CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 1

CRIMINAL LAW I - Prefinals

FicalCarillo

Mitigating circumstances
Circumstances that reduce the penalty but do not entirely free the actor from criminal liability.
Mitigating circumstances whether privileged or ordinary only serve to reduce the penalty but does not change the nature of the crime.
Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances.
Circumstances that, if attendant serve to increase the penalty w/o exceeding the maximum of the penalty provided by law.
Kinds of Aggravating Circumstances
Generic – is generally applicable to all kinds of crime, e.g., dwelling, nighttime or recidivism.
Specific – applicable to particular crimes, e.g., ignominy in crimes against chastity and Treachery in crimes against persons.
Qualifying – changes the nature of the crime, e.g., treachery qualifies killing to Murder.
Inherent – must of necessity accompany the commission of the crime. They cannot be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty. (Art. 62, par. 2)
Generic

- Increases penalty to be imposed w/o exceeding the maximum.

- Can be offset by a mitigating circumstance

Qualifying

- Place the offender in no other situation as to deserve any other penalty

- Cannot be offset by a mitigating circumstance

Rule 110, Sec. 8, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure

Sec. 8. Designation of the offense – The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating
circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.
PP vs. Elona
“In accordance with Sections 8 and 9, supra, we have ruled that qualifying and aggravating circumstances, although proved during the trial, cannot be appreciated when not alleged in the information. Although the crimes in the
cases at bar were committed in 1999, before the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure took effect on Dec 1, 2000, the Court shall give its effect”

1. Advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.

What is important is that the offender is a public officer and he takes advantage of his public position to commit the crime.
…using the “influence, prestige or ascendancy which his office gives him as the means by w/c he realizes his purpose.” (US vs. Rodriguez, 19 Phil 150)
Pp vs. Villamor
To appreciate this aggravating circumstance, the public officer must use the influence…
US v sTorrida
The fact that the appellant was councilman at the time placed him in a position to commit these crimes. If he had not been councilman he could not have induced the injured parties to pay these alleged fines. It was on account of
his being councilman that the parties believed that he had the right to collect fines and it was for this reason that they made the payments.
Pablo vs. Pp
“The mere fact that the three (3) accused were all police officers at the time of the robbery placed them in a position to perpetrate the offense. If they were not police officers they could not have terrified the Montecillos into
boarding the mobile patrol car and forced them to hand over their money. Precisely it was on account of their authority that Montecillos believed that Mario had in fact committed a crime and would be brought to the police station
for investigation unless they gave them determined.”
Pp vs. Magayac
That accused-appellant was a member of the dreaded CAFGU and used his government issued M-14 rifle to kill Jimmy does not necessarily prove that he took advantage of his public position to commit the crime.”

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013 - Edited EH410-2015;

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 2

Pp vs. Fallorina, GR 137347, March 4, 2004

There is no dispute that the appellant is a policeman and that he used his service firearm, the .45 caliber pistol, in shooting the victim. However, there is no evidence on record that the appellant took advantage of his position as a
policeman when he shot the victim. The shooting occurred only when the appellant saw the victim on the rooftop playing with his kite. The trial court erred in appreciating abuse of public position against the appellant.
Pp v Herrera, GR 140577-58, December 5, 2001
In other words, if the accused could have perpetrated the crime even without occupying his position, there is no abuse of public position. The mere fact that accused-appellant is a policeman and used his government issued .38
caliber revolver to kill Ganan is not sufficient to establish that he misused his public position in the commission of the crime.
But in…
“Appellant, a member of the Philippine Constabulary, committed the crime with an armalite, which was issued to him when he received the mission order.” (Pp v Gapasin, GR 73489, April 25, 1993)

2. In contempt of or w/insult to the public authorities

Requisites:

1. A public authority is engaged in the exercise of fuctions

2. The public authority is not eh person against whom the crime is committed.
3. That offender knows him to be a public authority.
4. The presence of the public authority does not prevent the commission of the crime by the offender

Public Authority
Public authority should be construed as a person in authority*, i.e., one who is vested with jurisdiction, that is, one who has the power to govern and execute the laws
An agent of a person in authority is no included in this circumstance.
*Art. 152, RPC
Public officer should not be the object of the offense.
“Neither can the aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed with insult to public authority be appreciated as the crime was committed against the public authority himself.” (Pp v Gutierrez, GR 116281, February 8 ,
1999)

3. Disregard of Rank, Age, Sex or Dwelling of Offended Party.

Age may refer to the victim’s advanced or very young age.

For this circumstance to be appreciated, there must be evidence that the accused deliberately intended to insult the rank, age, or sex of the offended party.
Deliberate intent
“The aggravating circumstance of disregard of sex cannot be considered because it was neither been prove nor admitted by the defendant that in committing the crime he had intended to offend or insult the sex of the victim.” (Pp
v Mangsant, GR 45704, May 25, 1938) In this case the accused stabbed a 14-year old girl.
Crimes against persons or honor
With respect to disregard of age and sex, the Court has pronounced in the case of People v COllado that the same may appreciated only in crimes against persons or honor. (Pp v Hernandez, GR 139697, June 15, 2004)
Dwelling of Offended Party
Dwelling means a building or structure exclusively used for rest and comfort. It may refer to the entire structure or a portion thereof.
Privacy and sanctity of home
It is considered an aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy that the law accords to the human abode. He who goes to another’s house to hurt him or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends
him elsewhere (pp vs. evangelio)
Pp vs. Alcala, GR No. L-18988
“As to whether the crime must be held to have been committed in the dwelling of the offended party, we take it that although the accused were found with the deceased at the foot of the staircase of the house, that place must be
regarded as an integral part of the dwelling of that family. The porch of a house, not common to different neighbors, is a part of the dwelling.
Sufficient provocation by owner of the dwelling
When there is sufficient provocation by the owner of the dwelling, this circumstance cannot be appreciated.

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013 - Edited EH410-2015;

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 3

“There must be a close relation between provocation and commission of crime in the dwelling of the person from whom the provocation came.”
US vs. Licarte, GR No. 6784
In the case at bar the offended party, by calling Filomena vile names, started the trouble. This vile language was not directed at the accused, but to her daughter. This was, however, a sufficient provocation to cause the accused to
demand an explanation why her daughter was so grossly insulted. So under these facts, it was error to hold that the aggravating circumstance of morada existed.
Pp vs. Dequina, GR No. 41040
The provocation was not given immediately prior to the commission of the crime and had no particular relation to the house of the deceased. If the defendant had entered the house of the deceased and surprised the deceased and
the wife of the defendant in the act of adultery, the aggravating circumstance of morada would not exist.
When provocation negates dwelling.

1. Provocation must be immediately prior to the commission of the crime, and

2. There must be a close relation between the provocation and the crime committed.

Pp vs. Agoncillo, GR No. 138983

Dwelling is considered as an aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to the human abode. However, in the present case, Rosalyn was not raped therein. Although she was abducted
therefrom, accused-appellant was not charged with forcible abduction with rape but only with rape. Considering that she was not raped in her home, dwelling cannot be appreciated.
Pp vs. Caliso
“…in the commission of the crime the aggravating circumstance of grave abuse of confidence was present since the appellant was the domestic servant of the family and was sometimes the deceased child’s amah.”
4. Abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.

 The offended party trusts the offender,

 That offender abused such trust, and
 The abuse facilitated the commission of the crime.

Pp v Caliso, GR 37271, July 1, 1933

“…in the commission of the crime the aggravating circumstance of grave abuse of confidence was present since the appellant was the domestic servant of the family and was sometimes the deceased child’s amah.”
5. Palace of the Chief Executive, in his presence, public authorities are engaged in the discharged of duties or in a place dedicated to public worship.
Palace of the Chief executive and place dedicated to public worship – official or religious functions need not be held.
Where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties – there must be some performance of public functions.
Intent to commit the crime
There must be evidence that the accused had the intention to commit a crime when he entered the place.
6. Nighttime, uninhabited place, by band.
“…it has been held that if the aggravating circumstance of nighttime, uninhabited place or band concur in the commission of the crime, all will constitute one aggravating circumstance only as a general rule although they can be
considered separately if their elements are distinctly perceived and can subsist independently, revealing a greater degree of perversity.” Pp vs. Librando
PP vs. Silva
“…it becomes aggravating only when: (1) it is especially sought by the offender; or (2) it is taken advantage of by him; or (3) it facilitates the commission of the crime by ensuring the offender’s immunity from capture.
“The fact that they brought with them a flashlight clearly shows that they intended to commit the crime in darkness.”
Darkness or obscurity
“The essence of this aggravating circumstance is the obscuridad afforded by, and not merely the chronological onset of, nighttime.
Although the offense was committed at night, nocturnity does not become a modifying factor when the place is adequately lighted and, thus, could no longer insure the offender’s immunity from identification or capture.” Pp vs.
Carino
Uninhabited place
That there was a reasonable possibility for the victim to receive some help in the place of the commission of the crime.
Pp vs. Rubia

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013 - Edited EH410-2015;

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 4

“The aggravating circumstance of the crime having been committed in an uninhabited place must be considered, the incident having taken place at sea where it was difficult for the offended party to receive help, while the
assailants could easily have escaped punishment…”
Pp vs. Lumandong
Likewise, the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place under Article 14 (6) was correctly appreciated against the appellant.
Band
This circumstance is present when more than three armed men acted together in the commission of the offense.
In other words the four armed men must directly participate in the execution of the act constituting the crime.
Pp vs. Magdamit
An offense is committed encuadrilla when more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission thereof. In the present case, there were seven armed conspirators involved in the commission of the
composite crime.
Pp v Dinamling, GR 134605, March 12, 2002
All four accused-appellants were armed, three with long firearms and the other with a short one. They all took part in the commission of the robbery with homicide, poking their guns at their victims’ heads, tying them up,
ransacking the house, killing the two victims.
Pp vs. Lozano
The Code does not define or require any particular arms or weapons; any weapon which by reason of its intrinsic nature or the purpose for which it was made or used by the accused, is capable of inflicting serious or fatal injuries
upon the victim of the crime may be considered as arms for purposes of the law on cuadrilla.
Guns and Knives.
The trial court and the CA correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of the commission of a crime by a band. In the crime of robbery with rape, band is considered as an aggravating circumstance. The prosecution
established that one of the accused was armed with a handgun, while the other three had knives when they committed the crime. (Pp v Evangelio, GR 181902, August 31, 2011)
7. On the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.
The rule in here is that the offender must take advantage of the calamity or misfortune in the commission of the crime.
8. Aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity.
The armed men must not participate in the execution of the felony otherwise they are co-principals.
Must be accomplices
Aid of armed men or persons affording immunity requires that the armed men are accomplices who take part in minor capacity, directly or indirectly. We note that all four accused were charges as principals. The remaining suspects
– were never identified and charged. Neither was proof adduced as to the nature of their participation. (Lozano)
9. Recidivism.
A recidivist is one who, at the time of the trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the RPC.
Recidivism, requisites.

1. That the offender is on trial for an offense;

2. That he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime;
3. That both the first and second offense are embraced in the same title of the RPC;
4. That the offender is convicted of the second offense.

Criminal propensity
There is no recidivism if the second conviction is for a crime committed before the commission of the crime involved in the first conviction.
10. Reiteracion or Habituality.
Requisites:

1. The accused is on trial.

2. He previously served sentence for another offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty, or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty than that for the new offense;
3. The accused is convicted for the new offense.

Recidivism

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013 - Edited EH410-2015;

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 5

- Offender is convicted by final judgment

- The offenses are included in the same title of the RPC
- The offenses are embraced in the same title of the RPC, penalty is immaterial

Habituality

- Offender serves out his sentence in the previous sentence

- two or more crimes:
light penalty

11. In consideration of a price, reward or promise.

The price, reward or promise must be the primary consideration of the offender in committing the crime.
Includes the person who gives the reward.
In Pp vs. Talledo, this circumstance was not considered primarily because there was no conclusive evidence and the circumstance was not alleged in the information.
Pp vs. Alicanstre
“The talledo case is not authority on this question.”
“Indeed, the established rule in the Spanish jurisprudence is to the effect that the aggravating circumstance of the price.”
Greater moral depravity
In fact, under certain conditions such as those obtaining in the case at bar the circumstance under consideration may evince even greater moral depravity in the offeror than in the acceptor. (Alincastre)
Pp v Canete, GR L-37945, May 28, 1984
Likewise, the aggravating circumstance of price was present in the commission of the crime and this affects not only the person who received the money or the reward but also the person who gave it.
12. By means of inundation, fire, poision, explosion, stranding of vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment of locomotive, or any other artifice involving great waste or ruin.
Any of the circumstances in this paragraph must be used by the offender to accomplish the crime, hence the phrase “by means of…”
Pp vs. Comadre
When the killing is perpetrated with treachery and bymeans of explosives, the latter shall be considered as a qualifying circumstance. Not only does jurisprudence support this view but also, since the use of explosives is the
principal mode of attack, reason dictates that this attendant circumstance should qualify the offense instead of treachery which then be relegated merely as a generic aggravating circumstance.
13. Evident premeditation.
Requisites:

1. the time when the offender determined to commit the crime;

2. an act manifestly indicating the culprit’s determination to commit the crime;
3. a sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution.

US v The Moro Manalinde, GR 5292, August 28, 1909

“As to the other circumstance it is also unquestionable that the accused, upon accepting the order and undertaking the journey in order to comply therewith, deliberately considered and carefully and thoughtfully meditated over
the nature and the consequences of the acts which, under orders received from the said datto, he was about to carry out, and to that end provided himself with weapon, concealing it by wrapping it up, and started on a journey of a
day and a night for the sole purpose of taking the life of two unfortunate persons…”
Pp v Duavis, GR 190861, Decemer 7, 2011
To the mind of the Court, the lapse of time between the decision and the execution is not sufficient to allow appellant to fully reflect upon the consequences of his act and to effectively and efficiently prepare and plan his actions
prior to the commission of the crime. Although it may be argued that there was some kind of premeditation on the part of appellant Duavis, it was not proved to be evident.
*Altercation – 3:00 p.m; Assault – 5:00 pm
Pp v Hilario, GR 128083, March 16, 2001
Evident premeditation, however, may not properly be taken into account when the person whom the defendant proposed to kill was different from the one who became his victim. When the person decided to kill a different person
and premeditated on the killing of the latter, but when he carried out his plan he actually killed another person, it cannot properly be said that he premeditated on the killing of the actual victim.
Differentiated from Manalinde

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013 - Edited EH410-2015;

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 6

The fact that the arrangement between the instigator and the tool considered the killing of unknown persons, the first encountered, does not bar the consideration of the circumstance of premeditation. The nature and the
circumstances which characterize the crime, the perversity of the culprit, and the material and moral injury are the same, and the fact that the victim was not predetermined does not affect nor alter the nature of the crime.
(Manalinde)
14. Craft, Fraud or Disguise.
Craft involves intellectual trickery and cunning.
Craft should also be appreciated as aggravating the crime of homicide since it was shown that the victims, particularly the unsuspecting Quillosa, were lured by the accused into coming with them on the pretext that the formoer
would only accompany Rivera to accept the proceeds of the sale of a gun. (Pp v Michael Nunez, GR 112429-30, July 23, 1997)
Disguise

 Purpose of the offender is to conceal his identity

 To facilitate the commission of the crime
 Offender takes advantage of the disguise

It is also worth mentioning that while appellant reportedly had a sort of a mask and was using sunglasses, these clumsy accounterment could not constitute the aggravating circumstance of disguise. Legally, disfraz contemplates a
superficial but somewhat effective dissembling to avoid identification. (Pp v Reyes, GR 118649, March 9, 1998)
Pp v Cabato, GR L-37400, April 15, 1988
Likewise, the Court considers disguise as another aggravating circumstance. The accused, together with two others, wore masks to cover their faces. There could have been no other purpose for this but to conceal their identities
particularly for Cabato who was very much known to the offended parties. The fact that the mask subsequently fell down thus paving the way for Cabato’s identification will not render this aggravating circumstance inapplicable.
Pp v Cunanan, GR L-30103, January 20, 1977
The male malefactors resorted to a disguise. That circumstance did not facilitate the consummation of the killing. Nor was it taken advantage of by the malefactors in the course of the assault.
They announced their presence at the scene of the crime with shouts and gunshots. That mode of attack counteracted whatever deception might have arisen from their disguise.
15. Advantage be taken of superior strength or means be employed to weaken the defense.
“..must show that the accused were physically stronger than the victim, and that they abused such superiority by taking advantage of their combined strength to consummate the offense.” (Pp v Drew, GR 127368, December 3,
2001)
Pp v Padilla, GR 75508, June 10, 1994
Abuse of superior strength is present not only when the offenders enjoy numerical superiority, or there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, but also when the offender uses a powerful weapon
which is out of proportion to the defense available to the offended party.
Pp v Amodia, GR 177356, November 20, 2008.
To appreciate the attendant circumstance of abuse of superior strength, what should be considered is whether the aggressors took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense. Mere superiority in
number is not enough to constitute superior strength. There must be clear proof that the assailants purposely used excessive force out of proportion to the defense available to the person attacked.

 AttyCarillo: If in numerical superiority: must be attacked simultaneously.

Pp v Ventura, GR 148145046, July 5, 2004

On the contrary, this Court in a very long line of cases has consistently held that an attack made by a man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes the circumstance of abuse of what superiority
which his sex and the weapon used in the act afforded him, and from which the woman was unable to defend herself.

 AttyCarillo: armed man against unarmed woman = abused of superior strength

Means employed to weaken defense.

The means must not be of such a nature that the victim could not put up any sort of defense otherwise that would be a case of treachery.
Pp v Ducusin, GR 30724, August 8, 1929
The aggravating circumstance defined in article 10, no.9, of the Penal Code, that is, the employment of means to weaken the defense, consisting in this case, in having made the deceased intoxicated, must be taken into account.
16. Treachery

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013 - Edited EH410-2015;

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 7

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means methods, or in forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offender might make. (PP v Gidoc, GR No 185162, Apr 24, 2009)
Present (Pp v Gidoc, GR 185162, April 24, 2009)

1. Crimes against persons

2. Means and methods of execution tend directly and specially to insure its execution

Essence of treachery
The essence of treachery is a swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the latter’s part. (Gidoc)
Pp v YANSON, GR 179195, October 3, 2011
Verily, [appellant] employed means which insured the killing of [Magan] and such means assured him from the risk of [Magan’s] defense had he made any. It must also be noted that [Magan] was stabbed four times in the back and
two of these wounds were the proximate cause of death. Stabbing from behind is a good indication of treachery
Pp v Regalado, GR 177302, April 16, 2009
The essence of treachery is deliberate and sudden attack that renders the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack.
In the case at bar, Chu was caught off-guard when, after he was asking forgiveness from Regalado, the latter suddenly drew a curved knife and stabbed and pursued the following victim. And once Regalado and his co-appellants
cornered Chu, Aragon kicked and punched him while Lopez stabbed him several times to thus preclude Chua from defending himself.
Treachery cannot be presumed
It is not only the central fact of a killing that must be shown beyond reasonable doubt; every qualifying or aggravating circumstance alleged to have been present and to have attended such killing must similarly be shown by the
same degree of proof.
AttyCarillo : Manner of killing must be clearly establioshed
(Pp v Abdulah, GR 182518, January 20, 2009)
ELEMENTS OF TREACHERY
There is treachery when the following essential elements are present, viz: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular
means, methods or forms of attack employed by him. (VELASCO v. PP)
Means must be consciously adopted
The suddenness and unexpectedness of the appellant’s attack rendered Inspector Barte defenseless and without means of escape. There is no doubt that appellant’s use of a caliber .45 pistol, as well as his act of waiting for
Inspector Barte to be seated first in the jeep before approaching him and of shooting Inspector Barte several times on the head and chest, was adopted by him to prevent Inspector Barte from retaliating or escaping. (Pp v Guevarra,
GR 182192, Octover 29, 2008)
Not in a position to defend himself.
In this case, the victim was unarmed; and was attacked from behind and at close range. The assailant further hid behind the window to mask his presence and identity. (Pp. v. Dela Pena)
Baluyot and Canete
If the aggression is continuous treachery must be present at the beginning of the assault.
If there is an interruption in the assault, it is sufficient that treachery be present at the moment the fatal blow was delivered. It is this interruption that gives the accused the time to consciously and deliberately adopt the means and
method of execution.
“… with treachery”
That Juan Angel, and not his mother, was apparently the intended victim is not incompatible with the existence of treachery. Treachery may be taken into account even if the victim of the attack was not the person whom the
accused intended to kill. (PP v. Trinidad)
Frontal assault.
Hence, it no longer matters that the assault was frontal since its swiftness and unexpectedness deprived Cesario of a chance to repel it or offer any resistance in defense of his person. (Pp v. Agacer)
17. Ignominy.
Ignominy is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which adds disgrace and obloquy (shame) to the material injury caused by the crime.
Means are employed or circumstances surround the act that tend to make the crime more humiliating. (US v ABAIGAR, GR 1255, August 17, 1903)

 AttyCarillo: Causing unnecessary shame.

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013 - Edited EH410-2015;

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 8

US v. De Leon
There is present also the twelfth generic circumstance of Article 10, proved by the fact that the deceased, a land owner, was forced to kneel in front of his four servants drawn up in line before him.
Pp v. Acaya
The fact that the crime was committed in a public place and in the presence of many persons did not necessarily tend to make the effects of the crime more humiliating or put the offended party to shame.
Pp v. Siao
It has been held that where the accused in committing the rape used not only the missionary position, i.e. male superior, female inferior but also the dog position as dogs do, i.e. entry from behind, as was proven like the crime itself
in the instant case, the aggravating circumstance of ignominy attended the commission thereof.
18. Unlawful entry.
When an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose.
Entrance through the window (Pp v. Mendiona)
19. Breaking wall, roof, floor, door or window.
The breaking must be resorted as a means to the commission of the crime.
What distinguishes this from unlawful entry is that in the latter the window or point of ingress need not be broken.

 AttyCarillo: There must be destruction involved

20. Aid of persons under 15 or by means of motor vehicle, airships or other similar means.
The motor vehicle, airship, etc., must be deliberately used in the commission of the crime.
Besides, it has been established during the trial that the accused used the motor vehicle in going to the place of the crime in carrying away the effects thereof, and in facilitating their escape. (Pp v. Espejo)

 AttyCarillo: If you use a vehicle to kill a person, it becomes a qualifying circumstance to murder. But if its just other crimes like physical injuries: ordinary.

21. Cruelty.
Cruelty refers to physical suffering as compared to Ignominy which refers to moral suffering, i.e. disgrace or shame.

 AttyCarillo: Unnecessary physical suffering/torture

Test in appreciating cruelty

Using a hammer to hurt a little child, SC ruled that it was because of the drug intoxication of accused.
… whether the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its commission, or inhumanly increased the victim’s suffering or outraged or scoffed at his person or corpse..
The culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing him moral and physical pain which is unnecessary for the consummation of the criminal act which he intended to commit. (Pp v. Sitchon)
Art. 15. Alternative circumstances
Alternative circumstances may be considered either as aggravating or mitigating circumstances according to the (1) nature and effects of the crime and (2) other conditions attending to its commission.

- Relationship,
- Intoxication,
- Degree of instruction and education.

Relationship

- Spouse
- Ascendant
- Descendant
- Brother or sister
- Relative by affinity

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013 - Edited EH410-2015;

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 9

Other relatives by analogy.

- Stepfather or stepmother and stepson or stepdaughter.

- Adopted parent and adopted child.

Not included

- Uncle and niece.

- Cousins.
- Relationship between a step-grandniece and her step-grandfather is not one of the relatives specifically enumerated therein.

Generally relationship is…

- Mitigating – crimes against property

- Aggravating – crimes against persons where offended party is of a higher degree than offender or of the same level.

Exceptions

- In serious physical injuries relationship is aggravating no matter the degree of relationship.

- In homicide or murder relationship is aggravating.
- In crimes against chastity it is always aggravating.

Pp v. Orillosa
The alternative circumstance of relationship under Art. 15 of the RPC should be appreciated against the appellant. In crimes of chastity such as acts of lasciviousness, relationship is considered aggravating. Inasmuch as it was
expressly alleged in the information and duly proven during trial that the offended party is the daughter of appellant, relationship, therefore, aggravated the crime of acts of lasciviousness.
Pp v. Glodo
The information alleges that Maricel was only 15 yrs old at the time of the crime was committed and that she is the daughter of appellant. However, the prosecution merely presented the oral testimony and sworn statement of
Maricel. It failed to present independent evidence proving the age of the victim and her relationship with appellant so as to warrant the imposition of death penalty.
Relationship as element of the offense.
Parricide – victim is father, mother, child, ascendant, descendant or spouse
Adultery – wife
Concubinage – husband
In these cases relationship is neither mitigating nor aggravating.
Intoxication
Mitigating

(1) not habitual or

(2) unintentional/accidental/not subsequent to the plan to commit the felony.

Aggravating

(1) habitual or
(2) intentional / subsequent to the plan to commit the felony.

Mere proof that offender imbibed intoxicating liquor is not sufficient.

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013 - Edited EH410-2015;

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 10

Although there is no hard and fast rule on the amount of liquor that the accused imbibed on that occasion, but the test is that it must have sufficed to affect his mental faculties, to the extent of blurring his reason and depriving him
of self-control.
Absent clear and convincing proof as to appellant’s state of intoxication, we are unable to agree that the alternative circumstance of intoxication was present to aggravate the offense. (pp v. Inggo, GR 14082,June 23, 2003)
Presumption
When the accused is established to be drunk, the presumption is that it was not habitual but accidental and, therefore, mitigating.
Degree of instruction or education
Mitigating when there is lack of instruction or education. There must be lack of sufficient intelligence.
Exceptions:

- crimes against property

- crimes against chastity
- murder

Aggravating when there is high degree of instruction or education when taken advantage of by offender.
Pp v. Mangsant
Lack of instruction cannot apply to one who has studied in the first grade in a public school, but only to him who really has not received any instruction.
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE
The general rule is that an offender is criminally liable for his own actions.
When there is only one felony, he alone is criminally liable.
In case of multiple offenders, criminal liability depends on the degree and nature of participation in the criminal act.
Article 16.Who are criminally liable
Grave and less grave felonies:

- Principals
- Accomplices
- Accessories

Light felonies:

- Principals
- Accomplices

Subjects in a crime.

1. Active subject (criminal)

2. Passive subject (injured party: private individual or the State)

Only natural persons.

- RPC requires that a person act with malice or with negligence.

- Juridical persons cannot be deprived of liberty.
- Most penalties can be executed by natural persons.

Article 17. Principals

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013 - Edited EH410-2015;

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 11

1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;

2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it.
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished.

Principal by direct participation.

Requisites:

1. That they participate in the criminal resolution;

2. They carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts which directly tended to the same end.

Conspiracy
Participating in the criminal resolution is conspiracy.
DEFINITION: Two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
Conspiracy not as a felony but a manner of incurring criminal liability.
Pp v. Reyes
Conspiracy presupposes unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the unlawful objective among the accused. When the accused by their acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part and the other performing
another part as to complete the crime, with a view to the attainment of the same object, conspiracy exists.
Conspiracy may be express or implied.
Stated otherwise, it is not essential that there be proof of the previous agreement and decision to commit the crime; it is sufficient that the malefactors acted in concert pursuant to the same objective. (Pp v Amodia, GR 173791,
April 7, 2009)
Manner of commission of crime
Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused which show a joint or common purpose and design, a concerted action and a community of
interest among the accused. (Pp v Sicad, GR 133833, Octover 15, 2002)
Indicators of conspiracy

- Spontaneous agreement
- Active cooperation by all the offenders in the perpetration of the crime
- Contributing positive acts to the realization of a common criminal intent
- Presence during the commission of the crime by a band and lending moral support
- Knowing the plan and accepting the role assigned and actually performing that role.

Where there is no conspiracy.

Mere silence does not make one a conspirator (Pp v. Gensola)
Mere companionship is not conspiracy. (pp v. padrones)
When there is no conspiracy, each is liable for his own act.
Pp v. enriquez
“if a number of persons agree to commit, and enter upon the commission of a crime which will probably endanger human life such as robbery, all of them are responsible for the death of a person that ensues as a consequence”
Not the object of the conspiracy/necessary or logical consequence of the crime intended.

- In Umali case (96 Phil 185) robbery is not included/necessary or logical consequence of sedition;
- Where the conspiracy specifically targeted one and only one person, the killing of others would not affect the conspirators. (De laCerna)

Some rules in conspiracy.

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013 - Edited EH410-2015;

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 12

Conspiracy alone does not result in criminal liability (Timbol)

5 of them goes to town with their employees. To ask for better wages. If not, kill. They went to town together, bought guns together. But when the employees said no, only 3 killed. 2 left – the two are not liable

Participation in the criminal resolution must either be before or simultaneous with the criminal act.
Applicable only in crimes committed by means of dolo. No conspiracy in culpa – “unsa man magsabot ta magdanghag?”
2ndrequisite.They carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts which directly tended to the same end.
He must be at the scene of the crime personally taking part in its execution.
It is sufficient that the act performed directly tends to accomplish the intended crime.
Ex: holding down the victim in murder or rape; acting as a lookout/guard.
Those who directly force or induce others to commit it.

1. Directly forcing another to commit a crime;

o Using irresistible force;
o Causing uncontrollable fear.

2. Directly inducing another to commit a crime. Inducement should be the primary motivation. Doesn’t have to be material reward.
o Giving price or reward
o Using words of command – No offer, no force, no fear

Requisites of a principal by inducement:

1. Inducement with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime.

2. Inducement is the determining cause of the commission of the crime.
 AttyCarillo: Cannot be considered a principal by inducement if there are other motives like personal grudge, etc

1st Requisite.Intention.
Clear intention to procure the commission of the crime.
In Otadora the promise of pecuniary gain (money and carabaos) and supplying the gun to use in the commission of the crime.
In Alcontin, the promise of living together once the husband of the inducer is killed.

Does not include

- Thoughtless expressions;
- Imprudent advice;

2nd Requisite.Determining cause.

Must be of such a nature that without it the crime would not have been committed.
It must:

1. Precede the act induced, and

2. Be influential – money, reward, force, fear

Requisites: Words of Command

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013 - Edited EH410-2015;

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 13

1. Intention to procure commission of crime.

2. Inducer must have ascendancy or influence.
3. Words must be direct, so efficacious, so powerful as to amount to physical coercion.
4. Uttered prior to the commission of the crime.
5. Material executor has no personal reason to commit the crime.

Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished.
Principal by cooperation.
Requisites:

1. Participation in criminal resolution.

2. Cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing another act, without which it would not have been accomplished.

Cooperation

- Cooperation – implies that there is a desire or wish in common.

- Another act – the act must be different from the acts of the principal by direct participation. The act must not involve the material execution of the offense.

Ex. Dragging a girl to a place where she is to be raped then leaves before she is actually raped; certifying a check to facilitate estafa.
Three types of principals.

- Even in case of conspiracy, to be liable as a principal one must fall under any of the three concepts in Art. 17.
- In such case, we apply our ruling inpp v. ubina where we held that when an accused does not fall under any of the three concepts defined in Article 17 of the RPC, he may only be considered guilty as an accomplice. (PP v.
Carriaga)

Article 18. Accomplices

 AttyCarillo: the acts they perform are before or during the crime but never after the crime

1. Cooperates by previous or simultaneous acts

2. Not a principal
3. No conspiracy

Conspirator v. Accomplice
Conspirators and accomplices know and agree in the criminal design.
Conspirators participate in the criminal resolution, accomplices concur in the criminal design.

Requisites

1. Community of design
2. Cooperation by previous or simultaneous acts
 AttyCarillo: So acts before and during the crime
3. Relation between acts of principal and accomplice.

1st requisite. Community of design.

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013 - Edited EH410-2015;

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 14

Community of design requires knowledge and concurrence of the criminal design.

Prior to the commission of the act.
Knowledge of a crime different from that actually committed. As long as it is a natural consequence of the crime intended, an accomplice is liable.

2nd requisite.Cooperation by previous or simultaneous acts.

- The acts of the accomplice must not be indispensable.

3rd requisite.Relation between acts of principal and accomplice.

Liable for different crimes.
A attacks B with treachery. Later C and D arrive and take part in killing B.
A – Principal in Murder.
C and D – Accomplices in Homicide.
*No conspiracy, no knowledge as to the manner A attacked B.
Article 19.Accessories.

 AttyCarillo: Acts subsequently, after the crime. Accessories after the fact.

Knowledge in the commission of the crime, not being principals or accomplices, take subsequent part in its commission by:

1. Profiting or assisting the accused to profit;

2. Concealing or destroying the body of the crime or its effects/instruments to prevent its discovery.
3. Harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape.

Harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal.

1. Public officer who abuses his public function (any crime)

2. Private person (treason, parricide, murder attempt against the life of the president, habitually guilty of some other crime.)

To convict an accused as an accessory, the following elements must be proven:

1. Knowledge of the commission of the crime

2. Subsequent participation in it by any of the three-above cited …

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013 - Edited EH410-2015;