and this time the crime charge was
serious physical injuries. And this time he pleaded guilty. That is still
considered a valid plea of guilt. Upon his plea of guilt, the judge will
render his decision but it cannot be considered voluntary, because it
was not done spontaneously. Spontaneously, it must be the original
crime charged.
That he confesses guilt in open court that is before the court tried
his case. He cannot plead guilty in the appellate court.
What if A was charged as a principal in the crime of robbery. He
pleaded guilty with the consent of the judge, the fiscal and the
offended party to the crime of robbery but merely as an
accomplice. The judge rendered judgment because of the plea of
guilt. The judge did not consider the said plea of guilt as mitigating.
Is the judge correct?
Yes, the judge is correct because when he pleaded guilt as an
accomplice, his plea of guilt was not done unconditionally.
What if A was prosecuted for the crime of reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide and multiple physical injuries. He was driving
his vehicle, bumped a person and injured several others. During
arraignment, he immediately pleaded guilty. The judge rendered
judgment. In rendering judgment, the judge did not consider the
voluntary plea of guilt as mitigating. Is the judge correct?
Yes. The judge is correct because in the case of a culpable felony, in
case of quasi-offenses, under Art. 365 the judge may or may not
consider these MCs in the imposition of penalty. If the judge
consider it or if the judge did not consider it, that is the decision of
the judge. Under Art. 365, the court is not mandated to consider the
rules, the decision is based on the sound discretion whether or not
to consider the MC.
Ex. X was driving his vehicle when he hit a pedestrian and the
pedestrian died. Afraid that the people in the area will hurt him, he
left the said pedestrian whom he hit. However upon watching TV,
he learned that the police was looking for him. The man who was
driving this vehicle with this plate number and at particular time. X
knew it was him so immediately went to the police station and
gave himself up. He was prosecuted for reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide. Upon arraignment, he immediately pleaded
guilty to the crime charged. If you were the judge what MC will you
consider?
Under Art. 365, the law provides that in case of quasi-offenses, the
court need not consider the provision of Art. 64. And what does Art.
64 provide? It provides for the rules on the application of divisible
penalties. The court is not mandated to consider the rules on
aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The decision is based on
the sound discretion whether or not to consider the mitigating or
aggravating circumstances [ Mariano v. People ].
Here, you may consider both voluntary surrender and voluntary plea
of guilty OR you may not consider any.
Ex. X was walking when suddenly A, B and C surrounded him. A, B
and C attacked and mauled X until X laid on the ground. X was
defeated and so he pulled out an ice pick and thereafter he hit A.
The ice pick pierced through the heart of A. A died instantly. B and
C left. X was arrested and thereafter he was charged in court. If
you were the judge that convicted X of homicide, what mitigating
circumstances may be considered in order to lower the imposable
penalty.
1st we have incomplete self-defense. There was unlawful aggression
coming from the said victim. The victim together with B and C
attacked and mauled X until he fell on the ground. The life of the
accused was place on imminent danger. The second element was,
however, absent. There was reasonable necessity for him to use an
ice pick hitting the heart of the said victim. Therefore, unlawful
aggression was present but the reasonable necessity is absent. As
for the sufficient provocation, there was no sufficient provocation
on the part of X. He was merely walking when he was attacked. Here
of the three elements, two are present and one of them was
unlawful aggression. For as long as unlawful aggression was present,
there is incomplete justifying. This would be considered a PMC due
the presence of 2 out of 3 elements of self-defense.
Ex. The husband and the wife were preparing dinner. There was a
knock on the door. The wife opened the door, upon opening, the
neighbor who was calling the name tried to hack the wife. Wife
was able to reach and close the door and the wife was not hacked.
The neighbor however, with a use of a bolo continuously hacked
the wooden or the bamboo door and walls of the house. And so,
considering that his house was being damaged, the husband was
forced to go outside to confront the neighbor. He used the window
to go out. He called the neighbor and asked what was the reason
why he was hacking. The neighbor instead of answering tried to
hack the husband. They struggled for the possession of the bolo,
and in the course the husband gained possession of the bolo. Once
in the possession of the bolo, the husband hacked the neighbor.
The neighbor suffered a fatal wound but was brought to the
hospital and so he survived. Husband was prosecuted for
frustrated homicide. Fiscal found probable cause and the case was
filed before the court. The court also found probable cause. A
warrant of arrest was issued against the husband. The wife
immediately informed the husband that a warrant was issued.
Upon learning the same, although the warrant of arrest was
already with the police officer, the husband went to the police
station and gave himself up. Trial on the merits and there was
conviction of frustrated homicide. What mitigating circumstances
will you consider?
1st you have to consider voluntary surrender. Even if there was
already a warrant issued, for as long as the said police officers had
not yet gone out looking for the said offender, the said surrender
would still be considered voluntary and mitigating in nature.
Compiled by: Gomez, Karunungan, Matobato, Palacol, Ramos, Santiaguel
[look at the last situational example in Par. 6, which is similar to this
one. Discussions of the presence of sufficient provocation and
passion and obfuscation are the same]
There are three MCs. Sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation as
well as sufficient provocation arose from the same facts and
circumstances. Therefore, although both are present, the judge shall
consider them only as one mitigating circumstance.
Ex. X learned that this old man tried to molest his wife. Angry upon
learning such, X went to the house of the old man. Upon seeing the
old man, X boxed and boxed the old man and kicked the old man
and he hit the wall and was brought to the hospital where he died.
Case was filed against him and a warrant was issued against him.
Upon learning, he surrendered. Upon trial of the merits, he was
convicted. What MC will you consider?
1st is immediate vindication of a grave offense or sudden impulse of
passion or obfuscation. X upon learning that this old man tried to
molest his wife, he immediately went to the old man and boxed and
boxed the said old man. The old man committed an unlawful act
that produce passion or obfuscation on the part of X.
Any other? There is also praeter intentionem. X only intended to
hurt the old man. He boxed and boxed the old man, he did not use
any weapon. Then he kicked the old man who hit his head. There is
notable disparity between the means employed and the resulting
felony (in kicking the old man who later on died).
We also have voluntary surrender because upon learning that there
was a warrant of arrest issued against him, he immediately went to
the police to surrender.
In so far as immediate vindication of a grave offense and sudden
impulse of passion and obfuscation are concerned, since again they
arose from the same facts or circumstances, they will be treated as
one MC.
Ex.A is a cripple, he has no legs, he always positions himself near
the Quiapo church. He was on board a skateboard. So he often
stays there, and his work was to snatch the handbags of any
churchgoers. And so one time, he snatched the handbag of a
churchgoer and thereafter, he sped away on board his skateboard.
He was thereafter arrested, will his physical defect of being
crippled, a man with no legs, be mitigating?
>No. because his physical defect has no relation at all to the crime
he has committed. What if A is a blind man, blind beggar, near the
Quiapo church.
One time he was begging for alms, suddenly, he was scraped on his
head with a wound, it was so strong that he fell on the ground
wounded. Angry, he stood up, took his cane and retaliated by
hitting the person next to him, not knowing that it was not the
person but an innocent passerby. The innocent passerby suffered
less physical injuries. So the blind beggar was prosecuted for less
serious physical injuries. Is the mc of physical defect present so as
to reduce the imposable penalty?
>Yes. His being blind restricted his means of action, defense or
communication with his fellow being. His intention was to hit the
person who scraped him with the wound. But because of he could
not see, he hit an innocent passerby. There was a relation between
the physical defect and the crime committed. Therefore, it will
mitigate his criminal liability.
Ex. A is a kleptomaniac, he has this urge to steal. Now, his urge is
to steal diamonds. So one time he was in a party, he was talking to
a lady with diamond earrings, diamond necklace, diamond watch,
diamond bracelet. Then after the conversation, the lady went to
the restroom. Upon looking at the mirror, she shouted, she was
shocked, the diamond earring, necklace, watch and bracelet were
all gone. It was already taken by the said accused. Prosecuted for
theft, will his illness mitigate his criminal liability?
Yes. It diminishes his exercise of his will-power without however
depriving him of consciousness. He knew that he was committing
theft, he knew that he was taking the personal property of another
but he cannot control, he has a diminished self-control to prevent
the commission of the crime. It will only mitigate, reduce the
imposable penalty but it will not exempt from criminal liability.
Ex. A public officer who has malversed public funds, voluntarily,
voluntary returned the public funds, it is akin to voluntary
surrender [NOTE: see N i z u r t a d o v . S a n d i g a n b a y a n ,
where in a case for malversation through falsification of public
document, voluntary surrender and restitution were considered
separately]. Or what if a person is already of 65 years of age, sickly,
suffering from a disease it can be said to be akin or similar to
seniority. It will mitigate his criminal liability.
Examples: Police officer A was having a drinking spree with his
friends outside his house. In the course thereof, they were
discussing about the alleged shoot out in Quezon. According to the
police officer, since he was a police officer, it was a shoot out. But
according to his friend it was a rub out. They were arguing,
exchanging views until the police officer got mad. At that time, he
had with him his pistol. He used his service pistol and shot his
friend who thereafter died. Is the said act of killing done by taking
advantage of his public position?
This aggravating circumstance is not present. It is not present
because the said offender, public officer, did not use or misuse his
public office. He did not use the influence, the ascendency or the
prestige of his office in order to commit the crime. Even not being a
public officer he could have killed his friend in the same situation. He
could even have used another weapon, not necessarily his service
pistol.
The police officers stop jeepney drivers and will ask for tong every
morning and so until one time when the jeepney driver filed a case
of extortion against him. In the information it was alleged that he
committed this act by taking advantage of his public position, the
said circumstance was alleged in the information and proven
during trial. How it is to be appreciated?
It is a Special Aggravating Circumstance because under Art. 62 as
amended by RA 7659, the maximum period for the penalty
prescribed by law shall be the one imposed. It cannot be offset by
any mitigating circumstance.
The police officers raided a bar and among the women arrested
was Y. After investigation, was brought in a certain room and there
the arresting police officer had carnal knowledge of Y against her
will, and so the crime of Rape was filed against the said police
officer. In the information, it was alleged that the aggravating
circumstance of taken advantage of his public position was
present/attended the commission of the crime. How is the
advantage taken of his public position to be considered by the
court?
It is to be considered as a Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance.
Under Art.266-B of the RPC "If the victim is in the custody of police
authorities, the military or any member of any penal institutions”, it
will be considered as Qualified Rape and the imposable penalty will
be Death. So it changed the nature of the crime from Rape to
Qualified Rape, and from Reclusion Perpetua the penalty was
increased to Death. So it will Qualify the commission of the crime,
the crime committed is Qualified Rape.
What if the barangay chairman was in a restaurant having dinner
with his wife because it was their wedding anniversary. Suddenly
here comes A, B and C who are constituents of the barangay
chairman. Upon seeing the chairman, they greeted him and even
congratulated him and his wife upon learning that they were
celebrating their wedding anniversary. They seated next to the
table of the chairman and ordered food. In the giving of the food,
there was an argument between A and the waiter. The argument
immediately became a heated one. A took the table knife and
stabbed the waiter. The waiter suffered serious physical injuries.
Prosecuted for frustrated homicide. In the prosecution for said
crime, is the aggravating circumstance of in contempt of or with
insult to public authority present?
Compiled by: Gomez, Karunungan, Matobato, Palacol, Ramos, Santiaguel
It is not present because the first element is absent. The first
element, that the public officer or public authority is engaged in the
exercise of his function. At the time of the commission of the crime,
yes he was there but he was in a private act. He was not engaged in
the exercise of his function, hence it cannot be said that the said
offender insulted the said public authority.
What if the public authority was the city mayor who was inside his
office. Suddenly he heard commotion on the ground floor. He
looked out his window, he saw his two supporters having an
argument. A and B were having an argument over a parking space.
The mayor went down the building and talked to both A and B. He
told them to shake hands and forget everything. Then he told A to
just allow B to park his car anyway there was another parking
space available. This angered A because he thought that the mayor
was siding with B. A took out his balisong and stabbed the mayor.
Is the aggravating circumstance of in contempt of or with insult to
public authority present?
It is present but it is not an aggravating circumstance but an element
of the crime because the crime committed is direct assault. It is
direct assault because the public authority at the time of the attack
was engaged in the performance of his functions. Since the crime
committed was against the public authority himself, the fact that it
was committed in contempt of or with insult to the said public
authority is an ingredient of the crime.
What if in the same problem instead of stabbing the said mayor, A
felt insulted with the mayor's words that he is giving the parking
space to B so this angered A. A stabbed B. B died. Is the
aggravating circumstance of in contempt of or with insult to public
authority present?
This time, it is present. The mayor's act of pacifying A and B was
engaged in his official functions. He was not the person against
whom the crime was committed. A was a supporter, therefore he
knew mayor was a person in authority. Yet, the presence of the
mayor did not prevent A from committing the crime against B.
Hence, the second aggravating circumstance is present.
Example: The offended party is 95 years old. A killed him by hitting
his head for 25 times with a lead pipe. Obviously, there was
disregard of his age. Considering his age, whereas even one hit of
the lead pipe could have already killed the said old man but he was
hit 25 times showing disregard of the age of the old man.
What if a child is 4 years old. He was stabbed 25 times, thereafter
his body was placed inside a dram filled with water and then the
dram was covered. There was disregard of age. The victim was a
minor and therefore any attack, just 1 stab, could have killed the
minor. But he was stabbed 25 times; not only that, he was also
submerged and the drum was covered, which shows disrespect of
age.
What if A who lives in a nipa hut was sitting at the staircase when
B came and forcibly drag her to another house, 1 kilometer away
from A's house, where she was raped by B. Is the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling present?
The aggravating circumstance is present even if the crime was
committed in another place far from the dwelling, the aggression
started in the dwelling of the offended party. The aggression that
started in the dwelling of the offended party when she was dragged
from the said staircase, that aggression cannot be divided from the
commission of said crim. So even if it grounds were consummated in
another place for as long as aggression started in the dwelling, still
dwelling is an aggravating circumstance.
What if husband and wife were already about to sleep, then they
heard someone calling the name of the husband outside the house.
The husband rose from the bed and looked out the window to see
who was calling him. Upon looking at the window suddenly there
were gun fires. The husband fell lifeless. The wife, also went to the
window and looked out to see who killed her husband. She was
also fired at. Is the aggravating circumstance of dwelling present?
Yes, dwelling is an aggravating circumstance. It is not necessary for
dwelling to be aggravating that the perpetrator of the crime was
able to get in. It suffices that the offended party or the victim is
inside his house. The assailant may device ways and means to
commit the crime from the outside.
What if there was this woman. She is 95 years old; a woman of
high standing in the society. She was a former department
secretary. She is living alone in her house. One time here comes X.
X wanted to rob the valuables inside the house of the said old
woman. X entered the said house and he was able to get the
valuables from the vault of the house. He was about to leave the
house when accidentally pushed the chair. By reason thereof, the
woman was awaken. The woman upon seeing X begun screaming.
X then fired at the woman 50 times. The woman died. Are the
aggravating circumstances of disregard of rank, disregard of age,
disregard of sex and dwelling present?
The first three circumstances are not present because the crime
committed is robbery with homicide, under Article 10 which is a
crime against property. Disregard of rank, age and sex are not
applicable to any other crimes but only to crimes against person and
crimes against honor [NOT chastity]. Since the crime committed is a
crime against property, therefore, disregard of rank, age and sex
cannot be considered against the accused.
Dwelling can be considered against the accused because the crime
committed robbery with homicide is a form of robbery with violence
against or intimidation of persons. Dwelling is only inherent in
robbery with use of force upon things but dwelling is not inherent in
case of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons just
like robbery with homicide. So in this case, only dwelling should be
considered as an aggravating circumstance.
Example: A and B have been living here in Manila for 4 years.
Suddenly here comes X. X was their former neighbor in Batangas.
He told A and B "I am looking for work here in Manila, can I live in
your house while I am looking for work?" Since he was a good
neighbor back then A and B trusted X and allowed X to live inside
their house. X now sleeps in the house of A and B while he was
looking for work here in manila. One time A and B were out of the
house in their respective works. The only person left in the house
was X and their daughter who was only 9 years old. While the
couple were out, X molested and raped the said daughter. Is the
aggravating circumstance abuse of confidence present in this case?
Yes, it is present. X was there because A and B trusted him, yet he
abused such trust and confidence and instead facilitated the
commission of the crime. Therefore this aggravating circumstance is
present. Obvious Ungratefulness: ungratefulness means the
offender has no gratitude, does not even know how to say thank
you.
Ex: A was selling kettles and other kitchenware on the street under
the heat of the sun. A goes from one house to another under the
heat of the sun. He was so thirsty already so he knocked on the
gate of the house of X. X opened the gate and A told X that he was
so thirsty. X being a good person, allowed A to go inside their
house and asked him to take a sit while he get him a glass of water.
When he came back, he was not only holding a glass of water but
also brought some biscuits. However A suddenly, brought out his
knife and stabbed X and thereafter robbed him. Is the aggravating
circumstance obvious ungratefulness present?
Yes. Instead of showing gratitude for having been allowed to enter
the house and given a glass of water with biscuits, he instead took
advantage of the goodness of the man and committed the crime of
killing and robbery. There was obvious ungratefulness on the part of
the offender.
Ex: A and B are chefs in Malacanang. They are outdoing each other
in trying to prepare the best meal for P-noy. One time, both of
them were preparing lunch for the president. Suddenly they had
an argument. In the course thereof, A stabbed B. B suffered a fatal
wound but he survived. Prosecuted for frustrated homicide. Is the
aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed in the
palace of the Chief Executive present?
No, it is not present. Because he works there, he lives there. It
cannot be said that he sought the said place in order to commit the
Compiled by: Gomez, Karunungan, Matobato, Palacol, Ramos, Santiaguel
crime. It cannot be said that he went to said place in order to
commit the crime or can it be said that he disrespected the said
place.
What if many farmers were having a rally outside the DAR. They
started the rally around 6am, it is now 8pm, they were still there.
The officials and employees had already left, so the farmers were
there still having their rally. They set tents and prepared to sleep
there. In the course thereof, 2 farmers argued at each other. In the
course of their argument one farmer jumped into the fence and
went inside the DAR. The second farmer followed him and when
the second farmer was able to catch up with the first farmer, he
killed the latter. Is the aggravating circumstance that the crime was
committed in a place where the Public Authorities are engaged in
the discharge of their duties present?
No, it is not present. Although DAR is a place where the Public
Authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, at the time
of the commission of the crime, the officials and employees are not
in the actual performance of their duties. Under this aggravating
circumstance, it is not only necessary that the said places are where
public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, it is
also necessary that at the time of the commission of the crime, the
public authorities are actually engaged in the performance of their
duties.
Example: In the commission of the crime, A decided to kill B, his
enemy. A knew that B would pass by the place wherein there were
no light posts. A waited for B in the said place. Upon the moment B
arrived A left his post and was about to stab B when suddenly a
tricycle passed by and the light coming from the tricycle
illuminated the scene of the crime.
Even if A deliberately sought nighttime, nighttime is not aggravating
because a light illuminated the scene of the crime. Whenever any
light has illuminated the scene of the crime, rule out nighttime as an
aggravating circumstance.
Light coming from the tricycle, from any vehicle, nearby house, light
posts or even from the moon, for as long as the scene of the crime
has been illuminated, nighttime is not aggravating
Ex: A, B and C are fishermen. Around 3 am, they all went out
fishing on their respective boats. They were sailing 5 meters away
from each other. Suddenly X sprung out of the water and he
stabbed A. In the prosecution for killing of A, is the aggravating
circumstance of uninhabited place present?
Yes it is present. First, in the place where the crime was committed,
there was very little, remote possibility for A to receive some help.
Because B and C must still swim before they could render help or
assistance to A. Before they could have swum and reached A, A is
already dead. Therefore there was very litter or remote possibility
for the victim to be saved. The said accused X deliberately sought
the place in order to facilitate in the commission of the crime
because he suddenly appeared from the water. Therefore the
aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place is present.
Ex: A, B, C, D and E all armed with knives, killed X. The information
stated that A, B, C, D and E conspired with one another and as a
band they committed the crime of murder against X. during the
presentation of evidence, conspiracy was proven beyond
reasonable doubt. Likewise, band as an aggravating circumstance
was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Thus the judge convicted A,
B, C, D and E for the crime of murder as conspirators. The judge
also considered the aggravating circumstance of by a band. The
counsel for the accused filed a motion for the consideration,
questioning the consideration of the aggravating circumstance of
by a band. According to the counsel, conspiracy has already been
considered therefore by a band can no longer be considered by the
court. Is the counsel's contention correct?
No, the counsel's contention is wrong. Even if the court already
considered conspiracy, by a band may still be considered by the
court because conspiracy is a means of committing a crime. It means
they have the same criminal liability. On the other hand, by a band is
an aggravating circumstance. One does not absorb the other,
therefore, both maybe considered and appreciated by the court.
Requisites of nighttime: 1. The offender deliberately took advantage
of nighttime or cover of darkness; 2. The purpose of the offender is
to facilitate the commission of the crime or to insure or afford
impunity.
Requisites of an uninhabited place: 1. That in the place where the
crime was committed there was a remote possibility for the victim
to receive some help; 2. That the offender deliberately sought the
uninhabited place in order to facilitate the commission of the crime.
Examples: There was this big fire, that a number of houses in the
barangay were gutted with fire, the house of X was among those
affected by this big fire. While X was busy getting his things out of
said house, and so Y wanted to take a revenge because he has
grudge against X, went to the said place and pretending to be
helping, went near X, and X who is already an old man, Y
repeatedly stabbed X. Thereafter Y took all the things inside the
house. Y was charged of robbery with homicide. Is the charge
correct? The charge is wrong. It is not robbery with homicide
because the criminal intent of Y was to take a revenge on X, to kill X.
So the appropriate charge Murder and Theft. Two crimes must be
charged.
What aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the
crime?
First, on the occasion of a big fire, which is a qualifying aggravating
circumstance. If you would look at Art.248, if crime of killing a
person is committed under any of these occasions, it will qualify the
crime of Homicide to Murder, and the penalty would be Reclusion
Perpetua. The fact that the killing took place on the occasion of the
said fire then the crime would be considered as Murder.
Example: A has been convicted of the crime of attempted
homicide. The judge found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt,
therefore, he was convicted. The judgment became final and
executory, therefore he was behind bars. He served out his
sentence. Once out of prison cell, he lived a good life. However,
after 25 years, he engaged in a fight and killed the other man. By
reasonable doubt he was charged with and convicted of the crime
of murder. Can the judge consider recidivism as an aggravating
circumstance in imposing the penalty for murder?
Yes, because both homicide and murder are embraced in the same
title of the code. The fact that 25 years had lapsed from the time of
the first crime to the second crime is immaterial because recidivism
is imprescriptible. There is no time limit between the first crime for
which he has been convicted by final judgment and the second
crime for which he is also convicted.
Examples: A has been convicted of the crime of homicide.
Convicted by final judgment, he was placed behind bars. He served
out his sentence. Once out of prison, he committed forcible
abduction. Homicide is punished by reclusion temporal. Forcible
abduction is now on trial. The penalty prescribed by law for
forcible abduction is also reclusion temporal. The judge found him
guilty for forcible abduction. Can the judge consider reiteracion as
an aggravating circumstance in imposing the penalty for forcible
abduction?
Yes because the penalty for the crime of homicide where he has
already served out his sentence is equal to the penalty for forcible
abduction, both reclusion temporal. Therefore, reiteracion or
habituality can be considered.
B committed forcible abduction. He was convicted by final
judgment. He served out his sentence. He is now out of prison.
Once out of prison, he committed falsification of public document.
He is on trial for the said falsification of public document. The
judge found him guilty beyond
Elements of reiteracion: 1. That the accused is on trial for an
offense; 2. That at the time of the trial he previously served
sentence for another crime to which the law attaches an equal or
greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a
lighter penalty; 3. That he is also convicted of the new offense.
reasonable doubt. In imposing the penalty for falsification of public
Compiled by: Gomez, Karunungan, Matobato, Palacol, Ramos, Santiaguel
document, can judge consider reiteracion as an aggravating
circumstance?
Yes, because the penalty for forcible abduction is reclusion
temporal, which is higher than the penalty for falsification of public
document committed by a private individual which is only prision
correccional. Therefore, reiteracion or habituality should be
considered by the court in imposing the penalty for falsification of
public document.
B committed falsification of public document. Convicted, served
out the sentence. After service of sentence, he is out of prison, he
engaged in a fight and killed his opponent. His now on trial for
homicide. The judge found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Can the judge consider reiteracion as an aggravating circumstance?
No because the crime for which he has served out his sentence
carries a penalty lighter than that of the second crime. The law
requires that if it is only one crime, it must carry a penalty equal to
or greater than the second crime he committed.
A slapped B. B filed a case for slight physical injuries against A. He
was convicted and served out his sentence for slight physical
injuries which is arresto menor. Once out of prison, he was still
mad at B. He deliberately caused damage to the property of B. B
now filed a case of malicious mischief against A. The judge found
him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for malicious mischief. Can
the judge consider reiteracion as an aggravating circumstance?
No because slight physical injuries which carries with it the penalty
of arresto menor is lighter than malicious mischief which carries
with it the penalty of arresto mayor. Therefore the judge cannot
consider reiteracion as an aggravating circumstance. He was
convicted of malicious mischief and placed behind bars.
A was charged and convicted of robbery he served his sentence.
Within 10 years from date of release he committed theft. He
served sentence and again released. Within 10 years he committed
another theft. The judgment become final and executory. He
served again and out of prison. Within 10 years against he
committed another theft. He is now in trial. Can judge impose
recidivism and habitual delinquency both apply?
He is recidivist. At the time he served theft he was previously
convicted of a final judgment of robbery embraced within the same
title of the code. He is also habitual delinquent, because within the
ten years from the date of his last release he committed a theft the
third time. Both may be considered because they have different
effects on criminal liability of the offender. The effect of recidivism is
on the theft committed. It may be offset by mitigating
circumstances. Habitual delinquency will give him an additional
penalty.
X committed homicide, convicted by final judgment he is now
serving his sentence at the New Bilibid Prison. He engaged in a
fight, he inflicted serious physical injuries on another inmate. So he
is now prosecuted for serious physical injuries. After trial on the
merits, the judge found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
serious physical injuries. In imposing the penalty what forms of
habituality as aggravating circumstances may be considered?
Quasi-Recidivism and Recidivism. He is a recidivist because at the
time of trial for one offense, he was previously convicted by final
judgment for another crime. He was previously convicted of
Homicide and he committed another crime which is SPI and was
found guilty by final judgment thereof. The two crimes (homicide
and SPI) are embraced in the same title of the code. Therefore he is
a recidivist.
He is also a quasi-recidivist because at the time he is serving
sentence for a crime, he committed another felony (serious physical
injuries is a felony).
Ex: A slapped B two times in front of the public. B felt so
humiliated so he told A "the next time I see you, I will kill you!" B
went home and searched for his gun. He found the same and kept
it under his pillow, waiting for the time to kill A. A month has
lapsed. B while walking saw A. upon seeing A, he immediately run
to his house, went to his bedroom and took the gun under his
pillow. He raised back to A and shot him. Is the aggravating
circumstance of evident premeditation present?
First, the time when the offender determined to commit the crime.
That is the time when B told A "the next time I see you, I will kill
you!"
Second, an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his
determination. He brought a gun. It is an overt act showing that he
has clung to his determination.
Third, a sufficient lapse time between the determination and
execution. A month has passed. That is sufficient for him to cool off,
to reflect upon the consequences of his acts. Therefore, evident
premeditation was present in the commission of the crime.
Example: The accused knocked at the door. He knows that only the
maid was at home. He told the maid that he was a relative of the
owners of the house who came from the province. He was allowed
to enter the house, thereafter he committed a crime of robbery.
There was cunning or intellectual trickery resorted to by the accused
for he tricked the maid to consummate the crime of robbery.
Example: The offended party was about to sleep on the upper
portion of the house because the lower portion is a store. The
offender called over the owner, saying that he was going to buy
something. The owner went down the house and opened the
store. However, upon opening the store, he was stabbed and
robbery was committed.
There was fraud as manifested by the insidious words or
machinations, resorted to by the offender.
Examples of treachery: A was about to stab B but he was able to
parry the blow, that is already a defense on his part. He was able
to run away, that is already considered as a defense. Treachery is
no longer present. It is necessary that the offended party or the
victim must be totally without defense. What if the attack is a
frontal attack?
Even if it is a frontal attack, if it is so sudden, unexpected, such that
the offended party would not be aware of it and was not able to put
up any defense, there is still treachery (People v. Matibag).
A was found on the street. He has 10 stab wounds all at the back.
No one saw the commission of the crime. However A witness
claimed that he saw X leaving the place with a weapon full of
blood. X was arrested. Is treachery present?
No, treachery is not present because the witness failed to observe
the start or the commencement of the attack. For treachery to arise
it is necessary that he must be present at the commencement of the
attack in order to know whether the offended party was totally
defenseless.
The witness saw A and B were holding on X. Both his hands were
held at the back by A and B. He was being attacked by Y. The
witness did not see how the attack commenced but only that he
was attacked by Y while his hands were held by A and B. Is there
treachery?
Yes, in the case of People v. Tabarnero, SC held that there was
treachery. The witness did not see the commencement of the
attack, however, he saw that there was restraint on the person of X.
What the witness saw was that the hands of the victim were being
held at the back while he was being attacked. That suffices because
there was restraint on the person of the victim. The SC held that
even the witness did not observe the commencement of the attack,
since there was restraint on his person, he was totally defenseless,
treachery is present according to the Supreme Court. [ Tabarnero:
there is treachery where the victim was stabbed in a
defenseless situation, as when he was being held by the others
while he was being stabbed.]
X went to the house of Y, because Y borrowed money from X. So X
told Y that he should pay the money now. But Y said that he has no
money, so X got so mad and ordered his two body guards to hold
Compiled by: Gomez, Karunungan, Matobato, Palacol, Ramos, Santiaguel
Y, and while the two body guards held the hands of Y at the back, X
repeatedly stabbed Y to death. X and his body guards are now
prosecuted for murder. The information alleged two qualifying
aggravating circumstances, Treachery and abuse of superior
strength. Are both present?
Only abuse of superior strength is present and treachery is absorbed
(?) and . Treachery is not present because the first element
(offender deliberately adopted the particular means, method or
form of attack employed by him) is absent. The commission of the
said crime of killing happened at the spur of the moment, when Y
failed to pay, X got mad, it was only at that time that X has decided,
therefore he did not deliberately adopted the particular means,
method or form of attack employed. The first element being absent
treachery would not lie.
X is the driver of Atty.Y and after bringing Atty. Y to the office for
attending a court hearing. X talked to the secretary of Atty.Y and X
told the secretary "if I couldn't control myself, I could kill Atty.Y, he
has been a very abusive employer, giving me bad food, insulting
me. If I lost control of myself I'm going to kill him." So X narrated
that to the Secretary of Atty.Y. After came back from the court at
nighttime X brought Atty.Y at his house. Atty. Y alighted to the
house. Meanwhile X brought the attaché case to the house, and
thereafter went to the kitchen, got a water and took a kitchen
knife, went to the bedroom of Atty. Y, then X stabbed Atty.Y
repeatedly. What aggravating circumstances attended the
commission of the crime?
There was no evident premeditation, the time that the offender was
determined to commit the crime, his utterances or narration to the
secretary cannot be considered as determination to kill because he
said "if I lost control" or "pag hindi ako nakapagpigil." Therefore he
is not determined to kill. And the second element, there is no overt
act that he has clung to his determination. Likewise there is no
sufficient lapse of time, he said that to the secretary in the morning
and he committed the crime in the evening. When he brought back
the Atty. to the house he immediately committed the crime.
There was Dwelling in the commission of the crime. The driver could
have killed the Atty. in any other place, while in the car or in the
office, while alighting the vehicle but he killed the lawyer inside the
latter's house, therefore there was disrespect in the dwelling of the
said atty.
There was Treachery in the commission of the crime. He went to the
kitchen took the kitchen knife and thereafter went to the room of
Atty. he deliberately and consciously adopted the means to be used
in the commission of the crime. Upon opening the door he
immediately stabbed the victim, the victim was totally without or
not in a position to defend himself. Therefore treachery was
present.
There was also Abuse of Confidence in the commission of the crime.
The Atty. trusted the driver, in fact he was the one bringing him to
and from office/house, and by reason of said trust and confidence it
facilitated the commission of the crime.
People vs. Domingo A raped B. before killing B, A raped B in the
presence of his father. Before A raped B in the presence of his
father, he used a flashlight to examine the genitalia of B likewise in
the presence of the father. Is the aggravating circumstance of
ignominy present?
Yes it is present. The examination of the genitalia of the victim is not
necessary in the commission of the crime of rape. Such act of the
offender merely add to the moral pain, moral suffering of the victim,
especially it was done in the presence of the father. Therefore
ignominy is present.
People v. _____________________
A raped B. B filed a case of raped against A. when B testified in
court, that when A raped her, he used the dog style position. The
entry of the penis was from behind, not the normal act in having
sexual intercourse. RTC did not consider ignominy. However, the SC
held that it was erroneous for the RTC not to have considered
ignominy as an aggravating circumstance.
People vs Fernandez
A woman victim of rape was found in a vacant lot. Her genitalia was
full of mud. SC held that there was ignominy. The placing of mud in
the genitalia add moral pain, moral suffering to the victim.
Prosec. G: the door is the [only means] intended for entry. So if you
break a window, make an opening in the wall, it is unlawful entry.
Even if one of the residents made a secret passageway through a
wall, and the accused used this passageway to enter, Art. 18 is
attendant.
Example: A was on vacation. B knew that A was on vacation. He
saw that the window on the third floor of the house was open. He
got a ladder and placed it in the window, climbed it and entered
the house. Then he took the valuables, got out through the
window. Is the aggravating circumstance of unlawful entry
present?
No, it is not present. The reason is that, the fact that a crime was
committed after an unlawful entry is inherent in the commission of
the crime because the crime committed is robbery under Art. 299,
robbery with use of force upon things. The essence of robbery, is in
the act of unlawful entry. The entry was done through a means not
intended for anything that is to a window. Thus, the fact that a crime
was committed after an unlawful entry is not an aggravating
circumstance.
A was passing by the house of B. Suddenly he saw through the
window, two cellphones being charged. Interested on the
cellphones, he broke the window entered his hand and took the
cellphones. Is the aggravating circumstance, that as a means to the
commission of the crime the window was broken present?
Yes it is present because the crime committed is theft only and not
robbery. The crime committed was theft not robbery because the
offender did not enter the house. For robbery to arise it is necessary
that the offender enter the said place and take the cellphones. He
only broke the window, entered his hand and took the cellphones.
Therefore the crime committed is theft. In theft, the fact that a
window was broken is not inherent it is an aggravating
circumstance.
X entered the house of Y but passing thru an open window. Once
inside he killed Y. What is the crime committed? What is the
aggravating circumstance?
The crime committed is murder and the aggravating circumstance of
unlawful entry. There is unlawful entry because the crime of killing
of the said victim was done after passing thru the window. The
crime was committed after an unlawful entry.
What if in the same problem, X entered the house of Y but passing
thru the window. The intention was to commit robbery he got the
valuables but the owner is awakened. So X upon seeing Y, who
cried for help, shot Y. Thereafter he left again passing thru the
window. What crime is committed? Is the unlawful entry an
aggravating circumstance?
The crime is Robbery with homicide. The unlawful entry is not
considered an aggravating circumstance. It is inherent in the
commission of the crime.
X made an opening on the roof of Y and thereafter X with the use
of a rope with a hook was able to take the valuables on top of the
table inside the same house. What crime is committed? What is
the aggravating circumstance?
The crime committed is Theft. Unlawful entry is the aggravating
circumstance. The roof was broken as a means to commit the crime
in order to get the things on the table.
In order to bring about Robbery, the entire body of the offender
must enter the place. So even if the offender makes some opening,
or broke any roof, floor, etc. but he did not enter the said opening,
and just devise means to get the things, the crime is only THEFT.
Unlawful entry is an aggravating circumstance and not inherent in
the commission of the crime.
Compiled by: Gomez, Karunungan, Matobato, Palacol, Ramos, Santiaguel
X was driving a car. Thereafter, the traffic lights went red so he
stop. Suddenly a motor cycle appeared near him. There were two
persons riding the motor cycle, the person on the back started to
shoot him. X died. In the commission of the said crime, is the
aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle present? It is
present. The said killing is done by means of a motor vehicle.
Two persons riding a motorcycle approached X. The backrider
suddenly grabbed X’s handbag and thereafter sped away. Is the AC
of use of motor vehicle present?
A: Yes. Their use of the motorcycle facilitated the commission of the
crime, and it was committed using the motorcycle. It would be hard
for them to approach X and escape afterwards without the vehicle.
Example: A person was found dead with several wounds all over
his body. Is the fact that he has several wounds on different parts
of his body mean that there was cruelty?
No. the fact that there was 25-50 wounds cannot immediately mean
that there was cruelty in the commission of the crime. It is necessary
to determine, whether first, he was still alive at the time the physical
pain was inflicted; second, did the offender enjoy and delight in
seeing his victim suffer gradually by the infliction of the physical
pain? If there were defense wounds, cruelty cannot be appreciated.
ART 18: ACCOMPLICES
Ex.: A, B, C, D, and E decided to rob a bank. Based on their
agreement, A.B, and C will be the ones to enter the bank. D will
serve as lookout. E will serve as the driver of the vehicle. They
committed the crime on the date agreed upon. What are the
liabilities of A, B, C, D, and E?
A: All of them are liable as principals by direct participation, because
all of them are authors of the criminal design.
Ex2: What if, A, B and C decided to rob the bank. On the agreed
time and place, they were already about to go to the bank, but
suddenly they realized they have no vehicle. So the flagged down a
taxi.
They informed the taxi driver of their criminal design, to which the
taxi driver agreed for his car to be used as a getaway vehicle. While
on their way to the bank, they realized that they needed a lookout.
They saw a balut vendor and asked him, "Can you be our lookout?
The moment you see a police coming, shout baluuuuut!" The said
vendor agreed to the said criminal design. After robbing the bank, A
B C and the balut vendor boarded the taxi. Criminal liability of each?
A: A B and C are liable as principal by direct participation, while the
taxi driver and the balut vendor are liable as accomplices. They are
accomplices since A B C already agreed on the criminal design
before they informed the two of the same and the latter concurred
by performing simultaneous acts or subsequent to the commission
of the crime. NOTE: So no matter how minor the participation is of
an offender, if he is an author of the criminal design, even if he only
acted as a lookout, still he is liable as a principal by direct
participation.
ART 19: ACCESSORIES
Ex.: A, by means of deceit, was able to take the diamond ring of his
friend. So A swindled his friend by means of deceit. After taking
the ring, she went to B. A told B "B, I have here a diamond ring, I
swindled it from my friend and I'm selling it to you for only 10k. B
bought the said ring and displayed it to his shop to have it sold.
Later B was found in possession of the said ring. Is be liable as an
accessory? A: YES.
Ex.2: What if A, went to a pawnshop, broke in, took all the
jewelries. A told B "I am selling this to you for only 20k." B bought
the same. He told A "This are the jewelries from my friend's
pawnshop right?" A said, yes. IS B an accessory and a fence? A: YES
The robbery took place in Manila. The house helper went inside
the master bedroom. Broke the vault and got the cash and
jewelries therein. Thereafter, she went to QC and sold the
jewelries to a store for 50K. Upon examination of the jewelries, the
store owner knew it was worth millions of Pesos thus the store
owner immediately gave the 50K. The police officer went to the
said store and there indeed the police together with the real owner
were able to identify the jewelries. What are their criminal
liabilities of the helper and the store-owner?
ANS: The helper is a principal by direct participation of robbery.
The store-owner is not liable as an accessory. The first element is
not present. The store owner has no knowledge of the commission
of the crime. Such knowledge cannot be presumed and must be
proven.
But may be liable under PD 1612 as a Fence. All elements of Fencing
are present. There is a presumption under PD 1612, SEC. 5. Note
that the information for fencing must be filed in QC.
He should have known that the jewelry were the proceeds of
robbery. The discrepancy between their value and the helper’s
selling price should have alerted him [to this fact]
Q: What if the store owner knew of the robbery, can he be charged
for both as an accessory of robbery and fencing?
A: Yes. But do not do that. It is better to file fencing. Because it is
easier to prove. While in accessory, he must first know that the
crime has been committed. In fencing, it is not necessary that he
knows. Section 5 of PD 1612 provided a prima facie presumption of
fencing if a person is in possession of a stolen article. The burden of
evidence is shifted on the accused.
Elements of fencing: 1. That the crime of robbery or theft has been
committed; 2. That the said person was found in possession of the
said article or items which are the proceeds of the crime; 3. That
there was on the part of such person, the intent to gain either for
himself or for another; 4. That the said person knows or should
have known that the article is the product of robbery or theft.
Ex: A stabbed B. thereafter, he buried the deceased body of B. X
witnessed A’s act of killing the moment A buried the body of B
under the ground, is the body of the crime gone?
A: NO. The body of the crime does not refer to the physical body of
the victim. [Nor does it refer to the stolen goods in the crime of
theft/robbery].
Ex.: The principal committed swindling or estafa. X harbored the
principal despite knowing the latter committed estafa. X cannot be
considered as an accessory because estafa or swindling is not
among the crimes mentioned in the second part of the 3rd act. So
what is the criminal liability of the friend?
A: HE is liable under PD 1829. Obstruction of Justice is committed by
any person who willfully and lawfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates
or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and
prosecution of criminal cases.
Ex.: What if A and B sisters. They had a housemaid, X. A and B were
cruel to X, for a minor mistake they would slap, boxed or injure
her. One time, A went to work. When she arrived home, she saw
the deceased body of X. A and B placed the deceased body in a
sack and placed it on the trunk of their car. However, someone
witnessed their act who immediately called the police, reporting
that he saw 2 women putting a sack in the truck wherein 2 feet
were protruding from the said sack. A and B were prosecuted and
both convicted for murder. The Supreme Court however said that
only B is liable, not for murder but only for homicide. When A
arrived, the housemaid was already dead.
But how about A's act of trying to place the deceased body inside
the trunk of the car in order to prevent the discovery of the crime?
A: Her act constitutes that of an accessory. But she falls under Article
20 since she is related to the offender.
A,B,C,D are happily walking. Suddenly they chanced upon X. A and
B stab X. C just stood there just watching. D served as lookout. A
told C to dispose the body of X and so C threw it in a deep well. The
autopsy report shows that X died not because of the stab wounds
but because of drowning. A,B,C,D are all charged as principals in
Compiled by: Gomez, Karunungan, Matobato, Palacol, Ramos, Santiaguel
the crime of Murder. Are they all liable as principals? What are
their criminal liabilities?
C claims that he is not liable as principal but only as an accessory
because he participated after the act of stabbing. He did not know
X was still alive when he disposed the body.
D also claims that he is not liable as he only served as a look out, as
mere accomplice.
ANS: A and B are liable as PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION.
They are the persons who actually stabbed the victim.
C is also liable as PRINCIPAL BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION
because X was still alive when he threw the body in the well. The act
of throwing in the well was the cause of death. It consummated the
crime of murder. Indispensable because without throwing the body,
W would not have died. His defense that he has no knowledge that X
was still alive is untenable because by disposing the body he was
already committing a felonious act thus must be liable for its
consequences (liable for a felony although different from that which
he intended).
D liable as an accomplice. He concurs with the criminal design. All
elements present. LOOK OUT as a PRINCIPAL- When he is part of
the criminal design. He is among the authors of the criminal design
(e.g. when the crime was planned). LOOK OUT as a MERE
ACCOMPLICE- when he is not part of the criminal design.
1 March 2017] X wanted to kill Y, who lives in a boarding house. X
told W, the caretaker of the boarding house, that he wanted to kill
Y, so he asked W to open the gate one night. W did so, and killed Y.
What are their criminal liabilities?
X: Principal by direct participation as he was the one who killed Y.
W: Accomplice. He [was informed of the criminal design of X, and
concurred with the same]. He performed previous acts: opening the
door, and his opening of the gate was related to the killing by X. W’s
acts were not indispensable to the killing of Y as X could kill Y
whether or not the gate was open.
X & Y were boxing, Y was defeated and was sent sprawling to the
ground. X tuned his back from Y. W gave X a gun and told him to
kill Y. He stared at the gun for some seconds, then went to Y and
shot him to death. X told his father that he killed Y with a gun. The
father took the gun and hid it. The father sold it the next day and
kept the proceeds for himself.
W: P. By indispensable cooperation. Without giving of the gun, X
would not have killed Y. X already turned his back away from Y; he
did not intend to kill Y, until W showed along with the gun.
The father is liable as an accessory under Art. 19(1) in relation to Art.
20. When the father tried to hide the gun, [he was covered by Art.
20]. But when he sold the gun for profit, he became an accessory
under Art. 19(1).
The father is also liable for obstruction of justice.
ARTICLE 73
Ex.: X was convicted of murder. Finding the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt. Sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, also made to suffer perpetual absolute disqualification
and civil interdiction. They need not be stated in the judgment of
the court because these two necessarily follow the principal penalty
of reclusion perpetua.
ARTICLE 36
Ex: Accused killed the victim. The heirs filed a case of homicide.
There was an extrajudicial settlement of the case. Family of the
accused paid 1M to the family of the victim. Family of the victim
had pardoned the said accused. Effect on the criminal liability in an
action already filed in court?
None. The participation of the private offended party is only to
recover civil indemnity. It is an EXPRESS WAIVER to recover civil
indemnity [?].
What if the crime committed is a private crime? Will not extinguish
criminal action already filed in court.
ARTICLE 39
X was convicted of reckless imprudence causing damage to
property. Penalty imposed on him is fine and public censure. Lower
portion of the decision “in case of insolvency to pay the fine, he
shall suffer subsidiary penalty”. The court is wrong because the
principal penalty that goes with fine is public censure is not to be
executed in a penal institution and is an indivisible penalty.
Accused convicted, Prision mayor and fine is imposed. Decision “in
case of insolvency to pay the fine, he shall suffer subsidiary
penalty”. The court is wrong. Prision mayor is more than 6 years.
Accused convicted. Penalty imposed on him is fine alone. The
judgement became final and executory. Unsatisfied writ of
execution. Judge ordered for his arrest to suffer subsidiary penalty.
The court is wrong. Failure to state that in case of insolvency to pay
the fine, convict cannot be made to suffer subsidiary penalty.
Convict suffered subsidiary penalty. He went home, his parents
died, he got his inheritance. He is now a rich man. The state
learned about this. Can the state go after him to pay the fine? Yes,
because his financial circumstances has already improved. X was
sentenced with public censure and fine. May he be made to suffer
subsidiary penalty? NO: Public Censure is not to be executed by
confinement AND it has no fixed duration. Thus subsidiary penalty is
not applicable.
ARTICLE 48
Example: aberratio ictus A aimed the gun at B. But because of poor
aim, it shot C a pedestrian walking. Treachery was attended. As to
B, crime committed is attempted murder. As to C, murder. Crime
committed is attempted murder.
A) A political rival placed a bomb on B’s car. A person died, several
persons injured A single act placing the bomb produces two or less
grave felonies. Crime is murder with multiple frustrated murder.
B) Two persons died: Double murder
C) Many persons died: Multiple murder with multiple frustrated
murder.
D) Machine gun was used, different bullets come out, 10 people
were killed. Multiple murder or 10 counts of murder? As many
crimes are there are as many persons. Not a compound crime
therefore.
X placed a bomb under the car of Y. When Y and wife and 3
children opened the car, it exploded. Children survived due to
medical treatment. H and W died. It resulted to 5 grave felonies. 2
murder and 3 frustrated murder. Crime: Double murder with
multiple frustrated murder. One information because it is a complex
crime.
In the same problem, H opened the car, all of them died. X is liable
for multiple murder because the single act of placing a bomb
resulting to 5 grave felonies. Only one charge/one information filed
in court- multiple murder.
X is armed with M-16 high powered rifle, machine gun. He went
inside the conference room. One pull of trigger, many bullets came
out hitting 5 persons. X is liable for 5 counts of murder. Not a
complex crime.
If the weapon used is a high powered machine gun, you do not take
into consideration the single act of pulling the trigger but the
number of bullets that came out of the body of the gun and killed
and wounded the offended party.
Example. A, B, C, D lives in one compound. All engaged in the
business of selling rooster. One night, 11:00 in the evening here
Compiled by: Gomez, Karunungan, Matobato, Palacol, Ramos, Santiaguel
comes X. While they were sleeping, X took the rooster of A, then of
B, then of C, then of D. How many crimes will you file against X?
Crime committed is one charge of theft. X impelled by a single
impulse committed overt acts leading to theft.
Q: X has been designated by a condominium company to sell its
condominium units. However, he is not entrusted to collect the
amortization fees from the buyers. But X is in need of money. One
day, say on March 1, he went to the first unit owner A and he
collected the amortization fees amounting to P10,000. He also
went to the second unit owner B and collected the amount of
P10,0000 amortization fees. Then, he also went to the third unit
owner C and collected the P10,000 amortization fees. Lastly, went
to the fourth unit owner D and collected the P10,000 amortization
fees too. So, all in all, he collected P40,000 amortization fees. He
appropriated this collections for his own benefit. He was not
tasked and entrusted by the company to make these collections.
How many crimes of estafa have been committed by X?
A: X committed only 1 count of estafa because it is considered as a
continuous crime or delito continuando. He is impelled by a single
criminal impulse and committed a series of overt acts in about the
same time and about the same place, in the same condominium
unit, violating one and the same provision of law.
Example: violation of BP 22. X in payment of his obligation, issued
a postdated check to Y in Manila, on the maturity date, Y
deposited the check to his depositary bank in Quezon City. The
check however was dishonored by the drawee bank in Caloocan
City. Notice of dishonor was sent. X failed to make good the check.
Where may Y file the case for violation of BP 22? Before the MTC of
Manila? Before the MTC of Quezon City? Before the MTC of
Caloocan City?
A: In any of the aforementioned courts because the elements of the
crime happened in any of these places. Provided the BP 22 case has
already been filed in the MTC of Manila, the said case can no longer
be filed before the MTC of Quezon City or Caloocan City.
ISLAW
Q: A final judgment was rendered against X. He was granted
conditional pardon by the Chief Executive. He violated the terms
and conditions of the said pardon. He was charged with evasion of
service of sentence. Finding him guilty, can the court impose upon
him an indeterminate sentence?
A: NO. Because he is among those disqualified under the law. By
violating the condition of his pardon he cannot avail of an
indeterminate sentence law.
Q: X has been convicted of final judgment of serious physical
injuries, thereafter he committed homicide and the judge found
him guilty of homicide. Can the judge impose upon him an
indeterminate sentence?
A: X here is a recidivist. A recidivist is [disqualified] qualified under
the law from availing the ISL. Only habitual delinquents can[not] be
given an indeterminate sentence.
Ex: Offender in the commission of an offense of rape also
committed one mitigating circumstance, and then another
mitigating circumstance, it was done in an immediate vindication
of a grave offense. If there are 2 mitigating circumstances, the
judge cannot consider these because the penalty imposed by law is
a single indivisible penalty under Art. 63, it shall be imposed as is
regardless of aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
Q: The crime committed is illegal fishing with the use of explosives.
The penalty prescribed by law is 20 years to life imprisonment.
What penalty shall be imposed by the court?
A: The law says if it is a violation of special penal law and the said
special penal law does not use the enumeration of penalties in the
RPC, the maximum term of the sentence shall not exceed the
maximum penalty prescribed by law and the minimum term of
sentence shall not be less than the minimum penalty prescribed by
law.
A raped B. B voluntarily surrendered and with passion and
obfuscation. Punished with reclusion perpetua. One degree lower?
No. If indivisible penalty apply under Article 63, if penalty prescribe
by law is a single invisible penalty you shall impose it regardless of
any aggravating or mitigating circumstance.

Compiled by: Gomez, Karunungan, Matobato, Palacol, Ramos, Santiaguel