Criminal-Law-1-Finals-Reviewer (From Scribd) PDF

UP
LAW BLOCK B BATCH 2015
Law 109 (I-‐B)

Finals
Reviewer
Criminal Law 1
Consolidated Reviewer

Edited by Roberto Miguel O. Rañeses
8/27/2011

Consolidated reviewer for Criminal Law 1 under Prof.

Dan Peruelo Calica. Digests were either culled from
various sources (contributions of blockmates, etc.) or
written by the editor himself. Notes and annotations
were taken from Reyes’s annotations of the RPC.
Rañeses 1

General Principles of Criminal Law Reyes:
1. There are no common law crimes in the

Philippines. Common-‐law crimes, known
A. Definitions
as the body of principles, usages and rights

of action, which do not rest for their
Criminal law is that branch or division of law
authority upon any express and positive
which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and
provides for their punishment [Reyes, The RPC,
declaration of the will of the legislature, are
Book I, 16th Revised Edition] not recognized in this country, unless
provided by law.
It is that branch of public substantive law 2. The State has the authority, under its
which defines offenses and prescribes their police power, to define and punish
penalties. It is substantive because it defines the
crimes and to lay down rules of criminal
state’s right to inflict punishment and the
procedure. States, as part of their police
liability of the offenders. It is public law
power, have a large measure of discretion to
because it deals with the relation of the
individual with the state. creating and defining criminal offenses.
(People v. Santiago, 43 Phil. 120, 124)
3. The Bill of Rights of the 1987
Crime is an act committed or omitted in Constitution has certain limitations in
violation of a public law forbidding or the enactment of penal legislation.
commanding it. [Reyes, supra, at 1, citing I 1. No ex post facto law or bill of
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Rawle’s Third
attainder shall be enacted. (Art. III,
Revision, 729]
Sec. 22)
2. Mo person shall be held to answer
B. Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege
for a criminal offense without due
The maxim has its roots in history. It is in process of law. (Art. III, Sec. 14[1])
4. An ex post facto law is one which:
accordance with both centuries of civil law
and common law tradition. Moreover, it is an 1. Makes criminal an act done before
indispensable corollary to a regime of liberty the passage of the law and which
enshrined in our Constitution. It is of the was innocent when done, and
essence then that while anti-‐social acts should punishes such an act;
be penalized, there must be a clear definition 2. Aggravates a crime, or makes it

of the punishable offense as well as the penalty greater than it was, when
that may be imposed – a penalty, to repeat,
committed;
that can be fixed by the legislative body, and
3. Changes the punishment and inflicts
the legislative body alone. So constitutionalism a greater punishment than the law
mandates, with its stress on jurisdictio rather annexed to the crime when
than guvernaculum. The judiciary as the
committed;
dispenser of justice through law must be
aware of the limitation on its own power. 4. Alters the legal rules of evidence,
[Concurring opinion, Justice Fernando, and authorizes conviction upon less
People v. Cabural] or different testimony than the law
required at the time of the
Sources of Philippine Criminal Law commission of the offense;
a. The Revised Penal Code (Act no. 3815) and 5. Assumes to regulate civil rights and
amendments thereto remedies only, in effect imposes
b. Special criminal laws penalty or deprivation of a right for
c. Penal provisions in other laws something which he has become
d. Local ordinances entitled, such as the protection of a
Rañeses 2

former conviction or acquittal, or a
proclamation of amnesty. (In re: Kay Const. (1987), art. II, sec. 1
Villegas Kami, Inc., 35 SCRA 429,
431) The Philippines is a democratic and republican
• A bill of attainder is a legislative act State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from them.
which inflicts punishment without trial.
Its essence is the substitution of a legislative
act for a judicial determination of guilt. People v. Santiago, 43 Phil. 120 (1922)
(People v. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382, 395) Facts: The accused was driving an automobile at
the rate of 30 miles an hour on a highway 6 meter
wide, notwithstanding the fact that he had to pass a
RPC, Art. 5:
narrow space between a wagon standing on one
Duty of the court in connection with acts which side of the road and a heap of stones on the other
should be repressed but which are not covered by side where the were two young boys, the appellant
the law, and in cases of excessive penalties. -‐ did not take the precaution required by the
Whenever a court has knowledge of any act circumstances by slowing his machine, and did not
which it may deem proper to repress and which proceed with the vigilant care that under the
is not punishable by law, it shall render the
circumstances an ordinary prudent man would take
proper decision, and shall report to the Chief
in order to avoid possible accidents that might
Executive, through the Department of Justice, the
reasons which induce the court to believe that
occur, as unfortunately did occur, as his automobile
said act should be made the subject of penal ran over the boy Porfirio Parondo who was
legislation. instantly killed as the result of the accident.

RPC, Art. 21: Issue: WON Act No. 2886 (SEC. 2. All prosecutions
Penalties that may be imposed. -‐ No felony shall
for public offenses shall be in the name of the
be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by People of the Philippine Islands against the persons
law prior to its commission. charged with the offense) under which the
complaint in the present case was filed, is valid and

constitutional.
C. State authority to punish crimes
Held: Yes. Since the provisions of this General
Sources: Order (No. 58) have the character of statutory law,
the power of the Legislature to amend it is self-‐
Const. (1987), art. II, sec. 5 evident, even if the question is considered only on
principle. Our present Legislature, which has
The maintenance of peace and order, the enacted Act No. 2886, the subject of our inquiry, is
protection of life, liberty, and property, and
the legal successor to the Military Government as a
promotion of the general welfare are essential for
legislative body.
the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of
democracy.
United States v. Pablo, 35 Phil. 94 (1916)
Facts: Andres Pablo, a policeman, reported that he
Const. (1987), art. VI, sec. 1 saw Rodrigo and Malicsi in the jueteng arena and
then testified on the contrary during the trial. He
The legislative power shall be vested in the
was charged with perjury and convicted under Act.
Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of
1697 which was said to have repealed articles 318
a Senate and a House of Representatives, except
to the extent reserved to the people by the and 324 of the penal code.
provision on initiative and referendum.

Rañeses 3

Issue: WON defendant can be punished for perjury Const. (1987). art, III

Held: Yes. Notwithstanding that the said Act No. Sec. 19
1697 (which, as interpreted by this court in its
1. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel,
decisions, was deemed to have repealed the degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted.
aforementioned article of the Penal Code relating to Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless,
false testimony, comprised within the term of for compelling reasons involving heinous
perjury) did not expressly repeal the said articles of crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it.
the Penal Code; and as the said final article of the Any death penalty already imposed shall be
Administrative Code, in totally repealing Act No. reduced to reclusion perpetua.
1697, does not explicitly provide that the 2. The employment of physical, psychological, or
mentioned articles of the Penal Code are also degrading punishment against any prisoner or
detainee or the use of substandard or
repealed.
inadequate penal facilities under subhuman

conditions shall be dealt with by law.
Limitations:
Sec. 20
Const. (1987), art. III No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-‐
payment of a poll tax.
Sec. 1
Sec. 22
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law, nor shall any No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be
person be denied the equal protection of the laws. enacted.
Sec. 14 *See definition of ex post facto law on page 1 and bill
of attainder on page 2.
1. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal
offense without due process of law.
2. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall Reyes: A right which may be waived is the right of
be presumed innocent until the contrary is
the accused to confrontation and cross-‐
proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by
examination. A right which may not be waived is
himself and counsel, to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him,
the right of the accused to be informed of the nature
to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to and cause of the accusation against him.
meet the witnesses face to face, and to have
compulsory process to secure the attendance of The reason or principle underlying the difference
witnesses and the production of evidence in his between rights which may be waived are personal,
behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may while those rights which may not be waived involve
proceed notwithstanding the absence of the public interest which may be affected. (2 Moran,
accused: Provided, that he has been duly Rules of Court, 1952 Edition, 748)
notified and his failure to appear is

unjustifiable.
*Refer to Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule
Sec. 18 115, Sec. 1 for the relevant statutory rights of the
accused on page 4
1. No person shall be detained solely by reason of
his political beliefs and aspirations.
2. No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist
except as a punishment for a crime whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted.

Rañeses 4

Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 115 and 3) three certificates of inspections. In spite of
the papers, the carabaos were confiscated by the
Section 1. Rights of accused at trial. – In all criminal provincial veterinarian and the town’s police
prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the station commander while passing through
following rights:
Camarines Norte. Confiscation was based on EO No.
(a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is 626-‐A which prohibits transportation of carabaos &
proved beyond reasonable doubt. carabeef from one province to another.

(b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the Issue: WON EO No. 626-‐A, providing for the
accusation against him.
confiscation and forfeiture by the government of
(c) To be present and defend in person and by carabaos transported from one province to another,
counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from dated October 25, 1980 is enforceable before
arraignment to promulgation of the judgment. x x x publication in the Official Gazette on June 14, 1982

(d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but
Held: No. The said order isn’t enforceable against
subject to cross-‐examination on matters covered by
the Pesigans on April 2, 1982 because it’s a penal
direct examination. His silence shall not in any
manner prejudice him.
regulation published more than 2 mos. later in the
OG. It became effective only fifteen days thereafter
(e) To be exempt from being compelled to be a as provided in A2 of the CC & §11 of the Revised
witness against himself. Administrative Code. The word “laws” in article 2
includes circulars & regulations which prescribe
(f) To confront and cross-‐examine the witnesses
against him at the trial. x x x
penalties. Publication is necessary to apprise the
public of the contents of the regulations & make the
(g) To have compulsory process issued to secure said penalties binding on the persons affected
the attendance of witnesses and production of other thereby. Commonwealth Act No. 638 requires that
evidence in his behalf. all Presidential EOs having general applicability
(h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial. should be published in the OG. It provides that
“every order or document which shall prescribe a
(i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner penalty shall be deemed to have general
prescribed by law. applicability and legal effect. This applies to a
violation of EO No. 626-‐A because its confiscation &
forfeiture provision or sanction makes it a penal
Civil Code, Art. 2 statute. It results that they have cause of action for
the recovery of the carabaos. The summary
Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following confiscation wasn’t in order. The recipients of the
the completion of their publication in the Official carabaos should return them to the Pesigans.
Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided. This Code
However, they cannot transport the carabaos to
shall take effect one year after such publication. (1a)
Batangas because they are now bound by the said
executive order. Neither can they recover damages.
Doctor Miranda & Zenerosa acted in good faith in
Pesigan v. Angeles, 129 SCRA 174 (1984) ordering the forfeiture and dispersal of the
Facts: Anselmo and Marcelo Pesigan transported in carabaos.
the evening of April 2, 1982 twenty-‐six carabaos
and a calf from Camarines Sur with Batangas as Doctrine: Publication is necessary to apprise the
their destination. They were provided with three public of the contents of the regulations & make the
certificates: 1) a health certificate from the said penalties binding on the persons affected
provincial veterinarian, 2) permit to hereby. Justice & fairness dictate that the public
transfer/transport from the provincial commander;
Rañeses 5

must be informed of that provision by means of the *Refer to page 3 for the relevant constitutional
publication on the Gazette. provision (Art. III, Sec. 22) and page 1 for the
definition of an ex-‐post facto law.
Tañada v. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27 (1985)
Facts: Invoking the people’s right to be informed on In re: Kay Villegas Kami, Inc., 35 SCRA 429
matters of public concern, a right recognized in (1970)
Section 6, Article IV of the 1973 constitution, Facts: Kay Villegas Kami Inc. claiming to be a
petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel recognized non-‐stock, non-‐profit corporation
respondent public officials to publish, and/or cause contests validity of RA 6132 Sec. 8 saying it violates
the publication in the Official Gazette, of various due process rights of association, freedom of
presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general expression and is an ex post facto law
orders, proclamations, executive orders, letter of
implementation and administrative orders. The Issues:
respondents would have this case dismissed on the 1. WON it violates three rights?
ground that petitioners have no legal personality to 2. WON it is an ex post facto law?
bring this petition. Petitioners maintain that since
the subject of the petition concerns a public right Held:
and its object is to compel public duty, they need 1. No. It’s set up to prevent prostitution of
not show any specific interest. Respondents further electoral process and equal protection of
contend that publication in the OG is not a sine qua laws.
non requirement for the effectivity of laws where 2. No. Ex post facto law defined:
the laws themselves provide for their own a. Makes criminal an act done before law
effectivity dates. was passed and punishes act innocent
when done.
Issue: WON publication in the Official Gazatte is an b. Aggravates a crime, makes it greater
indispensable requirement for the effectivity of the than it was
PDs, LOIs, general orders, EOs, etc. where laws c. Inflicts greater punishment than the law
themselves provide for their own effectivity dates. prescribed when committed
d. Alters legal rules of evidence and
Held: Yes. It is the people’s right to be informed on authorizes conviction upon less or
matters of public concern & corollary access to different tests
official records, & to documents & papers e. Assuming to regulate civil rights and
pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, remedies only in effect imposes penalty
shall be afforded the citizens subject to such or deprivation of right which when done
limitation as may be provided by law (§6 AIV, 1973 was lawful
Constitution). Laws, to be valid & enforceable, must f. Deprives a person accused of a crime
be published in the OG or otherwise effectively some lawful protection to which he has
promulgated. The fact that a PD or LOI states its become entitled, such as the protection
date of effectivity does not preclude their of a former conviction of acquittal or a
publication in the OG as they constitute important proclamation of amnesty.
legislative acts. The publication of presidential Constitutional inhibition refers only to
issuances “of public nature” or “of general criminal laws. Penalty in law imposed to
applicability” is a requirement of due process. acts committed after approval of law
Before a person may be bound by law, he must first
be officially informed of its contents. People v. Villaraza, 81 SCRA 95 (1978)
Ex-‐post facto law Facts: On December 3, 1975 an assistant fiscal
charged Caesar Puerto with estafa in the city court
Rañeses 6

of CDO for having issues two bouncing checks. A complaint was filed in the Court of First Instance
Judge Villaraza, upon confirming that the accused of the city of Manila on May 6, 1921, charging the
had waived his right to the second stage of defendants with a violation of the Usury Law (Act
preliminary investigation, directed the case be No. 2655). Upon said complaint they were arrested,
elevated to the CFI. The CFI of Misamis Oriental, charged, and pleaded not guilty. On September 1,
returned the case to the city court. Disagreeing with 1921, the case was finally brought on for trial. At
the CFI’s decision, Judge Villaraza once again raised the end of the trial, with consideration to the
it to the CFIwith the belief that estafa committed by evidences cited in court, Hon. M. V. del Rosario,
the accused is punishable by prision mayor medium judge, found that the defendants were guilty of the
under P.D. No. 818, which took effect on October 22, crime charged in the complaint and sentenced each
1975 and which amended Art. 315 of the RPC. of them to pay a fine of P120 and, if they cannot
meet their debt obligations, the defendants would
Issue: WON Puerto is punishable with prision suffer subsidiary imprisonment in accordance with
mayor medium under P.D. 818 which amended Art. the provisions of the law. From that sentence each
315 of the RPC. of the defendants made an appeal.

Held: No. The penalty of prision mayor medium Issue: WON the Usury law would apply to the
imposed by P.D. 818 applies only to swindling appellants considering that they executed the
committed on or after October 22, 1975. The contract before the passage of said law.
increased penalty does not apply to Puerto to the
estafa committed on October 16, 1974. To do so Held: No. The court held that the acts complained
would make it an ex-‐post facto law, which is clearly of by the defendants did not constitute a crime at
repugnant to Art. 21 and 22 of the RPC and Sec. 12, the time they were committed. A law imposing a
Art. IV of the Constitution. new penalty, liability or disability, or giving a new
right of action, must not be construed as having a
U.S. v. Diaz-‐Conde, 42 Phil. 766 (1922) retroactive effect. It is an elementary rule of
Facts: On December 30, 1915, Bartolome Oliveros contract that the laws in force at the time of the
and Engracia Lianco accomplished and delivered to contract were made must govern its interpretation
the defendants a contract (named ‘Exhibit B’) which and application. Laws must be construed
stated that the Oliveros and Lianco had borrowed prospectively and not retrospectively. If a contract
from the latter a sum of three hundred pesos (Php is legal at its commencement, it cannot be rendered
300), and by virtue of the terms of said contract, illegal by any subsequent legislation. To make it
Oliveros and Lianco obligated themselves to pay to applicable in the present case would make it an ex-‐
the defendants interest at the rate of five percent post facto law.
(5%) per month, payable within the first ten days of
each and every month, the first payment to be made Bill of attainder
on the January 10, 1916. *Refer to page 3 for the relevant constitutional
provision (Art. III, Sec. 22) and page 2 for the
On May 1, 1916, Act no. 2655 or the Usury Law definition of a bill of attainder.
came into effect. The law stated that that the legal
rate of interest for the loan or forbearance of any People v. Ferrer 48 SCRA 382 (1972)
money, goods or credits, […] shall be 12% per Facts: Hon. Judge Simeon Ferrer is the Tarlac trial
annum. Any amount of interest paid or to be paid in court judge that declared RA1700 or the Anti-‐
excess of that fixed by law is considered usurious, Subversive Act of 1957 as a bill of attainder. Thus,
therefore unlawful. dismissing the information of subversion against
the following: 1.) Feliciano Co for being an
officer/leader of the Communist Party of the
Rañeses 7

Philippines (CPP) aggravated by circumstances of 1. No. In the case at bar, the statute simply
contempt and insult to public officers, subversion declares the CPP as an organized conspiracy
by a band and aid of armed men to afford impunity. for the overthrow of the Government for
2.) Nilo Tayag and 5 others, for being purposes of example of Sec. 4 of the Act. The
members/leaders of the NPA, inciting, instigating Act applies not only to the CPP but also to
people to unite and overthrow the Philippine other organizations having the same
Government. Attended by Aggravating purpose and their successors. The Act’s
Circumstances of Aid or Armed Men, Craft, and focus is on the conduct not person.
Fraud. The trial court is of opinion that 1.) The
Congress usurped the powers of the judge 2.) The statute is PROSPECTIVE in nature. Sec.
Assumed judicial magistracy by pronouncing the 44 prohibits acts committed after approval
guilt of the CPP without any forms of safeguard of a of the act. The members of the subversive
judicial trial. 3.) It created a presumption of organizations before the passing of this Act
organizational guilt by being members of the CPP are given an opportunity to escape liability
regardless of voluntariness. by renouncing membership in accordance
with Sec. 8.
The Anti-‐Subversive Act of 1957 was approved on 2. Yes, but it is justified. The declaration of
June 20 1957. It is an act to outlaw the CPP and that the CPP is an organized conspiracy to
similar associations penalizing membership therein, overthrow the Philippine Government
and for other purposes. It defined the Communist should not be the basis of guilt. This
Party being although a political party is in fact an declaration is only a basis of Section 4 of the
organized conspiracy to overthrow the Act. The existence of substantive evil
Government, not only by force and violence but also justifies the limitation to the exercise of
by deceit, subversion and other illegal means. It “Freedom of Expression and Association” in
declares that the CPP is a clear and present danger this matter.
to the security of the Philippines. Section 4 provided
that affiliation with full knowledge of the illegal acts D. Characteristics of Criminal Law
of the CPP is punishable. Section 5 states that due
investigation by a designated prosecutor by the General:
Secretary of Justice be made prior to filing of
information in court. Section 6 provides for penalty
Const. (1987), Art. VI, sec. 1
for furnishing false evidence. Section 7 provides for
2 witnesses in open court for acts penalized by The legislative power shall be vested in the
prision mayor to death. Section 8 allows the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a
renunciation of membership to the CPP through Senate and a House of Representatives, except to
writing under oath. Section 9 declares the the extent reserved to the people by the provision
constitutionality of the statute and its valid exercise on initiative and referendum.

under freedom if thought, assembly and association.

Civil Code, Art. 14
Issues:
1. WON or not RA 1700 is a bill of attainder/ Penal laws and those of public security and safety
ex post facto law. shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in
2. WON RA 1700 violates freedom of the Philippine territory, subject to the principles of
expression. public international law and to treaty stipulations.
(8a)
Held:

Rañeses 8

Agreement between the Government of the Republic personnel subject to the military law of the United States
of the Philippines and the Government of the United in relation to:
States of America Regarding the Treatment of United
States Armed Forces Visiting the Philippines, 10 (1) offenses solely against the property or security of the
February 1998 (Visiting Forces Agreement) United States or offenses solely against the property or
person of United States personnel; and
Article V
Criminal Jurisdiction (2) offenses arising out of any act or omission done in
performance of official duty.
1. Subject to the provisions of this article:
(c) The authorities of either government may request the
(a) Philippine authorities shall have jurisdiction over authorities of the other government to waive their
United States personnel with respect to offenses primary right to exercise jurisdiction in a particular case.
committed within the Philippines and punishable under
the law of the Philippines. (d) Recognizing the responsibility of the United States
military authorities to maintain good order and
(b) United States military authorities shall have the right discipline among their forces, Philippine authorities will,
to exercise within the Philippines all criminal and upon request by the United States, waive their primary
disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by the right to exercise jurisdiction except in cases of particular
military law of the United States over United States importance to the Philippines. If the Government of the
personnel in the Philippines. Philippines determines that the case is of particular
importance, it shall communicate such determination to
2. (a) Philippine authorities exercise exclusive the United States authorities within twenty (20) days
jurisdiction over United States personnel with respect to after the Philippine authorities receive the United States
offenses, including offenses relating to the security of the request.
Philippines, punishable under the laws of the Philippines,
but not under the laws of the United States. (e) When the United States military commander
determines that an offense charged by authorities of the
(b) United States authorities exercise exclusive Philippines against United States personnel arises out of
jurisdiction over United States personnel with respect to an act or omission done in the performance of official
offenses, including offenses relating to the security of the duty, the commander will issue a certificate setting forth
United States, punishable under the laws of the United such determination. This certificate will be transmitted
States, but not under the laws of the Philippines. to the appropriate authorities of the Philippines and will
constitute sufficient proof of performance of official duty
(c) For the purposes of this paragraph and paragraph 3 for the purposes of paragraph 3(b)(2) of this article. In
of this article, an offense relating to security means: those cases where the Government of the Philippines
believes the circumstances of the case require a review
(1) treason; of the duty certificate, United States military authorities
and Philippine authorities shall consult immediately.
(2) sabotage, espionage or violation of any law relating to Philippine authorities at the highest levels may also
national defense. present any information bearing on its validity. United
States military authorities shall take full account of the
3. In cases where the right to exercise jurisdiction is Philippine position. Where appropriate, United States
concurrent, the following rules shall apply: military authorities will take disciplinary or other action
against offenders in official duty cases, and notify the
(a) Philippine authorities shall have the primary right to Government of the Philippines of the actions taken.
exercise jurisdiction over all offenses committed by
United States personnel, except in cases provided for in (f) If the government having the primary right does not
paragraphs l (b), 2 (b), and 3 (b) of this Article. exercise jurisdiction, it shall notify the authorities of the
other government as soon as possible.
(b) United States military authorities shall have the
primary right to exercise jurisdiction over United States
Rañeses 9

(g) The authorities of the Philippines and the United 8. When United States personnel have been tried in
States shall notify each other of the disposition of all accordance with the provisions of this article and have
cases in which both the authorities of the Philippines and been acquitted or have been convicted and are serving,
the United States have the right to exercise jurisdiction. or have served their sentence, or have had their sentence
remitted or suspended, or have been pardoned, they may
4. Within the scope of their legal competence, the not be tried again for the same offense in the Philippines.
authorities of the Philippines and the United States shall Nothing in this paragraph, however, shall prevent United
assist each other in the arrest of United States personnel States military authorities from trying United States
in the Philippines and in handing them over to personnel for any violation of rules of discipline arising
authorities who are to exercise jurisdiction in accordance from the act or omission which constituted an offense for
with the provisions of this article. which they were tried by Philippine authorities.

5. United States military authorities shall promptly notify 9. When United States personnel are detained, taken into
Philippine authorities of the arrest or detention of United custody, or prosecuted by Philippine authorities, they
States personnel who are subject to Philippine primary shall be accorded all procedural safeguards established
or exclusive jurisdiction. Philippine authorities shall by the law of the Philippines. At the minimum, United
promptly notify United States military authorities of the States personnel shall be entitled:
arrest or detention of any United States personnel.
(a) To a prompt and speedy trial;
6. The custody of any United States personnel over whom
the Philippines is to exercise jurisdiction shall (b) To be informed in advance of trial of the specific
immediately reside with United States military charge or charges made against them and to have
authorities, if they so request, from the commission of reasonable time to prepare a defense;
the offense until completion of all judicial proceedings.
United States military authorities shall, upon formal (c) To be confronted with witnesses against them and to
notification by the Philippine authorities and without cross examine such witnesses;
delay, make such personnel available to those authorities
in time for any investigative or judicial proceedings (d) To present evidence in their defense and to have
relating to the offense with which the person has been compulsory process for obtaining witnesses;
charged. In extraordinary cases, the Philippine
Government shall present its position to the United (e) To have free and assisted legal representation of their
States Government regarding custody, which the United own choice on the same basis as nationals of the
States Government shall take into full account. In the Philippines;
event Philippine judicial proceedings are not completed
within one year, the United States shall be relieved of any (f) To have the services of a competent interpreter;
obligations under this paragraph. The one year period
will not include the time necessary to appeal. Also, the (g) To communicate promptly with and to be visited
one year period will not include any time during which regularly by United States authorities, and to have such
scheduled trial procedures are delayed because United authorities present at all judicial proceedings. These
States authorities, after timely notification by Philippine proceedings shall be public unless the court, in
authorities to arrange for the presence of the accused, accordance with Philippine law, excludes persons who
fail to do so. have no role in the proceedings.

7. Within the scope of their legal authority, United States 10. The confinement or detention by Philippine
and Philippine authorities shall assist each other in the authorities of United States personnel shall be carried
carrying out of all necessary investigations into offenses out in facilities agreed on by appropriate Philippine and
and shall cooperate in providing for the attendance of United States authorities. United States personnel
witnesses and in the collection and production of serving sentences in the Philippines shall have the right
evidence, including seizure and, in proper cases, the to visits and material assistance.
delivery of objects connected with an offense.
11. United States personnel shall be subject to trial only
in Philippine courts of ordinary jurisdiction, and shall not
Rañeses 10

be subject to the jurisdiction of Philippine military or person of any ambassador or public minister of any
religious courts. foreign State, authorized and received as such by the
President, or any domestic or domestic servant of any
Republic Act no. 75 such ambassador or minister is arrested or imprisoned,
or his goods or chattels are distrained, seized, or
An act to penalize acts which would impair the attached, shall be deemed void, and every person by
proper observance by the republic and inhabitants of whom the same is obtained or prosecuted, whether as
the Philippines of the immunities, right, and party or as attorney, and every officer concerned in
privileges of duly accredited foreign diplomatic and executing it, shall upon conviction, be punished by
consular agents in the Philippines imprisonment for not more than three years and a fine of
not exceeding two hundred pesos in the discretion of the
Section 1. Any person who shall falsely assume and take court.
upon himself to act as a diplomatic, consular, or any
other official of a foreign government duly accredited as Section 5. The provisions of section four hereof shall not
such to the Government of the Republic of the apply to any case where the person against whom the
Philippines with intent to defraud such foreign process is issued is a citizen or inhabitant of the Republic
government or the Government of the Philippines, or any of the Philippines, in the service of an ambassador or a
person, or in such pretended character shall demand or public minister, and the process is founded upon a debt
obtain, or attempt to obtain from person or from said contracted before he entered upon such service; nor
foreign government or the Government of the shall the said section apply to any case where the person
Philippines, or from any officer thereof, any money, against whom the process is issued is a domestic servant
paper, document, or other thing, of value, shall be fined of an ambassador or a public minister, unless the name
not more than five thousand pesos, or shall be of the servant has, before the issuing thereof, been
imprisoned for not more than five years, or both, in registered in the Department of Foreign Affairs, and
addition to the penalties that may be imposed under the transmitted by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to the
Revised Penal Code. Chief of Police of the City of Manila, who shall upon
receipt thereof post the same in some public place in his
Section 2. Any person, other than a diplomatic or office. All persons shall have resort to the list of names so
consular officer or attaché, who shall act in the Republic posted in the office of the Chief of Police, and take copies
of the Philippines as an agent of a foreign government without fee.
without prior notification to, and registration with, the
Secretary of Foreign Affairs shall be fined not more than Section 6. Any person who assaults, strikes, wounds,
five thousand pesos, or imprisoned not more than five imprisons or in any other manner offers violence to the
years, or both, aside from other penalties that may be person of an ambassador or a public minister, in
imposed by law. violation of the law of nations, shall be imprisoned not
more than three years, and fined not exceeding two
Section 3. Any person, who with intent to deceive or hundred pesos, in the discretion of the court, in addition
mislead, within the jurisdiction of the Republic, wear any to the penalties that may be imposed under the Revised
naval, military, police, or other official uniform, Penal Code.
decoration, or regalia of any foreign State, nation or
government with which the Republic of the Philippines is Section 7. The provisions of this Act shall be applicable
at peace, or any uniform, decoration or regalia so nearly only in case where the country of the diplomatic or
resembling the same as to be calculated to deceive, consular representative adversely affected has provided
unless such wearing thereof be authorized by such State, for similar protection to duly accredited diplomatic or
nation, or government, shall upon conviction, be consular representatives of the Republic of the
punished by a fine not exceeding two hundred pesos or Philippines by prescribing like or similar penalties for
imprisonment not exceeding six months, or by both such like or similar offenses herein contained.itc-‐alf
fine and imprisonment.1awphil-‐itc-‐alf
Section 8. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Section 4. Any writ or process sued out or prosecuted by
any person in any court of the Republic of the Approved: October 21, 1946
Philippines, or by any judge or justice, whereby the
Rañeses 11

Republic Act no. 7055 Sec. 3. Presidential Decree Nos. 1822, 1822-‐A, 1850 and
1952, and all acts, general orders, executive orders, and
An act strengthening civilian supremacy over the other presidential issuances, rules and regulations
military by returning to the civil courts the inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or
jurisdiction over certain offenses involving members amended accordingly.
of the armed forces of the Philippines, other persons
subject to military law, and the members of the Sec. 4. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days
Philippine national office, repealing for the purpose following its publication in the Official Gazette orin at
certain presidential decrees least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives Presidential Decree no. 1850
of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
Presidential decree no. 1850 -‐ providing for the trial
Section 1. Members of the Armed forces of the by courts-‐martial of members of the integrated
Philippines and other persons subject to military law, national police and further defining the jurisdiction
including members of the Citizens Armed Forces of courts-‐martial over members of the armed forces
Geographical Units, who commit crimes or offenses of the Philippines
penalized under the Revised Penal Code, other special
penal laws, or local government ordinances, regardless, WHEREAS, under Section 12, Article XV of the
of whether or not civilians are co-‐accused, victims, or Constitution, the State shall establish and maintain an
offended parties which may be natural or juridical integrated national police force whose organization,
persons, shall be tried by the proper civil court, except administration, and operation shall be provided by law;
when the offense, as determined before arraignment by
the civil court, is service-‐connected, in which case the WHEREAS, under and pursuant to existing laws, the
offense shall be tried by court-‐martial: Provided, That the various municipal/city police and fire departments and
President of the Philippines may, in the interest of jails have been integrated into law-‐enforcement units
justice, order or direct at any time before arraignment under the operational control and organization set-‐up of
that any such crimes or offenses be tried by the proper the Philippine Constabulary;
civil courts.
WHEREAS, in the interest of discipline and public service,
As used in this Section, service-‐connected crimes or it is desirable that members of the Integrated National
offenses shall be limited to those defined in Articles 54 to Police be subject to trial by courts-‐martial under
70, Articles 70 to 92, and Articles 95 to 97 of Commonwealth Act No. 408, as amended, otherwise
Commonwealth Act No, 408, as amended. known as the "Article of War for the Armed Forces of the
Philippines," for all crimes of offenses which are
In imposing the penalty for such crimes or offenses, the heretofore cognizable by the civil courts;
court-‐martial may take into consideration the penalty
prescribed therefor in the Revised Penal Code, other WHEREAS, as a complementary measure, there is a need
special penal laws, or local government ordinances. to clarify existing provisions of law relating to
jurisdiction of courts-‐martial and the
Sec. 2. Subject to the provisions of Section 1 hereof, all Tanodbayan/Sandiganbayan and the regular civil courts
cases filed or pending for filing with court-‐martial or over crimes and offenses committed by members of the
other similar bodies, except those where the accused had Armed Forces of the Philippines.
already been arraigned, shall, within thirty (30) days
following the effectivity of this Act, be transferred to the NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E, MARCOS, President
proper civil courts: Provided, That the Chief of the Armed of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me
Forces of the Philippines shall, upon petition before by the Constitution, do hereby order and decree:
commencement of trial and with written consent of the
accused, order the transfer of such excepted case or Section 1. Court-‐Martial Jurisdiction over Integrated
cases to the proper civil courts for trial and resolution. National Police and Members of the Armed Forces. —
Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding —
(a) uniformed members of the Integrated National Police
Rañeses 12

who commit any crime of offense cognizable by the civil summary courts-‐martial when empowered by the
courts shall henceforth be exclusively tried by courts-‐ President.
martial pursuant to and in accordance with
Commonwealth Act No. 408, as amended, otherwise (b) Where military personnel and Integrated National
known as the Articles of War; (b) all persons subject to Police members are commonly charged. — The court-‐
military law under Article 2 of the aforecited Articles of martial shall be appointed by the appointing authorities
War who commit any crime or offense shall be specified in Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of Commonwealth Act
exclusively tried by courts-‐martial or their case disposed No. 408, as amended.
of under the said Articles of War; Provided, that, in either
of the aforementioned situations, the case shall be Section 4. Composition of Courts-‐Martial. —
disposed of or tried by the proper civil or judicial Membership, whether military personnel or Integrated
authorities when court-‐martial jurisdiction over the National Police members, in a general or special court-‐
offense has prescribed under Article 38 of martial for the trial of a member of the Integrated
Commonwealth Act Numbered 408, as amended, or National Police shall be in a ratio as determined by the
court-‐martial jurisdiction over the person of the accused appointing authority; Provided, however, that the
military or Integrated National Police personnel can no number of Integrated National Police personnel detailed
longer be exercised by virtue of their separation from the shall not be less than one-‐third of the total membership
active service without jurisdiction having duly attached of the court.
before hand unless otherwise provided by law.
Section 5. Administrative Action. — Court-‐martial action
As used herein, the term uniformed members of the against uniformed personnel of the Integrated National
Integrated National Police shall refer to police officers, Police as herein provided shall not preclude the taking of
policemen, firemen and jail guards. administrative action against said personnel as may be
warranted pursuant to the provisions of existing law.
Section 2. Segregation of Criminal Cases of Armed Forces
and Integrated National Police from Civilian Co-‐accused. Section 6. Transitory Provisions. — All cases pending
— In cases where there are two or more accused one or before the civil courts against military personnel in the
some of whom is or are civilian(s), the case against the active service Integrated National Forces of the
latter shall be segregated from accused Armed Forces or Philippines or against Integrated National Police
Integrated National Police member, and filed with the personnel where, on the effective date of this Decree, the
appropriate civil court for trial in accordance with accused have been arraigned, shall continue to be tried
existing laws; Provided, however, that should such and decided by said civil courts. All other cases against
civilian accused waive in writing civil court jurisdiction such personnel shall be tried by courts-‐martial or
and submit himself to court-‐martial jurisdiction, then the disposed of pursuant to this Decree.
whole case involving members of the Armed Forces or
the Integrated National Police as well as the civilian(s) Section 7. Promulgation of Rules. — The Chief of Staff,
shall be referred for trial to a court-‐martial. AFP, shall formulate rules and regulations necessary to
carry out the provisions of this Decree, which shall, upon
Section 3. Appointing Authorities. — (a) Where recommendation of the Minister of National Defense, be
uniformed member(s) of the Integrated National Police subject to the approval of the President.
are charged. — The President of the Philippines and the
Chief of Constabulary/Director General, Integrated Section 8. Appropriations. — The amount of two million
National Police are hereby empowered to appoint pesos (P2,000,000.00) is hereby authorized to be
general, special and summary courts-‐martial for the trial appropriated out of the funds in the National Treasury
of uniformed members of the Integrated National Police. not otherwise appropriated to carry out the purpose of
The Constabulary Regional Commanders/Directors, this Decree and, thereafter, such amounts as may be
Integrated National Police may appoint special and necessary for this purpose shall be included in the annual
summary courts-‐martial, and when empowered by the appropriation of the Integrated National Police.
President, they may also appoint general courts-‐martial.
Other subordinate field commanders of the Philippine Section 9. Repealing Clause. — All laws, rules and
Constabulary/Integrated National Police may appoint regulations, or portions thereof, which are contrary to, or
Rañeses 13

inconsistent with, the provisions of this Decree, are assault charges may be pressed under the
hereby repealed or modified accordingly. RPC.
3. No. The application of the general principle
Section 10. Effectivity. — This Decree shall take effect that the jurisdiction of the civil tribunals is
immediately.
unaffected by the military or other special

character brought before them for trial (R.A.
Done in the City of Manila, this 4th day of October, the
year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and eighty-‐two. No. 7055). Appellant claims that the act was
service connected. If this were true, it may
U.S. v. Sweet, 1 Phil. 18 (1901) be used as a defense but this cannot affect
Facts: Sweet was employed by the United States the right of the Civil Court to takes
military who committed an offense against a POW. jurisdiction of the case.”
His case is filed with the CFI, who is given original
jurisdiction in all criminal cases for which a penalty Doctrine: Jurisdiction of the civil courts is not
of more than 6 months is imposed. He is now affected by the military character of the accused.
contending that the courts are without jurisdiction
because he was “acting in the line of duty.” Reyes:
1. Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction
Issues: with general courts-‐martial over soldiers
1. WON this case is within the jurisdiction of of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
the CFI. 2. The RPC or other penal laws is not
2. WON an assault committed by a soldier or applicable when the military court takes
military employee upon a prisoner of war is cognizance of the case. When the military
not an offence under the penal code. court takes cognizance of the case involving
3. Assuming that it is an offence under the a person subject to military law, the Articles
penal code, WON the military character of War apply.
sustained by the person charged with the 3. The prosecution of an accused before a
offence at the time of its commission court-‐martial is a bar to another
exempts him from the ordinary jurisdiction prosecution of the accused for the same
of the civil tribunals. offense.
4. Offenders of war crimes are triable by
Held: military courts.
1. Yes. By Act No. 136 of the US-‐Phil 5. There are exceptions to the general
Commission, the CFIs are given original application of Criminal Law in the
jurisdiction in all criminal cases in which a Philippines.
penalty more than 6 months imprisonment • The opening sentence of Art. 2 of the
or a fine greater than $100 may be imposed. RPC says that the provisions of this
Furthermore, CFIs have jurisdiction to try Code shall be enforced within the
offenders charged with violation of the Philippine Archipelago, “except as
Penal Code within their territorial limits, provided in the treaties and laws or
regardless of the military character of the preferential application.” (i.e. Treaty
accused. The defendant and his acts are – VFA)
within the jurisdiction of the CFI because he • Art. 14 of the new Civil Code
failed to prove that he was indeed acting in provides that penal laws and those
the line of duty. of public safety shall be obligatory
2. Yes. Though assault by military officer upon all who live or sojourn in
against a POW isn’t in the RPC, physical Philippine territory, subject to the
principles of public international law
Rañeses 14

and to treaty stipulations. (i.e. Law judicial dept, to determine if war has ended.
of preferential application – R.A. Fact that delivery of certain persons under
no. 75, which favors diplomatic custody of the US Army has already begun
representatives and their servants; doesn’t mean that the war has, in the legal
Principle of public international sense, already terminated, w/c clearly it
law – immunity for (1) sovereigns hasn’t. Delivery w/in power of military
and other chiefs of state, (2) authorities to make even before was
ambassadors, ministers terminated.
plenipotentiary, ministers resident 2. No. Civil Courts shouldn’t interfere. A
and charges d’affaires.) foreign army permitted to march through a
friendly country or to be stationed in it, is
Raquiza v. Bradford, 75 Phil. 50 (1945) exempt from civil & criminal jurisdiction of
Facts: By virtue of the proclamation issued by the place. Grant of free passage implies a
General of the Army MacArthur, petitioners were waiver of all jurisdiction over troops during
arrested by the 306 CIC and detained under passage (let them exercise their own
security commitment order No 385. The petitioners discipline). Any attempt by our civil Courts
Raquiza, Tee Han Kee, and Infante were charged to exercise jurisdiction over US troops
with Espionage activity with the Japanese & active would be a violation of our country’s faith.
collaboration with the enemy respectively. Power of On the other hand, petitioners may have
Commander of the US Army to proclaim by virtue of recourse to proper military authorities.
military necessity is not questioned. He based
proclamation on reasons that apprehended have Liang v. People, 323 SCRA 692 (2000)
violated due allegiance to US and it is a military Facts: Petitioner is an economist for ADB who was
necessity. Petitioners move for writ of Habeas charged by the Metropolitan TC of Mandaluyong
Corpus. City for allegedly uttering defamatory words
against her fellow worker w/ 2 counts of grave oral
Issues: defamation. MeTC judge then received an office of
1. WON the war terminated within the protocol from the Department of Foreign Affairs,
meaning of that part in the proclamation? stating that petitioner is covered by immunity from
[Note: The power of commander in chief of legal process under section 45 of the agreement bet
the US Army to issue a proclamation ADB & the gov’t. MeTC judge, w/o notice, dismissed
providing for military measures to be taken the two criminal cases. Prosecution filed writ of
upon the apprehension of Filipino citizens mandamus & certiorari and ordered the MeTC to
who voluntarily have given aid, comfort and enforce the warrant of arrest.
sustenance to the enemy, cannot be
seriously questioned.] Issue: WON the petitioner is covered by immunity
2. WON this court has jurisdiction or legal under the agreement and that no preliminary
power to afford relief to the petitioners in investigation was held before the criminal cases
the sad and sorry plight to which they have were filed in court.
been and are being subjected?
Held: No. He is not covered by immunity because
Held: the commission of a crime is part of the
1. No. “The war, in the legal sense, continues performance of official duty. Courts cannot blindly
until, and terminated at the same time of, adhere and take on its face the communication from
some formal proclamation of peace by an the DFA that a certain person is covered by
authority competent to proclaim it. It is the immunity. That a person is covered by immunity is
province of the political dept, & not the
Rañeses 15

preliminary. Due process is right of the accused as such as acting ambassadors or nuncios, or
much as the prosecution. internuncios and charges d’affaires are
exempted from the exercise of local
Slandering a person is not covered by the jurisdiction. The remedy of a local state is to
agreement because our laws do not allow the consider him persona non grata.
commission of a crime such as defamation in the • Immunities of consuls: Consuls do not
name of official duty. Under Vienna convention on belong to the class of diplomatic agents.
Diplomatic Relations, commission of a crime is not They do not enjoy immunity from local
part of official duty. jurisdiction from private or commercial
transactions not connected with consular
On the contention that there was no preliminary duties.
investigation conducted, suffice it to say that • Honorary consuls: Are appointed to
preliminary investigation isn’t a matter of right in perform limited curricular duties. They have
cases cognizable by the MeTC such as the one at bar. no specific “definition” in the Vienna
Being purely a statutory right, preliminary Convention. Their immunities are limited to
investigation may be invoked only when specifically the level necessary for their proper exercise
granted by law. The rule on criminal procedure is of official consular functions. Consular
clear than no preliminary investigation is required employees at a post headed by an honorary
in cases falling w/in the jurisdiction of the MeTC. consul and members of the honorary
Besides, the absence of preliminary investigation consul’s family are granted none of the
doesn’t affect the court’s jurisdiction nor does it privileges provided in the convention.
impair the validity of the information or otherwise • Immunity of Officials Representing a
render it defective. Sovereign State: Officers representing the
sovereign state are exempted from local
Various Categories of Diplomatic Immunity jurisdiction.
from Local Jurisdiction • Immunity of Officials of International
• Immunity from the exercise of local Organizations: The immunities enjoyed by
jurisdiction may be generally classified as the UN includes immunity for UN assets
absolute or relative. from any legal process; from search,
• Absolute and Relative Immunity: A requisition, expropriation, confiscation, and
foreign sovereign could not, without his any sort of interference; of archives;
consent, be made a defendant in the courts freedom from all financial controls,
of another sovereign. In a newer and moratoriums, or other monetary
restrictive theory of sovereign immunity, regulations; freedom to hold funds in any
such exemption has been recognized only desired currency or metal; freedom to
with respect to sovereign or public acts of transfer funds; an absolute exemption of all
state and not necessarily with respect to its assets and revenue from all direct taxes;
so-‐called private acts. Regardless of exemption from all customs duties as well
whether an individual is constitutionally the as from any foreign trade prohibitions on
actual head of state or only its nominal needed goods; guarantee of most favored
head, he or she enjoys complete immunity diplomatic treatment; exemption from
from suit in the territory of another state. censorship, etc. Officers of the UN enjoy
And whatever the sovereign may do in the immunity from local jurisdiction.
territory of another state, he is immune
from all prosecution, civil or criminal. Similarly, representatives of the European
• 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Economic Community and the EURATOM
Relations: heads of diplomatic missions,
Rañeses 16

possess customary diplomatic privileges was overruled, he filed a petition for a writ of
and immunities. prohibition to prevent the CFI from taking
cognizance of the criminal action filed against him.
Members of special diplomatic missions Aside from this, he contended that original
enjoy civil and criminal immunities, and are jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors and
exempted from customs duties and consuls is conferred exclusively upon the Supreme
inspections. Court of the Philippines.
• Immunity of Intergovernmental
International Organizations: Issues:
Intergovernmental international 1. WON the US SC has Original Jurisdiction
organizations are granted privileges and over cases affecting ambassadors, consuls,
immunities to secure them from legal and et. al & such jurisdiction excludes courts of
practical independence in the performance the Phils.
of their duties. (Jenks, International 2. WON original jurisdiction over cases
Immunities, London [1961]) affecting ambassadors, consuls, et. al. is
• Immunity of Non-‐Governmental conferred exclusively upon the Supreme
Intergovernmental International Court of the Philippines
Organizations: The principle of immunity
from suit has been extended to these Held:
organizations in order to give them freedom 1. No. First of all, a consul is not entitled to the
of performance of their activities. privilege of diplomatic immunity. A consul
• Doctrine of Restrictive Immunity: the is not exempt from criminal prosecution for
privileges of diplomatic officials are not violations of the laws of the country where
altogether unlimited. Restrictive theory he resides. The inauguration of the
limits immunity to public acts and excluding Philippine Commonwealth on Nov. 15, 1935
all commercial or private acts. caused the Philippine Constitution to go into
• Immunity of As Hoc Diplomats: members full force and effect. This Constitution is the
of official missions and delegates traveling supreme law of the land. It also provides
abroad to attend international conference that the original jurisdiction of this court
are accorded diplomatic immunity while in “shall include all cases affecting
the performance of their official functions. ambassadors, consuls et.al.”
• Proper procedure for Liang v. People: 2. “The Supreme Court shall have original and
The court should have inquired whether the appellate jurisdiction as may be possessed
crime committed was in connection with his and exercised by the Supreme Court of the
official duties pursuant to the agreement Philippines at the time of the adoption of
between the Government of the RP and the this Constitution.” According to Sec. 17. of
ADB. His immunity was not absolute, as the Act No. 136 and by virtue of it, jurisdiction
principle of restrictive immunity applies to to issue writs of quo warranto, certiorari,
him. mandamus, prohibition and habeas corpus
was also conferred on the CFI’s. As a result,
Schneckenburger v. Moran, 63 Phil. 249 (1936) the original jurisdiction possessed and
Facts: Schneckenburger, who is an honorary consul exercised by the Supreme Court of the
of Uruguay at Manila was subsequently charged in Philippines at the time the Constitution was
CFI-‐Manila with the crime of falsification of a adopted was not exclusive of, but
private document. He objected to this saying that concurrent with, that of the CFI’s. The
under the US and Philippine Constitution, the CFI original jurisdiction conferred to SC by the
has no jurisdiction to try him. After his objection
Rañeses 17

Constitution was not an exclusive U.S. v. Bull, 15 Phil. 7 (1910)
jurisdiction. Facts: Bull, the master of the steamship STANDARD,
carried, transported and brought into the port &
Territorial city of Manila, aboard said vessel, 677 head of cattle
& carabaos, w/o providing suitable means for
securing said animals while in transit, so as to avoid
RPC, Art. 2
cruelty & unnecessary suffering to the said animals.
Article 2. Application of its provisions. -‐ Except as He failed to provide stalls & suitable means for
provided in the treaties and laws of preferential tying & securing said animals in a proper manner.
application, the provisions of this Code shall be Bull even caused some of the said animals to be tied
enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, by means of rings through their noses and
including its atmosphere, its interior waters and permitted others to be transported loose in the hold
maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction,
& on the deck of said vessel w/o being tied or
against those who:
secured in stalls. Bedding for all the said animals
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine was not provided as well. Hence, the noses of some
ship or airship; of said animals were cruelly torn, many of said
animals were tossed upon the decks of hold of said
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency
vessels, cruelly wounded, bruised & killed. All acts
note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and
contrary to the provisions of Acts No. 55 & No. 275
securities issued by the Government of the
Philippine Islands; of the Phil. Commission.

3. Should be liable for acts connected with the Issues:
introduction into these islands of the obligations 1. WON the trial court was with jurisdiction to
and securities mentioned in the preceding number;
hear and determine the case.
4. While being public officers or employees, should 2. WON Act No. 55, as amended, is in violation
commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; of certain provisions of the Constitutions of
or the US.
3. WON Whether or not the evidence is
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national
insufficient to support the conviction.
security and the law of nations, defined in Title One
of Book Two of this Code. Held:

1. Yes. Act No. 55 confers jurisdiction over the

offense. When the vessel came w/in 3 miles
Const. (1987), Art. I of a line drawn from the headlands w/c
The national territory comprises the Philippine embraces the entrance to Manila Bay, she
archipelago, with all the islands and waters was w/in territorial waters. The completed
embraced therein, and all other territories over forbidden act was thus done w/in American
which the Philippines has sovereignty or waters, & the court therefore had
jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and jurisdiction over the subject–matter of the
aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the offense & the person of the offender.
seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other The treaty does not deprive the local courts
submarine areas. The waters around, between, and
of jurisdiction over offenses committed
connecting the islands of the archipelago,
onboard a merchant vessel by one member
regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form
part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
of the crew against another w/c amount to a
disturbance of the order/tranquility of the
country. A fair & reasonable construction of
Visiting Forces Agreement, Art. V the language requires us to hold that any
*Refer to pp. 8-‐10 for full text violation of criminal laws disturbs the
Rañeses 18

order/tranquility of the country. The vessel or they refer to the internal
offense of Bull, master of the said vessel, management thereof. This is the rule
was a violation of the criminal law of the followed in the Philippines.
country into whose port he came. Hence, 2. Crimes not involving a breach of public
neither by reason of the nationality of the order committed on board a foreign
vessel, the place of the commission of the merchant vessel in transit not triable by
offense, or the prohibitions of any treaty or our courts.
general principle of public law, are the 3. Philippine courts have no jurisdiction
courts of the Phil. Islands deprived of over offenses committed on board
jurisdiction over the offense charged in the foreign warships in territorial waters. In
information in this case. case vessels are in the ports or territorial
2. No. The Constitution of the US operates only waters of a foreign country, a distinction
upon the States of the Union. It has no must be made between merchant ships and
application to the Government of the warships. The former are, more or less,
Philippine Islands. The power to regulate subjected to territorial laws. Warships, on
foreign commerce is vested in Congress, & the other hand, are always reputed to be the
by virtue of its power to govern the territory of the country to which they
territory belonging to the US, it may belong and cannot be subjected to the laws
regulate foreign commerce w/ such of another state.
territory. This Act has remained in force
since its enactment w/o annulment or other People v. Look Chaw, 18 Phil. 573 (1910)
action by Congress, and must be presumed Facts: Between 11 and 12 o'clock a. m. on the
to have been met w/ the body’s approval. present month (stated as August 19, 1909)s everal
3. No. The evidence is SUFFICIENT to support persons, Jacks and Milliron, chief of the department
the conviction. 15 of the said cattle had of the Port of Cebu and internal revenue agent of
broken legs & 3 others have died, due to Cebu, respectively, went aboard the steamship
their broken legs. The said cattle were Erroll to inspect and search its cargo, and found two
transported & carried on the deck & in the sacks containing opium. The defendant stated freely
hold of said ship, w/o suitable precaution & and voluntarily that he had bought these sacks of
care for their transportation to avoid danger opium in Hongkong with the intention of selling
& risk to their lives & security. them as contraband in Mexico or Vera Cruz, and
that as his hold had already been searched several
Doctrine: Offense committed on board a foreign times for opium, he ordered two other chinamen to
merchant vessel while on Philippine waters is keep the sack. All the evidence found properly
triable before our court (Reyes). constitutes corpus delicti.

Reyes: It was established that the steamship Erroll was of
1. There are two rules as to jurisdiction English nationality, that it came from Hongkong,
over crimes committed aboard foreign and that it was bound for Mexico, via the call ports
merchant vessels. in Manila and Cebu.
a. French Rule – such crimes are not
triable in the courts of that country, Issue: WON a local court can exercise its
unless their commission affects the jurisdiction over foreign vessels stationed in its port
peace and security of the territory or
the safety of the state is endangered. Held: Yes. The mere possession of a thing of
b. English Rule – such crimes are prohibited use in these Islands, aboard a foreign
triable in that country, unless they vessel in transit, in any of their ports, does not, as a
merely affect things within the general rule, constitute a crime triable by the courts
Rañeses 19

of this country, on account of such vessel being personal use is unlikely, judging from the size of the
considered as an extension of its own nationality, amount brought.
the same rule does not apply when the article,
whose use is prohibited within the Philippine People v. Lol-‐lo and Saraw, 43 Phil. 19 (1922)
Islands, in the present case, a can of opium, is Facts: On or about June 30, 1920, two boats left
landed from the vessel upon the Philippine soil, matuta, a Dutch possession, for Peta, another Dutch
thus committing an open violation of the penal law possession. In one of the boats was one individual, a
in force at the place of the commission of the crime, Dutch subject, and in the other boat eleven men,
only the court established in the said place itself has women, and children, likewise subjects of Holland.
competent jurisdiction, in the absence of an After a number of days of navigation, at about 7
agreement under an international treaty. o'clock in the evening, the second boat arrived
between the Islands of Buang and Bukid in the
U.S. v. Ah Sing, 36 Phil. 978 (1917) Dutch East Indies. There the boat was surrounded
Facts: The defendant is a subject of China employed by six vintas manned by twenty-‐four Moros all
as a fireman on a steamship. The steamship is a armed. The Moros first asked for food, but once on
foreign steamer which arrived at the port of Cebu the Dutch boat, too for themselves all of the cargo,
on April 25, 1917, after a voyage direct from the attacked some of the men, and brutally violated two
port of Saigon. The defendant bought 8 cans of of the women by methods too horrible to the
opium in Saigon, brought them on board the described. All of the persons on the Dutch boat, with
steamship and had them in his possession during the exception of the two young women, were again
the trip from Saigon to Cebu. When the steamer placed on it and holes were made in it, the idea that
anchored in the port of Cebu, the authorities on it would submerge, although as a matter of fact,
making the search found the cans of opium hidden these people, after eleven days of hardship and
in the ashes below the boiler of the steamer's privation, were succored violating them, the Moros
engine. The defendant confessed that he was the finally arrived at Maruro, a Dutch possession. Two
owner of the opium and that he had purchased it in of the Moro marauder were Lol-‐lo, who also raped
Saigon. He did not confess, however, as to his one of the women, and Saraw. At Maruro the two
purpose in buying the opium. He did not say that it women were able to escape.
was his intention to import the prohibited drug.
Lol-‐lo and Saraw later returned to their home in
Issue: WON the crime of illegal importation of South Ubian, Tawi-‐Tawi, Sulu, Philippine Islands.
opium into the Philippine Islands has been proven? There they were arrested and were charged in the
Court of First Instance of Sulu with the crime of
Held: Yes. It is the onus of the government to prove piracy. A demurrer was interposed by counsel de
that the vessel from which the drug discharged officio for the Moros, based on the grounds that the
came into Philippine waters from a foreign country offense charged was not within the jurisdiction of
with the drug on board. In this case, it is to be noted the Court of First Instance, nor of any court of the
that §4 of Act No. 2381 begins, “Any person who Philippine Islands, and that the facts did not
shall unlawfully import or bring any prohibited constitute a public offense, under the laws in force
drug into the Philippine Islands…” Import and bring in the Philippine Islands. After the demurrer was
should be construed as synonymous terms. The overruled by the trial judge, trial was had, and a
mere act of going into a port, without breaking bulk, judgment was rendered finding the two defendants
is prima facie evidence of importation. The guilty and sentencing each of them to life
importation is not the making entry of goods at the imprisonment (cadena perpetua), to return together
customhouse, but merely the bringing them into the with Kinawalang and Maulanis, defendants in
port, and the importation is complete before the another case, to the offended parties, the thirty-‐nine
entry to the customhouse. Moreover, possession for sacks of copras which had been robbed, or to
Rañeses 20

indemnify them in the amount of 924 rupees, and to jurisdiction over certain offenses committed within
pay a one-‐half part of the costs. said portions of territory.

Issue: Issues:
1. WON the local court has jurisdiction over 1. WON the offense has been committed
the case. within a US base thus giving the US
2. Does Art. 153 of the Spanish penal code jurisdiction over the case.
which punishes Piracy still apply? 2. WON the offender is a member of the US
armed forces
Held:
1. Yes. Piracy is a crime not against any Held:
particular State but against all mankind. It 1. No. The Port of Manila Area where the
may be punished in the competent tribunal offense was committed is not w/in a US
or any country where the offender may be base for it is not names in Annex A or B of
found or into which he may be carried. The AXXVI of the Military Base Agreement
jurisdiction of piracy unlike all other crimes (MBA) & is merely part of the temporary
had not territorial limits. quarters located w/in presented limits of
2. Yes. All laws previously in force shall the city of Manila. Moreover, extended
remain force until amended or repealed. installations & temporary quarters aren’t
considered to have the same jurisdictional
Doctrine: Pirates are considered hostis humani capacity as permanent bases & are
generis. Therefore, they can be tried anywhere. governed by AXIII pars. 2 & 4. The offence at
People v. Wong Cheng, 46 Phil. 729 (1922) bar, therefore is in the beyond the
Facts: Wong Cheng smoked opium while aboard jurisdiction of military courts.
merchant vessel Changsa, anchored in Manila Bay 2. No. Under the MBA, a civilian employee is
2.5 miles from shore. not considered as a member of the US
armed forces. Even under the articles of
Issue: WON Philippines has jurisdiction over war, the mere fact that a civilian employee is
Merchant ships in its territory? in the service of the US Army does not make
him a member of the armed forces.
Held: Yes; smoking within territory allows
substance to produce pernicious effects, which is Prospective
against public order. It is also an act of defiance of
authority.
RPC
Miquiabas v. Commanding General, 80 Phil. 262 Art. 1
(1948)
Facts: Miquiabas is a Filipino citizen and civilian Time when Act takes effect. -‐ This Code shall take
employee of the US army in the Philippines who had effect on the first day of January, nineteen hundred
been charged of disposing in the Port of Manila Area and thirty-‐two.
of things belonging to the US army in violation of Art. 21
the 94th article of War of the US. He was arrested
and a General Court-‐Martial was appointed. He was Penalties that may be imposed. -‐ No felony shall be
found guilty. As a rule, the Philippines being a punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law
sovereign nation has jurisdiction over all offenses prior to its commission.
committed within its territory but it may, by treaty
or by agreement, consent that the US shall exercise
Rañeses 21

RPC Art. 22 shall be applied, except when the
offender is a habitual delinquent or
Retroactive effect of penal laws. -‐ Penal laws shall when the new law is made not
have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the applicable to pending action or
person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual
existing causes of action.
criminal, as this term is defined in rule 5 of article
2. If the new law imposes a heavier
62 of this Code, although at the time of the
penalty, the law in force at the time
publication of such laws a final sentence has been
pronounced and the convict is serving the same. of the commission of the offense
shall be applied.
3. If the new law totally repeals the
existing law so that the act which
A person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, if
within a period of ten (10) years from the date of his penalized under the old law is no
release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or longer punishable, the crime is
less serious physical injuries, robo, burto, estafa or obliterated.
falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a 4. When the repealing law fails to penalize
third time or oftener. [Revised Penal Code, Art. 62(5) the offense under the old law, the
as amended by R.A. No. 7659, sec. 23] accused cannot be convicted under the
new law.

5. A person erroneously accused and
Civil Code, Art. 4 convicted under a repealed statute may
be punished under the repealing statute.
Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the
contrary is provided. (3) 6. A new law which omits anything
contained in the old law dealing on the
same subject operates as a repeal of
Reyes: anything not so included in the
1. Prospective, in that a penal law cannot amendatory act.
make an act punishable in a manner in
which it was not punishable when Who is a habitual delinquent?
committed. As provided in Article 366 of Reyes: A person is a habitual delinquent if within a
the RPC, crimes are punished under the period of 10 years from the date of his last release
laws in force at the time of their or last conviction of the crimes of (1) serious or less
commission. serious physical injuries, (2) robo, (3) hurto, (4)
2. Whenever a new statute dealing with estafa, or (5) falsification, he is found guilty of any of
crime establishes conditions more said crimes a time or oftener.
lenient or favorable to the accused, it can
be given a retroactive effect. Unless: Requisites:
1. Where the new law is expressly 1. That the offender has been convicted of any
made inapplicable to pending of the crimes of serious or less serious
actions or existing causes of action. physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa, or
(Tavera v. Valdez, 1 Phil. 463, 470-‐ falsification.
471) 2. That after the conviction or after serving his
2. Where the offender is a habitual sentence, he again committed, and, within
criminal under Rule 5, Article 62, 10 years from his release or first conviction,
RPC. (Art. 22, RPC) he was again convicted of any of the said
3. The Repeal of penal laws have different crimes for the second time.
effects. 3. That after his conviction of, or after serving
1. If the repeal makes the penalty sentence for, the second offense, he again
lighter in the new law, the new law
Rañeses 22

committed, and, within 10 years from his have been imprisoned for more than 13 years by
last release or last conviction, he was again virtue of their convictions.
convicted of any of said offenses, the third
time or oftener. They now invoke the doctrine laid down in People
v. Hernandez which negated such complex crime, a
Who is a recidivist? ruling which was not handed down until after their
Reyes: A recidivist is one who, at the time of his convictions have become final. In People v.
trial for one crime, shall have been previously Hernandez, the SC ruled that the information
convicted by final judgment of another crime against the accused for complex rebellion with
embraced in the same title of the RPC (People v. murder, arson and robbery was not warranted
Lagarto, G.R. No. 65833, May 6, 1991, 196 SCRA under Art. 134 of the RPC, there being no such
611, 619) complex offense. This ruling was not handed down
until after their convictions have become final. Since
Requisites Hernandez served more than the maximum penalty
1. That the offender is on trial for an offense. that could have been served against him, he is
2. That he was previously convicted by final entitled to freedom, and thus, his continued
judgment of another crime. detention is illegal.
3. That both the first and second offenses are
embraced in the same title of the Code; Issue: WON Art. 22 of the RPC which gives a penal
4. That the offender is convicted of the new judgment a retroactive effect is applicable in this
offense. case (WON judicial decisions favorable to the
accused/convicted for the same crime can be
*There is recidivism even if the lapse of time applied retroactively)
between two felonies is more than 10 years.
**Pardon does not obliterate the fact that the Held: Yes. Judicial decisions favorable to the
accused was a recidivist; but amnesty extinguishes accused must be applied retroactively. Petitioners
the penalty and its effects. relied on Art. 22 of the RPC, which states the penal
laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they
Who is a quasi-‐recidivist? favour the accused who is not a habitual criminal.
Reyes: Any person who shall commit a felony after CC also provides that judicial decisions applying or
having been convicted by final judgment, before interpreting the Constitution forms part of our legal
beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving system. Petitioners even raised their constitutional
the same, shall be punished by the maximum period right to equal protection, given that Hernandez et
of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony. al., has been convicted for the same offense as they
(Art. 160) have, though their sentences were lighter. Habeas
corpus is the only means of benefiting the accused
Gumabon v. Director of Prisons, 37 SCRA 420 by the retroactive character of a favorable decision.
(1971)
Facts: Gumabon, after pleading guilty, was In Re: Kay Villegas Kami, Inc., supra
sentenced on May 5, 1953 to reclusion perpetua for *Refer to page 5 for the digest of this case.
the complex crime of rebellion with multiple
murder, robbery, arson and kidnapping (along with People v. Narvaez, 121 SCRA 389, (1983)
Agapito, Palmares and Padua). The decision for the Facts: Mamerto Narvaez has been convicted of
first two petitioners was rendered on March 8, murder (qualified by treachery) of David Fleischer
1954 and the third on Dec. 5, 1955. The last and Flaviano Rubia. On August 22, 1968, Narvaez
petitioner Bagolbagol was penalized with reclusion shot Fleischer and Rubia during the time the two
perpetua on Jan. 12, 1954. Each of the petitioners were constructing a fence that would prevent
Rañeses 23

Narvaez from getting into his house and rice mill. aggression on the part of the victim.
The defendant was taking a nap when he heard However, this aggression was not done on
sounds of construction and found fence being made. the person of the victim but rather on his
He addressed the group and asked them to stop rights to property. On the first issue, the
destroying his house and asking if they could talk courts did not err. However, in
things over. Fleischer responded with "No, gadamit, consideration of the violation of property
proceed, go ahead." Defendant lost his rights, the courts referred to Art. 30 of the
"equilibrium," and shot Fleisher with his shotgun. civil code recognizing the right of owners to
He also shot Rubia who was running towards the close and fence their land. Although is not in
jeep where the deceased's gun was placed. Prior to dispute, the victim was not in the position to
the shooting, Fleischer and Co. (the company of subscribe to the article because his
Fleischer's family) was involved in a legal battle ownership of the land being awarded by the
with the defendant and other land settlers of government was still pending, therefore
Cotabato over certain pieces of property. At the putting ownership into question. It’s
time of the shooting, the civil case was still pending accepted that victim was the original
for annulment (settlers wanted granting of property aggressor.
to Fleisher and Co. to be annulled). At time of the 2. Yes. However, the argument of the justifying
shooting, defendant had leased his property from circumstance of self-‐defense is applicable only if
Fleisher (though case pending and ownership the 3 requirements are fulfilled. Art. 11(1) RPC
uncertain) to avoid trouble. On June 25, defendant enumerates these requisites:
received letter terminating contract because he 1. Unlawful aggression. In the case at bar,
allegedly didn't pay rent. He was given 6 months to there was unlawful aggression towards
remove his house from the land. Shooting was appellant's property rights. Fleisher had
barely 2 months after letter. Defendant claims he given Narvaez 6 months and he should
killed in defense of his person and property. CFI have left him in peace before time was
ruled that Narvaez was guilty. Aggravating up, instead of chiseling Narvaez's house
circumstances of evident premeditation offset by and putting up fence. A536 of the CC
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. also provides that possession may not
For both murders, CFI sentenced him to reclusion be acquired through force or
perpetua, to indemnify the heirs, and to pay for intimidation; while Art. 539 provides
moral damages. that every possessor has the right to be
respected in his possession
Issues: 2. Reasonable necessity of means
1. WON CFI erred in convicting defendant-‐ employed to prevent or repel attack. In
appellant despite the fact that he acted in case, killing was disproportionate to
defense of his person. attack.
2. WON the court erred in convicting 3. Lack of sufficient provocation on part of
defendant-‐appellant although he acted in person defending himself. Here, there
defense of his rights. was no provocation at all since he was
3. WON he should be liable for subsidiary asleep
imprisonment since he is unable to pay the Since not all requisites present, defendant is
civil indemnity due to the offended party. credited w/ the special mitigating
circumstance of incomplete defense,
Held: pursuant to A13(6) RPC. These mitigating
1. No. The courts concurred that the fencing circumstances are: voluntary surrender &
and chiselling of the walls of the house of passion & obfuscation (read p. 405
the defendant was indeed a form of explanation)
Rañeses 24

possession of an unlicensed firearm with a sentence
Crime is homicide (2 counts) not murder of 17 to 20 yrs.
because treachery is not applicable on
account of provocation by the deceased. Issues:
Also, assault wasn’t deliberately chosen 1. WON the amendatory law RA 8294 (which
with view to kill since slayer acted took effect in 1997: crime occurred in 1994)
instantaneously. There was also no direct is applicable
evidence of planning or preparation to kill. 2. WON RTC erred in convicting appellant for
simple illegal possession of firearms and
Art. 249 RPC: Penalty for homicide is sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate
reclusion temporal. However, due to sentence of 17 to 20 years.
mitigating circumstances and 3. WON trial court erred in convicting accused
incomplete defense, it can be of murder
lowered 3 degrees (Art. 64) to 4. WON RTC erred in sentencing the accused
arresto mayor. to death for muder which wasn’t proven &
3. No. He isn’t liable for subsidiary that the alleged murder committed by the
imprisonment for non-‐payment of civil appellant, the appropriate penalty for the
indemnity. RA 5465 made the provisions of offense is reclusion perpetua due to to the
A39 applicable to fines only & not to absence of an aggravating circumstance.
reparation of damage caused,
indemnification of consequential damages & Held:
costs of proceedings. Although it was 1. No. At the time of the commission of the
enacted only after its commission, crime the use of an unlicensed firearm was
considering that RA 5465 is favorable to the still not an aggravating circumstance in
accused who is not a habitual delinquent, it murder to homicide. To apply it to Ringor
may be given retroactive effect pursuant to would increase his penalty from reclusion
RPC Art. 22. perpetua to death. Hence, RA 8294 cannot
retroact as it is unfavorable to the accused,
People v. Ringor, 320 SCRA 342 (1999) lest it becomes an ex post facto law.
Facts: The accused (Ringor) on the night of June 23, 2. Yes. In cases where murder or homicide is
1994 was seen entering People’s Restaurant. A committed with the use of an unlicensed
witness Fely Batanes saw the accused approach a firearm, there can be no separate conviction
table where the victim was sitting, pulled his hair, & for the crime of illegal possession of
poked a knife at the latter’s throat. After, leaving the firearms under PD 1866. It is simply
restaurant, the accused returned with a gun, considered as an aggravating circumstance,
entered the kitchen of the restaurant, stealthily no longer as a separate offence. According
approached the victim from behind & shot him 6 to the Art. 22 of the RPC, retroactivity of the
times successively. The defendant was later law must be applied if it is favorable to the
apprehended and caught in his possession was an accused. Thus, insofar as it spares accused-‐
unlicensed weapon. Upon verification in Camp appellant a separate conviction for illegal
Crame, it was found out that Ringor is not a licensed possession of firearms, RA 8294 has to be
firearm holder & that the gun was not licensed. given retroactive application.
Ringor put up self-‐defense but he failed to prove 3. No. For self-‐defense to prosper, unlawful
Florida’s unlawful aggression. He was found guilty aggression, proportionality of methods to
of murder qualified by treachery and was sentenced fend said aggression, and lack of sufficient
to death. He was found guilty of a separate charge of provocation from defender must be proven.
In this case, defendant failed to prove
Rañeses 25

unlawful aggression. The statement that the amended to mere illegal possession of
victim approached him with a bolo was firearms without furtherance of subversion
inconsistent to the witness’ statement of the
victim being in a prone position in the table. People v. Lacson, 382 SCRA 365 (2002)
This does not constitute the requisite Facts: Soon after the announcement on May 18,
quantum of proof for unlawful aggression. 1995 that the Kuratong Baleleng gang had been
With the first requirement missing, the last slain in a shootout w/ the police, 2 witnesses
two requisites have no basis. surfaced providing the testimony that the said
slaying was a rub-‐out. On June 1, 1995, Chief
4. Yes. In the absence of mitigating or Superintendent Job A. Mayo, PNP Director for
aggravating circumstances to a crime of Investigation, filed murder charges with the Office
murder as described by A248 RPC, a lesser of the Ombudsman against 97 officers & personnel
penalty of reclusion perpetua has to be of ABRITFG. The next-‐of-‐kin of the slain KBG
imposed in according to Art. 63(2) of the members also filed murder charges against the
RPC. same officers and personnel.

People v. Pimentel, 288 SCRA 542 (1998) On Nov. 2, 1995, after 2 resolutions, the
Facts: 1983. Tujan charged with subversions under Ombudsman filed before the SB 11 information[s]
RA 1700 with warrant of arrest issued. On June 5, of murder against the defendant & 25 policemen as
1990, Tujan was arrested and caught with .38 principals. Upon motion of the respondent, the
caliber revolver. On June 14, 1990, he was charged criminal cases were remanded to the Ombudsman
with illegal possession of firearms and ammunition & in a re-‐investigation, the information[s] were
in furtherance of subversion (PD 1866) Tujan filed amended downgrading the principal into an
motion to quash invoking protection versus double accessory. With the downgrading of charges, the
jeopardy (Art. III, Constitution; Misolas v. Panga; & case was later transferred from the SB to the RTC
Enrile v. Salazar: alleged possession absorbed in not due to jurisdictional questions over the suspects
subversion. It was granted by the TC & the CA. but due to the failure to indicate that the offenses
charged therein were committed in relation to, or in
Issue: WON charge under PD 1866 be quashed on discharge of, the official functions of the
ground of double jeopardy in view of the previous respondent, as required by RA 8249. Before the
charge under RA 1700. arraignment, the witnesses of the prosecution
recanted their statements while the 7 private
Held: No. complainants submitted their affidavits of
1. Art. III of the Constitution & RoC 117 state desistance. All 26 suspects filed individual motions
that for double jeopardy to occur, acquittal, to (1) make a judicial determination of the existence
conviction or dismissal in previous cases of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of
must have occurred. In this case, first case arrest; (2) hold in abeyance the issuance of the
was not even arraigned yet. warrants, & (3) dismiss the cases should the TC find
2. They are different offenses. RA 1700 lack of probable cause. The cases were dismissed.
punishes subversion while PD 1866
punishes illegal possession of firearms. It was on March 27, 2001 when PNP director
Mendoza indorsed to the DOJ new affidavits of new
However, since RA 7636 totally repealed witnesses w/c it began to investigate & to file w/
subversion or RA 1700, & since this is the RTC. The respondent, invoking among others,
favorable to the accused, we can no longer their right against double jeopardy, then filed w/
charge accused with RA 1700 even if they the CA a petition stating that §8, Rule 117 of the
didn’t raise this issue. PD 1866 should be
Rañeses 26

2000 Rules on Crim. Pro. bans the revival of the People v. Lacson, 400 SCRA 267 (2003)
murder cases against him; a petition the CA denied. Facts: Before the court is the petitioner’s MFR of
the resolution dated May 23, 2002, for the
On June 6, 2001, 11 Information[s] for murder determination of several factual issues relative to
involving the killing of the same members of the the application of §8 RCP 117 on the dismissal of
Kuratong Baleleng gang were filed before the RTC the cases Q-‐99-‐81679 & Q-‐99-‐81689 against the
QC. The new Information[s] charged as principals respondent. The respondent was charged with the
34 people, including respondent Lacson & his 25 shooting & killing of 11 male persons. The court
other co-‐accused in Crim. Cases Nos. Q-‐99-‐81679 to confirmed the express consent of the respondent in
Q-‐99-‐81689. The defendant filed for determination the provisional dismissal of the aforementioned
of probable cause & an outright dismissal in the cases when he filed for judicial determination. The
RTC. The CA considered the original cases to be court also ruled the need to determine whether the
provisionally dismissed & the new cases as mere other facts for its application are attendant.
revivals. Under §8 2000 RCP 117, the cases were Issues:
dismissed. 1. WON the requisites for the applicability of
§8, 2000 RCP 117 were complied w/ in the
Issue: WON §8, Rule 117 bars the filing of the 11 Kuratong Baleleng cases
information[s] against the respondent Lacson • Was express consent given by the
involving the killing of some members of the respondent?
Kuratong Baleleng gang. • Was notice for the motion, the hearing
and the subsequent dismissal given to
Held: Remanded to the RTC to determine if they the heirs of the victims?
complied with rule and case should be dismissed. 2. WON time-‐bar in §8 RCP 117 should be
There is no question that the new rule can be given applied prospectively or retroactively.
retroactive effect given RPC Art. 22. There can be
no ruling, however, due to the lack of sufficient Held:
factual bases to support such a ruling. There is need 1. No. Sec. 8, Rule 117 is not applicable to the
of proof to show the ff. facts: case since the conditions for its
1. provisional dismissal of the case had the applicability, namely: 1) prosecution with
express consent of the accused the express consent of the accused or both
2. whether it was ordered by the court after of them move for provisional dismissal, 2)
giving notice to the offended party offended party notified, 3) court grants
3. whether the 2 year period to revive the case motion and dismisses cases provisionally, 4)
has already elapsed public prosecutor served with copy of
4. whether there is justification for filing of the orders of provisional dismissal, which is the
cases beyond the 2 yr period. defendant’s burden to prove, w/c in this
The respondent expressed consent, but the records case hasn’t been done.
don’t reveal whether the notices to the offended • The defendant never filed and denied
parties were given before the cases were unequivocally in his statements, through
provisionally dismissed. Only the right to double counsel at the Court of Appeals, that he
Jeopardy by the defendant was tackled by the filed for dismissal nor did he agree to a
litigants. The records are also inconclusive w/ provisional dismissal thereof.
regards to the 2-‐year bar, if w/in or without. • No notice of motion for provisional
Because of this, both prosecution & defendant must dismissal, hearing and subsequent
be given ample time to adduce evidence on the dismissal was given to the heirs of the
presence or absence of the adduced evidence. victims.

Rañeses 27

2. No. Time-‐bar should not be applied on the basis of its being favorable to the
retroactively. Though procedural rules may accused.
be applied retroactively, it should not be if
to do so would work injustice or would Held:
involve intricate problems of due process. 1. The rule should be applied prospectively.
Statutes should be construed in light of the The court upheld the petitioners’ contention
purposes to be achieved & the evils to be that while §8 secures the rights of the
remedied. This is because to do so would be accused, it doesn’t & shouldn’t preclude the
prejudicial to the State since, given that the equally important right of the State to public
Judge dismissed the case on March 29,1999, justice. If a procedural rule impairs a vested
& the New rule took effect on Dec 1,2000, it right, or would work injustice, the said rule
would only in effect give them 1 yr & 3 may not be given a retroactive application
months to work instead of 2 yrs. At that 2. No. The Court isn’t mandated to apply rules
time, they had no knowledge of the said rule retroactively just because it’s favorable to
and therefore they should not be penalized the accused. The time-‐bar under the new
for that. “Indeed for justice to prevail, the rule is intended to benefit both the State &
scales must balance; justice is not to be the accused. When the rule was approved by
dispensed for the accused alone.” the court, it intended that the rule be
applied prospectively and not retroactively,
The 2-‐yr period fixed in the new rule is for for to do so would be tantamount to the
the benefit of both the State & the accused. denial of the State’s right to due process. A
It shouldn’t be emasculated & reduced by an retroactive application would result in
inordinate retroactive application of the absurd, unjust & oppressive consequences
time-‐bar therein provided merely to benefit to the State & to the victims of crimes &
the accused. To do so would cause an their heirs.
injustice of hardship to the state &
adversely affect the administration of Construction/Interpretation of Penal Laws
justice.
Reyes: Penal laws are strictly construed against
People v. Lacson, 413 SCRA 20 (2003) the Government and liberally in favor of the
Facts: Petitioner asserts that retroactive accused. (U.S. v. Abad Santos, 36 Phil. 243; People
application of penal laws should also cover v. Yu Hai, 99 Phil. 728) The rule that penal statutes
procedures, and that these should be applied only should be strictly construed against the State may
to the sole benefit of the accused. Petitioner asserts be invoked only where the law is ambiguous and
that Sec 8 was meant to reach back in time to there is doubt as to its interpretation. Where the
provide relief to the accused in line with the law is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for
constitutional guarantee to the right to speedy trial. the application of the rule. (People v. Gatchalian,
104 Phil. 664)
Issues:
1. WON the 5 Associate Justices can inhibit
themselves from deciding in the MFR given
they were only appointed in the SC after his
Feb. 19, 2002 oral arguments.
2. WON the application of the time-‐bar under
§8 RCP 117 be given a retroactive
application w/o reservations, only & solely
Rañeses 28

Const. (1987), Art. III, Sec. 14(2)

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and
shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and

counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of

the accusation against him, to have a speedy,

impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses
face to face, and to have compulsory process to
secure the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf. However, after
arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the
absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been
duly notified and his failure to appear is
unjustifiable.

Spanish text of the RPC prevails over its

English translation.

Retroactive application if favorable to the
accused. (RPC, Art. 22)
*Refer to page 21 for the full text for Art. 22

Prescribed, but undeserved, penalties

RPC, Art. 5, 2nd par.

In the same way the court shall submit to the
Chief Executive, through the Department of
Justice, such statement as may be deemed
proper, without suspending the execution of
the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the
provisions of this Code would result in the

imposition of a clearly excessive penalty,
taking into consideration the degree of malice
and the injury caused by the offense.

Rañeses 29

Felonies and Criminal Liability 5. “Omission” should be construed as
inaction, the failure to perform a positive

duty which one is bound to do. There
A. Felonies must be a law requiring the doing or
performance of an act. If there is no law that
RPC, Art. 3 requires a person to perform a certain act,
failure to do such act would not result in a
Definition. -‐ Acts and omissions punishable by law
felony and would therefore not be
are felonies (delitos).
punishable by the RPC.
Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit
(d+olo) but also by means of fault (culpa). Act
People v. Gonzales, 183 SCRA 309 (1990)
There is deceit when the act is performed with
Facts: Appeal of Custodio Gonzales, Sr. that the CA
deliberate intent; and there is fault when the
wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, erred in convicting him of murder qualified with
lack of foresight, or lack of skill. treachery and evident premeditation from a
previous case on the sole basis of Huntoria’s (eye
witness) account.
Reyes:
1. Felonies are acts and omissions Previous case: That appellant with his 3 robust
punishable by the RPC. sons along with brother and sister Fausta and
2. Felonies have certain elements. Rogelio conspired to kill Augusto and Fausta’s
1. That there must be an act or landlord, Peñacerrada. The victim sustained 16
omission. stab, puncture, and lacerated wounds, 5 of which
2. That the act or omission must be were fatal. The lone eyewitness was Huntoria who
punishable by the Revised Penal claimed that he saw all 6 accused ganging up on the
Code. victim, but he failed to state who actually did the
3. That the act is performed or the stabbing or hacking.
omission incurred by means of dolo
or culpa. (People v. Gonzales, G.R. All the accused petitioned for parole except for
No. 80762, March 19, 1990, 183 appellant
SCRA 309, 324)
3. “Act” must be understood as any bodily Issues: WON the appellant had committed the
movement tending to produce some felony of murder with treachery and evident
effect in the external world, it being premeditation.
unnecessary that the same be actually
produced, as the possibility of its Held: No. The Court held that the prosecution was
production is sufficient. (People v. unable to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond
Gonzales, supra) But the act must be one reasonable doubt because: (a) Huntoria was a poor
which is defined by the RPC as constituting eyewitness (took 8 months to come forward and
a felony; or, at least, an overt act of that wanted to get in the good graces of his landlord’s
felony, that is, an external act which has family) and was unable to supply any information
direct connection with the felony intended as to what the appellant actually did (the act) in his
to be committed. (Art. 6) alleged participation in the murder; (b) it was
4. The act must be external, because illogical that the appellant’s 3 robust sons together
internal acts are beyond the spere of with Augusto and Fausta would bring their aging
penal law. 65-‐year old father to the victim’s house just to
participate in the killing considering the appellant
Rañeses 30

lived a good kilometer away from the scene of the period to prision mayor in its minimum period, or a
crime; (c) the prior investigations were sloppy and fine ranging from 200 to 10,000 pesos, or both, shall
provided no decent evidence to support the be imposed upon any public officer who:
appellant’s participation in the murder.
2. Being entrusted with the collection of taxes,

licenses, fees and other imposts, shall be guilty or
Doctrine: Felony must involve an act (any bodily
any of the following acts or omissions:
movement tending to produce some effect in the
external world) or omission. The act of hacking or (b) Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided
stabbing the victim was never proven to have been by law, for any sum of money collected by him
done by the appellant. Therefore, the accused had officially.
not committed a felony.
Art. 223

RPC, Art. 116 Conniving with or consenting to evasion. — Any
public officer who shall consent to the escape of a
Misprision of treason. -‐ Every person owing prisoner in his custody or charge, shall be punished:
allegiance to (the United States) the Government of
the Philippine Islands, without being a foreigner, 1. By prision correccional in its medium and
and having knowledge of any conspiracy against maximum periods and temporary special
them, who conceals or does not disclose and make disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual
known the same, as soon as possible to the special disqualification, if the fugitive shall have
governor or fiscal of the province, or the mayor or been sentenced by final judgment to any penalty.
fiscal of the city in which he resides, as the case may
2. By prision correccional in its minimum period
be, shall be punished as an accessory to the crime of
and temporary special disqualification, in case the
treason.
fugitive shall not have been finally convicted but
Art. 137 only held as a detention prisoner for any crime or
violation of law or municipal ordinance.
Disloyalty of public officers or employees. -‐ The
penalty of prision correccional in its minimum Art. 234
period shall be imposed upon public officers or
Refusal to discharge elective office. — The penalty of
employees who have failed to resist a rebellion by
arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos,
all the means in their power, or shall continue to
or both, shall be imposed upon any person who,
discharge the duties of their offices under the
having been elected by popular election to a public
control of the rebels or shall accept appointment to
office, shall refuse without legal motive to be sworn
office under them. (Restored by E.O. No. 187)
in or to discharge the duties of said office.
Art. 208
Art. 275 (1)
Prosecution of offenses; negligence and tolerance. —
Abandonment of person in danger and
The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum
abandonment of one's own victim. — The penalty of
period and suspension shall be imposed upon any
arresto mayor shall be imposed upon:
public officer, or officer of the law, who, in
dereliction of the duties of his office, shall 1. Anyone who shall fail to render assistance to any
maliciously refrain from instituting prosecution for person whom he shall find in an uninhabited place
the punishment of violators of the law, or shall wounded or in danger of dying, when he can render
tolerate the commission of offenses. such assistance without detriment to himself,
unless such omission shall constitute a more
Art. 213 (2) (b)
serious offense.
Frauds against the public treasury and offenses. —
The penalty of prision correccional in its medium

Rañeses 31

Presidential Decree no. 953 maintain not less than thirty percent (30%) of the total
area of the subdivision, exclusive of roads, service streets
Requiring the planting of trees in certain places and and alleys, as open space for parks and recreational
penalizing unauthorized cutting, destruction, areas.
damaging and injuring of certain trees, plants and
vegetation No plan for a subdivision shall be approved by the Land
Registration Commission or any office or agency of the
WHEREAS, the planting of trees on lands adjoining the government unless at least thirty percent (30%) of the
edge of rivers and creeks in both a measure of total area of the subdivision, exclusive of roads, service
beautification and reforestation; and streets and alleys, is reserved as open space for parks
and recreational areas and the owner thereof undertakes
WHEREAS, the planting of trees along roads and areas to develop such open space, within three (3) years from
intended for the common use of owners of lots in the approval of the subdivision plan, in accordance with
subdivisions will provide shade and healthful the development plan approved by the Bureau of Forest
environment therein; Development and to maintain such parks and
recreational areas.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President
of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me Section 3. Any person who cuts, destroys, damages or
by the Constitution, do hereby order and decree: injures, naturally growing or planted trees of any kind,
flowering or ornamental plants and shrubs, or plants of
Section 1. The following shall plant trees: scenic, aesthetic and ecological values, along public
roads, in plazas, parks other than national parks, school
1. Every person who owns land adjoining a river or premises or in any other public ground or place, or on
creek, shall plant trees extending at least five meters on banks of rivers or creeks, or along roads in land
his land adjoining the edge of the bank of the river or subdivisions or areas therein for the common use of the
creek, except when such land, due to its permanent owners of lots therein, or any species of vegetation or
improvement, cannot be planted with trees; forest cover found therein shall, be punished with
imprisonment for not less than six months and not more
2. Every owner of an existing subdivision shall plant than two years, or a fine of not less than five hundred
trees in the open spaces required to be reserved for the pesos and not more than five thousand pesos, or with
common use and enjoyment of the owners of the lots both such imprisonment and fine at the discretion of the
therein as well as along all roads and service streets. The court, except when the cutting, destroying, damaging or
subdivision owner shall consult the Bureau of Forest injuring is necessary for public safety or the pruning
Development as to the appropriate species of trees to be thereof is necessary to enhance beauty, and only upon
planted and the manner of planting them; and the approval of the duly authorized representative of the
head of agency or political subdivision having
3. Every holder of a license agreement, lease, license or jurisdiction therein, or of the Director of Forest
permit from the Government, involving occupation and Development in the case of trees on banks of rivers and
utilization of forest or grazing land with a river or creek creeks, or of the owner of the land subdivision in the case
therein, shall plant trees extending at least twenty (20) of trees along roads and in other areas therein for the
meters from each edge of the bank of the river or creek. common use of owners of lots therein. If the offender is a
corporation, partnership or association, the penalty shall
The persons hereinabove required to plant trees shall be imposed upon the officer or officers thereof
take good care of them, and, from time to time, remove responsible for the offense, and if such officer or officers
any tree planted by them in their respective areas which are aliens, in addition to the penalty herein prescribed,
has grown very old, is diseased, or is defective, and he or they shall be deported without further proceedings
replant with trees their respective areas whenever before the Commission on Immigration and Deportation.
necessary. Nothing in this Decree shall prevent the cancellation of a
license agreement, lease, license or permit from the
Section 2. Every owner of land subdivided into Government, if such cancellation is prescribed therein or
residential/commercial/industrial lots after the in Government regulations for such offense.
effectivity of this Decree shall reserve, develop and
Rañeses 32

Section 4. Any person who shall violate any provision of time to make an urgent call upon our citizenry to plant
Section one hereof, or any regulation promulgated trees:
thereunder, shall be punished with imprisonment for not
less than six months but not more than two years, or NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President
with a fine of not less than five hundred pesos but not of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me
more than five thousand pesos, or with both such by the Constitution, do hereby order and decree the
imprisonment than fine at the discretion of the court. If following:
the offender is a public officer or employee, he shall, in
addition, be dismissed from the public service and Section 1. It is the policy of the State to call upon every
disqualified perpetually to hold public office. citizen of the Philippines to help, as a duty and obligation,
to conserve and develop the resources of the country.
Section 5. Any person who shall violate the provision of
Section 2 hereof, or any regulation promulgated Section 2. In furtherance of said policy, every citizen of
thereunder, shall be punished with imprisonment for not the Philippines at least ten (10) years of age, actually
less than two (2) years but not more than five (5) years, residing therein, unless physically disabled to do so, shall
or with a fine equivalent to the value, at current plant one tree every month for five (5) consecutive years.
valuation, of the area representing thirty percent (30%)
of the total area of the subdivision, or both such fine and Section 3. The planting of such trees shall be done in any
imprisonment at the discretion of the Court. of the following places:

Section 6. The Director of Forest Development shall issue (a) In lands or lots owned by his family;
such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry
out the purposes of this Decree. (b) In lands or lots leased by his family with the consent
of the owner thereof;
Section 7. All laws, rules and regulations, or parts
thereof, inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. (c) In lands which are parts of public grounds or places
such as plazas, schools, markets, roadside and parks, and
Section 8. This Decree shall take effect upon its
promulgation. (d) In lands of the public domain designated by the
Presidential Council for Forest Ecosystem Management,
Done in the City of Manila, this 6th day of July in the year hereafter referred to as the Council, such as appropriate
of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-‐six. forest lands, grazing or pasture lands, mineral lands,
resettlement lands, civil and military reservations.
Presidential Decree no. 1153
Section 4. The trees to be planted shall be fruit-‐bearing,
Requiring the planting of one tree every month for shade, ornamental or forest trees, and the same shall be
five consecutive years by every citizen of the taken care of for at least two years after each planting
Philippines and replaced if the same die, are diseased or are
defective.
WHEREAS, more abundant natural resources,
particularly forest resources, will prevent floods, Section 5. The Council, in consultation with the
droughts, erosion and sedimentation, and will increase appropriate government agencies, shall issue such rules
our water supply needed to generate more power, and regulations which may be necessary to carry out the
expand farm productivity, and meet the ever increasing purposes of this Decree and Letter of Instruction No. 423
demand for domestic consumption of our exploding whenever applicable.
population; and
Section 6. Any person who violates any provision of this
WHEREAS, to achieve a holistic ecosystem approach to Decree or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder
forest resource management, to prevent irreversible shall be punished with a fine of not more than one
consequences of human activities on the environment, thousand pesos or, in appropriate cases, with
and to promote a healthier ecosystem for our people, it is disqualification to acquire or enjoy any privilege granted
exclusively to citizens of the Philippines, such as the
Rañeses 33

acquisition either through sale, free patent, homestead, not take a direct part in the commission of the act,
or lease of public lands, enjoyment of a franchise to own who does not induce other to commit it, nor
or operate a public utility or the grant of lease, license or cooperates in the commission of the act by another
a privilege involving natural resources; and for a period act without which it would not have been
of five years be disqualified to hold public office, to
accomplished, yet cooperates in the execution of the
graduate from any educational institution at all levels, to
act by previous or simultaneous actions.
take any bar, board or civil service examination, and to
practice any profession licensed and regulated by the
Supreme Court or the Professional Regulation There is no evidence of conspiracy or cooperation.
Commission. Mere passive presence at the scene of another’s crime
does not constitute the cooperation required in
Section 7. This Decree shall take effect upon its Article 14 of the Penal code.
promulgation.
Punishable by the Revised Penal Code
Done in the City of Manila, this 6th day of June in the year

of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-‐seven.
Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege
Omission *Refer to page 1 for the definition, as elucidated by
People v. Sylvestre and Atienza, 56 Phil. 353 Justice Fernando

(1931)
Facts: Martin Atienza was convicted as principal RPC, Art. 3
by direct participation and Romana Silvestre as
*Refer to page 29 for the full text of the provision
accomplice of the crime of arson by the CFI.
Art. 5
On the night of November 25, 1950, while the
Duty of the court in connection with acts which
defendants and Nicolas De la Cruz and his wife were
should be repressed but which are not covered by the
gathered after dinner, Martin Atienza ordered them
law, and in cases of excessive penalties. -‐ Whenever a
to take their furniture out of the house as he was
court has knowledge of any act which it may deem
going to set it on fire to get revenge on the people of proper to repress and which is not punishable by
Masocol, who instigated the charge of adultery law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall
against him and Silvestre and drove them out of report to the Chief Executive, through the
town. As Atienza had a gun in hand, nobody said Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the
anything. The de la Cruz couple left to alert the court to believe that said act should be made the
barrio lieutenant, but before they got there they subject of penal legislation.
heard the cries of “Fire! Fire!” and looked back to
Art. 21
see their home on fire. The fire destroyed about 48
houses. Romana was accused for listening to her co-‐ Penalties that may be imposed. -‐ No felony shall be
defendants threat without raising a protest, and not punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law
giving the alarm when the latter set fire to the prior to its commission.

house.

How committed
Issue: WON Silvestre’s failure is an omission that

belongs properly to the meaning in Art.3 and hence,
punishable. RPC, Art. 3

Held: No. Mere passive presence at the scene of
another’s crime, mere silence and failure to give the Act. 365
alarm, without evidence of agreement or conspiracy,
Imprudence and negligence. — Any person who,
is not punishable. An accomplice is one who does
Rañeses 34

(Cont.) by reckless imprudence, shall commit any of Art. 3, the act is performed with
act which, had it been intentional, would constitute deliberate intent (with malice). The
a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto offender, in performing the act or in
mayor in its maximum period to prision incurring the omission, has the intention to
correccional in its medium period; if it would have cause an injury to another. In culpable
constituted a less grave felony, the penalty of felonies, the act or omission of the offender
arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods is not malicious. The injury caused by the
shall be imposed; if it would have constituted a light
offender to another person is
felony, the penalty of arresto menor in its maximum
“unintentional, it being simply the incident
period shall be imposed.
of another act performed without malice.”
Any person who, by simple imprudence or (People v. Sara, 55 Phil. 939)
negligence, shall commit an act which would 3. In felonies committed by means of dolo
otherwise constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the or with malice and in felonies committed
penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and by means of fault or culpa, the acts or
maximum periods; if it would have constituted a
omissions must be voluntary.
less serious felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in
4. A person causing damage or injury to
its minimum period shall be imposed.
another, without malice or fault, is not
When the execution of the act covered by this criminally liable under the RPC.
article shall have only resulted in damage to the
property of another, the offender shall be punished Dolo
by a fine ranging from an amount equal to the value
of said damages to three times such value, but
Reyes:
which shall in no case be less than twenty-‐five
1. The word “deceit” in the second
pesos.
paragraph of Art. 3 is not the proper
A fine not exceeding two hundred pesos and translation of the word “dolo.” Dolus is
censure shall be imposed upon any person who, by equivalent to malice, which is the intent to
simple imprudence or negligence, shall cause some do an injury to another. (I Wharton’s
wrong which, if done maliciously, would have Criminal Law 180)
constituted a light felony.

In the imposition of these penalties, the court shall When the offender, in performing an act or
exercise their sound discretion, without regard to in incurring an omission, has the intention
the rules prescribed in Article sixty-‐four. to do an injury to person, property or right of
another, such offender acts with malice. If
the act or omission is punished by the RPC,
Reyes:
The provisions contained in this article shall not be he is liable for intentional felony.
applicable: 1. Art. 3 classifies felonies, according to to 2. There are certain requisites for dolo or
the means by which they are committed, malice. In order that an act or omission
into (1) intentional felonies, and (2) may be considered as having been
culpable felonies. Thus, the second performed or incurred with deliberate
1. When the penalty provided for the offense is
equal to paragraph of the
or lower than aforementioned
those article
provided in the first intent, the following requisites must concur:
two paragraphs states that of felonies are committed
this article, not
in which case only
the 1. He must have FREEDOM while doing
by means of deceit (dolo) but also by mean
court shall impose the penalty next lower in degree an act or omitting to do an act;
than that of fault
which (culpa).
should be imposed in the period 2. He must have INTELLIGENCE while
which they may
2. There deem
is, proper to
obviously, a adistinct
pply. difference doing the act or omitting to do the
between intentional and culpable act;

felonies. In the former, the act or omission 3. He must have INTENT while doing
of the offender is malicious. In the language
2. When, by imprudence or negligence and with the act or omitting to do the act.
violation of the Automobile Law, to death of a
person shall be caused, in which case the defendant
Rañeses 35

3. When a person acts without freedom, he apply article 549, but article 554 of the
is no longer a human being but a tool. Penal Code.
Therefore, a person who acts under the
compulsion of an irresistible force is exempt Held:
from criminal liability. (Art. 12, par. 5) So 1. No. Criminal intent as well as the will to
also, a person who acts under the impulse of commit a crime are always presumed to
an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater exist on the part of the person who executes
injury is exempt from criminal liability. (Art. an act which the law punishes, unless the
12, par. 6) contrary shall appear. (Art. 1, Penal Code.)
4. Without intelligence, necessary to 2. No. The argument which the defense
determine the morality of human acts, no advances, based on article 554, which in
crime can exist. Thus, the imbecile or connection with 553 punishes the setting
insane, and the infant under nine years of fire to a building intended for habitation, in
age, as well as the minor over nine but less an uninhabited place, does not apply,
than fifteen years ol and act without because the article question refers to an
discernment, have no criminal liability, edifice intended for human habitation in an
because they act without intelligence. (Art. uninhabited place at a time when the same
12, pars. 1, 2 and 3) is unoccupied. It is article 549, which
5. Intent to commit the act with malice, punishes with the very severe penalties of
being purely a meantal process, is cadena temporal to cadena perpetua "those
presumed and the presumption arises who shall set fire to any edifice, farmhouse,
from the proof of the commission of an hut, shed, or vessel in port, with knowledge
unlawful act. that one or more persons were within the
6. All three requisites of voluntariness in same," that must be applied.
intentional felony must be present,
because “a voluntary act is free, Doctrine: As intent is largely a mental process,
intelligent, and intelligent act.” (U.S. v. Ah there is always a presumption of intent aising from
Chong, 15 Phil. 488, 495) overt acts.

Presumption of Intent U.S. v. Catolico, 18 Phil. 504 (1911)
U.S. v. Apostol, 14 Phil. 92 (1909) Facts: On 2 October 1900 justice of the peace Rafael
Facts: Five individuals, among them being the B. Catolico had 16 cases against 16 distinct
accused herein, went to the house where Pedro individuals each one for violating a contract with
Tabilisima, Celestino Vergara, and Tranquilino one Juan Canillas. All cases were decided in favor of
Manipul were living, and there inquired after some Canillas; and all 16 cases appealed, depositing P16
carabaos that had disappeared, and because these as required by law and filing a bond of P50. On 12
above-‐mentioned inmates answered that they knew October 1900 Canillas proved to Catolico that each
nothing about the matter, ordered them to leave the of the bonds were insolvent. As a result, Catolico
house, but as the three men named above refused to ordered the cancellation of the bonds filed and
do so the accused Catalino Apostol, set fire to the ordered the 16 to file another bond. Canillas then
hut and the same was burnt down. asked for the court to declare final judgment for
each of the 16 cases and at the same time asking
Issue: that the sums deposited by the defendants be
1. WON proof of criminal intent is needed. delivered to him. Catolico agreed. Attorney for the
2. WON due to the burnt hut being situated in defendants in the 16 cases then filed a complaint
an uninhabited place, it is not proper to against Catolico for malversation of public funds.
Catolico was convicted and now appeals.
Rañeses 36

awarded to her under the provisions of the Civil
Issue: WON Catolico committed a crime when he Code.
believed he was performing an innocent act
On a plea of not guilty when arraigned, appellants
Held: No, he did not commit a crime. went to trial which ultimately resulted in a
1. Essential elements for malversation of judgment promulgated on September 26, 1990
public funds were not present finding them guilty of robbery with extortion
o accused did not convert the money committed on a highway, punishable under
to his own use or to the use of any Presidential Decree No. 532.
other person
o he did not permit anybody else to On their appeal, appellants contended that the court
convert it a quo erred (1) in convicting them under
Presidential Decree No. 532 since they were not
To constitute a crime, the act must, except in certain expressly charged with a crime therein; (2) in
crimes made such by statute, be accomplished by a applying Sections 4 and 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of
criminal intent or by such negligence or indifference Court since the charge under said presidential
to duty or to consequences as in law is equivalent to decree is not the offense proved and cannot rightly
criminal intent be used as the offense proved which is necessarily
included in the offense charged.
The maxim is actus non facit reum nisi mens rea “a
crime is not committed if the mind of the person Issue: WON the accused were guilty of kidnapping.
performing the act complained it to be innocent”
Held; No. it is worth recalling an accepted tenet in
Doctrine: The presumption of criminal intent does criminal law that in the determination of the crime
not arise from the proof of the commission of an act for which the accused should be held liable in those
which is not unlawful. instances where his acts partake of the nature of
variant offenses, and the same holds true with
General and Specific Intent regard to the modifying or qualifying circumstances
People v. Puno, 219 SCRA 85 (1993) thereof, his motive and specific intent in perpetrating
Facts: The primal issue for resolution in this case is the acts complained of are invaluable aids in arriving
whether accused-‐appellants committed the felony at a correct appreciation and accurate conclusion
of kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of the thereon.
Revised Penal Code, as charged in the information;
or a violation of Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-‐ With respect to the specific intent of appellants vis-‐a-‐
Piracy and Anti-‐Highway Robbery Law of 1974), as vis the charge that they had kidnapped the victim, we
contended by the Solicitor General and found by the can rely on the proverbial rule of ancient
trial court; or the offense of simple robbery respectability that for this crime to exist, there must
punished by Paragraph 5, Article 294 of the Revised be indubitable proof that the actual intent of the
Penal Code, as claimed by the defense. malefactors was to deprive the offended party of her
liberty, and not where such restraint of her freedom
On January 13, 1988 in Quezon City, the said of action was merely an incident in the commission of
accused Isabelo Puno and Enrique Amurao, being another offense primarily intended by the offenders.
then private individuals, feloniously kidnapped Hence, as early as United States vs. Ancheta, and
Maria del Socorro Sarmiento for the purpose of consistently reiterated thereafter, it has been held
extorting ransom, to the damage and prejudice of that the detention and/or forcible taking away of
the said offended party in such amount as may be the victims by the accused, even for an appreciable
period of time but for the primary and ultimate
Rañeses 37

purpose of killing them, holds the offenders liable (example, murder and kidnapping—kill and
for taking their lives or such other offenses they deprive victim of liberty) motive: reason
committed in relation thereto, but the incidental which prompts accused to engage in
deprivation of the victims' liberty does not particular criminal activity (ex. Kidnap for
constitute kidnapping or serious illegal detention. ransom) essential for kidnapping.
Information: described murder and
*Highway robbery does not apply here either. kidnapping not specified.
Accused are only guilty of simple robbery. 2. Yes. Prosecution proved intent to kill with
their knives and handguns, 5 gun shot
Doctrine: In some felonies, proof of particular wounds and 4 stab wounds (defensive).
specific intent is required. (i.e. kidnapping, Furthermore, the pieces of circumstancial
homicide). evidence were convincing: Rita and Randy
testified events. Rita claimed she heard 3
People v. Delim, 396 SCRA 386 (2003) gunshots and accordingly, decomposing
Facts: Marlon, Leon & Ronald Delim were convicted body was found with gunshot wounds and
for murder of Modesto Delim, resident of Bila, Sison, stabs.
Pangasinan. Modesto is the adopted child of 3. Yes. Conspiracy is when two or more
Marlon’s Dad. Marlon, Manuel & Robert are persons agree and decide to commit a
brothers & Leon & Ronald are their nephews. felony. This is proven by acts of criminal.
Around 6:30 pm, January 23, 1999, Modesto and Before during and after crime committed
family were preparing to eat dinner when Marlon, and that accused had same purpose and
Robert and Ronald arrived. Marlon poked gun, united in execution; act of one act of all.
other two grabbed, hog tied and gagged Modesto. Wharton criminal law—actual presence not
They herded him out of the hose and went to the necessary if there’s direct connection bet
direction of Paldit. Leon and Manual guarded Rita & actor and crime
Randy until 7 am and told them to stay put. They 4. Yes. Inconsistencies mean and even
searched for him for 3 days and reported to police strengthen. It was not rehearsed
three days after the incident. Randy with relatives 5. No. Positive identification over alibi. Unable
found Modesto in the housing project in Paldit to prove that they were in another place and
under bushes. He was dead due to gun shot wound impossible to go to crime scene
on head. 6. No. Treachery and taking advantage of
superior strength was not proven as there
Issues: was no witness or evidence. The unlicensed
1. WON case is murder or kidnapping? firearm and dwelling was further not
2. WON prosecution had sufficient evidence? included in information.
3. WON there was conspiracy?
4. WON witness testimonies were valid? Important snippets from the case:
5. WON alibi warranted? • Specific intent is not synonymous with
6. WON there was treachery and other motive. Motive generally is referred to as
aggravting circumstances? the reason which prompts the accused to
engage in a particular criminal activity.
Held: Motive is not an essential element of a crime
1. Murder: when primary purpose is to kill, and hence the prosecution need not prove the
deprivation is incidental and doesn’t same. As a general rule, proof of motive for
constitute kidnapping (US v. Ancheta). the commission of the offense charged does
Specific intent: active desire to do certain not show guilt and absence of proof of such
criminal acts or particular purpose motive does not establish the innocence of
Rañeses 38

accused for the crime charged such as may have impelled its commission is
murder. very relevant.
• Specific intent is used to describe a state 2. Generally, proof of motive is not
of mind which exists where necessary to pin a crime on the
circumstances indicate that an offender accused if the commission of the
actively desired certain criminal crime has been proven and the
consequences or objectively desired a evidence of identification is
specific result to follow his act or failure convincing.
to act. 3. Motive is essential only when there
is doubt as to the identity of the
Intent and Motive assailant. It is immaterial when the
Reyes: accused has been positively
1. Intent is different from motive. Motive is identified.
the moving power which impels one to action 4. Where the defendant admits the
for a definite result. Intent is the purpose to killing, it is no longer necessary
use a particular means to effect such result. 5. Motive is important in ascertaining
Motive is not an essential element of a the truth between two antagonistic
crime, and, hence, need not be proved for theories or versions of the killing.
purposes of conviction. (People v. Aposaga, 6. Where the identification of the
No. L-‐32477, Oct. 30, 1981, 108 SCRA 574, accused proceeds from an unreliable
595) source and the testimony is
inconclusive and not free from
An extreme moral perversion may lead a doubt, evidence of motive is
man to commit a crime without a real necessary.
motive but just for the sake of committing it. 7. Where there are no eyewitnesses to
Or, the apparent lack of a motive for the crime, and where suspicion is
committing a criminal act does not likely to fall upon a number of
necessarily mean that there is none, but that persons, motive is relevant and
simply it is not known to us, for we cannot significant.
probe the depths of one’s conscience where 8. If the evidence is merely
it may be found, hidden away and circumstantial, proof of motive is
inaccessible to our observation. (People v. essential.
Taneo, 58 Phil. 255, 256) 9. Proof of motive is not indispensable
where the guilt is otherwise
One may be convicted of a crime whether established by sufficient evidence.
his motive appears to be good or bad or 10. While the question of motive is
even though no motive is proven. A good important to the person who
motive does not prevent an act from being a committed the criminal act, yet
crime (i.e. Mercy killing). when there is no longer any doubt
that the defendant was the culprit, it
2. Motive need not always be established,
becomes unimportant to know the
although there are cases where the
exact reason or purpose for the
determination of motive aids in the
commission of the crime.
evaluation of a felony.
3. Generally, the motive is established by
1. Where the identity of a person
the testimony of witnesses on the acts or
accused of having committed a
statements of the accused before or
crime is in dispute, the motive that
immediately after the commission of the
Rañeses 39

offense. Such words or deeds may indicate
the motive. (Barrioquinto v. Fernandez, 82 Issue: WON the accused is guilty of murder.
Phil. 642, 649)
4. Disclosure of the motive aids in the the Held: Yes, the accused is guilty of murder. Judgment
completion of the proof of the appealed from is AFFIRMED in all respects and civil
commission of the crime. indemnity increased to P30K. It was proven that he
5. Proof of motive alone is not sufficient to had motive in killing Cagampang: he had knowledge
support a conviction. Existence of a that Cagampang possessed a firearm; this was
motive, though perhaps an important motive enough to kill him, as part of NPA’s “agaw
consideration, is not sufficient proof of guilt. armas” campaign or killings perpetrated by NPA for
Mere proof of motive, no matter how strong, the purpose of acquiring more firearms. Moreover,
is not sufficient to support a conviction if proof of motive is not essential when the culprit has
there is no reliable evidence from which it been positively identified. Also, his flight implies guilt.
may be reasonably deduced that the
accused is the malefactor. The prosecution witness, Victorina Cagampang,
6. Lack of motive may aid in showing the may have minor inconsistencies in her testimony
innocence of the accused. but this does not diminish her credibility – that is
part of being human. What is important is that she
People v. Temblor, 161 SCRA 623 (1988) had positively identified the accused as the
Facts: On 30 December 1980, 7:30 PM, Vicente assailant and that her testimony is corroborated by
Temblor alias “Ronald” (accused-‐appellant) went to other witnesses.
Julius Cagampang’s house in Agusan del Norte, to
buy cigarettes. Cagampang, while opening a pack of Furthermore, the accused’s alibi was unacceptable
cigarettes, was shot! The accused (and another because it was self-‐serving and uncorroborated. It
person, Anecito Ellevera) demanded Victorina cannot overrule positive identification, it was
Cagampang (Julius’ wife) that she brings out her merely 15-‐20 minutes away from crime scene and
husband’s firearms. The accused fired two more Perol was at work.
shots at the fallen victim. Victorina gave a suitcase
to Temblor, who then took the .38 caliber which People v. Hassan, 157 SCRA 261 (1988)
was inside, and fled. Facts: Usman Hassan, 15 yrs. Old of Samal Tribe in
Zambo City was convicted of murder of Pichel.
In August 1981, Temblor, an NPA, surrendered (it Pichel was stabbed to death at fruit paradise while
was actually a mass surrender of NPA’s) after sitting at his red Honda motorcycle, waiting for
hiding in the mountains. In 26 November 1981, he friend Jose Samson who was buying fruits.
was arrested by Buenavista police at the public
market and then detained at municipal jail. Issue: WON conviction is valid
Regarding the murder of Cagampang, Temblor’s Held: No. Conviction reversed. Acquitted. The
alibi was that day until the next, he was with his Medico Legal found two stab wounds from front but
father for drinking and pulutan. On 8 June 1982, the the Samson claimed that Pichel was stabbed once
accused was convicted and sentenced to suffer from behind. Procedure followed was also
reclusion perpertua, and to indemnify the heirs of improper. The accused was presented to the
the victim P12,000. He appealed. witness alone and in confrontation, not police line
up. He was also denied right to counsel, particularly
*** In this appeal, the appellant alleges that the when identification took place—this qualifies for
court a quo erred: (1) in finding that he was uncounselled confession. The witness was also
positively identified by the prosecution witness as questioned 2 days after incident and sworn 4 days
the killer, and (2) in rejecting his defense of alibi. after. The fruit vendor as well as the companion of
Rañeses 40

the accused was not investigated. In fact, they did the accused believed them to be. In other
not pursue other suspect. Also, the knife was not words, the act done would not constitute a
tested. Further notable are the facts that the age of felony had the facts been as the accused
the accused was observed without medical basis, believed them to be. Furthermore, the act
that the accused did not run away and that he had done by the accused would have constituted
no motive, which, in People vs. Verzo was (1) a justifying circumstance under Art. 11,
considered important when there is doubt in the (2) an absolutory cause, such as that
identity of culprit and reiterated in People vs. contemplated in Art. 247, par. 2, or (3) an
Pervelo which stated that identification is tenuous. involuntary act.
Furthermore, no motive was established. 5. There exists no crime of resistance when
there is a mistake of fact.
People v. Delim, supra 6. When the accused is negligent, mistake
*Refer to pp. 36 – 37 for the digest of this case. See of fact is not a defense..
‘important snippets from the case’ for notes
pertaining to intent and motive. U.S. v. Ah Chong, 15 Phil. 488 (1910)
Facts: Ah Chong was a cook in Ft. McKinley. He was
Mistake of Fact afraid of bad elements. One evening, before going to
Reyes: bed, he locked himself in his room by placing a chair
1. While ignorance of the law excuses no against the door. After having gone to bed, he was
one from compliance therewith awakened by someone trying to open the door. He
(ignorantia legis non excusat), ignorance called out twice, “Who is there,” but received no
or mistake of fact relieves the accused answer. Fearing that the intruder was a robber, he
from criminal liability (ignorantia facti leaped from his bed & called out again, “If you enter
excusat). Mistake of fact is a the room I will kill you.” But at that precise moment,
misapprehension of fact on the part of the he was struck by the chair that had been placed
person who caused injury to another. He is against the door, & believing that he was being
not, however, criminally liable, because he attacked he seized a kitchen knife & struck & fatally
did not act with criminal intent. An honest wounded the intruder who turned out to be his
mistake of fact destroys the presumption of roommate.
criminal intent which arises upon the
commission of a felonious act. (People v. Issue: WON Ah Chong must be acquitted because of
Coching, et. Al., C.A., 52 O.G. 293, citing mistake of fact.
People v. Oanis, 74 Phil. 257)
2. Mistake of fact has certain requisites to Held. Yes. Had the facts been as Ah Chong believed
be a valid defense. them to be, he would have been justified in killing
1. That the act done would have been the intruder under A11, par. 1, of the RPC, which
lawful had the facts been as the requires, to justify the act, that there be:
accused believed them to be. 1. unlawful aggression on the part of the
2. That the intention of the accused in person killed,
performing the act should be lawful. 2. reasonable necessity of the means
3. That the mistake must be without employed to prevent or repel it, &
fault or carelessness on the part of 3. lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
the accused the person defending himself
3. Lack of intent to commit a crime may be If the intruder was really a robber, forcing his way
inferred from the facts of the case. into the room of Ah Chong, there would have been
4. In mistake of fact, the act done would unlawful aggression on the part of the intruder.
have been lawful, had the facts been as There would have been a necessity on the part of Ah
Rañeses 41

Chong to defend himself and/or his home. The knife failing to do an act must also be voluntary,
would have been a reasonable means to prevent or there must be freedom and intelligence on
repel such aggression. And Ah Chong gave no the part of the offender, but the requisite of
provocation at all. Under Art. 11 of the RPC, there is criminal intent, which is required in felonies
nothing unlawful in the intention as well as in the by dolo, is replaced by the requisite of
act of the person making the defense. imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or
lack of skill.
Doctrine: Mistake of fact is a valid defense as long
as the requisites are met. (Refer to item no. 2 of Such negligence or indifference to duty or to
Reyes’s annotations under mistake of fact.) consequence is, in law, equivalent to
criminal intent. (U.S. v. Catolico, 18 Phil.
People v. Oanis, 74 Phil. 257 (1943) 507)
Facts: Chief of Police Oanis and his co-‐accused
Corporal Galanta were under instructions to arrest But in felonies committed by means of
one Balagtas, a notorious criminal and escaped culpa, the mind of the accused is not
convict, and if overpowered, to get hi dead or alive. criminal. However, his act is wrongful,
Proceeding to the suspected house, they went into a because the injury or damage caused to the
room and on seeing a man sleeping with his back injured party results from the imprudence,
toward the door, simultaneously fired at him with negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill
their revolvers, without first making any reasonable of the accused.
inquiry as to his identity. The victim turned out to 2. Felonies committed by means of culpa
be an innocent man, Tecson, and not the wanted has certain requisites as well.
criminal. 1. He must have FREEDOM while doing
an act or omitting to do an act;
Issue: WON the accused can use mistake of fact as a 2. He must have INTELLIGENCE while
valid defense. doing the act or omitting to do the
act;
Held: No. Both accused are guilty of murder. Even 3. He is IMPRUDENT, NEGLIGENT or
if it were true that the victim was the notorious LACKS FORESIGHT or SKILL while
criminal, the accused would not be justified in doing the act or omitting to do the
killing him while the latter was sleeping. In act.
apprehending even the most notorious criminal, the 3. In culpable felonies, the injury caused to
law does not permit the captor to kill him. It is only another should be unintentional, it being
when the fugitive from justice is determined to fight simply the incident of another act
the officers of law who are trying to capture him performed without malice.
that killing him would be justified. 4. Mistake in the identity of the intended
victim is not reckless imprudence. A
Doctrine: Careless on the part of the accused does deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is
not allow for the usage of mistake of fact as a valid essentially inconsistent with the idea of
defense. reckless imprudence. Where such an
unlawful act is willfully done, a mistake in
Culpa the identity of the intended victim cannot be
Reyes: considered as reckless imprudence.
1. Criminal intent is replaced by negligence
and imprudence in felonies committed Elements
by means of culpa. In felonies committed People v. Carmen, 355 SCRA 267 (2001)
by means of culpa, since the doing of or
Rañeses 42

Facts: The trial court rendered a decision and the precaution on the part of the person performing such
accused-‐appellants were all found guilty beyond act. Compared to intentional felonies, such as
reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder after homicide or murder, what takes the place of the
having performed a cultic healing pray-‐over which element of malice or intention to commit a wrong
resulted to the death of Randy Luntayao. They were or evil is the failure of the offender to take
sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION precautions due to lack of skill taking into account
PERPETUA. his employment, or occupation, degree of
intelligence, physical condition, & other
Issue: WON accused-‐appellants can be held liable circumstances regarding persons, time, & place.
for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide,
considering that the information charges them with The elements of reckless imprudence are apparent in
murder. the acts done by accused-‐appellants which, because
of their lack of medical skill in treating the victim of
Held: Yes. Conviction modified to reckless his alleged ailment, resulted in the latter's death. The
imprudence resulting in homicide. Killing a person accused had no intention to cause an evil but rather
w/ treachery is murder even if there is no intent to to remedy the victim's ailment.
kill. When death occurs, it’s presumed to be the
natural consequence of physical injuries inflicted. In TC's reliance on the rule that criminal intent is
murder qualified by treachery, it’s required only presumed from the commission of an unlawful act
that there is treachery in the attack, & this is true is untenable because such presumption only holds
even if the offender has no intent to kill the person in the absence of proof to the contrary.
assaulted
Consequently, treachery cannot be appreciated for
One who commits an intentional felony is in the absence of intent to kill, there’s no treachery
responsible for all the consequences which may or the deliberate employment of means, methods, &
naturally and logically result therefrom, whether manner of execution to ensure the safety of the
foreseen or intended or not. accused from the defensive or retaliatory attacks
coming from the victim.
Intent is presumed from the commission of an
unlawful act. The presumption of criminal intent Important snippet from the case: Compared to
may arise from the proof of the criminal act. Hence, intentional felonies, such as homicide or murder,
they are liable for all the direct and natural what takes the place of the element of malice or
consequences of their unlawful act, even if the intention to commit a wrong or evil is the failure of
ultimate result had not been intended. the offender to take precautions due to lack of skill
taking into account his employment, or occupation,
The strange procedure resulted in the death of the degree of intelligence, physical condition, and other
boy. Thus, accused-‐appellants had no criminal circumstances regarding persons, time, and place.
intent to kill the boy. Their liability arises from their
reckless imprudence because they ought that to Distinguished from dolo
know their actions would not bring about the cure. People v. Pugay, 167 SCRA 439 (1988)
They are, therefore, guilty of reckless imprudence Facts: The accused are pronounced by the RTC of
resulting in homicide and not of murder. Cavite guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime
of murder of Bayani Miranda and sentencing them
Art. 365, of the RPC, as amended, states that reckless to a prison term ranging from 12 years (prison
imprudence consists in voluntarily, but w/o malice, mayor) as minimum to 20 years (prison temporal)
doing or failing to do an act from which material as maximum and for Samson to be sentenced to
damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of reclusion perpetua.
Rañeses 43

them is liable only for the act that was
Miranda and the accused Pugay are friends. committed by him.
Miranda used to run errands for Pugay and they 2. Having failed to exercise diligence necessary
used to sleep together. On the evening of May 19, to avoid every undesirable consequence
1982 a town fiesta was held in the public plaza of arising from any act committed by his
Rosario Cavite. Sometime after midnight accused companions who at the same time were
Pugay and Samson with several companions arrived making fun of the deceased, Pugay is guilty
(they were drunk), and they started making fun of of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide
Bayani Miranda. Pugay after making fun of the
Bayani, took a can of gasoline and poured its On the other hand, since the evidence is
contents on the latter, Gabion (principal witness) insufficient to establish qualifying
told Pugay not to do the deed. Then Samson set circumstances of treachery and conspiracy,
Miranda on fire making a human torch out of him. and given the mitigating circumstance that
They were arrested the same night and barely a few he never intended to commit so grave a
hours after the incident gave their written wrong, Samson is guilty of homicide.
statements.
B. Crimes defined and penalized by special
Issue: WON conspiracy is present, thus affirming laws
the charge of murder. If not, what are the criminal Reyes:
responsibilities of the accused? 1. There are three classes of crimes. The
RPC defines and penalizes the first two
Held: classes of crimes, (1) the intentional
1. No. Conspiracy is determined when two or felonies, and (2) the culpable felonies. The
more persons agree to commit a felony and third class of crimes are defined and
decide to commit it. Conspiracy must be penalized by special laws which include
proven with the same quantum of evidence crimes punished by municipal or city
as the felony itself, more specifically by ordinances.
proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is not 2. When the crime is punished by a special
essential that there be proof as to the law, as a rule, intent to commit the crime
existence of a previous agreement to is not necessary. It is sufficient that the
commit a crime. It is sufficient if, at the time offender has the intent to perpetrate the
of commission of the crime, the accused had act prohibited by the special law.
the same purpose and were united in its 3. Intent to commit the crime and intent to
executed. perpetrate the act must be distinguished.
A person may not have consciously
Since there was no animosity between intended to commit a crime; but he did
Miranda and the accused, and add to the intend to commit an act, and that act is, by
that that the meeting at the scene of the the very nature of things, the crime itself.
incident was purely coincidental, and the (U.S. v. Go Chico, 14 Phil. 128)
main intent of the accused is to make fun of
miranda. In the first, there must be criminal intent; in
the second, it is enough that the prohibited
Since there is no conspiracy that was act is done freely and consciously.
proven, the respective criminal 4. In those crimes punished by special laws,
responsibility of Pugay and Samson arising the act alone, irrespective of its motives,
from different acts directed against Miranda constitutes the offense.
is individual and NOT collective and each of
Rañeses 44

5. Good faith and absence of criminal intent funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the
not valid defenses in crimes punished by payment of said check in full upon presentment,
special laws. (For specific exemptions, which check is subsequently dishonored by the
refer to pp. 56-‐58 of Reyes’s annotations of drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or
the RPC, 17th edition.) would have been dishonored for the same reason
had not the drawer, without any valid reason,
Crimes Mala in se and Mala prohibita ordered the bank to stop payment." The penalty
Reyes: prescribed for the offense is imprisonment of not
1. There is a distinction between crimes less than 30 days nor more than one year or a fine
which are mala in se, or wrongful from or not less than the amount of the check nor more
their nature, such as theft, rape, than double said amount, but in no case to exceed
homicide, etc., and those that are mala P200,000.00, or both such fine and imprisonment at
prohibita, or wrong merely because the discretion of the court.
prohibited by statute, such as illegal
possession of firearms. Crimes mala in se The statute likewise imposes the same penalty on
are those so serious in their effects on "any person who, having sufficient funds in or
society as to call for almost unanimous credit with the drawee bank when he makes or
condemnation of its members; while crimes draws and issues a check, shall fail to keep sufficient
mala prohibita are violations of mere rules funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full
of convenience designed to secure a more amount of the check if presented within a period of
orderly regulation of the affairs of society. ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon,
(Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Rawle’s 3rd for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee
Revision) bank.
2. In acts mala in se, the intent governs; but
in those mala prohibita, the only inquiry An essential element of the offense is "knowledge"
is, has the law been violated? on the part of the maker or drawer of the check of
3. The term mala in se refers generally to the insufficiency of his funds in or credit with the
felonies defined and penalized by the bank to cover the check upon its presentment. Since
RPC. When the acts are inherently this involves a state of mind difficult to establish,
immoral, they are mala in se, even if the statute itself creates a prima facie presumption
punished by special laws. On the other of such knowledge where payment of the check "is
hand, there are crimes in the RPC which refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds
were originally defined and penalized by in or credit with such bank when presented within
special laws, like use of opium, ninety (90) days from the date of the check. To
malversation, brigandage and libel. mitigate the harshness of the law in its application,
4. The term mala prohibita refers generally the statute provides that such presumption shall
to acts made criminal by special laws. not arise if within five (5) banking days from
receipt of the notice of dishonor, the maker or
Lozano v. Martinez, 146 SCRA 323 (1986) drawer makes arrangements for payment of the
Facts: Petitioners, charged with Batas Pambansa check by the bank or pays the holder the amount of
Bilang 22 (BP 22 for short), popularly known as the the check.
Bouncing Check Law, assail the law's
constitutionality. Another provision of the statute, also in the nature
of a rule of evidence, provides that the introduction
BP 22 punishes a person "who makes or draws and in evidence of the unpaid and dishonored check
issues any check on account or for value, knowing with the drawee bank's refusal to pay "stamped or
at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient written thereon or attached thereto, giving the
Rañeses 45

reason therefor, "shall constitute prima facie proof eventually hurt the welfare of society and
of "the making or issuance of said check, and the the public interest.
due presentment to the drawee for payment and
the dishonor thereof ... for the reason written, The enactment of BP 22 is a declaration by
stamped or attached by the drawee on such the legislature that, as a matter of public
dishonored check." policy, the making and issuance of a
worthless check is deemed public nuisance
The presumptions being merely prima facie, it is to be abated by the imposition of penal
open to the accused of course to present proof to sanctions.
the contrary to overcome the said presumptions. 2. No. The freedom of contract which is
constitutionally protected is freedom to
Issues: enter into "lawful" contracts. Contracts
1. WON BP 22 violates the constitutional which contravene public policy are not
provision forbidding imprisonment for debt. lawful. Besides, we must bear in mind that
2. WON BP 22 impairs the freedom to contract. checks can not be categorized as mere
3. WON it violates the equal protection clause. contracts. It is a commercial instrument
which, in this modem day and age, has
Held: become a convenient substitute for money;
1. No. The gravamen of the offense punished it forms part of the banking system and
by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a therefore not entirely free from the
worthless check or a check that is regulatory power of the state.
dishonored upon its presentation for 3. No. Petitioners contend that the payee is
payment. It is not the non-‐payment of an just as responsible for the crime as the
obligation which the law punishes. The law drawer of the check, since without the
is not intended or designed to coerce a indispensable participation of the payee by
debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law his acceptance of the check there would be
is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, no crime. This argument is tantamount to
the making of worthless checks and putting saying that, to give equal protection, the law
them in circulation. Because of its should punish both the swindler and the
deleterious effects on the public interest, the swindled. Moreover, the clause does not
practice is proscribed by the law. The law preclude classification of individuals, who
punishes the act not as an offense against may be accorded different treatment under
property, but an offense against public the law as long as the classification is no
order. unreasonable or arbitrary.

The effects of the issuance of a worthless Magno v. C.A., 210 SCRA 475 (1992)
check transcends the private interests of the Facts: Petitioner Magno was in the process of
parties directly involved in the transaction putting up a car repair shop sometime in April
and touches the interests of the community 1983, but he did not have complete equipment that
at large. The mischief it creates is not only a could make his venture workable. He also had
wrong to the payee or holder, but also an another problem, and that while he was going into
injury to the public. The harmful practice of this entrepreneurship, he lacked funds with which
putting valueless commercial papers in to purchase the necessary equipment to make such
circulation, multiplied a thousand fold, can business operational. Thus, petitioner, representing
very wen pollute the channels of trade and Ultra Sources International Corporation,
commerce, injure the banking system and approached Corazon Teng, (private complainant)
Vice President of Mancor Industries (hereinafter
Rañeses 46

referred to as Mancor) for his needed car repair subject of the petition, were held momentarily by
service equipment of which Mancor was a Corazon Teng, on the request of Magno as they
distributor. were not covered with sufficient funds.

Having been approached by petitioner on his Subsequently, petitioner could not pay LS Finance
predicament, who fully bared that he had no the monthly rentals, thus it pulled out the garage
sufficient funds to buy the equipment needed, the equipment. It was then on this occasion that
former (Corazon Teng) referred Magno to LS petitioner became aware that Corazon Teng was the
Finance and Management Corporation (LS Finance one who advanced the warranty deposit. Petitioner
for brevity) advising its Vice-‐President, Joey Gomez, with his wife went to see Corazon Teng and
that Mancor was willing and able to supply the promised to pay the latter but the payment never
pieces of equipment needed if LS Finance could came and when the four (4) checks were deposited
accommodate petitioner and provide him credit they were returned for the reason "account closed."
facilities.
For having issued the four (4) checks that later
The arrangement went through on condition that bounced, petitioner was charged with four (4)
petitioner has to put up a warranty deposit counts of violation of B.P Blg. 22. After trial, he was
equivalent to thirty per centum (30%) of the total found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for one
value of the pieces of equipment to be purchased, year in each criminal case and to pay complainant
amounting to P29,790.00. Since petitioner could not the respective amounts reflected in the subject
come up with such amount, he requested Joey checks.
Gomez on personal level to look for a third party
who could lend him the equivalent amount of the Issue: WON petitioner should be punished for the
warranty deposit. However, unknown to petitioner, issuance of the checks in questions.
it was Corazon Teng who advanced the deposit in
question, on condition that the same would be paid Held: No. By the nature of the "warranty deposit"
as a short term loan at 3% interest. amounting to P29,790.00 corresponding to 30% of
the "purchase/lease" value of the equipment
As part of the arrangement, petitioner and LS subject of the transaction, it is obvious that the
Finance entered into a leasing agreement whereby "cash out" made by Mrs. Teng was not used by
LS Finance would lease the garage equipments and petitioner who was just paying rentals for the
petitioner would pay the corresponding rent with equipment. It would have been different if
the option to buy the same. After the petitioner opted to purchase the pieces of
documentation was completed, the equipment were equipment on or about the termination of the lease-‐
delivered to petitioner who in turn issued a purchase agreement in which case he had to pay the
postdated check and gave it to Joey Gomez who, additional amount of the warranty deposit which
unknown to the petitioner, delivered the same to should have formed part of the purchase price. As
Corazon Teng. When the check matured, petitioner the transaction did not ripen into a purchase, but
requested through Joey Gomez not to deposit the remained a lease with rentals being paid for the
check as he (Magno) was no longer banking with loaned equipment, which were pulled out by the
Pacific Bank. Lessor (Mancor) when the petitioner failed to
continue paying possibly due to economic
To replace the first check issued, petitioner issued constraints or business failure, then it is lawful and
another set of six (6) postdated checks. Two (2) just that the warranty deposit should not be
checks dated July 29, 1983 were deposited and charged against the petitioner.
cleared while the four (4) others, which were the
subject of the four counts of the aforestated charges
Rañeses 47

To charge the petitioner for the refund of a encourage users of the system to enrich
"warranty deposit" which he did not withdraw as it themselves through manipulations and
was not his own account, it having remained with circumvention of the noble purpose and
LS Finance, is to even make him pay an unjust objective of the law. (Quoting Paras, J.)
"debt", to say the least, since petitioner did not 2. … still in mala prohibita, while there is no
receive the amount in question. All the while, said need of criminal intent, there must be
amount was in the safekeeping of the financing knowledge that the same existed. Without
company, which is managed, supervised and the knowledge of voluntariness there is no
operated by the corporation officials and employees crime. (Quoting Paras, J.)
of LS Finance. 3. The much abused theory of malum
prohibitum—that the only point of inquiry
It is intriguing to realize that Mrs. Teng did not want in this kind of offense is, whether the law
the petitioner to know that it was she who has been violated—was already clearly
"accommodated" petitioner's request for Joey relegated to the background in favor of the
Gomez, to source out the needed funds for the teleological idea of fairness and justice.
"warranty deposit". Thus it unfolds the kind of 4. The Lozano doctrine, which uses the theory
transaction that is shrouded with mystery, of malum prohibitum as justification, was a
gimmickry and doubtful legality. It is in simple haphazard ruling and its effect is a
language, a scheme whereby Mrs. Teng as the perversion of the criminal process, because
supplier of the equipment in the name of her payees of dishonored are using the threat of
corporation, Mancor, would be able to "sell or lease" criminal sanction to enforce collections of
its goods as in this case, and at the same time, their credits.
privately financing those who desperately need 5. Three classes of crimes are recognized in
petty accommodations as this one. This modus the second and third paragraphs, Art. 3
operandi has in so many instances victimized of the Revised Penal Code (Refer to page
unsuspecting businessmen, who likewise need 29 for the full text of the provision).
protection from the law, by availing of the 1. Crimes mala in se are unlawful facts
deceptively called "warranty deposit" not realizing accompanied by evil intent. The
that they also fall prey to leasing equipment under Code calls these crimes dolo
the guise of a lease-‐purchase agreement when it is a offenses. This class of crimes is
scheme designed to skim off business clients. based on the general condition of
penal liability under the legal
This maneuvering has serious implications especially maxim, actus non facit reum, nisi
with respect to the threat of the penal sanction of the mens sit rea, or the mens rea
law in issue, as in this case. And, with a willing court doctrine, under which the unlawful
system to apply the full harshness of the special law act alone does not amount to guilt
(B.P Blg. 22) in question, using the "mala prohibita" unless it is accompanied by a guilty
doctrine, the noble objective of the law is tainted with mind.
materialism and opportunism in the highest degree.
Offenses mala in se require malice or
A Theory of Crime and Punishment by David G. malicious intention. The term dolus,
Nitafan as an element of the mode of
1. Magno v. Court of Appeals: For all intents commission of this class of offenses,
and purposes, the law was devised to involves a complex idea, which
safeguard the interest of the banking system consists of several elements;
and the legitimate public checking account freedom, intelligence, and intent.
user. It did not intend to shelter or favor nor The violation must be a voluntary
Rañeses 48

act, otherwise it will not amount to a corrupt intent. The display itself, without the
crime, or stating it in another way, intervention of any other fact, is the evil. It is quite
no criminal liability is incurred. different from that large class of crimes, made such
by the common law or by statute, in which the
2. There are crimes which, by the act injurious effect upon the public depends upon the
alone, irrespective of its motives, the corrupt intention of the person perpetrating the
constitute the offenses punished by act. […] In the case at bar, however, the evil to
the statute. These are the crimes society and to the Government does not depend
mala prohibita, where in upon the state of mind of the one who displays the
determining the existence of the banner, but upon the effect which that display has
crime, the only inquiry is, has the upon the public mind. In the one case the public is
law been violated? affected by the intention of the actor; in the other by
the act itself.
Traditional concept: the act is evil
because it is prohibited. An offense Relation of RPC to special laws
malum prohibitum is an act made RPC, Art. 10
wrong by legislation—a forbidden
evil. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. —
• With the latest rulings applying the theory Offenses which are or in the future may be
of malum prohibitum, the traditional punishable under special laws are not subject to the
provisions of this Code. This Code shall be
concept of the theory has been “exploded.”
supplementary to such laws, unless the latter
Knowledge of the prohibition is now a
should specially provide the contrary.
requirement, so that in charging an offense

the information must now state not mere
“unlawfulness” of the act but that it was Reyes:
done “knowingly” or “willfully,” otherwise 1. Art. 10 is composed of two clauses. In the
the information is insufficient to charge an first, it is provided that offenses under
offense. special laws are not subject to the
provisions of the Code. The second makes
U.S. v. Go Chico, 14 Phil. 128 (1909) the Code supplementary to such laws.
Facts: Accused Go Chico was charged with a
violation of Sec. 1 of Act No. 1696 of the Philippine The first clause should be taken to mean
Commission, which punishes any person who shall only that the Penal Code is not intended to
expose to public view any flag, banner, emblem or supersede special penal laws. The latter are
device used during the late insurrection in the controlling with regard to offenses therein
Philippines. Even if the accused acted without specially punished. Said clause only restates
criminal intent without criminal intent, the lower the elemental rule of statutory construction
court convicted him. that special legal provisions prevail over
general ones.
Issue: WON the conviction of the accused is proper.
The second clause contains the soul of the
Held: Yes. The display of a flag or emblem used, article. The main idea and purpose of the
particularly within a recent period, by the enemies article is embodied in the provision that the
of the Government tends to incite resistance of “Code shall be supplementary” to special
governmental functions and insurrection against laws, unless the latter should specially
governmental authority just as effectively if made in provide the contrary. (Dissent of Justice
the best of good faith as if made with the most Perfecto, People v. Gonzales, 82 Phil. 307)
Rañeses 49

2. IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES 8. Plea of guilty as a mitigating
1. “Special laws”-‐ defined in U.S. v. circumstance is not available to offenses
Serapio, 23 Phil. 584, as a penal law punishable under special laws.
which punishes acts not defined and 9. No accessory penalty, unless the law
penalized by the Penal Code. It is a provides therefor.
statute enacted by the legislative 10. Special laws amending the RPC are
branch, penal in character, which is subject to its provisions.
not an amendment to the RPC.
Special laws usually follow the form
of American penal law. C. Criminal Liability
2. “Supplementary” – the word means
supplying what is lacking; How incurred
additional. Some provisions of the

Penal Code are perfectly applicable
to special laws. RPC, Art. 4
3. “Unless the latter should provide the Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be
contrary.” -‐ incurred:
3. The provisions of the RPC on penalties
cannot be applied to offenses punishable 1. By any person committing a felony (delito)
under special laws. although the wrongful act done be different from
that which he intended.
4. Offenses under special laws are not
subject to the provisions of the RPC 2. By any person performing an act which would be
relating to attempted and frustrated an offense against persons or property, were it not
crimes. for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment
5. The special law has to fix penalties for or an account of the employment of inadequate or
attempted and frustrated crime. The ineffectual means.

penalty for the consummated crime cannot

be imposed when the stage of the acts of
Reyes:
execution is either attempted or frustrated,
1. Criminal liability is incurred by any
because the penalties for the attempted and
person in the cases mentioned in the two
frustrated crime is two degrees or one
paragraphs of Art. 4. The article has no
degree lower, respectively. The special law
reference to the manner criminal liability is
does not provide for penalty one or two
incurred. The manner of incurring criminal
degrees lower than that provided for the
liability is stated in Art. 3, that is,
consummated stage. The special law has to
performing or failing to do an act, when
fix a penalty for the attempt and a penalty
either is punished by law, by means of
for the frustration of the crime defined by
deceit (with malice) or fault (through
it, in order that the crime may be punished
negligence or imprudence).
in case its commission reached only the
2. One who commits an intentional felony is
attempted or frustrated stage of execution.
responsible for all the consequences
6. When a special law covers the mere
which may naturally and logically result
attempt to commit the crime defined by
therefrom, whether foreseen or intended
it, the attempted stage is punishable by
or not. Ordinarily, when a person commits a
the same penalty provided by the law.
felony with malice, he intends the
7. Art. 10, RPC, is not applicable to punish
consequences of his felonious act. But there
an accomplice under the special law.
are cases where the consequences of the
felonious acts of the offender are not
Rañeses 50

intended by him. In those cases, “the 2. “Although the wrongful act done be
wrongful act done” is “different from that different from that which he
which he intended.” intended.” – The causes which may
produce a result different from that
In view of par. 1 of Art. 4, a person which the offender intended are: (1)
committing a felony is criminally liable mistake in the identity of the victim;
although the consequences of his felonious (2) mistake in the blow, that is when
act are not intended by him. the offender intending to do an
injury to another person actually
One is not relieved from criminal liability inflicts it on another; and (3) the act
for the natural consequences of one’s illegal exceeds the intent, that is, the
acts, merely because one does not intend to injurious result is greater than that
produce such consequences. (U.S. v. Brobst, intended.
14 Phil. 310) 4. Under par. 1, Art. 4, a person committing
3. IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES IN a felony is still criminally liable even if-‐
PAR. 1 OF ART. 4. 1. There is a mistake in the identity of
1. “Committing a felony.” – Not mere the victim – error in personae.
performance of an act. A felony is an 2. There is a mistake in the blow –
act punishable by the RPC. If it is not aberratio ictus.
punishable by the code, it is not a 3. The injurious result is greater than
felony. The felony committed should that intended – praeter intentionem.
be one committed by means of dolo, 5. The first paragraph of Art. 4 has certain
that is, with malice, because par. 1 of requisites.
Art. 4 speaks of wrongful act done 1. That an intentional felony has been
“different from that which he committed; and
intended.” 2. That the wrong done to the
aggrieved party be the direct,
If the wrongful act results from natural and logical consequence of
imprudence, negligence, lack of the felony committed by the
foresight or lack of skill of the offender.
offender, his liability should be 6. Any person who creates in another’s
determined under Art. 365, which mind an immediate sense of danger,
defines and penalizes criminal which causes the latter to do something
negligence. resulting in the latter’s injuries, is liable
for the resulting injuries.
The act or omission should not be 7. The felony committed must be the
punished by a special law, because proximate cause of the resulting injury.
the offender violating a special law Proximate cause is “that cause, which, in
may have the intent to do an injury natural and continuous sequence, unbroken
to another. In such case, the by any efficient intervening cause, produces
wrongful act done could not be the injury, and without which the result
different as the offender did not would not have occurred.” (Bataclan v.
intend to do any other injury. Medina, 102 Phil. 181, 186, quoting 38 Am.
§ When a person has not Jur. 695)
committed a felony, he is not
criminally liable for the Moreover, a person committing a felony is
result which is not intended. criminally liable for all natural and logical
Rañeses 51

consequences resulting therefrom although 3. That death ensued within a
the wrongful act done be different from that reasonable time. (People v. Datu
which he intended. “Natural” refers to an Baginda, (C.A., 44 O.G. 2287)
occurrence in the ordinary course of human 9. A supervening event may be the subject
life or events, while “logical” means that of amendment of original information or
there is a rational connection between the of a new charge without double jeopardy.
act of the accused and the resulting injury or
damage. The felony committed must be the
proximate cause of the resulting injury.
Proximate cause is that cause which, in
natural and continuous sequence, unbroken
by any efficient intervening cause, produces
the injury, and without which the result
would not have occurred. The proximate
legal cause is that acting first and producing
the injury, either immediately, or by setting
other events in motion, all constituting a
natural and continuous chain of event, each
having a close causal connection with its
immediate predecessor.

The felony committed is not the proximate
cause of the resulting injury when:
1. There is an active force that
intervened between the felony
committed and the resulting injury,
and the active force is a distinct act
or fact absolutely foreign from the
felonious act of the accused; or
2. The resulting injury is due to the
intentional act of the victim.

*Refer to pp. 78-‐79 of Reyes’s annotation of
the RPC, 17th edition, for the examples of
causes which are not considered efficient
intervening causes.
8. There are certain requisites before death
is presumed to be the natural
consequence of physical injuries
inflicted.
1. That the victim at the time the
physical injuries were inflicted was
in normal health.
2. That death may be expected from
the physical injuries inflicted.
Rañeses 52

RPC, Art. 14 (1)
RPC, Art. 14 (3)
Aggravating circumstances. -‐ The following are
aggravating circumstances: Aggravating circumstances. -‐ The following are
aggravating circumstances:
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of
his public position. 3. That the act be committed with insult or in
disregard of the respect due to the offended
RPC, Art. 13(3)
party on account of his rank, age, or sex, or
that it be committed in the dwelling of the
Mitigating circumstances. -‐ The following are
offended party, if the latter has not given
mitigating circumstances:
provocation.
3. That the offender had no intention to
commit so grave a wrong as that
committed. Reyes:
1. (Art. 14 [1]) Failure in official duties is
RPC, Art. 48 tantamount to abuse of office.
Penalty for complex crimes. -‐ When a single act
2. Same. It is not aggravating when it is an
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, integral element of, or inherent in, the
or when an offense is a necessary means for offense.
committing the other, the penalty for the most 3. (Art. 13[3]) This mitigating circumstance
serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be can only be applied when the facts show
applied in its maximum period. (As amended by Act that there is a notable and evident
No. 4000.) disproportion between the means
RPC, Art. 49 employed to execute the criminal act and
its consequences. (US v. Reyes, 36 Phil.
Penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the 904, 907)
crime committed is different from that intended. -‐ 4. Same. Intention, being an internal state,
In cases in which the felony committed is different must be judged by external acts.
from that which the offender intended to commit,
5. Same. It is not applicable when the
the following rules shall be observed:
offender employed brute force.
1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed 6. Same. It is applicable only in offenses
be higher than that corresponding to the offense resulting in physical injuries or harm.
which the accused intended to commit, the penalty 7. (Art. 48) This provision requires the
corresponding to the latter shall be imposed in its commission of at least two crimes. But
maximum period. the two or more grave or less grave felonies
2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed nmust be the result of a single act, or an
be lower than that corresponding to the one which offense must be a necessary means for
the accused intended to commit, the penalty for the committing the other.
former shall be imposed in its maximum period. 8. Same. A complex crime is only one crime,
even if two or more crimes are actually
3. The rule established by the next preceding
committed. The offender has only one
paragraph shall not be applicable if the acts
criminal intent.
committed by the guilty person shall also constitute
an attempt or frustration of another crime, if the
9. Same. Two kinds complex crimes:
law prescribes a higher penalty for either of the 1. When a single act constitutes two or
latter offenses, in which case the penalty provided more grave or less grave felonies.
for the attempted or the frustrated crime shall be 2. When an offense is a necessary
imposed in its maximum period. (Arts. 61, 62, 65) means for committing the other.

Rañeses 53

10. Same. “When a single act constitutes two 20. Same. When two crimes produced by a
or more grave or less grave felonies.” – single act are respectively within the
(1) That only a single act is performed by exclusive jurisdiction of two courts of
the offender and (2) that the single act different jurisdiction, the court of higher
produces (a) two or more less grave jurisdiction shall try the complex crime.
felonies, or (b) one or more grave and one 21. Same. Art. 48 is intended to favor the
or more less grave felonies or (c) two or culprit. In directing the penalty for the
more less grave felonies. graver offense shall be imposed in its
11. Same. “Two or more less grave felonies.” maximum period, Art. 48 could have had no
– In the case of a compound crime, the other purpose than to prescribe a penalty
offenses involved should be either both lower than the aggregate of the penalties for
grave or both less grave, or one of them a each offense, if imposed separately. When
grave felony and the other less grave. two or more crimes are the result of a single
12. Same. Light felonies are produced by the act, the offender is deemed less perverse
same act should be treated and punished than when he commits said crimes through
as separate offenses or may be absorbed separate but distinct acts. (People v.
by the grave felony. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515, 542-‐543)
1. Several light felonies resulting from 22. Same. The penalty for complex crime is
one single act – not complex. the penalty for the most serious crime,
2. When the crime is committed by the same to be applied in its maximum
force or violence, slight physical period.
injuries are absorbed. 23. Same. When two felonies constituting a
13. Same. “When an offense is a necessary complex cime are punishable by
means for committing the other.” – (1) imprisonment and fine, respectively,
That at least two offenses are committed, only the penalty of imprisonment should
(2) that one or some of the offenses must be be imposed.
necessary to commit the other, and (3) That 24. Same. This provision only applies when
both or all the offenses must be punished the Code does not provide a definite
under the same statute. specific penalty for a complex crime.
14. Same. “Necessary means” does not mean 25. One information should be filed when a
“indispensable means.” complex crime is committed.
15. Same. In complex crime, when the 26. Same. When a complex crime is charged
offender executes various acts, he must and one offense is not proven, the
have a single purpose. accused can be convicted of the other.
16. Same. There is no complex crime when 27. Same. Art. 48 does not apply when the
one offense is committed to conceal the law provides on single penalty for the
other. special complex crime.
17. Same. No complex crime when one of the 28. Same. Plurality of crimes – consists in the
offenses is penalized by a special law. successive execution by the same individual
18. Same. When two or more crimes are of different criminal acts upon any of which
committed but (1) not by a single act, or are no conviction has been declared.
(2) one is not a necessary means for 29. Same. Kinds of plurality crimes – (1)
omitting the other, there is no complex formal or ideal and (2) real or material
crime. plurality
19. Same. Thgere is no complex crime of 30. Same. A continued crime is not a complex
rebellion with murder, arson, robbery, crime. A continued crime is a continuous,
or other common crimes. unlawful act or series of acts set on foot by a
Rañeses 54

single impulse and operated by a force that the victim is of tender age as well as
is not intermittent, however long a time it of old age.
may occupy. (22 C.J.S., 52) 3. Sex in the circumstances
31. Same. In material plurality, each eact enumerated refer to the female sex,
constitutes a separate crime, while each not the male sex.
act in a continued crime constitute only 40. Same. It is not applicable when:
one crime. 1. The offender acted with passion and
32. (Art. 49) It only applies when there is a obfuscation
mistake in the identity of the victim of 2. There exists a relationship between
the crime, and the penalty for the crime the offended party and the offender.
committed is different from that for the 3. The condition of being a woman is
crime intended to be committed. indispensable in the commission of
33. Same. It has no application in cases the crime.
where a more serious consequence not 41. Same. Disregard of sex is absorbed in
intended by the offender befalls the treachery.
same person. 42. Same. That the crime be committed in
34. Same. It is applicable only when the the dwelling of the offended party
intended crime actually committed is 1. The abuse of confidence which the
punished with different penalties. offended party reposed in the
35. Same. Art. 49 imposes the lesser penalty offender by opening the door to him;
to be applied in its maximum period, or
while Art. 48 applies the penalty for the 2. The violation of the sanctity of the
more or most serious crime in its home by trespassing therein with
maximum period. violence or against the will of the
36. Same. Rule no. 3 in Art. 49 is not owner.
necessary, because the cases 43. Same. Offended party must not give
contemplated in the said rule may be provocation. As may be seen, a condition
covered by Art. 48. sine qua non of this circumstance, is that the
37. (Art. 14[3]) The four circumstances offended party “has not given provocation”
enumerated in the provision can be to the offender. When it is the offended
considered single or together. If all are party who has provoked the incident, he
present, they have the weight of one single loses his right to the respect and
aggravating circumstance. consideration due him in his own house.
38. Same. It is applicable only to crimes 44. Same. Provocation must be:
against persons or honor. 1. Given by the owner of the dwelling
39. Same. “With insult or in disregard.” – 2. Sufficient, and
There must be evidence that in the 3. Immediate to the commission f the
commission of the crime, the accused crime
deliberately intended to offend or insult the 45. Same. There must be close relation
sex or age of the offended party. (People v. between provocation and commission of
Mangsant, 65 Phil. 548, 550-‐551) the crime in the dwelling.
1. There must be difference in the 46. Same. Because the provocation is not
social condition of the offender and immediate, dwelling is aggravating.
the offended party.
2. The circumstance of lack of respect U.S. v. Brobst, 14 Phil. 310 (1909)
due to age applies in cases where Facts: The defendant, James L. Brobst, and another
American named Mann, were engaged in work on a
Rañeses 55

mine located in the municipality of Masbate, where defendant's mine; his sister testified that on the
they gave employment to a number of native morning of the day he died, he left her house in
laborers. apparent good health and went to the mines to look
for work; a short time afterwards he received a
Mann discharged one of these laborers named violent blow on his lower left side, a region of the
Simeon Saldivar, warned him not to come back on body where many of the vital organs are located;
the premises, and told the defendant not to employ and immediately thereafter, he stared up the short
him again, because he was a thief and a disturbing trail leading to his sister's house, and died as he
element with the other laborers. reached the door. In the absence of evidence of any
intervening cause, we think there can be no
A few days afterwards, sometime after 6 o'clock on reasonable doubt that his death resulted from the
the morning of the 10th of July, 1907, Saldivar, in blow.
company with three of four others, went to the
mine to look for work. The defendant, caught sight In the case at bar the evidence conclusively
of Saldivar, ordered him off the place, exclaiming in establishes the voluntary, intentional, and unlawful
bad Spanish, "Sigue, Vamus!" (Begone). Saldivar infliction by the accused of a severe blow on the
made no move to leave, and although the order was person of the deceased; and while it is true that the
repeated, merely smiled or grinned at the accused does not appear to have intended to take
defendant, whereupon the latter became enraged, the life of his victim, there can no doubt that in thus
took three steps toward Saldivar, and struck him a striking the deceased, he intended to do him some
powerful blow with his closed fist on the left side, injury, at least to the extent of inflicting some
just over the lower ribs, at the point where the degree of physical pain upon him, and he is
handle of Saldivar's bolo lay against the belt from therefore, criminally responsible for the natural,
which it was suspended. even if unexpected results of his act, under the
provisions of article 1 of the Penal Code, which
On being struck, Saldivar threw up his hands, prescribes that:
staggered. (dio vueltas -‐ spun around helplessly)
and without saying a word, went away in the Any person voluntarily committing a crime or
direction of his sister's house, which stood about misdemeanor shall incur criminal liability, even
200 yards away, and about 100 feet up the side of a though the wrongful act committed be different from
hill. He died as he reached the door of the house, that which he had intended to commit.
and was buried some two or three days later.
In such cases the law in these Islands does not
Issue: Whether or not Brobst is guilty of homicide excuse one from liability for the natural
and not homicide as a result of reckless negligence. consequences of hi illegal acts merely because he
did not intend to produce such consequences, but it
Held: Yes. The evidence of record leaves no room does take that fact into consideration as an
for reasonable doubt that the defendant struck extenuating circumstance, as did the trial judge in
Saldivar a powerful body blow with his closed fist; this case.
and that was far in excess of such authority, and
was, therefore, unlawful, and cannot be excused or People v. Mananquil, 132 SCRA 196 (1984)
justified as an exercise of necessary force in the Facts: Valentina Mananquil y Laredo was accused
exercise of a right of parricide allegedly committed as follows:

The deceased came to his death as a result of the On March 6, 1965, at about 11:00 o'clock in the
blow inflicted by the defendant. Two or three days evening, appellant went to the NAWASA Building at
prior to his death he was employed as a laborer in Pasay City where her husband was then working as
Rañeses 56

a security guard. She had just purchased ten (10) 2. Yes. The cause of death as shown by the
centavo worth of gasoline from the Esso Gasoline necropsy report is pneumonia, lobar
Station at Taft Avenue which she placed in a coffee bilateral. Burns 2' secondary. There is no
bottle. She was angry of her husband, Elias Day y question that the burns sustained by the
Pablo, because the latter had burned her clothing, victim as shown by The post-‐mortem
was maintaining a mistress and had been taking all findings immunity about 62% of the victim's
the food from their house. Upon reaching the entire body. The evidence shows that
NAWASA Building, she knocked at the door. pneumonia was a mere complication of the
Immediately, after the door was opened, Elias Day burns sustained. While accepting
shouted at the appellant and castigated her saying, pneumonia as the immediate cause of death,
"puta buguian lakaw galigaon" The appellant tired the court a quo held on to state that this
of hearing the victim, then got the bottle of gasoline could not litem resulted had not the victim
and poured the contents thereof on the face of the suffered from second degree burns. It
victim (t.s.n., p. 14, Id). Then, she got a matchbox concluded, and rightly so, that with
and set the polo shirt of the victim a flame. The pneumonia having developed, the burns
appellant was investigated by elements of the Pasay became as to the cause of death, merely
City Police to whom she gave a written statement contributory
where she admitted having burned the victim.
Appellant's case falls squarely under Art, 4,
Upon the other hand, the victim was taken first to Par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code which
the Philippine General Hospital and then to the provides:
Trinity General Hospital at Sta. Ana, Manila, when
he died on March 10, 1965. due to pneumonia, lobar Art. 4. Criminal Liability. Criminal
bilateral Burns 2 secondary. liability shall be incurred.

Issues: By any person committing a felony
1. WON or not appellant's extrajudicial (delito) although the wrongful act
confession was voluntarily given; done be different from that which he
2. WON or not the burns sustained by the intended.
victim contributed to cause pneumonia
which was the cause of the victim's death. The essential requisites of which are: (a)
that an intentional felony has been
Held: committed; and (b) that the wrong done to
1. Yes. No denunciation of any sort was made the aggrieved party be the direct, natural
nor levelled by her against the police and logical consequence of the felony
investigators. Neither was there any committed by the offender.
complaint aired by her to the effect that she People v. Iligan, 191 SCRA 643 (1990)
merely affixed her signatures thereto Facts: At around 2 in the morning Esmeraldo
because of the promise by the police that Quinones and his companions Zaldy Asis and Felix
she will be released later. Lukban were walking home from barangay Sto.
Domingo after attending a barrio fiesta. On the way
Furthermore almost all the recitals and they met the accused Fernando Iligan and his
narrations appearing in the said statement nephew Edmundo Asis and Juan Macandog.
were practically repeated by her on the Edmundo Asis pushed them aside prompting Zaldy
witness stand thus authenticating the truth Asis to box him. Felix quickly said that they had no
and veracity of her declarations contained desire to fight. Upon seeing his nephew fall,
therein
Rañeses 57

Fernando Iligan drew from his back a bolo and The hacking incident happened on the national
hacked Zaldy but missed. highway where vehicles pass any moment; the
hacking blow received by Quinones weakened him
Terrified the trio ran, pursued by the three accused. and was run over by a vehicle. The hacking by Iligan
They ran for a good while and even passed the is thus deemed as the proximate cause of the
house of Quinones, when they noticed that they victim’s death.
were no longer being chased the three decided to
head back to Quinones house. On the way back the Iligan is held liable for homicide absent any
three accused suddenly emerged from the road qualifying circumstances
side, Fernando Iligan then hacked Quinones Jr. on
the forehead with his bolo causing him to fall down. People v. Sabalones, 294 SCRA 751 (1998)
Felix and Zaldy ran. Upon returning they saw that Facts: Beronga, Sabalones, cabanero and Alegarbe
Quinones Jr. was already dead with his head busted. were convicted of 2 counts of murder and 3 counts
of frustrated murder of Glenn tiempo, Alfred nardo,
The postmortem examination report and the death rey bolo, reogelio presores and nelson tiempo. A
certificate indicates that the victim died of “shock shooting incident on June 1, 1985 in Manuela Comp,
and massive cerebral hemorrhages due to vehicular Talisay Cebu led to these deaths.
accident.”
Issues:
Issue: WON the accused are liable for the victim’s 1. WON prosecution witnesses and evidence
death given that it was due to a vehicular accident are credible.
and not the hacking. 2. WON alibi’s acceptable.
3. WON correct penalty imposed.
Held: Yes. We are convinced beyond peradventure
that indeed after Quinones, Jr. had fallen from the Held:
bolo hacking perpetrated by Iligan, he was run over 1. Yes. RTC findings were binding to court
by a vehicle. This finding, however, does not in any with appreciated testimonies of two
way exonerate Iligan from liability for the death of witnesses. There was positive identification
Quinones Jr. This being under ART 4 of the RPC by survivors who saw them when they
which states that criminal liability shall be incurred peered during lulls in gunfire. The place was
by any person committing a felony although the well-‐lit, whether from post of car’s
wrongful act done be different from that which he headlights. The extrajudicial confession has
intended. no bearing because the conviction was
based on positive identification. It is
The essential requisites of Art 4 are: that an binding, though, to the co-‐accused because
intentional felony has been committed and that the it is used as circumstantial evidence
wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct corroborated by one witness. The
natural and logical consequence of the felony inconsistencies are minor and
committed by the offender. inconsequential which strengthen
credibility of testimony. Furthermore, in
It is held that the essential elements are present in aberratio ictus (mistake in blow), mistake
this case. The intentional felony committed was the does not diminish culpability; same gravity
hacking of the head of Quinones the fact that it was applies, more proper to use error in
considered superficial by the physician is personae.
immaterial. The location of the wound intended to
do away with him.

Rañeses 58

2. No. It was still quite near the crime scene. It President Roxas, the accused committed two grave
is overruled by positive identification. felonies, namely: (1) murder, of which Simeon
Furthermore, flight indicates guilt Varela was the victim; and (2) multiple attempted
murder, of which President Roxas, Alfredo Eva, Jose
3. No. Under RPC A248, the imposable penalty Fabio, Pedro Carrillo and Emilio Maglalang were the
is reclusion temporal, in its maximum injured parties.
period to death. There being no
aggravating/mitigating circumstance, aside The killing of Simeon Varela was attended by the
from the qualifying circumstance of qualifying circumstance of treachery. In the case of
treachery, the appellate court correctly People vs. Mabug-‐at, supra, this court held that the
imposed reclusion perpetua for murder. The qualifying circumstance of treachery may be
CA however erred in computing the penalty properly considered, even when the victim of the
for each of the three counts of frustrated attack was not the one whom the defendant
murder. Under RPC A50, the penalty for a intended to kill, if it appears from the evidence that
frustrated felony is the next lower in degree neither of the two persons could in any manner put
than that prescribed by law for the up defense against the attack, or become aware of it.
consummated felony xxx.” Because there In the same case it was held that the qualifying
are no aggravating or mitigating circumstance of premeditation may not be properly
circumstance as the CA itself held, the taken into the account when the person whom the
penalty prescribed by law should be defendant proposed to kill was different from the
imposed in its medium period. one who became his victim.

People v. Guillen, 85 Phil. 307 (1950) There can be no question that the accused
Facts: Guillen was charged with the crime of attempted to kill President Roxas by throwing a
murder of Simeon Varela (Barrela) and to multiple hand grenade at him with the intention to kill him,
frustrated murder of President Roxas, Alfredo Eva, thereby commencing the commission of a felony by
Jose Fabio, Pedro Carrillo and Emilio Maglalang over acts, but he did not succeed in assassinating him
who were the injured parties, as the information "by reason of some cause or accident other than his
filed against him provided. Guillen pleaded not own spontaneous desistance." For the same reason
guilty to the crime charged against him, but was we qualify the injuries caused on the four other
later found after duly admitting his intention to kill persons already named as merely attempted and
the President, the lower court found him guilty not frustrated murder.
beyond reasonable doubt and was sentenced with
the highest capital punishment, for the murder of *The accused committed a mistake in blow
Simeon Varela (Barrela) and to the multiple (aberratio ictus), hence the application of Art. 48.
frustrated murder of President Roxas et al.
People v. Albuquerque, 59 Phil. 150 (1933)
Issue: WON the conviction of the accused was Facts: Appellant, deeply affected by the knowledge
proper. that his daughter had been impregnated by the
Held: No. The case is clearly governed by the first victim, made efforts to force victim to legitimize
clause of article 481 because by a single act, that a marry his daughter. Although the victim agreed to
throwing highly explosive hand grenade at give the child a monthly allowance by way of
support, he never complied with his promise.
Incensed, the appellant went into the victim’s office.
1
Art. 48. Penalty for Complex Crimes. — When a single act Upon hearing the victim refuse once again,
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or
when an offense is a necessary means for committing the appellant whipped out his penknife and stabbed
other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be him in the face. Due to his lack of control of the
imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.
Rañeses 59

movement of his arm, the weapon landed on the cases where the crime committed befalls a different
base of the neck of the victim, killing him. person (aberratio ictus).

Issue: WON conviction of the appellant was proper Bataclan v. Medina, 102 Phil. 181 (1957)
in view of the circumstances. Facts: The deceased Juan Bataclan was among the
passengers of Medina Transportation, driven by
Held: Yes. The appellant did not intend to cause so Conrado Saylon and operated by Mariano Medina.
grave an injury as the death of the deceased. In his On its way from Cavite to Pasay, the front tires
testimony the appellant affirmed that he only burst and the vehicle fell into a canal. Some
wanted to inflict a wound that would leave a passengers were able to escape by themselves or
permanent scar on the face of the deceased, or one with some help, while there were 4, including
that would compel him to remain in the hospital for Bataclan, who could not get out. Their cries were
a week or two. There was no intention to kill him, as heard in the neighborhood. Then there came about
that would frustrate his efforts to get the deceased 10 men, one of them carrying a torch. As they
to marry his daughter or at least provide some approached the bus, it caught fire and the
support. passengers died. The fire was due to gasoline leak
and the torch. Salud Villanueva Vda. de Bataclan, in
In view of the foregoing, the mitigating her name and on behalf of her 5 minor children,
circumstances of lack of intention to cause so grave sought to claim damages from the bus company.
an injury as the death of the deceased as well as his The CFI favored the plaintiff, and the Court of
voluntary surrender to the authorities, and acted Appeals forwarded the case to the Supreme Court
under the influence of passion and obfuscation due to the amount involved.
should be taken into consideration.
Issue: WON Medina Transportation was liable for
Appellant’s contention of self-‐defense has no merit the deaths and damages incurred by the passengers.
as he provoked and commenced the aggression.
Defense counsel’s claim for application of Art. 49 of Held: Yes. The case involves a breach of contract of
the RPC2 has no merit for it is only applicable in transportation for hire, the Medina Transportation
having undertaken to carry Bataclan safely to his
destination, Pasay City. We also agree with the trial

2
Article 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the principals court that there was negligence on the part of the
when the crime committed is different from that intended. defendant, through his agent, the driver Saylon.
-‐ In cases in which the felony committed is different from There is evidence to show that at the time of the
that which the offender intended to commit, the
blow out, the bus was speeding, as testified to by
following rules shall be observed:
one of the passengers, and as shown by the fact that
1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be according to the testimony of the witnesses,
higher than that corresponding to the offense which the including that of the defense, from the point where
accused intended to commit, the penalty corresponding
one of the front tires burst up to the canal where
to the latter shall be imposed in its maximum period.
the bus overturned after zig-‐zaging, there was a
2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be distance of about 150 meters. The chauffeur, after
lower than that corresponding to the one which the the blow-‐out, must have applied the brakes in order
accused intended to commit, the penalty for the former
shall be imposed in its maximum period.
to stop the bus, but because of the velocity at which
the bus must have been running, its momentum
3. The rule established by the next preceding paragraph carried it over a distance of 150 meters before it fell
shall not be applicable if the acts committed by the guilty into the canal and turned turtle.
person shall also constitute an attempt or frustration of
another crime, if the law prescribes a higher penalty for
either of the latter offenses, in which case the penalty be imposed in its maximum period.(Read also Arts. 61,
provided for the attempted or the frustrated crime shall 62, and 65)
Rañeses 60

can also in part be attributed to the negligence of
There is no question that under the circumstances, the carrier, through is driver and its conductor.
the defendant carrier is liable. The only question is According to the witness, the driver and the
to what degree. A satisfactory definition of conductor were on the road walking back and forth.
proximate cause is found in Volume 38, pages 695-‐ They, or at least, the driver should and must have
696 of American jurisprudence, cited by plaintiffs-‐ known that in the position in which the overturned
appellants in their brief. It is as follows: bus was, gasoline could and must have leaked from
the gasoline tank and soaked the area in and around
. . . 'that cause, which, in natural and continuous the bus, this aside from the fact that gasoline when
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening spilled, specially over a large area, can be smelt and
cause, produces the injury, and without which the directed even from a distance, and yet neither the
result would not have occurred.' And more driver nor the conductor would appear to have
comprehensively, 'the proximate legal cause is that cautioned or taken steps to warn the rescuers not to
acting first and producing the injury, either bring the lighted torch too near the bus.
immediately or by setting other events in motion, all
constituting a natural and continuous chain of Impossible Crimes
events, each having a close causal connection with its Reyes:
immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain 1. The commission of an impossible crime
immediately effecting the injury as a natural and is indicative of criminal propensity or
probable result of the cause which first acted, under criminal tendency on the part of the
such circumstances that the person responsible for actor. Such person is a potential criminal.
the first event should, as an ordinary prudent and According to positivist thinking, the
intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect community must be protected from anti-‐
at the moment of his act or default that an injury to social activities, whether actual or potential,
some person might probably result therefrom. of the morbid type of man called “socially
dangerous person.”
In the present case under the circumstances 2. To be classified as an impossible crime,
obtaining in the same, the proximate cause was the certain requisites must be met.
overturning of the bus, this for the reason that 1. That the act performed would be an
when the vehicle turned not only on its side but offense against persons or property.
completely on its back, the leaking of the gasoline 2. That the act was done with evil
from the tank was not unnatural or unexpected; intent.
that the coming of the men with a lighted torch was 3. That its accomplishment is
in response to the call for help, made not only by inherently impossible, or that the
the passengers, but most probably, by the driver means employed is either
and the conductor themselves, and that because it inadequate or ineffectual.
was dark (about 2:30 in the morning), the rescuers 4. That the act performed should not
had to carry a light with them, and coming as they constitute a violation of another
did from a rural area where lanterns and flashlights provision of the RPC.
were not available; and what was more natural than
that said rescuers should innocently approach the
vehicle to extend the aid and effect the rescue
requested from them. In other words, the coming of
the men with a torch was to be expected and was a
natural sequence of the overturning of the bus, the
trapping of some of its passengers and the call for
outside help. What is more, the burning of the bus
Rañeses 61

RPC, Art. 4 (2) d. Infanticide (Art. 255)
e. Abortion (Arts. 256, 257,
Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be 258 and 259)
incurred: f. Duel (Arts. 260 and 261)
2. By any person performing an act which would be
g. Physical injuries (Arts. 262,
an offense against persons or property, were it not 263, 264, 265 and 266)
for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment h. Rape (Art. 266-‐A)
or an account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means. Felonies against property:
a. Robbery (Arts. 294, 297,
Art. 59
298, 299, 300, 302 and 303)
Penalty to be imposed in case of failure to commit the b. Brigandage (Arts. 306 and
crime because the means employed or the aims 307)
sought are impossible. -‐ When the person intending c. Theft (Arts. 308, 310 and
to commit an offense has already performed the 311)
acts for the execution of the same but nevertheless d. Usurpation (Arts. 312 and
the crime was not produced by reason of the fact 313)
that the act intended was by its nature one of
e. Culpable insolvency (Art.
impossible accomplishment or because the means
314)
employed by such person are essentially inadequate
to produce the result desired by him, the court, f. Swindling and other deceits
having in mind the social danger and the degree of (Arts. 315, 316, 317 and
criminality shown by the offender, shall impose 318)
upon him the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine g. Chattel mortgage (Art. 319)
from 200 to 500 pesos. h. Arson and other crimes

involving destruction (Arts.

320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325
Reyes:
and 326)
1. IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES IN
i. Malicious mischief (Arts.
PAR. 2 OF ART. 4
327, 328, 329, 330 and 331)
1. “Performing an act which would be

an offense against persons or
If the act performed would be an
property.” – In committing an
offense other than a felony against
impossible crime, the offender
persons or against property, there is
intends to commit a felony against
no impossible crime.
persons or a felony against property,
2. “Were it not for the inherent
and the act performed would have
impossibility of its accomplishment
been an offense against persons or
or on account of the employment of
property. But a felong against
inadequate or ineffectual means.” –
persons or property should not be
In impossible crime, the act
actually committed, for, otherwise,
performed by the offender cannot
he would be liable for that felony.
produce an offense against persons
There would be no impossible crime
or property, because: (1) the
to speak of.
commission of the offense (against

persons or against property) is
Felonies against persons:
inherently impossible of
a. Parricide (Art. 246)
accomplishment; or (2) the means
b. Murder (Art. 248)
c. Homicide (Art. 249)
Rañeses 62

employed is either (a) inadequate; the said 1/8 unit of a Philippine Charity
or (b) ineffectual. Sweepstakes ticket is genuine and that he is entitled
to the corresponding amount of P359.55 so won by
“Inherent impossibility of its said ticket
accomplishment.” – This phrase
means that the act intended by the Said accused failed to perform all the acts of
offender is by its nature one of execution which would have produce the crime of
impossible accomplishment. (Art. estafa through falsification of a security as a
59) consequence by reason of some causes other than
this spontaneous desistance, to wit: one Bayani
There must be either (1) legal Miller, an employee to whom the said accused
impossibility, or (2) physical presented said ticket in the Philippine Charity
impossibility of accomplishing the Sweepstakes Office discovered that the said ticket
intended crime. as presented by the said accused was falsified and
2. In impossible crime the act immediately thereafter he called for a policeman
performed should not constitute a who apprehended and arrested the said accused
violation of another provision of the right then and there.
Code.
3. The purpose of punishing impossible Issue: WON said act constitutes an impossible
crimes is to suppress criminal crime
propensity or criminal tendencies.
Objectively, the offender has not Held: No. It may be that appellant was either
committed a felony, but subjectively, he reckless or foolish in believing that a falsification as
is a criminal. patent as that which he admitted to have
perpetrated would succeed; but the recklessness
People v. Balmores, 85 Phil. 493 (1950) and clumsiness of the falsification did not make the
Facts: Appellant, waiving the right to be assisted by crime impossible within the purview of paragraph
counsel, pleaded guilty to the following information 2, article 4, in relation to article 59, of the Revised
filed against him in the Court of First Instance of Penal Code
Manila:
Judging from the appearance of the falsified ticket
The accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully in question, we are not prepared to say that it
and feloniously commence the commission of the would have been impossible for the appellant to
crime of estafa through falsification of a security consummate the crime of estafa thru falsification of
directly by overt acts, to wit; by then and there said ticket if the clerk to whom it was presented for
tearing off at the bottom in a cross-‐wise direction a the payment had not exercised due care.
portion of a genuine 1/8 unit Philippine Charity
Sweepstakes ticket thereby removing the true and Intod v. Court of Appeals, 215 SCRA 52 (1992)
real unidentified number of same and substituting Facts: In the morning of February 4, 1979, Sulpicio
and writing in ink at the bottom on the left side of Intod, Jorge Pangasian, Santos Tubio and Avelino
said ticket the figure or number 074000 thus Daligdig went to Salvador Mandaya's house in
making the said ticket bear the said number Katugasan, Lopez Jaena, Misamis Occidental and
074000, which is a prize-‐winning number. asked him to go with them to the house of
Bernardina Palangpangan. Thereafter, Mandaya and
He presented the falsified ticket. exchanging the Intod, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig had a meeting
same for the corresponding cash that said number with Aniceto Dumalagan. He told Mandaya that he
has won, fraudulently pretending in said office that wanted Palangpangan to be killed because of a land
Rañeses 63

dispute between them and that Mandaya should In our jurisdiction, impossible crimes are recognized.
accompany the four (4) men, otherwise, he would The impossibility of accomplishing the criminal
also be killed. intent is not merely a defense, but an act penalized by
itself. Furthermore, the phrase "inherent
At about 10:00 o'clock in the evening of the same impossibility" that is found in Article 4(2) of the
day, Petitioner, Mandaya, Pangasian, Tubio and Revised Penal Code makes no distinction between
Daligdig, all armed with firearms, arrived at factual or physical impossibility and legal
Palangpangan's house in Katugasan, Lopez Jaena, impossibility
Misamis Occidental. At the instance of his
companions, Mandaya pointed the location of To uphold the contention of respondent that the
Palangpangan's bedroom. Thereafter, Petitioner, offense was Attempted Murder because the absence
Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig fired at said room. It of Palangpangan was a supervening cause
turned out, however, that Palangpangan was in independent of the actor's will, will render useless
another City and her home was then occupied by the provision in Article 4, which makes a person
her son-‐in-‐law and his family. No one was in the criminally liable for an act "which would be an
room when the accused fired the shots. No one was offense against persons or property, were it not for
hit by the gun fire. the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment . .
." In that case all circumstances which prevented
Petitioner and his companions were positively the consummation of the offense will be treated as
identified by witnesses. One witness testified that an accident independent of the actor's will which is
before the five men left the premises, they shouted: an element of attempted and frustrated felonies.
"We will kill you (the witness) and especially
Bernardina Palangpangan and we will come back if Stages of Commission
(sic) you were not injured
Definitions
Issue: WON said act constitutes an impossible
crime
RPC, Art. 6

Held: Yes. The factual situation in the case at bar Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. -‐
present a physical impossibility which rendered the Consummated felonies as well as those which are
intended crime impossible of accomplishment. And frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
under Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal
A felony is consummated when all the elements
Code, such is sufficient to make the act an
necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
impossible crime.
present; and it is frustrated when the offender
performs all the acts of execution which would
To be impossible under this clause, the act intended produce the felony as a consequence but which,
by the offender must be by its nature one nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes
impossible of accomplishment. There must be independent of the will of the perpetrator.
either impossibility of accomplishing the intended
There is an attempt when the offender commences
act in order to qualify the act an impossible crime.
the commission of a felony directly by overt acts,
Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts,
and does not perform all the acts of execution which
even if completed, would not amount to a crime.
should produce the felony by reason of some cause
Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous or accident other than his own spontaneous
circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his desistance.
control prevent the consummation of the intended

crime. The case at bar belongs to this category.
Reyes:

Rañeses 64

1. Consummated -‐ A felony is consummated a felony directly by overt acts. He has not
when all the elements necessary for its performed all the acts of execution which
execution and accomplishment are present. should produce the felony.
2. Frustrated -‐ It is frustrated when the
offender performs all the acts of execution Elements of attempted felony:
which would produce the felony as a 1. The offender commences the
consequence but which, nevertheless, do commission of the felony directly by
not produce it by reason of causes overt acts;
independent of the will of the perpetrator. 2. He does not perform all the acts of
3. Attempted -‐ There is an attempt when the execution which should produce the
offender commences the commission of a felony.
felony directly by overt acts, and does not 3. The offender’s act is not stopped by
perform all the acts of execution which his own voluntary desistance;
should produce the felony by reason of 4. The non-‐performance of all acts of
some cause or accident other than his own execution was due to cause or
spontaneous desistance. accident other than his own
4. Development of crime. From the moment spontaneous desistance.
the culprit conceives the idea of committing 6. IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES IN
a crime up to the realization of the same, his ART. 6 (Attempted felony)
act passes through certain stages. o “Commences the commission of a
1. Internal acts, such as mere ideas in felony directly by overt acts.” A
the mind of a person, are not felony is deemed to have been
punishable even if, had they been commenced through overt acts
carried out, would constitute a when (1) there are external acts and
crime. (2) such external acts have direct
connection with the crime intended
Intention and effect must concur. to be committed.
Mere intention producing no effect § Overt act – some physical
is no more a crime than a mere activity or deed indicating
effect without the intention is a the intention to commit a
crime. particular crime, more than
2. External acts cover (a) preparatory a mere planning or
acts; and (b) acts of execution. preparation, which if carried
a. Preparatory acts – ordinarily not to its complete termination
punishable. Hence, proposal to following its natural course,
commit a felony, which are without being frustrated by
preparatory acts, are not external obstacles nor by the
punishable, except when the law voluntary desistance of the
provides for their punishment in perpetrator, will logically
certain felonies. (Art. 8) and necessarily ripen into a
b. Acts of execution – they are concrete offense.
punishable under the RPC. The 7. Indeterminate offense – it is one where
stages of acts of execution – the purpose of the offender in performing
attempted, frustrated and an act is not certain. Its nature in relation to
consummated – are punishable. its object is ambiguous.
5. Attempted felony – there is an attempt 8. The intention of the accused must be
when the offender begins the commission of viewed from the nature of the acts
Rañeses 65

executed by him, and not from his the felony because of some cause or
admission. The intention of the accused accident.
must be ascertained from the facts and, 4. “Other than his own spontaneous
therefore, it is necessary that the mind be desistance.” – If the actor does not
able to directly infer from them the perform all the acts of execution by
intention of the perpetrator to cause a reason of his own spontaneous
particular injury. desistance, there is no attempted
felony. The law does not punish him.
Acts susceptible of double interpretation…
must not and cannot furnish grounds by The desistance may be through fear
themselves for attempted crime (People v. or remorse. (People v. Pambaya, See
Lamahang, 61 Phil. 707) 60 Phil. 1022) It is not necessary
that it be actuated by a good motive.
In offenses not consummated, as the The Code requires only that the
material damage is wanting, the nature of discontinuance of the crime comes
the action intended cannot exactly be from the person who has begun it,
ascertained, but the same must be inferred and that he stops of his own free
from the nature of the acts executed. (I will. (Albert)
Groizard, p. 99) The overt acts leading to the 9. The desistance should be made before all
commission of the offense are not the acts of execution are performed.
punishable except when they are aimed 10. The desistance which exempts from
directly at its execution, and therefore must criminal liability has reference to the
have an immediate and necessary relation to crime intended to be committed, and has
the offense. (I Viada, p. 47) no reference to the crime actually
1. “Directly by overt acts.” – the law committed by the offender before his
requires that the “offender desistance.
commences the commission of the 11. In attempted felony, the offender never
felony directly by overt acts.” Only passes the subjective phase of the
offenders who personally execute offense.
the commission of a crime can be 1. Subjective phase -‐ that portion of
guilty of attempted felony. The word the acts constituting the crime,
“directly” suggests that the offender starting from the point where the
must commence the commission of offender begins the commission of
the felony by taking direct part in the crime in that point where he still
the execution of the act. has control over his acts, including
2. “Does not perform all acts of their (acts’) natural course.
execution.” – If the offender has
performed all acts of execution – F between these two points the
nothing more is left to be done – the offender is stopped by any cause
stage of execution is that of a outside of his own voluntary
frustrated felony, if the felony is nt desistance, the subjective phase has
produced; or consummated, if the not been passed and it is an attempt.
felony is produced. If he is not so stopped but continues
3. “By reason of some cause or until he performs the last act, it is
accident.” – In attempted felony, the frustrated, provided that the crime is
offender fails to perform all the acts not produced. The acts then of the
of execution which should produce
Rañeses 66

offender reached the objective phase consummation of the offense or may
of the crime. be due to the perpetrator’s own will.
12. Frustrated Felony
Elements: If the crime is not produced because
1. The offender performs all the acts of of the timely intervention of a third
execution; person, it is frustrated.
2. All the acts performed would
produce the felony as a If the crime is not produced because
consequence; the offender himself presented its
3. But the felony is not produced; consummation, there is no
4. By reason of causes independent of frustrated felony, for the 4th element
the will of the perpetrator. is present.
13. IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES IN
ART. 6 (Frustrated Felony) Note that the 4th element says that
1. “Performs all the acts of execution.” the felony is not produced “by
– In frustrated felony, the offender reason of causes independent of the
must perform all the acts of will of the perpetrator.” Hence, if the
execution. Nothing more is left to be cause which presented the
done by the offender, because he has consummation of the offese was the
performed the last act necessary to perpetrator’s own and exclusive
produce the crime. This element will, the 4th element does not exist.
distinguishes frustrated felony from 14. Frustrated felony distinguished from
attempted felon. In attempted attempted felony.
felony, the offender does not 1. In both, the offender has not
perform all the acts of execution. He accomplished his criminal purpose.
does not perform the last act 2. While in frustrated felony, the
necessary to produce the crime. He offender has performed all the acts
merely commences the commission of execution which would produce
of a felony directly by overt acts. the felony as a consequence, in
2. “Would produce the felony as a attempted felony, the offender
consequence.” – All the acts of merely commences the commission
execution performed by the offender of a felony directly by overt acts and
could have produced the felony as a does not perform all the acts of
consequence. execution.
3. “Do not produce it.” – In frustrated
felony, the acts performed by the In other words, in frustrated felony,
offender do not produce the felony, the offender has reached the
because if the felony is produced it objective phase; in attempted felony,
would be consummated. the offender has not passed the
4. “Independent of the will of the subjective phase.
perpetrator.” – Even if all the acts of 15. Attempted or frustrated felony
execution have been performed, the distinguished from impossible crime.
crime may not be consummated, 1. In attempted or frustrated felony
because certain causes may prevent and impossible crime, the evil intent
its consummation. These certain of the offender is not accomplished.
causes may be the intervention of 2. But while in impossible crime, the
third persons who prevented the evil intent of the offender cannot be
Rañeses 67

accomplished, in attempted or 1. Formal crimes – consummated in one
frustrated felony the evil intent of instant, no attempt. (i.e. slander,
the offender is possible false testimony)
accomplishment. 2. Crimes consummated by mere
3. In impossible crime, the evil intent attempt or proposal or by overt act.
of the offender cannot be (i.e. flight to enemy’s country
accomplished because it is [Art.121])
inherently impossible of 3. Felony by omission. – there can be no
accomplishment or because the attempted stage when the felony is
means employed by the offender is by omission, because in this kind of
inadequate or ineffectual; in felony the offender does not execute
attempted or frustrated felony, what acts. He omits to perform an act
prevented its accomplishment is the which the law requires him to do.
intervention of certain cause or 4. Crimes requiring the intervention of
accident in which the offender had two persons to commit them are
no part. consummated by mere agreement.
16. Consummated felony – a felony is (i.e. betting in sport contests)
consummated when all the elements 5. Material crimes – There are three
necessary for its execution are present. stages of execution – attempted,
17. IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES IN frustrated, consummated, (i.e. rape,
ART. 6 (Consummated felony) homicide).
o “All the elements: necessary for its 20. There is no attempted or frustrated
execution and accomplishment “are impossible crime.
present.”
RPC, Art. 7
In consummated felony, all the
elements necessary for its execution When light felonies are punishable. -‐ Light felonies
and accomplishment must be are punishable only when they have been
consummated, with the exception of those committed
present. Every crime has its own
against person or property.
elements which must all be present
to constitute a culpable violation of a

precept of law.
Reyes:
18. When not all the elements of a felony are
1. Light felonies are those infractions of law
proved-‐ when a felony has two or more
for the commission of which the penalty
elements and one of them is not proved by
of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding
the prosecution during the trial, either (1)
200 pesos, or both, is provided. (Art. 9,
the felony is not shown to have been
par. 3)
consummated, or (2) the felony is not
2. Light felonies punished by the RPC:
shown to have been committed, or (3)
1. Slight physical injuries. (Art. 266)
another felony is shown to have been
2. Theft. (Art. 309, pars. 7 and 8)
committed.
3. Alteration of boundary arks. (Art.

313)
Hence, all the elements of the felony for
4. Malicious mischief. (Art. 328, par. 3;
which the accused is prosecuted must be
Art. 329, par. 3)
present in order to hold him liable therefor
5. Intriguing against honor. (Art. 364)
in its consummated stage.
3. IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES
19. Manner of committing the crime.
Rañeses 68

1. “With the exception of those A felony is frustrated when the offender performs
committed against persons or all the acts of execution which should produce the
property.” felony as a consequence, but which, nevertheless,
do not produce it by reason of causes independent
General rule: Light felonies are of the will of the perpetrator. To put it in another
punishable only when they have way, in case of an attempt the offender never passes
been consummated, UNLESS they the subjective phase of the offense.
are committed against persons or
property. If that’s the case, they are On the other hand, attempted murder is defined as
punishable, even if they are when the offender commences the commission of the
attempted or frustrated only. felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all
the acts of execution which constitute the felony by
U.S. v. Eduave. 36 Phil. 209 (1917) reason of some cause or accident other than his own
Facts: The accused rushed upon the girl suddenly voluntarily desistance. Hence the subjective phase is
and struck her from behind, in part at least, with a completely passed. Subjectively the crime is
sharp bolo, producing a frightful gash in the lumbar complete.
region and slightly to the side eight and one-‐half
inches long and two inches deep, severing all of the The subjective phase is that portion of the acts
muscles and tissues of that part. Fortunately the girl constituting the crime included between the act
was able to survive which begins the commission of the crime and the
last act performed by the offender which, with the
The motive of the crime was that the accused was prior acts, should result in the consummated crime.
incensed at the girl for the reason that she had From that time forward the phase is objective. It
theretofore charged him criminally before the local may also be said to be that period occupied by the
officials with having raped her and with being the acts of the offender over which he has control that
cause of her pregnancy. He was her mother's period between the point where he begins and the
querido and was living with her as such at the time points where he voluntarily desists. If between
the crime here charged was committed these two points the offender is stopped by reason
of any cause outside of his own voluntary
The accused is charged with frustrated murder. We desistance, the subjective phase has not been
are satisfied that there was an intent to kill in this passed and it is an attempt. If he is not so stopped
case. A deadly weapon was used. The blow was but continues until he performs the last act, it is
directed toward a vital part of the body. The frustrated.
aggressor stated his purpose to kill, thought he had
killed, and threw the body into the bushes. When he People v. Enriquez, 281 SCRA 103 (1997)
gave himself up he declared that he had killed the Facts: Accused Enriquez and Rosales were
complainant. supposed to sell 6 kg of marijuana in violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, but were caught red-‐
Issue: WON the accused is to be charged with handed in a buy-‐bust operation: Rosales had just
frustrated murder. delivered the drug, while Enriquez peddled sale to
agents. Sale and delivery of marijuana is punishable
Held: Yes. The crime cannot be attempted murder. under the aforementioned statute.
This is clear from the fact that the defendant
performed all of the acts which should have Issue: WON ‘attempted delivery’ of the prohibited
resulted in the consummated crime and voluntarily drug is applicable in the case at bar.
desisted from further acts.
Rañeses 69

Held: No. Offense penalized by a special law and (Cont.)
not the RPC, hence no such thing as attempted
delivery. Incomplete delivery, granting it is true, is Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the
inconsequential. Mere act of conveying drugs use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons,
the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
punishable, immaterial whether or not place of
destination is reached. When the victim has become insane, the penalty
shall be death.
Doctrine: If the act is punishable under a special
law, the stages of execution cannot be applied. When rape is attempted or frustrated and a
homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion

thereof, the penalty shall be likewise death.
People v Listerio, 335 SCRA 40 (2000)
Facts: Araque brothers went to Muntinlupa to

collect money from a certain Tino. Being unable to
People v. Erinia, 50 Phil. 998 (1927)
collect, they started on their way home. However,
Facts: The accused endeavored to have carnal
before they could do so, Listerio et al, accosted and
knowledge with victim (3 years old + 11months).
attacked them with bladed weapons and lead pipes,
The attempt foiled from further violating the child
killing Jeonito Araque and wounding his brother
by the appearance of victim’s parents and sister.
Marlon Araque.
Physician found inflammation of the exterior parts

of the organ, but no signs of penetration. Mother
Issue: WON the conviction of attempted homicide
saw that genitals was covered with sticky
at least in terms of Marlon Araque was correct.
substance, however, no proof was shown to

corroborate such an allegation.
Held: No. It should have been frustrated homicide.

Accused only left when victims became
Issue: WON this was considered consummated
unconscious. Gravity of wunds should not be the
rape.
determinative factor but whether or not the

subjective phase in the commission of a crime has
Held: No, this was merely frustrated rape. It was
been passed.
suggested penetration was impossible due to the

age of the child, but for rape to be consummated
*Refer to item 11, sub-‐item 1 on page 65 for the
only partial penetration was required, up to the
definition of the subjective phase.
labia. However, as no such proof of penetration was

evident, benefit of the doubt was accorded to the
Specific Felonies accused, hence only frustrated rape
Rape
RPC, Art. 335 *Later rape cases have dismissed Erinia as a stray
decision, and is therefore not controlling.
When and how rape is committed. — Rape is

committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman
People v. Hernandez, 49 Phil. 980 (1925)
under any of the following circumstances:
Facts: Domingo Hernandez, 70 yrs old charged of
1. by using force or intimidation; raping his 9 yr old step granddaughter, Conrada
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or Jocson with threat to kill if she/doesn’t give in to his
otherwise unconscious; and wish. Aggravating: (1) related, (2) grave abuse of
3. When the woman is under twelve years of confidence since they lived in same house.
age

The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion Issue: WON act is consummated rape
perpetua. Held: Yes, plus there is an aggravating

circumstance.

Rañeses 70

1. People v. Rivers: rupture of hymen not enter and with difficulty; vaginal cavity tight, no
necessary as long as there is proof that discharges noted
there’s some degree of entrance of male
organ within labia of the victim. Issue: WON rape is consummated
2. Physical exam findings: hymen intact, labia
and vaginal opening inflamed, abundance of Held: Rape was consummated. Perfect penetration
semen, she felt intense pain. is not essential. For the consummation of rape, any
penetration of the female organ by the male organ
People v. Orita, 184 SCRA 105 (1990) is sufficient to qualify as having carnal knowledge.
Facts: At around 1:30 am, after attending a party, In the crime of rape, from the moment the offender
Abayan came home to her boarding house. As she has carnal knowledge of the victim, he actually
knocked at the door, Orita suddenly held her and attains his purpose and from that moment, the
poked a knife at her neck. She pleaded for him to let essential elements of the offense have been
her go but instead of doing so, Orita dragged her accomplished.
upstairs with him while he had his left arm
wrapped around her neck and his right hand *According to Orita, there is no more frustrated
holding and poking the balisong at the victim. At the rape.
second floor, he commanded Christina to look for a
room. Upon finding a room, Orita held her against People v. Campuhan, 329 SCRA 270 (2000)
the wall while he undressed himself. He then Facts: Primo Campuhan was accused of raping four
ordered her to undress. As she took off her shirt, he year old Crysthel Pamintuan. Campuhan was caught
pulled off her bra, pants and panty, and ordered her by child’s mother on April 25, 1996 at around 4pm
to lie on the floor. He then mounted her and, in their house. Campuhan, helper of Corazon’s
pointing the balisong at her neck, ordered he to brother was allegedly kneeling in front of the child
hold his penis and insert it in her vagina. In this with both their pants downa dn child was crying
position, only a portion of his penis entered her, so “ayoko, ayoko” while Primo forced his penis into
he ordered Abayan to go on top of him. With him child’s vagina
lying on his back and Abayan mounting him, still, he
did not achieve full penetration and only part of his Issue: WON crime is consummated rape
penis was inserted in the vagina. At this instance,
Abayan got the opportunity to escape Orita because Held: No. Modified to attempted rape
he had both his hands and the knife on the floor. 1. Consummated rape: perfect penetration not
essential. Slight penetration is equivalent to
Abayan, still naked, was chased from room to room rape. Mere touching of external genitalia
with Orita climbing over the partitions. Abayan, considered when its an essential part of
frantic and scared, jumped out of a window and penetration not just touching in ordinary
darted for the municipal building and was finally sense (People v. Orita). Labia majora must
found by Pat. Donceras and other policemen. Due to be entered for rape to be consummated
darkness though, the failed to apprehend Orita. (People v. Escober)
2. Attempted – no penetration or didn’t reach
In the medico legal, Dr. Ma. Luisa Abude had the labia/mere grazing of surface
following findings: circumscribed hematoma at Ant. 3. Failed to prove that penetration occurred.
neck, linear abrasions below left breas, multiple Mother’s testimony questionable with
pinpoint marks at the back, abrasions on both regards to her position relative to Primo
kness, erythemetous areas noted surrounding and child. They failed to establish how she
vaginal orifice, tender; hymen intact; no laceration could have seen actual contact in her
fresh and old noted; examining finger can barely position
Rañeses 71

4. Man’s instinct is to run when caught. Primo Held: Yes. Aggravating Circumstance, public
could not have stayed or to satisfy his lust possession
even if .. seeing Corazon 1. He performed all acts of execution as
5. Child denied penetration occurred required by RPC Art. 3. He didn’t need to
6. People v. Villamor: consummation even take it out of the building
when penetration doubted: pain’s felt, 2. Spanish Supreme Court: taking first caught
discoloration of inner lips of vagina or red by police still consummated no proof of
labia minora or hymenal tags not visible. contrary; pickpocket got money but
Now seen in case, Medico legal officer, returned it later on, still consummated; took
though penetration not needed to prove money even if its on top of safe, still
contact, no medical basis to hold that there consummated.
was sexual contact. Hymen intact.
Interesting metaphors: “shelling of the castle of People v. Dino, 45 O.G., 3445
orgasmic potency,” “strafing the citadel of passion,” Facts: Accused Dino found guilty as accomplice in
“bombardment of the drawbridge.” the crime of qualified theft and sentenced to penalty
from 3 months 11 days of arresto mayor, to 1 year 8
Theft months 21 days of prision correccional. Appellant
RPC, Art. 308.
was driver of US Army, and after dropping off
articles in the port in South Harbor in Manila, he
Who are liable for theft. — Theft is committed by was found with 3 boxes of 10 caliber .30 army rifles
any person who, with intent to gain but without (carbines).
violence against or intimidation of persons nor
force upon things, shall take personal property of
Issue:
another without the latter's consent.
1. WON crime is consummated theft.
Theft is likewise committed by: 2. WON conviction as accomplice was proper.

1. Any person who, having found lost Held:
property, shall fail to deliver the same to
1. No. The court held in this case the crime of
the local authorities or to its owner;
theft cannot be said to be consummated,
2. Any person who, after having maliciously
since the fact determinative of
damaged the property of another, shall
remove or make use of the fruits or object consummation is the ability of the thief to
of the damage caused by him; and dispose freely of the articles stolen, even if it
3. Any person who shall enter an inclosed were more or less momentary, and in the
estate or a field where trespass is forbidden case at bar, this fact can only be seen to have
or which belongs to another and without occurred if the carbines passed the MP
the consent of its owner, shall hunt or fish checkpoint. Therefore, the appellant should
upon the same or shall gather cereals, or be convicted of frustrated theft.
other forest or farm products.
2. No. Since the passing of the truck through

the MP checkpoint was an essential part to

the consummation of the crime, the
U.S. v. Adiao, 38 Phil. 752 (1918)
appellant should be considered a principal
Facts: Tomas Adiao, customs inspector, got a
instead of an accomplice, since he directly
leather bag costing P0.80 from baggage of T.
participated in the commission of the crime.
Murakami and kept it in his desk where it was

found by other employees

Aristotel Valenzuela v. People, G.R. No. 160188,
Issue: WON act is consummated theft.
21 June 2007

Rañeses 72

Facts: Aristotel Valenzuela and Jovy Calderon tried dispose freely of the articles stolen. Unlawful taking
to steal boxes of Tide from SM Super Sale Club in is deemed complete from the moment the offender
North Edsa. Security guard Lorenzo Lago witnessed gains possession of the thing, even if he has no
this and stopped the taxi that the 2 were riding in opportunity to dispose of the same. Theft cannot
trying to escape with the goods. The accused ran have a frustrated stage, since unlawful taking
and Lago fired a warning shot to alert the other produces the felony in its consummated stage.
guards, causing the apprehension of the accused.
RTC of QC convicted both of the crime of Robbery
consummated theft. RPC, Art. 293.

Petitioners appealed, but only Valenzuela was Who are guilty of robbery. — Any person who, with
considered to have filed the appeal since Calderon intent to gain, shall take any personal property
was considered to have abandoned the appeal. belonging to another, by means of violence or
intimidation of any person, or using force upon

anything shall be guilty of robbery.
Issue: WON crime is consummated theft.

Held: Yes. The Court said that the Dino ruling has
People v. Lamahang, 61 Phil. 703 (1935)
not been held as precedent by the court. It also
Facts: Aurelio Lamahang was caught opening with
discussed that a felony has a “subjective phase” or
an iron bar a wall of a store of cheap goods in
that portion of the acts constituting the crime
Fuentes St. Iloilo. He broke one board and was
included between the act which begins the
unfastening another when a patrolling police caught
commission of the crime and ends with the last act
him. Owners of the store were sleeping inside store
performed by the offender, which would produce
as it was early dawn. Convicted of attempt of
the felony.
robbery
• Elements of Theft:

1. That there be taking of personal
Issue: WON crime is attempted robbery?
property

2. That the said property belongs to
Held: No. Attempted trespass to dwelling. Attempt
another
should have logical relation to a particular and
3. That the taking be done with intent to
concrete offense which would lead directly to
gain
consummation. Necessary to establish unavoidable
4. That the taking be done without the
connection & logical & natural relation of cause and
consent of the owner
effect. Important to show clear intent to commit
5. That the taking be accomplished
crime. In case at bar, we can only infer that his
without the use of violence against or
intent was to enter by force, other inferences are
intimidation of persons or force upon
not justified by facts. Groizard: infer only from
things
nature of acts executed. Acts susceptible of double
• For the theft to have been frustrated, certain
interpretation can’t furnish ground for themselves.
factors are to be considered:
Mind should not directly infer intent. Spain SC:
1. That the felony is not produced
necessary that objectives established or acts
2. That such failure is due to causes
themselves obviously disclose criminal objective.
independent of the will of the

perpetrator
People v. Salvilla, 184 SCRA 671 (1990)
It is Congress, and not the courts, which is to define
Facts: April 12, 1986, at about noon time –
and punish crime, and it has defined theft as to
Petitioner, together with Reynaldo, Ronaldo and
having the 5 elements mentioned above—the
Simplicio (all surnamed Canasares), staged a
elements not including “ability of the thief to
robbery at the New Iloilo Lumber Yard. They were
Rañeses 73

armed with homemade guns and a hand grenade. Issues:
On their way inside the establishment, they met 1. WON the crime of robbery was
Rodita Habiero, an employee there who was on her consummated
way out for her meal break, and informed her that it 2. WON there was a mitigating circumstance of
was a hold-‐up. They went inside the office and the voluntary surrender
petitioner pointed his gun at Severino Choco, the
owner, and his two daughters, Mary and Mimmie. Held:
They informed Severino that all they needed was 1. Yes. The robbery shall be deemed
money. Severino asked Mary to get a paper bag consummated if the unlawful “taking” is
wherein he placed P20,000 cash (P5000 acc to the complete.
defense) and handed it to the petitioner. Simplicio
Canasares took the wallet and wristwatch of Unlawful taking of personal property of
Severino after which the latter, his 2 daughters and another is an essential part of the crime of
Rodita were kept inside the office. According to the robbery. The respondent claimed that none
appellant, he stopped Severino from getting the of the items (money, watches and wallet)
wallet and watches. At about 2:00 of the same day, were recovered from them. However, based
the appellant told Severino to produce P100,000 so on the evidence, the money demanded, the
he and the other hostages can be released. Severino wallet and the wristwatch were within the
told him it would be hard to do that since banks are dominion and control of the appellant and
closed because it was a Saturday. The police and his co-‐accused and thus the taking was
military authorities had surrounded the lumber completed.
yard. Major Melquiades Sequio, Station Commander
of the INP of Iloilo City, negotiated with the accused it is not necessary that the property be
and appealed to them to surrender. The accused taken into the hands of the robber or that he
refused to surrender and release the hostages. Rosa should have actually carried the property
Caram, OIC Mayor of Iloilo City, joined the away, out of the physical presence of the
negotiations. Appellant demanded P100,000, a lawful possessor, or that he should have
coaster, and some raincoats. Caram offered made his escape with it.
P50,000 instead. Later, the accused agreed to
receive the same and to release Rodita to be 2. No. The “surrender” of the appellant and
accompanied by Mary in going out of the office. One his co-‐accused cannot be considered in their
of the accused gave a key to Mayor Caram and with favor to mitigate their liability.
the key, Mayor Caram unlocked the door and
handed to Rodita P50,000, which Rodita gave to one To be mitigating, surrender must have the
of the accused. Rodita was later set free but Mary following requisites: (1) that the offender
was herded back to the office. The police and had not been actually arrested, (2) that the
military authorities decided to assault the place offender surrendered himself to a person in
when the accused still wouldn’t budge after more authority or to his agent, and that the
ultimatums. This resulted to injuries to the girls, as surrender was voluntary. The “surrender”
well as to the accused Ronaldo and Reynaldo by the appellant and his co-‐accused hardly
Canasares. Mary’s right leg had to be amputated meets these requirements. There is no
due to her injuries. The appellant maintained that voluntary surrender to speak of.
the money, wallet and watches were all left on the
counter and were never touched by them. He also
claimed that they never fired on the military
because they intended to surrender.

Rañeses 74

Murder saw Borinaga from the window strike with a knife
RPC, Art. 248
at Mooney, but fortunately, knife lodged in the back
of the chair on which Mooney was seated. Mooney
Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the fell from the chair uninjured while Borinaga fled to
provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be the market place. Borinaga was persistent and after
guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion nearly ten minutes, returned with knife in hand to
temporal in its maximum period to death, if renew attack but was unable to do so because
committed with any of the following attendant
Perpetua turned a flashlight on Borinaga,
circumstances:
frightening him.
1. With treachery, taking advantage of
superior strength, with the aid of armed Above instances gave rise to CFI of Leyte convicting
men, or employing means to weaken the Borinaga and sentencing him to 14 years, 8 months
defense or of means or persons to insure or and a day of reclusion temporal, with accessory
afford impunity. penalty and costs. Court held that 1) homicidal
2. In consideration of a price, reward, or
intent of the accused was plainly evidenced; 2)
promise.
murder was in the heart and mind of the accused;
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison,
explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel,
3) aggressor stated his purpose and even
derailment or assault upon a street car or apologized to his friends for not accomplishing that
locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of purpose; 4) blow was directed towards vital organs;
motor vehicles, or with the use of any other and 5) means used were suitable for
means involving great waste and ruin. accomplishment therefore, crime qualifies as
4. On occasion of any of the calamities murder.
enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or
of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, Issue: WON the crime committed is attempted
destructive cyclone, epidemic or other
murder.
public calamity.

5. With evident premeditation.
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and
Held: No. The crime committed is frustrated
inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the murder. The essential condition of a frustrated
victim, or outraging or scoffing at his crime, that the author performs all the acts of
person or corpse. execution, attended the attack. Nothing remained to
be done to accomplish the work of the assailant
completely. The cause resulting in the failure of the
People v. Borinaga. 55 Phil. 433 (1930) attack arose by reason of forces independent of the
Facts: On March 4, 1929, an American named Harry will of the perpetrator. No superfine distinctions
H. Mooney, contracted with Juan Lawaan for the need be drawn in favor of the accused to establish a
construction of a fish corral. Basilio Borinaga was lesser crime than that of frustrated murder, for the
associated with Lawaan. On the morning of same facts disclose a wanton disregard of the sanctity of
date, Lawaan and his men went to Mooney’s shop human life fully meriting the penalty imposed in the
and tried to collect the whole amount fixed by the trial court.
contract notwithstanding that only 2/3 of the fish
corral was finished. Mooney refused to pay and People v. Sy Pio, 94 Phil. 885 (1954)
Lawaan threatened him that if he did not pay, Facts: Sy Pio shot three people early in the morning
something would happen to him. of September 3, 1949. Tan Siong Kiap, Ong Pian and
Jose Sy. Sy Pio entered the store at 511 Misericordia
On the evening of the same day, Mooney was in the Sta Cruz Manila and started firing with a .45 caliber
store of a neighbor Perpetua Najarro and was pistol. First to be shot was Jose Sy. Upon seeing Sy
seated with his back being to the window. Perpetua Pio fire at Jose Sy, Tan asked “what is the idea?”
Rañeses 75

thereupon, Sy Pio turned around and fired at him as Trinidad. It is attempted and not frustrated murder
well. Tan was shot at his right shoulder and it because he failed to execute all acts due to moving
passed through his back. He ran to a room behind vehicle and this shielded Tan’s body and his wound
the store to hide. He was still able to hear gunshots was not fatal thus not sufficient to cause death
from Sy Pio’s pistol, but afterwards, Sy Pio ran (People v. Pilones)
away.
People v. Ravelo, 202 SCRA 655 (1991)
Issue: WON accused is guilty of frustrated murder. Facts: The accused-‐appellants are members of the
Civilian Home Defense Force (CHDF) stationed at a
Held: No. Accused is guilty of attempted murder. checkpoint near the airport of Tandag. At
1. Sy Pio had to turn around to shoot Tan approximately 6:30 PM of May 21, 1984, accused-‐
Siong Kiap. appellants allegedly kidnapped by means of force
2. There is sufficient proof. (Uncontradicted one Reynaldo Gaurano. They then detained Gaurano
testimony of the victim, admissions made to at the house of Pedro Ravelo, one of the accused.
Lomotan, testimony of physician, etc.) Thereafter, they assaulted, attacked, and burned
3. Assignment of error must be dismissed. Gaurano, with the intent of killing the latter.
Offended party spent P300 for the hospital Reynaldo Gaurano died on May 22.
fees.
4. The fact that he was able to escape which At about 1AM of May 22, the accused-‐appellants
appellant must have seen, must have also kidnapped by means of force Joey Lugatiman.
produced in the mind of the defendant-‐ The latter was also brought to Ravelo's house
appellant that he was not able to hit his where he was tortured. At 5AM, Lugatiman was
victim at a vital part of the body. The transferred to the house of accused-‐appellant
defendant appellant knew that he had not Padilla. There he was tied to the wall with a nylon
actually performed all acts of execution line and was told he would be killed at 9AM. Shortly
necessary to kill his victim. Under these after, accused-‐appellants had to attend to Gaurano;
circumstances, it cannot be said that the Lugatiman was thus left alone. He was able to
subjective phase of the acts of execution had escape.
been completed.
He reported what happened to him and to Gaurano
People v. Trinidad, 169 SCRA 51 (1989) to the police authorities. RTC convicted the
Facts: Trinidad accused of 2 counts of murder & 1 accused-‐appellants of murder of Gaurano and
count frustrated murder. Accused in member of INP frustrated murder of Lugatiman.
in Nasipit. Crime occurred in Butuan between El Rio
& Agfa while they were in a Ford Fiera bound for In this appeal, counsel for the accused aver that the
Davao. Trinidad shot & killed Soriano & Laron while lower court erred in finding that accused-‐appellants
he shot and injured Tan are guilty of frustrated murder. Counsel further
contends that there can be no frustrated murder
Issue: WON conviction is proper? absent any proof of intent to kill, which is an
essential element of the offense of frustrated
Held: Affirmed. Murder and attempted murder. murder. The trial court merely relied on the
Trinidad alibi is weak and overridden by Tan and statement of the accused-‐appellants stating they
Commendador’s positive identification. Though would kill Lugatiman to establish intent to kill.
some discrepancies in testimonies are found, these
are trivial. Distance between Trinidad & 2 deceased Issue: WON the statement by the accused stating
immaterial. Important is that he shot them. Tan has that Lugatiman would be killed is sufficient proof of
no seen ill motive to falsifiably testify against intent to convict a person of frustrated murder
Rañeses 76

Held: No. In a crime of murder or an attempt of Shortly after, Isabela Holgado, Maria Guttierez, and
frustration thereof, the offender must have the Hilarion Holgado arrived at the place with food for
intent or the actual design to kill which must be the laborers. Marcelino Panaligan, the cousin of
manifested by external acts. A verbal expression is Isabelo and Arcadio, also arrived and ordered
not sufficient to show an actual design to perpetrate Arcadio and the workers to resume their work.
the act. Intent must be shown not only by a With this, they all simultaneously struck with their
statement of the aggressor, but also by the bolos. Marcelo Kalalo slashed Arcadio while Felipe
execution of all acts and the use of means necessary Kalalo, Juan Kalalo and Gregorio Ramos slashed
to deliver a fatal blow while the victim is not placed Marcelino Panaligan. Both Arcadio and Marcelino
in a position to defend himself. died instantly.

Homicide Marcelo Kalalo then took a revolver from the belt of
RPC, Art. 249
the lifeless Marcelino, and fired four shots at
Hilarion Holgado who was then also fleeing from
Homicide. — Any person who, not falling within the the scene.
provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without
the attendance of any of the circumstances Issues:
enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be
1. WON the appellants Marcelo Kalalo, Juan
deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by
Kalalo, Felipe Kalalo, and Gregorio Ramos
reclusion temporal.
are guilty of murder or of simple homicide.
2. WON Marcelo Kalalo is guilty of discharge of
People v. Kalalo, 59 Phil. 715 (1934) firearms or attempted homicide
Facts: Appellant Marcelo Kalalo and Isabel Holgado
had a litigation over a parcel of land situated in the Held:
barrio of Calumpang, Batangas. Marcelo Kalalo 1. The court held that the appellants are
cultivated the land in questions during the merely guilty of homicide for the crimes of
agricultural years 1931-‐1932 but when the harvest killing Arcadio and Marcelino as no
time came, Isabela Holgado reaped all that had been mitigating circumstance has been proved.
planted thereon. Marcelo filed complaints against The accused and the deceased were both
Isabel, however these were dismissed by the CFI of armed. Marcelino has a revolver while the
Batangas twice. accused have bolos. The risk was even
between the two parties.
On October 1, 1932, Isabela Holgado and her 2. It was held that he is guilty of attempted
brother Arcadio Hodalgo decided to have the said homicide. Evidence shows that Marcelo
land plowed and employed several workers for that Kalalo fired four successive shots at Hilarion
purpose. Arcadio Hodalgo together with the hired Holgado while the latter was fleeing from
workers went to plow the land early that day. the scene. This fact simply shows that he
was then intent on killing Hilarion Holgado.
Marcelo Kalalo who had been informed thereof, he has performed all acts necessary to
proceeded to the land together with his brothers commit the crime but failed by reason of
Felipe Kalalo and Juan Kalalo, brother in law causes independent of his will (poor aim,
Gregorio Ramos, and Aejandro Garcia. Five of them victim succeeded in dodging his shots).
are all armed with bolos. Fausta Abrenica and Alipia
Abrenica, mother and aunt, respectively of the Penalties to be imposed in relation to stages
Kalalo brothers, followed them thereafter. Upon of commission
their arrival, they ordered those workers of Isabel
and Arcadio Hodalgo to stop.
Rañeses 77

RPC, Art. 6 RPC, Art. 55
*Refer to page 63 for the full text of the provision Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of a
frustrated crime. — The penalty lower by two
RPC, Art. 7 degrees than that prescribed by law for the
frustrated felony shall be imposed upon the
accessories to the commission of a frustrated
RPC, Art. 50 felony.
Penalty to be imposed upon principals of a RPC, Art. 56.

frustrated crime. — The penalty next lower in
Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in an
degree than that prescribed by law for the
attempted crime. — The penalty next lower in
consummated felony shall be imposed upon the
degree than that prescribed by law for an attempt
principal in a frustrated felony.
to commit a felony shall be imposed upon the
RPC, Art. 51 accomplices in an attempt to commit the felony.
Penalty to be imposed upon principals of attempted RPC, Art. 57.

crimes. — A penalty lower by two degrees than that
Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of an
prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall
attempted crime. — The penalty lower by two
be imposed upon the principals in an attempt to
degrees than that prescribed by law for the
commit a felony.
attempted felony shall be imposed upon the
RPC, Art. 52 accessories to the attempt to commit a felony.

Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in

consummated crime. — The penalty next lower in
degree than that prescribed by law for the Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony
consummated shall be imposed upon the
accomplices in the commission of a consummated RPC, Art. 8
felony.
Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. —
RPC, Art. 53 Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are
punishable only in the cases in which the law
Penalty to be imposed upon accessories to the
specially provides a penalty therefor.
commission of a consummated felony. — The
penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed RPC, Art. 115
by law for the consummated felony shall be
imposed upon the accessories to the commission of Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason; Penalty.
a consummated felony. — The conspiracy or proposal to commit the crime
of treason shall be punished respectively, by prision
RPC, Art. 54. mayor and a fine not exceeding P10,000 pesos, and
prision correccional and a fine not exceeding
Penalty to imposed upon accomplices in a frustrated
P5,000 pesos.
crime. — The penalty next lower in degree than
prescribed by law for the frustrated felony shall be RPC, Art. 136
imposed upon the accomplices in the commission of
a frustrated felony. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d'etat,
rebellion or insurrection. — The conspiracy and
proposal to commit coup d'etat shall be punished by
prision mayor in minimum period and a fine which

shall not exceed eight thousand pesos (P8,000.00).

Rañeses 78

RPC, Art. 141 (Cont.) eriods it being sufficient for the imposition
thereof that the initial steps have been taken
Conspiracy to commit sedition. — Persons toward carrying out the purposes of the
conspiring to commit the crime of sedition shall be combination.
punished by prision correccional in its medium
period and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos. Any property possessed under any contract or by
(Reinstated by E.O. No. 187). any combination mentioned in the preceding
paragraphs, and being the subject thereof, shall be
RPC, Art. 186 forfeited to the Government of the Philippines.
Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade. — Whenever any of the offenses described above is
The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum committed by a corporation or association, the
period or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or president and each one of its agents or
both, shall be imposed upon:
representatives in the Philippines in case of a
foreign corporation or association, who shall have
1. Any person who shall enter into any contract or
knowingly permitted or failed to prevent the
agreement or shall take part in any conspiracy or
commission of such offense, shall be held liable as
combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, in
principals thereof.
restraint of trade or commerce or to prevent by
artificial means free competition in the market;
RPC, Art. 306
2. Any person who shall monopolize any Who are brigands; Penalty. — When more than
merchandise or object of trade or commerce, or
three armed persons form a band of robbers for the
shall combine with any other person or persons to purpose of committing robbery in the highway, or
monopolize and merchandise or object in order to kidnapping persons for the purpose of extortion or
alter the price thereof by spreading false rumors or to obtain ransom or for any other purpose to be
making use of any other article to restrain free attained by means of force and violence, they shall
competition in the market; be deemed highway robbers or brigands.
3. Any person who, being a manufacturer, producer, Persons found guilty of this offense shall be
or processor of any merchandise or object of punished by prision mayor in its medium period to
commerce or an importer of any merchandise or reclusion temporal in its minimum period if the act
object of commerce from any foreign country, either or acts committed by them are not punishable by
as principal or agent, wholesaler or retailer, shall higher penalties, in which case, they shall suffer
combine, conspire or agree in any manner with any such high penalties.
person likewise engaged in the manufacture,
production, processing, assembling or importation If any of the arms carried by any of said persons be
of such merchandise or object of commerce or with an unlicensed firearms, it shall be presumed that
any other persons not so similarly engaged for the said persons are highway robbers or brigands, and
purpose of making transactions prejudicial to lawful in case of convictions the penalty shall be imposed
commerce, or of increasing the market price in any in the maximum period.
part of the Philippines, of any such merchandise or
object of commerce manufactured, produced,
processed, assembled in or imported into the Reyes:
Philippines, or of any article in the manufacture of
1. (Art. 8) IMPORTANT WORDS AND
which such manufactured, produced, or imported
PHRASES
merchandise or object of commerce is used.
1. “Conspiracy and proposal to commit
If the offense mentioned in this article affects any felony.” – Conspiracy and proposal
food substance, motor fuel or lubricants, or other to commit are two different acts or
articles of prime necessity, the penalty shall be that felonies: (1) conspiracy to commit a
of prision mayor in its maximum and medium felony, and (2) proposal to commit a

felony.

Rañeses 79

2. “Only in the cases in which the law 1. The person who proposes is not
specifically provides a penalty determined to commit the felony.
therefor.” – Unless there is a specific 2. There is no decided, concrete and
provision in the RPC providing a formal proposal.
penalty for conspiracy or proposal 3. It is not the execution of a felony
to commit a felony, mere conspiracy that is proposed.
or proposal to commit a felony is not 9. The crimes in which conspiracy and
a felony. proposal are punishable are against the
2. General rule: Conspiracy and proposal to security of the State or economic
commit a felony are not punishable. They security.
are ppunishable only in the cases in which
the law specially provides a penalty People v. Peralta, 25 SCRA 759 (1968)
therefor. Facts: On February 16, 1958, in the municipality of
3. When the conspiracy relates to a crime Muntinglupa, province of Rizal, two known warring
actually committed, it is not a felony but gangs inside the New Bilibid Prison as “Sigue-‐Sigue”
only a manner of incurring criminal and “OXO” were preparing to attend a mass at 7
liability, that is, when there is a.m. However, a fight between the two rival gangs
conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. caused a big commotion in the plaza where the
4. Requisites of conspiracy: prisoners were currently assembled. The fight was
1. That two or more persons come to quelled and those involved where led away to the
an agreement;. – agreement investigation while the rest of the prisoners were
presupposes meeting of the minds of ordered to return to their respective quarters.
two or more persons
2. That the agreement concerned the In the investigation, it was found out that the
commission of a felony. – the accused, “OXO” members, Amadeo Peralta, Andres
agreement must refer to the Factora, Leonardo Dosal, Angel Paramog, Gervasio
commission of a crime. It must be an Larita and Florencio Luna (six among the twenty-‐
agreement to act, to effect. To bring two defendants charged therein with multiple
about what has already been murder), are also convicts confined in the said
conceived and determined prisons by virtue of final judgments.
3. That the execution of the felony be
decided upon. – the conspirators They conspired, confederated and mutually helped
have made up their minds to commit and aided each other, with evident premeditation
the crime. There must be and treachery, all armed with deadly weapons, did,
determination to commit the crime then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
of treason, rebellion or sedition killed “Sigue-‐Sigue” sympathizers Jose Carriego,
5. Direct proof is not necessary to establish Eugenio Barbosa and Santos Cruz, also convicts
conspiracy. confined in the same institution, by hitting,
6. Quantum of proof is required to establish stabbing, and striking them with ice picks, clubs and
it. other improvised weapons, pointed and/or
7. Requisites of proposal: sharpened, thereby inflicting upon the victims
1. That a person has decided to commit multiple serious injuries which directly caused their
a felony; and deaths.
2. That he proposes its execution to
some other person or persons. Issues:
8. There is no criminal proposal when: 1. WON conspiracy attended the commission
of the multiple murder
Rañeses 80

Conspiracy alone, without execution of its
2. WON an aggravating circumstance of quasi-‐ purpose, is not a crime punishable by law,
recidivism is present in the commission of except in special instances (Article 8,
the crime? Revised Penal Code) which, do not include
robbery.
Held:
1. Yes. A conspiracy exists when two or more Reverting now to the case at bar, the trial
persons come to an agreement concerning court correctly ruled that conspiracy
the commission of a felony and decide to attended the commission of the murders. To
commit it. Generally, conspiracy is not a wit, although there is no direct evidence of
crime unless when the law specifically conspiracy, the court can safely say that
provides a penalty thereof as in treason, there are several circumstances to show
rebellion and sedition. However, when in that the crime committed by the accused
resolute execution of a common scheme, a was planned. First, all the deceased were
felony is committed by two or more Tagalogs and members of sympathizers of
malefactors, the existence of a conspiracy “Sigue-‐Sigue” gang (OXO members were
assumes a pivotal importance in the from either Visayas or Mindanao), singled
determination of the liability of the out and killed thereby, showing that their
perpetrators. Once an express or implied killing has been planned. Second, the
conspiracy is proved, all of the conspirators accused were all armed with improvised
are liable as co-‐principals regardless of the weapons showing that they really prepared
extent and character of their respective for the occasion. Third, the accused
active participation in the commission of the accomplished the killing with team work
crime/s perpetrated in furtherance of the precision going from one brigade to another
conspiracy because in contemplation of law and attacking the same men whom they
the act of one is the act of all. have previously marked for liquidation and
lastly, almost the same people took part in
The collective criminal liability emanates the killing of the Carriego, Barbosa and Cruz.
from the ensnaring nature of conspiracy. 2. Yes. In view of the attendance of the special
The concerted action of the conspirators in aggravating circumstances of quasi-‐
consummating their common purpose is a recidivism, as all of the six accused at the
patent display of their evil partnership, and time of the commission of the offenses were
for the consequences of such criminal serving sentences in the New Bilibid Prison
enterprise they must be held solidarity by virtue of convictions by final judgments
liable. However, in order to hold an accused that penalty for each offense must be
guilty as co-‐principal by reason of imposed in its maximum period, which is
conspiracy, it must be established that he the mandate of the first paragraph of article
performed an overt act in furtherance of the 160 of the RPC. Hence, severe penalty
conspiracy, either by actively participating imposed on a quasi-‐recidivist is justified
in the actual commission of the crime, or by because of the perversity and incorrigibility
lending moral assistance to his co-‐ of the crime.
conspirators by being present at the scene
of the crime, or by exerting moral US v. Bautista, 6 Phil. 581 (1906)
ascendancy over the rest of the conspirators Facts: In 1903 a junta was organized and a
as to move them to executing the conspiracy entered into by a number of Filipinos in
conspiracy. Hong Kong, for the purpose of overthrowing the
government of the United States in the Philippine
Rañeses 81

Islands by force of arms and establishing a new RPC, Art. 9
government.
Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light felonies. -‐
Francisco Bautista (1), a close friend of the chief of Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches
military forces (of the conspirators) took part of the capital punishment or penalties which in any of
their periods are afflictive, in accordance with
several meetings. Tomas Puzon (2) held several article 25 of this Code.
conferences whereat plans are made for the coming
insurrection; he was appointed Brigadier-‐General of Less grave felonies are those which the law
the Signal Corps of the revolutionary forces. Aniceto punishes with penalties which in their maximum
period are correctional, in accordance with the
de Guzman (3) accepted some bonds from one of
above-‐mentioned article.
the conspirators.
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the
The lower court convicted the three men of commission of which the penalty of arresto menor
conspiracy. Bautista was sentenced to 4 years or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both, is
provided.
imprisonment and a P3,000 fine; Puzon and De
Guzman to 3 years imprisonment and P1,000.
Reyes:
Issue: WON the accused are guilty of conspiracy. 1. IMPORTANT WORDS OR PHRASES
1. “To which the law attaches the
Held: Yes, Bautista and Puzon are guilty of capital punishment.” – Capital
conspiracy. Bautista was fully aware of the punishment is death penalty.
purposes of the meetings he participated in, and 2. “Or penalties in any of their periods
even gave an assurance to the chief of military are afflictive.” -‐ Although the word
forces that he is making the necessary preparations. “any” is used in the phrase, when the
Puzon voluntarily accepted his appointment and in penalty prescribed for the offense is
doing so assumed all the obligations implied by composed of two or more distinct
such acceptance. This may be considered as an penalties. The higher or the highest
evidence of the criminal connection of the accused of the penalties must be an afflictive
with the conspiracy. penalty3.

However, de Guzman is not guilty of conspiracy. He If the penalty prescribed is
might have been helping the conspirators by composed of two or more periods
accepting bonds in the bundles, but he has not been corresponding to different divisible
aware of the contents nor does he was, in any penalties, the higher or maximum
occasion, assumed any obligation with respect to period must be that of an afflictive
those bonds. penalty.

*See RPC Art. 136: Crimes against public order: If the penalty is composed of two
conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d’ etat, periods of an afflictive penalty or of
rebellion or insurrection. two periods corresponding to
different afflictive penalties, the
Classification of Felonies offense for which it is prescribed is a
RPC, Art. 7 grave felony.
3. “Penalties which in their maximum
*Refer page 67 for the full text of the provision and period are correctional.” – When the
Reyes’s explanation.

3 Reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal
Rañeses 82

penalty prescribed for the offense is
composed of two or more disctint
penalties, the higher or highest of
the penalties must be a correctional
penalty.

If the penalty prescribed is
composed of two or more periods
corresponding to different divisible
penalties, the higher of maximum
period must be that of correctional
penalty4.

If the penalty is composed of two
periods of a correctional penalty,
like destierro and arresto mayor, the
offense for which it is prescribed is a
less grave felony.
4. “The penalty of arresto menor or a
fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or
both, is provided.” – When the code
provides a fine P200 for the
commission of a felony, it is a light
felony. If the amount provided for by
the Code is more than P200, then it
is a less grave felony, because
according to art. 26, a fine not
exceeding P6k is a correctional
penalty. If the amount provided for
is more than P6k, then it is a grave
felony, because, according to Art. 26,
a fine exceeding said amount is an
afflictive penalty.

Althought Art. 26 provides that a
fine not less than P200 is a
correctional penalty, Art. 9 which
defines light felonies should prevail,
because the latter classifies felonies
according to their gravity, while the
former classifies the fine according
to the amount thereof.

4
Prision correctional, arresto mayor, suspension, destierro
Rañeses 83

Circumstances Which Affect prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are
present, and the further requisite, in case the
Criminal Liability revocation was given by the person attacked, that
the one making defense had no part therein.
Reyes: 3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or

1. Imputability is the quality by which an rights of a stranger, provided that the first and
act may be ascribed to a person as its second requisites mentioned in the first
author or owner. It implies that the act circumstance of this Art. are present and that the
committed has been freely and consciously person defending be not induced by revenge,
done and may, therefore, be put down to the resentment, or other evil motive.
doer as his very own. (Albert) 4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or
2. Responsibility is the obligation of injury, does not act which causes damage to
suffering the consequences of crime. It is another, provided that the following requisites are
the obligation of taking the penal and civil present;
consequences of the crime. (Albert)
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually
3. While imputability implies that a deed
exists;
may be imputed to a person,
responsibility implies that the persom Second. That the injury feared be greater than
must take the consequence of such a that done to avoid it;
deed.
Third. That there be no other practical and less
4. Guilt is an element of responsibility, for a
harmful means of preventing it.
man cannot answer for the consequences
of a crime unless he is guilty. (Albert) 5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty
or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
A. Justifying Circumstances
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order

issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.
RPC, Art. 11

Justifying circumstances. — The following do not Reyes:
incur any criminal liability:
1. Justifying circumstances are those where
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or the act of a person is said to be in
rights, provided that the following circumstances accordance with law, so that such person
concur; is deemed not to have transgressed the
law and is free from both criminal and
First. Unlawful aggression.
civil liability. There is no civil liability,
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means except in par. 4 of Art. 11, where the civil
employed to prevent or repel it. liability is borne by the party benefited by
the act.
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part 2. The law recognizes the non-‐existence of
of the person defending himself.
a crime by expressly stating in the
2. Any one who acts in defense of the person or opening sentence of of Article 11 that the
rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or persons therein mentioned “do not incur
legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or any criminal liability.”
his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and 3. There is no crime committed, the act
those consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, being justified.
provided that the first and second requisites 4. The circumstances mentioned in Art. 11
are matters of defense and it is incumebt
Rañeses 84

upon the accused, in order to avoid § Unlawful aggression is
criminal liability, to prove the justifying equivalent to assault or at
circumstance claimed by him to the least threatened assault of
satisfaction of the court. an immediate and
imminent kind. (People v.
Self-‐Defense Alconga, 78 Phil. 366)
Reyes:
1. When the accused invokes self-‐defense, There must be an actual
it is incumbent upon him to prove by physical assault upon a
clear and convincing evidence that he person, or at least a threat to
indeed acted in defense of himself. He inflict real injury.
must rely on the strength of his own
evidence and not on the weakness of the In case of threat, the same
prosecution. must be offensive and
positively strong, showing
It must be proved with certainty by the wrongful intent to cause
sufficient, satisfactory, and convincing an injury. (U.S. vs. Guysayco,
evidence that excludes any vestige of 13 Phil. 292, 295)
criminal aggression on the part of the
person invoking it and it cannot be When theire is no peril to
justifiably entertained where it is not only one’s life, limb or right, there
uncorroborated by any separate ompetent is no unlawful aggression.
evidence but, in itself, is extremely doubtful. § Peril to one’s life.
2. Self-‐defense includes not only the • Actual – that the
defense of the person or the body of the danger must be
one assaulted but also that of his rights, present that is,
that is, those rights the enjoyment of actually in existence.
which is protected by law. • Imminent – that the
3. Requisites of self-‐defense: (1) unlawful danger is on the
aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the point of happening. It
means employed to prevent or repel it; and is not required that
(3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part the attack already
of the person defending himself. begins, for it may be
• Unlawful aggression is an too late.
indispensable requisite. There can § Peril to one’s limb. When a
be no self-‐defense, complete or person is attacked, he is in
incomplete, unless the victim has imminent danger of death or
committed an unlawful aggression bodily harm. It may be actual
against the person defending or only imminent. It includes
himself. If there is no unlawful peril to the safet of oen’s
aggression, there is nothing to person from physical
prevent or repel. injuries.
§ Aggression must be § There must be actual
unlawful. Two kinds of physical force or actual
aggression: (1) lawful (i.e. use of weapon. Thus,
fulfillment of a duty), and (2) insulting words addressed to
unlawful. the accused, no matter how
Rañeses 85

objectionable they may have more advantageous position,
been, without physical the unlawful aggression still
assault, could not constitute exists.
unlawful aggression. (U.S. v. § The rule now is “stand
Carrero, 9 Phil. 544) ground when in the right.”
§ Mere belief of an The reason for the rule is
impending attack is not that if one flees from an
sufficient. aggressor, he runs the risk of
§ A strong retaliation for an being attacked in the back by
injury or threat may the aggressor.
amount to an unlawful § Mere threatening attitude
aggression. is not unlawful aggression.
§ Retaliation is not self-‐ § Threat to inflict real injury
defense. In retaliation, the as unlawful aggression. A
aggression that was begun mere threatening or
by the injured party already intimidating attitude, not
ceased to exist when the preceded by outward and
accused attacked him. In material aggression, is not
self-‐defense, the aggression unlawful aggression,
was still existing when the because it is required that
aggressor was injured or the act be offensive and
disabled by the person positively strong, showing
making a defense. the wrongful intent of the
§ The attack made by the aggressor to cause an injury.
deceased and the killing of § When intent to attack is
the deceased by defendant manifest, picking up a
should succeed each other weapon is sufficient
without appreciable unlawful aggression.
interval of time. When the § Aggression must be real,
killing of the deceased by the not merely imaginary.
accused was after the attack § An aggression that is
made by the deceased, the expected is still real,
accused must have no time provided it is imminent.
nor occasion for deliberation • Reasonable necessity of the
and cool thinking. means employed to prevent or
§ The unlawful aggression repel it. This requisite presupposes
must come from the the existence of unlawful aggression,
person who was attacked which is either imminent or actual.
by the accused.
§ Nature, character, The second requisite of defense
location, and extent of means that (1) there be a necessity
wound of the accused may of the course of action taken by the
belie claim of self-‐defense. person making a defense, and (2)
§ When the aggressor flees, there be a necessity of the means
unlawful aggression no used. Both must be reasonable.
longer exists. HOWEVER, if
it is mere retreat to take a
Rañeses 86

§ The reasonableness of the 3. When, even if the
necessity depends upon provocation was
the circumstances. sufficient, it was not
§ When only minor physical given by the person
injuries are inflicted after defending himself; or
unlawful aggression has 4. When, even if a
ceased to exist, there is provocation was
still self-‐defense if mortal given by the person
wounds were inflicted at defending himself, it
the time the requisites of was not proximate
self-‐defense were present. and immediate to the
§ The person defending is act of aggression.
not expected to control his (Decisions of the
blow. Supreme Court of
§ Whether or not the means Spain of March 5,
employed is reasonable, 1902 and of April 20,
will depend upon the 1906)
nature and quality of the § Requisite of “lack of
weapon used by the sufficient provocation”
aggressor, his physical refers exclusively to “the
condition, character, size person defending himself.”
and other circumstances, 4. The Battered Woman Syndrome.
and those of the person Recognized in foreign jurisdictions as a form
defending himself, and of self-‐defense or, at least, incomplete self-‐
also the place and occasion defense.
of the assault. • Battered woman – a woman “who
§ First two requisites is repeatedly subjected to any
common to three kinds of forceful physical or psychological
legitimate defense. behavior by a man in order to coerce
• Lack of sufficient provocation on her to do something he wants her to
the part of the person defending do without concern for her rights.”
himself. The one defending himself • It is characterized by the so-‐called
must not have given cause for the “cycle of violence,” which has
aggression by his unjust conduct or three phases: (1) the tension-‐
by inciting or provoking the building phase; (2) the acute
assailant. battering incident; and (3) the
§ It is present when: tranquil, loving (or, at least,
1. No provocation at all nonviolent) phase.
was given to the 5. Flight is incompatible with self-‐defense.
aggressor by the
person defending People v. Boholst-‐Caballero, 61 SCRA 180
himself ; or (1974)
2. When, even iof a Facts: Cunigunda Boholst Caballero seeks reversal
provocation was of the judgment of the CFI of Ormoc City finding her
given, it was not guilty of parricide—she allegedly killed her
sufficient; or husband, Francisco Caballero, using a hunting knife.
The couple was married in 1956 and had a
Rañeses 87

daughter. They had frequent quarrels due to the • Unlawful aggression. The husband
husband's gambling and drinking and there were resorting to pushing her to the ground
times when he maltreated and abused his wife. then choking her just because she was
After more than a year, Francisco abandoned his out caroling at night constitutes
family. In 1958, Cunigunda went caroling with her unlawful aggression, There was
friends and when she was on her way home she met imminent danger of injury.
her husband who suddenly held her by the collar • Reasonable necessity of means employed.
and accused her of going out for prostitution. Then While being choked, Cunigunda had no
he said he would kill her, held her by the hair, other recourse but to take hold of the
slapped her until her nose bled then pushed her knife and plunge it into husband's side
towards the ground. She fell to the ground, he knelt in order to protect herself. Reasonable
on her and proceeded to choke her. Cunigunda, necessity does not depend upon the
having earlier felt a knife tucked in Francisco's belt harm done but on the imminent danger
line while holding unto his waist so she wouldn't of such injury.
fall to the ground, grabbed the hunting knife and • Lack of sufficient provocation.
thrust it into her husband's left side, near the belt Provocation is sufficient when
line just above the thigh. He died 2 days after the proportionate to the aggression. In this
incident due to the stab wound. Then she ran home case, there was no sufficient
and threw the knife away. The next day, she provocation on the part of the accused
surrendered herself to the police along with the (Cunigunda) to warrant the attack of her
torn dress that she wore the night before. husband. All that she did to provoke an
imaginary commission of a wrong in the
Issue: WON Cunigunda, in stabbing her husband, mind of her husband was to be out
acted in legitimate self-‐defense caroling at night.

Held: Yes. People v. Alconga, 78 Phil. 366 (1947)
1. Burden of proof of self-‐defense rests on the Facts: The deceased was the banker in a game of
accused. In this case, the location and nature black jack. The accused posted himself behind the
of the stab wound confirms that the said deceased acting as a spotter of the latter’s cards and
victim, the husband, was the aggressor. communicating by signs to his partner. Upon
discovering the trick, the deceased the accused
With her husband kneeling over her and almost came to blows. Subsequently, while the
choking her, accused had no other choice accused was seated on a bench the deceased came
but to pull the knife tucked in his belt line and forthwith gave a blow with a “pingahan,”
and thrust it into his side. but the accused avoided the blow by crawling
under the bench. The deceased continued with
The fact that the blow landed in the vicinity second and third blows, and the accused in a
where the knife was drawn from is a strong crawling position fired with his revolver. A hand to
indication of the truth of the testimony of hand fight ensued, the deceased with his dagger and
the accused. Based on the re-‐enactment of the accused using his bolo. Having sustained several
the incident, it was natural for her to use her wounds, the deceased ran away, but was followed
right hand to lunge the knife into husband's by the accused and another fight took place, during
left side. which a mortal blow was delivered by the accused,
slashing the cranium of the deceased.
2. Three requisites of legitimate self-‐defense
are present Issue: WON Alconga was justified in killing the
deceased.
Rañeses 88

breast of the deceased, just above the nipple, and
Held: No. There were two stages in the fight another in the back of his head.
between the accused and the deceased. During the
first stage of the fight, the accused, in inflicting Issue: WON Mack can invoke self-‐defense.
several wounds upon the deceased, acted in self-‐
defense, because then the deceased, who had Held: Yes. It affirmatively appears from the
attacked the accused with repeated blows, was the evidence of record that there was an unprovoked,
unlawful aggressor. But when the deceased after illegal aggression on the part of the deceased, as
receiving several wounds, ran away, from that held by the trial court, after a careful analysis of the
moment there was no longer any danger to the life testimony; and further that there was reasonable
of the accused who, being virtually unscathed, could necessity for the use of the means employed by the
have chosen to remain where he was and when he accused to defend himself from this unlawful
pursued the deceased, fatally wounding him upon aggression.
overtaking him, Alconga was no longer acting in
self-‐defense, because the aggression begun by the Mere physical superiority in no protection to an
deceased ceased from the moment he took flight. unarmed man, as against an assailant armed with a
large bolo, and if it be true that the deceased was
United States v. Mack, 8 Phil. 701 (1907) under the influence of liquor when he made that
Facts: The accused was sitting on a bench a few feet attack, his intoxication probably rendered him the
back from the street, in the town of Tacloban, in the more dangerous unless he was so drunk as to be
Province of Leyte, in an open space some 3 or 4 feet, physically helpless, which is not suggested in the
width, between the tienda or content of a woman evidence.
named Olimpia and another building. The deceased,
with another policemen, approached the place A murderous attack with a formidable-‐looking bolo
directed Olimpia to close her tienda, and, later, is a very different from an assault with a small
ordered the accused and another soldier who was chisel or a piece of bamboo, and the fact that this
standing nearby to go to their quarters. The accused court has held that the taking of life was not
did not obey this order, and it is probable that some reasonably necessary in defending oneself against
words passed between the soldiers, the policemen, assault in the latter cases does not sustain a ruling
and the woman which angered the deceased, that taking the life of one's assailant in the former
though the weight of the evidence clearly maintain case may not become reasonably necessary in the
the contention of the accused that he did and said defense of one's person, as we think it was in the
nothing to provoke or offend the deceased, except case at bar.
in so far as his failure to obey the order to go to his
quarters may have had that effect. The deceased, People v. Sumicad, 56 Phil. 643 (1932)
who was standing some 10 or 12 feet from the On February 23, 1931, the accused, a resident of
accused, cursing and abusing him for his failure to Buenavoluntad, in the municipality of Plaridel,
obey the order, wrought himself into a passion Occidental Misamis, was engaged with others in the
dragged himself free from his companion, who was gratuitous labor of hauling logs for the construction
endeavoring to restrain him and take him away, and of a chapel in the barrio above-‐mentioned. At about
started toward the accused, at the same time 5.30 o'clock in the afternoon on the day mentioned,
drawing his bolo and brandishing it in a threatening when the laborers were resting from the work of
manner. Thereupon the accused got up, drew his the day, one Segundo Cubol happened to pass the
revolver, and the deceased having then approached place where the accused was sitting. Prior to this
within a distance of from 3 to 6 feet, the accused date the accused had rendered five and one-‐half
fired three shots, one of which took effect in the left days service to Cubol, and as the latter passed, the
accused said to him, "Segundo, pay me for the five
Rañeses 89

and one-‐half days work for which you owe me." the saying is, and uses in a defensive way the only
Cubol replied, "What debt!," an exclamation which weapon at his disposal. One is not required, when
was followed by an insulting expression. At the hard pressed, to draw fine distinctions as to the
same time he struck the accused with his fist. The extent of the injury which a reckless and infuriated
accused arose from the log upon which he was assailant might probably inflict upon him (Browell
sitting and moved backward, trying to escape, but vs. People, 38 Mich., 732). And it was not incumbent
Cubol pursued him and continued striking him with on the accused in this case, when assailed by a bully
his fists. As the accused receded he found himself of known violent disposition, who was larger and
cornered by a pile of logs, the wings of which stronger than himself. On the contrary, under the
extended out on either side, effectually preventing circumstances stated, he had the right to resist the
any further retreat. As Cubol pressed upon him, the aggression with the bolo, and if he unfortunately
accused drew his bolo and delivered a blow on inflicted a fatal blow, it must be considered to have
Cubol's right shoulder. Upon this Cubol lunged at been given in justifiable self-‐defense. Upon this
the accused with the evident intention of wresting point it may be recalled that the deceased, when
the bolo from the accused. To prevent this, the asked about the circumstances of the homicide,
accused struck two other blows with the bolo, admitted that he himself was the aggressor; and it is
inflicting two deep cuts on Cubol's forehead above noteworthy that he used no word placing blame
the left eye. One of these blows broke through the upon the accused.
cranium. The other made a cut extending from the
left eyebrow to the nose and upper lip. Upon finding Reyes:
a seat on a log nearby. A witness, named Francisco 1. The defense of rights requires also the
Villegas, who came up in a moment, after learning first and second requisites (unlawful
something about the matter, asked Cubol whether aggression, reasonable necessity of the
he had struck the accused blows with his fist. means employed to prevent or repel it)
Cubols replied that he had. The witness Villegas present in the three classes of defense
then turned to the accused, who was standing a mentioned in Arts. 1, 2 and 3 of Art. 11.
short distance away, and told him to put up his bolo 1. Attempt to rape a woman – defense
and go to the poblacion. Acting upon this suggestion of right to chastity
the accused immediately repaired to the office of 2. Defense of property – can be invoked
the justice of the peace and surrendered himself to only when it is coupled with an
the authorities. Cubol lived only an hour or so, and attack on the person of one
died from the effect of the wounds received. In one entrusted with said property.
of the pockets of the deceased a knife was found, 3. Defense of home
and the accused testified that, when he struck the
deceased with his bolo, the latter was attempting to Defense of honor
draw a knife from his pocket. People v. Luague, 62 Phil. 504 (1935)
Facts: In the morning of February 18, 1935, while
Issue: WON accused can invoke self-‐defense. the accused Natividad Luague was in her house
situated in Lupuhan, barrio of Agpañgi, municipality
Held: Yes. The person assaulted must, in such case, of Calatrava, Occidental Negros, with only her three
either resist with the arms that nature gave him or children of tender age for company, her husband
with other means of defense at his disposal, short of and co-‐accused Wenceslao Alcansare having gone to
taking life. But that rule contemplates the situation grind corn in Juan Garing's house several
where the contestants are in the open and the kilometers away, Paulino Disuasido came and began
person assaulted can exercise the option of running to make love to her; that as Natividad could not
away. It can have no binding force in the case where dissuade him from his purpose, she started for the
the person assaulted has retreated to the wall, as kitchen where Paulino followed her,
Rañeses 90

notwithstanding her instance that she could by no subsection 1, of the Revised Penal Code, because, as
means accede to his wishes, for Paulino, bent on stated by a commentator of note, "aside from the
satisfying them at all costs, drew and opened a knife right to life on which rest the legitimate defense of
and, threatening her with death, began to embrace our person, we have the right to party acquired by
her and to touch her breasts; that in preparing to lie us, and the right to honor which is not the least
with her, Paulino had to leave the knife on the floor prized of man's patrimony." (1 Viada, 172, 173, 5th
and the accused, taking advantage of the situation, edition.) "Will the attempt to rape a woman
picked up the weapon and stabbed him in the constitute an aggression sufficient to put her in a
abdomen; and that Paulino, feeling himself state of legitimate defense?" asks the same
wounded, ran away jumping through the window commentator. "We think so," he answer, "inasmuch
and falling on some stones, while the accused set as a woman's honor cannot but be esteemed as a
forth immediately for the poblacion to surrender right as precious, if not more, cannot her very
herself to the authorities and report the incident. existence; this offense, unlike ordinary slander by
word or deed susceptible of judicial redress, in an
The theory the prosecution, which we consider a outrage which impresses an indelible blot on the
trifle unsubstantial is as follows: The accused victim, for, as the Roman Law says: quum virginitas,
Wenceslao Alcansare, thinking that Paulino vel castitas, corupta restitui non protest (because
importuned his wife with unchaste advances, out of virginity or chastity, once defiled, cannot be
jealousy, decided to get rid of him. His chance to restored). It is evident that a woman who,
bring about his plan can when, in the morning of the imperiled, wounds, nay kills the offender, should be
crime, Paulino happened to pass in front of the afforded exemption from criminal liability provided
house of the spouses with his friend Olimpio by this article and subsection since such killing
Libosada. The accused wife invited Paulino to drop cannot be considered a crime from the moment it
in, which the letter and his friend did. The spouses became the only means left for her to protect her
met them at the threshold. The accused wife asked honor from so great an outrage." (1 Viada, 301, 5th
Paulino whether he had a knife and as the latter edition.)
answered in the affirmative, she asked him to lend
it to lend it to her because she wanted to cut her People v. De la Cruz, 61 Phil. 344 (1935)
nails, to which Paulino willingly acceded, while the Facts: The accused, a woman, was walking home
accused wife was cutting her nails, she asked with a party including the deceased, Francisco
Paulino where he came from and the latter Rivera. It was already dark and they were passing a
answered, turning his head around, that he came narrow path. When the other people were far
from the house of one Inting, whereupon the ahead, the deceased who was following the accused
accused wife slashed him in the abdomen. Paulino suddenly threw his arms around her from behind,
tried to return the blow but the accused husband caught hold of her breasts, kissed her, and touched
picked up a stone and struck him in the forehead. her private parts. He started to throw her down.
Wounded in the abdomen and in the forehead, When the accused felt she could not do anything
Paulino fled therefrom. more against the strength of her aggressor, she got
a knife from her pocket and stabbed him.
Issue: WON the accused can invoke defense of
honor/self-‐defense Issue: WON accused can invoke defense of honor

Held: Yes. Natividad Luague's act in mortally Held: Yes. She was justified in making use of the
wounding Paulino Disuasido, unaided her husband knife in repelling what she believed to be an attack
and co-‐accused Wenceslao Alcansare, and in the upon her honor since she had no other means of
circumstances above set out, constitutes the defending herself.
exempting circumstance defined in article 11,
Rañeses 91

People v. Jaurigue, 76 Phil. 174 (1946) with sugar cane, at a distance of about 100 meters
Facts: The deceased was courting the accused in from his granary. For the purpose of ascertaining
vain. One day, the deceased approached her, spoke who had done it, he left the palay there, and that
to her of his love which she flatly refused, and he night, accompanied by Gregorio Bundoc, Antonio
thereupon suddenly embraced her and kissed her Ribao, and Saturnino Tumamao, he waited near the
on account of which the accused gave him fist blows said field for the person who might return to get the
and kicked him. Thereafter, she armed herself with palay. Guillermo Ribis appeared and attempted to
a fan knife, whenever she went out. One week after carry the palay away him, but at that instant
the incident, the deceased entered a chapel, went to Bumanglag, Bundoc, and Ribao assaulted the
sit by the side of the accused, and placed his hand presumed thief with sticks and cutting and stabbing
on the upper part of her thigh. Accused pulled out weapons; as a result of the struggle which ensued,
her fan knife and with it stabbed the deceased at the Ribis fell down and died instantly.
base of the left side of the beck, inflicting a mortal
wound. Issue: WON there is defense of property.

Issue: WON accused can invoke defense of honor Held: No. Defense of property can be invoked as a
justifying circumstance only when it is coupled with
Held: No. The means employed by the accused in an attack on the person of one entrusted with said
the defense of her honor was evidently excessive. property. (People v. Apolinar)
The chapel was lighted with electric lights, and
there were already several people, including her The bolo worn by the deceased was in its sheath
father and the barrio lieutenant, inside the chapel. and hanging from his waist. It can not be concluded
Under the circumstances, there was and there could that the deceased even intended to assault his
be no possibility of her being raped. murderers with his bolo either before he was
attacked by them or during the fight. Without
Defense of property unlawful aggression and the other requisites which
People v. Apolinar, 38 OG 2870 would exempt the accused from criminal
Facts: The accused, armed with a shotgun, was responsibility, the appellant and his two
looking over his land. He noticed a man carrying a companions assaulted Ribis with sticks and cutting
bundle on his shoulder. Believing that the man had and stabbing arms, inflicting upon him serious and
stolen his palay, the accused fired in the air and mortal wounds, and therefore, the said accused is
then at him, causing his death. guilty of the crime of homicide as co-‐principal by
direct participation, fully convicted, together with
Issue: WON accused can invoke defense of property his codefendants who are already serving their
sentence.
Held: No. Defense of property is not of such
importance as right to life, and defense of property People v. Narvaez, supra
can be invoked as a justifying circumstance only Facts: Mamerto Narvaez has been convicted of
when it is coupled with an attack on the person of murder (qualified by treachery) of David Fleischer
one entrusted with said property. and Flaviano Rubia. On August 22, 1968, Narvaez
shot Fleischer and Rubia during the time the two
United States v. Bumanglag, 14 Phil. 644 (1909) were constructing a fence that would prevent
Facts: On the night of January 2, 1909, Rafael Narvaez from getting into his house and rice mill.
Bumanglag noticed that 40 bundles of palay which The defendant was taking a nap when he heard
were kept in his granary were missing. He searched sounds of construction and found fence being made.
for the missing palay the following morning and He addressed the group and asked them to stop
found them in an enclosed field which was planted destroying his house and asking if they could talk
Rañeses 92

things over. Fleischer responded with "No, gadamit, violation of property rights, the courts
proceed, go ahead." Defendant lost his referred to Art. 30 of the civil code
"equilibrium," and shot Fleisher with his shotgun. recognizing the right of owners to close and
He also shot Rubia who was running towards the fence their land. Although is not in dispute,
jeep where the deceased's gun was placed. Prior to the victim was not in the position to
the shooting, Fleischer and Co. (the company of subscribe to the article because his
Fleischer's family) was involved in a legal battle ownership of the land being awarded by the
with the defendant and other land settlers of government was still pending, therefore
Cotabato over certain pieces of property. At the putting ownership into question. It’s
time of the shooting, the civil case was still pending accepted that victim was the original
for annulment (settlers wanted granting of property aggressor.
to Fleisher and Co. to be annulled). At time of the 2. Yes. However, the argument of the justifying
shooting, defendant had leased his property from circumstance of self-‐defense is applicable only if
Fleisher (though case pending and ownership the 3 requirements are fulfilled. Art. 11(1) RPC
uncertain) to avoid trouble. On June 25, defendant enumerates these requisites:
received letter terminating contract because he 1. Unlawful aggression. In the case at bar,
allegedly didn't pay rent. He was given 6 months to there was unlawful aggression
remove his house from the land. Shooting was towards appellant's property rights.
barely 2 months after letter. Defendant claims he Fleisher had given Narvaez 6 months
killed in defense of his person and property. CFI and he should have left him in peace
ruled that Narvaez was guilty. Aggravating before time was up, instead of chiseling
circumstances of evident premeditation offset by Narvaez's house and putting up fence.
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. A536 of the CC also provides that
For both murders, CFI sentenced him to reclusion possession may not be acquired through
perpetua, to indemnify the heirs, and to pay for force or intimidation; while Art. 539
moral damages. provides that every possessor has the
right to be respected in his possession
Issues: 2. Reasonable necessity of means employed
1. WON CFI erred in convicting defendant-‐ to prevent or repel attack. In case, killing
appellant despite the fact that he acted in was disproportionate to attack.
defense of his person. 3. Lack of sufficient provocation on part of
2. WON the court erred in convicting person defending himself. Here, there
defendant-‐appellant although he acted in was no provocation at all since he was
defense of his rights. asleep
3. WON he should be liable for subsidiary Since not all requisites present, defendant is
imprisonment since he is unable to pay the credited w/ the special mitigating
civil indemnity due to the offended party. circumstance of incomplete defense,
pursuant to A13(6) RPC. These mitigating
Held: circumstances are: voluntary surrender &
1. No. The courts concurred that the fencing passion & obfuscation (read p. 405
and chiseling of the walls of the house of the explanation)
defendant was indeed a form of aggression
on the part of the victim. However, this Crime is homicide (2 counts) not murder
aggression was not done on the person of because treachery is not applicable on
the victim but rather on his rights to account of provocation by the deceased.
property. On the first issue, the courts did Also, assault wasn’t deliberately chosen
not err. However, in consideration of the with view to kill since slayer acted
Rañeses 93

instantaneously. There was also no direct 3. In case the provocation was given by
evidence of planning or preparation to kill. the person attacked, the making a
defense had no part therein.
Art. 249 RPC: Penalty for homicide is § The phrase “in case” means
reclusion temporal. However, due to “in the event that.”
mitigating circumstances and § Reason: Although the
incomplete defense, it can be provocation prejudices the
lowered 3 degrees (Art. 64) to person who gave it, its
arresto mayor. effects o not reach the
3. No. He isn’t liable for subsidiary defender who took no part
imprisonment for non-‐payment of civil therein, because the latter
indemnity. RA 5465 made the provisions of was prompted by some
A39 applicable to fines only & not to noble or generous sentiment
reparation of damage caused, in protecting and saving a
indemnification of consequential damages & relative.
costs of proceedings. Although it was
enacted only after its commission, United States v. Esmedia, 17 Phil. 260 (1910)
considering that RA 5465 is favorable to the Facts: Ciriaco Abando, his wife, and their son,
accused who is not a habitual delinquent, it Santiago, lived in the jurisdiction of the municipality
may be given retroactive effect pursuant to of Sibalom, in the barrio of Bongboñgan, Province of
RPC Art. 22. Antique. Gregorio Esmedia, father of these two
accused, son-‐in-‐law of Ciriaco Abando and brother-‐
Defense of relative in-‐law of Santiago Abando, lived in the same barrio.
Reyes: These tow families lived very near to each other
1. Relatives that can be defended. and owned adjoining rice lands. Before this trouble
1. Spouse occurred there had been a dispute between these
2. Ascendants two families relative to the ownership of the rice
3. Descendants land then occupied by Ciriaco Abando. About 2
4. Legitimate, natural or adopted o'clock on the afternoon of the 24th of June, 1909,
brothers and sisters, or relatives by Ciriaco Abando instructed his son, Santiago, to go to
affinity in the same degrees a certain place in his rice field to let out the water in
5. Relatives by consanguinity within order that they could plant rice the said field. In
the fourth civil degree compliance with these instructions of his father,
§ Relatives by affinity, because Santiago proceeded to the place designated, and
of marriage, are parents-‐in-‐ while at work doing what he had been ordered by
law, son or daughter-‐in-‐law, his father to do, Gregorio Esmedia appeared on the
and brother or sister-‐in-‐law. scene and started a quarrel with Santiago. Soon
2. Basis: Founded not only upon a thereafter Gregorio drew a dagger and stabbed
humanitarian sentiment, but also upon the Santiago in the back. Santiago fell to the ground, but
impulse of blood which impels men to rush, arose immediately and attacked Gregorio with his
on the occasion of great perils, to the rescue bolo, inflicting several wounds on the said Gregorio
of those close to them by ties of blood. in consequence of which he fell to the ground.
(Albert) Before this trouble finally terminated the two
3. Requisites of defense of relatives: accused and Ciriaco Abando appeared in that
1. Unlawful aggression; immediate vicinity.
2. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it; and
Rañeses 94

These two accused contend that they were working 2. Basis: What one may do in his defense,
in their rice field nearby, and on seeing Ciriaco another may do for him.
Abando and Santiago Abando attacking their father, 3. Any person not included in the
Gregorio, they started to the place to render their enumeration of relatives mentioned in
father assistance, Ponciano starting first; that when par. 2 is considered a stranger.
Ponciano got near the place of the trouble he was
met by Ciriaco and Santiago who attacked him with Avoidance of a greater evil or injury
bolos and clubs and that he, Ponciano, in self-‐ Reyes:
defense, knocked them both down, and after they 1. Although, as a rule there is no civil
had fallen the other accused, Mena Esmedia, liability in justifying circumstances, it is
arrived. Ponciano further contends that he did not only in Par. 4, of Art. 11 where there is
use a bolo in this fight, but used a club only. civil liability, but the civil liability is
borne by the persons benefited.
Issue: WON the two accused can invoke defense of 2. Requisites:
relative 1. That the evil sought to be avoided
actually exists;
Held: YES to Santiago, but NO to Ciriaco. Under 2. That the injury feared be greater
the provisions of No. 5, article 8 of the Penal Code, than that done to avoid it;
the two accused are exempt from criminal § If evil sought is merely
responsibility for having caused the death of expected or anticipated or
Santiago Abando, inasmuch as it has been shown may happen in the future,
that they inflicted these wounds upon him in Par. 4 of Art. 11 is not
defense of their father who was fatally wounded at applicable
the time. They honestly believed, and had good 3. That there be no other practical and
grounds upon which to found their belief, that less harmful means of preventing it
Santiago would continue his attack upon their 3. The greater evil should not be brought
father. They are, however, guilty of having caused about by the negligence or imprudence of
the death of the old man, Ciriaco Abando. When the actor
they attacked and killed him the other trouble had
terminated and they were not in danger of bodily People v. Norma Hernandez, 55 OG 8465
harm from him. Facts: Maria Norma Hernandez and her parents
were charged with serious slander by deed by
Defense of stranger Vivencio Lascano. Vivencio had courted Maria and
Reyes: after months of courtship, Maria finally accepted
1. Requisites: Vivencio. Vivencio brought his parents to Maria’s
1. Unlawful aggression; home so they could talk about marriage; when they
2. Reasonable necessity of the means came with his 12 aunts, they brought 30 chickens
employed to prevent or repel it; and and 3 goats and asked for Maria’s hand in marriage.
3. The person defending be not The parents of both parties agreed to the marriage.
induced by revenge, resentment, or The date was set, Vivencio’s parents agreed to buy
other evil motive. the wedding dress among other clothes, to advance
§ Defense must be actuated by P20 for fetching the sponsors of the wedding and to
a disinterested or generous repair the roof of the house of one of Maria’s uncles.
motive, whe it puts down A marriage license was already secured and a
“revenge, resentment, or evil wedding gown sewn and bought. Vivencio and his
motive” as illegitimate. parent’s made preparations for a wedding feast by
(Albert) cleaning their house and yard, setting up a
Rañeses 95

temporary shed and stove and slaughtering goats, the hospital. She further claimed that no
pigs, chickens. On March 18, The guests came but consideration was obtained by her because all the
Maria was nowhere to be found; Vivencio and his checks were made as payment to the medical bills.
parents waited for her up to 12 midnight but she
never came which resulted to their great shame and Issue: WON avoidance of a greater evil can be
humiliation. The CFI acquitted her parents, but invoked in the case at bar
Maria was found guilty and sentenced her a fine and
imprisonment. Maria claims that she did not love Held: No. In the instant case, the evil sought to be
Vivencio and that her parents had forced her to avoided is merely expected or anticipated. If the
agree to the marriage. On March 11, without her evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or
parent’s knowledge, she left for Mindoro to avoid anticipated or may happen in the future, this
the marriage. defense is not applicable. Ty could have taken
advantage of an available option to avoid
Issue: WON Maria acts constituted serious slander committing a crime. By her own admission, she had
by deed the choice to give jewelry or other forms of security
instead of postdated checks to secure her
Held: No. Maria’s act in going to Mindoro with the obligation.
deliberate purpose of preventing the celebration of
the marriage with Vivencio because she did not love Moreover, for the defense of state of necessity to be
him, does not constitute the crime of slander by availing, the greater injury feared should not have
deed. Malice, which is an essential requisite of been brought about by the negligence or
slander, was absent because in changing her mind, imprudence, more so, the willful inaction of the
she was merely exercising her right not to give her actor. In this case, the issuance of the bounced
consent to a marriage after mature deliberation. checks was brought about by Ty’s own failure to
She had the right to avoid to herself the evil of going pay her mother’s hospital bills.
through a loveless marriage pursuant to Art. 11,
par. 4 of the RPC. If a party to an agreement to The Court thinks it rather odd that Ty has chosen
marry who backs out should be held liable for the the exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear
crime of slander by deed, then that would be an and the justifying circumstance of state of necessity
inherent way of compelling said party to go into a to absolve her of liability. It would not have been
marriage without his or her free consent. half as bizarre had Ty been able to prove that the
issuance of the bounced checks was done without
Ty v. People, 439 SCRA 220 (2004) her full volition. Under the circumstances, however,
Facts: Ty’s mother was confined in Manila Doctor's it is quite clear that neither uncontrollable fear nor
Hospital to which a medical bill amounting to avoidance of a greater evil or injury prompted the
600,000 pesos was made to be paid to TY, after issuance of the bounced checks.
signing a contract of responsibility with the
hospital. Ty, issued 7 checks to cover the said Fulfillment of duty
expenses, all of which were dishonored for being Reyes:
drawn against a closed a account. Manila Doctors 1. Requisites:
Hospital then instituted criminal actions against Ty 1. That the accused acted in the
for violation of BP22. performance of a duty or in the
lawful exercise of a right or office;
In her defense she alleged that she issued the 2. That the injury caused or the offense
checks involuntarily because her mother committed be the necessary
threatened to commit suicide due to the inhumane consequence of the due
treatment she allegedly suffered while confined in
Rañeses 96

performance of duty or the lawful from Pat. Pabon. The latter unfortunately was not
exercise of such right or office. hit. After two more thrusts were made towards him,
Pabon retreated but accused was stabbed in his
People v. Delima, 46 Phil. 738 (1922) lower left shoulder. The accused firearm was slung
Facts: Lorenzo Napoleon escaped from jail. over his shoulder. As Bataller made another thrust,
Poiiceman Felipe Delima found him in the house of Accused gave a shot, which after doing so, Bataller
Jorge Alegria, armed with a pointed piece of suddenly grabbed the firearm. Bataller‘s two other
bamboo in the shape of a lance. Delima ordered his companions had also ganged up on him. They
surrender but Napoleon answered with a stroke of struggled with each other and the gun went off. It
his lance. The policeman dodged it, fired his was semi-‐automatic, so one squeeze at the trigger
revolver but didn't hit Napoleon. The criminal tried would fire a shot. After the armalite went off,
to ran away, not throwing his weapon; the Bataller fell. He took the knife and that was the time
policeman shot him dead. Delima was tried and people started to gather. They went to the police
convicted for homicide; he appealed. station and turned over the knife. Pat. Pabon‘s
testimony corroborated with the accused‘ except
Issue: WON the accused acted in fulfillment of duty the part when accused fired a warning shot and the
deceased‘ companions ganging up on accused.
Held: The SC ruled that Delima must be acquitted. Accused pleaded not guilty invoking self-‐defense in
The court held that the killing was done in the performance of his official duty
performance of a duty. Napoleon was under the
obligation to surrender and his disobedience with a Issue: Was the trial court correct in holding
weapon compelled Delima to kill him. The action accused-‐appellant guilty of murder?
was justified by the circumstances.
Held: No. It was modified to HOMICIDE. To prove
People vs. Belbes, 334 SCRA 220 (2004) self-‐defense, the accused must show with clear and
Facts: Accused together with Pat. Jose Pabon were convincing evidence that (1) he is not the unlawful
assigned to maintain peace and order at the prom of aggressor, (2) there was lack of sufficient
Pili Brgy. High School. At 9:00 pm, two students provocation on his part, and (3) he employed
approached them and their teacher saying someone reasonable means to prevent or repel the
was making trouble. Accused and Pat. Pabon who aggression.
were armed with an armalite and .38 caliber
respectively, responded forthwith. Meanwhile, It is incumbent upon an accused who has admitted
Fernando Bataller and two of his company. Bataller to inflict fatal injuries to prove the justifying
was drunk and was vomiting and holding on to the circumstance claimed by him with clear,
bamboo wall of the school‘s temporary building satisfactory and convincing evidence in order to
when the bamboo‘s broke. At this instance, the avoid criminal liability. Appellant offers no material
accused and Pat. Pabon appeared and without evidence to sufficiently support his claim of self-‐
warning Accused fired his gun. Bataller fell and the defense on the face of mortal danger while on police
two patrolmen fled. duty. The knife used by the deceased was not even
subjected to fingerprinting. The accused wound was
Accused’s version of the facts: only examined after 21 hours making self-‐infliction
Upon responding and arriving at the scene: Bataller a possibility. If it was true that accused and Bataller
was a little tipsy but not vomiting. They introduced grappled face to face, then the victim should not
themselves as policemen but Bataller didn‘t mind have been hit sideways.
them. Bataller then stabbed Pabon with a knife
which accused said he knew because he saw the TIME FACTOR! It took only about 6 seconds from
glint of the blade and he was only 1 meter away the time the accused left his seat until the gunshots
Rañeses 97

were heard. There are two requisites to invoke self-‐ 3. That the means used by the
defense in the fulfillment of a duty: subordinate to carry out said order
1. that the offender acted in the performance is lawful.
of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a duty
or in the lawful exercise of a right People v. Beronilla, 96 Phil. 566 (1955)
2. that the injury or offense committed be the Facts: Arsenio Borjal was mayor of La Paz Abra at
necessary consequence of the due the outbreak of war and continued to serve as
performance of such right or office mayor during the Japanese occupation. Dec 19,
1944 accused-‐appellant Manuel Beronilla was
The first requisite is present for it was admittedly a appointed Military Mayor of La Paz by Lt. Col
performance of his duty. However the second one is Arnold. Simultaneously, he received a
lacking for the killing need not be a necessary memorandum issued by Arnold authorizing them to
consequence on the performance of his duty. He appoint a jury of 12 bolomen to try persons accused
exceeded his duty which is only to maintain peace of treason, espionage or aiding the enemy. He also
and order when he fired his armalite without received a list of all puppet government officials of
warning. Thus, it would account only as an Abra, with a memorandum instructing all Military
INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE. Mayors to investigate said persons and gather
against them complaints. Beronilla, pursuant to his
ON MURDER: Treachery must be proved by clear instructions placed Borjal under custody and asked
and convincing evidence as conclusively as the residents of La Paz to file case against him. He also
killing itself. For it to be a qualifying circumstance, 2 appointed a 12-‐man jury composed of Labuguen as
conditions must concur: chairman and others, plus Alverne and Balmaceda
1. the employment of means, method or were prosecutors; Paculdo as clerk of the jury, and
manner of execution which would ensure Inovermo as counsel for the accused, later Atty.
the safety of the malefactor from defensive Barreras voluntarily appeared as counsel for Borjal.
or retaliatory acts on the part of the victim, The jury found Borjal guilty on all counts and
no opportunity being given the latter to imposed death penalty. Mayor Beronilla forwarded
defend himself or to retaliate the records of the case to Headquarters of Infantry
2. the means, method or manner of execution for review. Records were returned on April 18,
were deliberately or consciously adopted by 1945 with approval of Arnold. On the same day,
the offender Beronilla ordered the execution of Borjal.
3. None of the two conditions were committed. Immediately after the execution, Beronilla reported
Likewise, suddenness of an attack does not the execution to Arnold, the latter complementing
necessarily imply treachery. Thus, ruling Beronilla.
out murder. Homicide resulting from
reckless imprudence is not recognized Two years later, Mayor Beronillo and others
either. involved in the Borjal case were indicted by CFI of
Abra for murder, for allegedly conspiring and
Lawful order of superior confederating in the execution of Borjal. Pres. Roxas
Reyes: issued E.P. no. 8, granting amnesty to all persons
1. Requisites: who committed acts penalized, under RPC in
1. That an order has been issued by a furtherance of resistance to the enemy against
superior. persons aiding in the war efforts of the enemy. All
2. That such order must be for some the accused (except Labuguen who filed and
lawful purpose. granted amnesty by the AFP), filed their application
to Second Guerilla Amnesty Commission, which
denied their application on the ground that they
Rañeses 98

were inspired by purely personal motives, thus RPC, Art. 12
remanding case to CFI for trial on merits. On July
10, 1950 Beronillo, Paculdo, Velasco and Adriatico Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. -‐
were convicted as conspirator and co-‐principals of The following are exempt from criminal liability:
crime murder. They appealed. 1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter
has acted during a lucid interval.
Issue: WON accused appellants are guilty of
murder; and WON they should be granted amnesty. When the imbecile or an insane person has
committed an act which the law defines as a felony
(delito), the court shall order his confinement in
Held: The records are ample to show that Beronilla
one of the hospitals or asylums established for
acted pursuant to the orders of the Infantry
persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be
Headquarters. Although it was alleged by the state
permitted to leave without first obtaining the
that there was a radiogram from certain Col. permission of the same court.
Volkmann to Lt. Col. Arnold, on the illegality of
Borjal's execution, there are no sufficient evidence 2. A person under nine years of age.
to show that it was known to Beronilla.
3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen,
Furthermore, the messages of Col. Arnold
unless he has acted with discernment, in which
approving the decisions of Beronilla prove case, such minor shall be proceeded against in
otherwise. The testimony of Rafael Balmaceda, accordance with the provisions of article 80 of this
relative of Borjal was also unreliable. Code.

The state claims that the appellants held grudges When such minor is adjudged to be criminally
irresponsible, the court, in conformity with the
against late Borjal, but court said that the conduct of
provisions of this and the preceding paragraph,
the appellants does not dispose that they were
shall commit him to the care and custody of his
impelled by malice. In fact, prior to the execution, family who shall be charged with his surveillance
Beronilla sent the decision for review. The lower and education; otherwise, he shall be committed to
court also found that Borjal was really guilty of the care of some institution or person mentioned in
treasonable acts. The court held that the accused-‐ said article 80.
appellants just acted upon the orders of superiors
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act
and criminal intent was not established.
with due care, causes an injury by mere accident

without fault or intention of causing it.
Even assuming the accused-‐appellant are guilty of
murder, they should not be denied of the amnesty 5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of
on the ground that the slaying took place after irresistible force.
actual liberation of the area from enemy control.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an
The court held that any reasonable doubt as to
uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
whether a given case falls within the amnesty
proclamation shall be resolved in favor of the 7. Any person who fails to perform an act required
accused. by law, when prevented by some lawful insuperable
cause.
B. Exempting Circumstances

Reyes:
1. Definition: Excemtping circumstances
(non-‐imputability) are those grounds for
exemption from punishment because there
is wanting in the agent of the crime any of
Rañeses 99

the conditions which make the act voluntary 5. Dementia praecox is covered by the term
or negligent. insanity. Schizophrenia is its current
2. Basis: Based on the complete absence of incarnation.
intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or 6. Based on the complete absence of
on the absence of negligence on the part of intelligence.
the accused.
3. There is a crime committed but no People v. Bonoan, 64 Phil. 87 (1937)
criminal liability arises. Facts:
4. In justifying circumstances, there is • 12 Dec. 1934 -‐ Celestino Bonoan met Carlos
neither a crime nor a criminal. No civil Guison on Avenida Rizal near a barbershop
liability, except in par. 4 (causing close to Tom's Dixie Kitchen. Francisco
damage to another in state of necessity). Beech, who was at the time in the
In exempting circumstances, there is a barbershop, heard Bonoan say in Tagalog, "I
crime but no criminal liability. There is will kill you." Beech turned around & saw
civil liability, except in pars. 4 and 7 Bonoan withdrawing his right hand, w/c
(causing an injury be mere accident; held a knife, from the side of Guison who
failing to perform an act required by law said, "I will pay you," but Bonoan simply
when prevented by some lawful or replied saying that he would kill him & then
insuperable cause) of Art. 12. stabbed Guison 3 times on the left side. The
incident was witnessed by policeman
Insanity Damaso Arnoco. Bonoan was arrested on
Reyes: the day itself. Bonoan admitted to stabbing
1. While the imbecile is exempt in all cases Guison. Guison was taken to PGH where he
of criminal liability, the insane is not so died 2 days later.
exempt if it can be shown that he acted • 5 January 1935 -‐ Prosecuting attorney of
during a lucid interval. Manila filed an information charging
Celestino Bonoan with the crime of murder.
An imbecile is one who, while advanced in • 16 January 1935 -‐ Bonoan's defense counsel
age, has a mental development comparable objected to the arraignment on the ground
to that of children between two and seven that the defendant was mentally deranged
years of age. and was at the time confined in the
2. To constitute insanity, there must be psychopathic hospital. The court issued and
complete deprivation of intelligence or order requiring the Director of the hospital
that there be a total deprivation of the to report on Bonoan's mental condition. A
freedom of the will. report was rendered by Dr. Toribio Joson.
3. The defense must prove the accused was • 23 March 1935 -‐ the case was called for
insane at the time of the commission of arraignment again, the defense objected and
the crime, because the presumption is again the court filed another order requiring
always in favor of sanity. (People v. the doctor who examined Bonoan to appear
Bascos, 44 Phil. 204,206) in court to report on Bonoan's mental
4. When a person was insane at the time of condition.
the commission of the felony, he is • 26 March 1935 -‐ Dr. Toribio appeared
exempt from criminal liability. When he before the court for the inquiry. The court
was sane at the time of the commission of issued another order asking to summon
the crime, but he becomes insane at the time other doctors from the hospital and to put
of the trial, he is liable criminally. Bonoan under another doctor, Dr. Jose
Rañeses 100

Fernandez, for closer observation. Dr. at the time of committing the criminal act
Fernandez filed his report on 11 June 1935. should be clear and satisfactory in order to
• 28 June 1935 the case was called again, Dr acquit the accused on the ground of
Fernandez showed up in court and reported insanity. (Philippines uses this)
that Bonoan was still not in a condition to 2. That an affirmative verdict of insanity is to
defend himself. be governed by preponderance of evidence,
• 21 January 1936 -‐ Dr. Fernandez reported and in this view, insanity is not to be
to the court that established beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Bonoan could be discharged from the 3. Prosecution must prove sanity beyond a
hospital and appear for trial as he was reasonable doubt.
"considered a recovered case."
• 27 February 1936 -‐ Bonoan was arraigned When a defendant in a criminal case interposes the
and pleaded "not guilty" and the trial was defense of mental incapacity, the burden of
held. To prove motive and mental normalcy establishing the fact rests upon the defendant. To
of Bonoan the prosecution called on Damaso prove insanity the evidence must be clear and
Arnoco who testified that the reason for convincing. The courts need to distinguish insanity
Bonoan's attack was that Guison owed him in law from passion or eccentricity, mental
P55 and would not pay him back. Bonoan weakness or mere depression resulting from
had bought the knife with which he stabbed physical ailment. In the separate reports given by
Guison for 50 centavos and had been Dr. Toribio Joson and Dr. Fernandez they both
waiting 2 days to kill him. He acquired this diagnosed Bonoan to be unstable, stating that "he
information when he arrested and will always have troubles and difficulties with this
questioned Bonoan. Bonoan was charged world of realities." Bonoan was diagnosed with
with the murder of Carlos Guison, and dementia praecox which is a mental disease that
sentenced him to life imprisonment and to disqualifies a person from legal responsibility for
pay P1K to indemnify the heirs of Guison. his actions. In these people homicidal attacks are
• The defendant appealed the case and his common because of the delusions that they are
counsel cited that the lower court had erred being interfered with or that their property is being
in finding that Bonoan had dementia taken. The court was of the opinion that Bonoan
intermittently and not immediately prior to was demented at the time he perpetrated the
the commission of the offense, in finding serious offense charge with and that consequently
that the accused did not show any he is exempt from criminal liability.
abnormality either in behavior, action,
language, appearance, or action that he was Judgment: Judgment of the lower court REVERSED.
mentally deranged, in finding that the Defendant appellant ACQUITTED but to be kept in
burden of proof lay in the defendant to confinement in the San Lazaro Hospital or any other
prove that he was mentally deranged at the hospital for the insane.
time of the crime, and in not acquitting
Bonoan. Imperial, dissenting: "The dissenting opinions, in
establishing the conclusion that the accused was
Issue: WON Bonoan was insane at the time of the then in the possession of his mental faculties or, at
commission of the crime. least, at a lucid interval, are based on the fact
admitted by the parties and supported by expert
Held: Yes. There are 3 different theories used testimony, that the accused before the commission
1. Insanity as a defense in a confession and of a crime, had been cured of dementia praecox and
avoidance and as such must be proved later of manic depressive psychosis." The inference
beyond reasonable doubt. Proof of insanity of the majority that the accused was insane is not
Rañeses 101

sufficiently supported by evidence. No attention People v. Ambal, 100 SCRA 325 (1980)
was given to the decision of the judge who Facts: Felicula (Feling), married to Honorato
originally tried the case, which should have been Ambal, was mortally wounded, having 7 incised
done because he was able to observe Bonoan, the wounds in different parts of her body. She died 40
witnesses, the evidence and the testimonies. This minutes later. Honorato admitted to killing his wife.
court generally gives importance to the conclusions
drawn by the judge who tried the case in first The immediate provocation for the assault was a
instance unless there is a clear contradiction in the fight, because Feling had not bought medicine for
evidence and the decision, which is not the case Honorato, who then had influenza. She told him that
here. he was better off dead, so he attacked her. He was
charged with parricide. He pleaded not guilty. His
Diaz, dissenting: The appellant committed the defense was insanity.
crime when he was sane or at least during a lucid
interval. He had motive to kill Guison [55php], as Dr. Cresogono Llacuna said that Ambal suffered
clearly stated by the arresting police officer. The from a minor psycho-‐neurosis, a disturbance of the
law presumes that everyone is sane, and insanity is functional nervous system which is NOT INSANITY.
an exception, to be established by clear proof and it He was normal but nervous, and HAD NO MENTAL
is not usually permanent. There is no evidence or DISORDER. Trial court concluded that his behavior
record that can prove that Bonoan was insane at the immediately after the incident showed he wasn‘t
time he committed the crime, or that he was insane and that he acted like a normal human being.
continuing to suffer from insanity from the date of
the commission of the crime. Where it is shown that Issue: Should Ambal be exempted from criminal
the defendant experiences lucid intervals, the crime liability by reason of insanity?
is assumed to have been committed during one of
them, unless proven otherwise. Held: NO. Courts should be careful to distinguish
insanity in law from passion or eccentricity, mental
Concepcion, dissenting: There is no evidence or weakness or mere depression resulting from
record to prove that Bonoan was insane at the time physical ailment. The State should guard against
he committed the crime, and there were no records sane murderers escaping punishment through a
to show that he had suffered a relapse of the general plea of insanity.
condition he had sought treatment for at the San
Lazaro hospital years before the crime was Imbecile: person marked by mental deficiency;
committed. Bonoan had been sane for 9 years [or at must be deprived completely of reason or
least "socially adjustable"]. The attack of insomnia discernment and freedom of the will at the time of
before the event is not clear proof that he was committing the crime.
insane or suffering a bout with insanity at the time
of the crime, it merely presents a possibility, and Insanity: one who has an unsound mind or suffers
the innocence to the accused cannot be based on a from a mental disorder; there must be complete
mere possibility. The accused when questioned by deprivation of intelligence in the commission of the
the police immediately after the crime did not act or that the accused acted without the lease
exhibit insane behavior. It cannot be said that discernment. Mere abnormality of his mental
Bonoan stabbed Guison because of a hallucination faculties does not exclude imputability.
because Guison actually owed him money and this
was confirmed by the fact of his saying "I am going Passion and motives of anger, hatred, etc, is not
to pay you" before he was stabbed. This shows the insanity either. Neither is being weak-‐minded. The
motive for aggression [vengeance] court presumes that a person is of sound mind

Rañeses 102

unless there is positive proof stating otherwise. In • Dr. Araceli Maravilla of Dr. Jose Reyes
this case, no such proof has been given. Memorial hospital said Puno was an
outpatient who could very well live with
People v. Puno, 105 SCRA 151 (1981) society even if he was afflicted with
Facts: schizophrenic reaction.
• 8 Sep. 1970 -‐ around 2pm Ernesto Puno • Dr. Reynaldo Robles stated that Puno had
entered the bedroom of 72 y.o. Francisca Col schizophrenic reaction but that this
also known as Aling Kikay, in Little Bagio, condition was "not socially incapacitating"
barrio Tinajeros, Malabon, Rizal. Aling Kikay • Dr. Carlso Vicente of the National Mental
was on the bed, when Puno entered & Hospital testified that Puno acted w/
insulted her by saying "Mangkukulam ka, discernment & could distinguish right from
mambabarang, mayroon kang bubuyog." wrong.
Then, he repeatedly slapped her and struck • 21 October 1970 -‐ Puno was indicted for the
her on the head several times with a murder in the Circuit Criminal Court at
hammer until she was dead. The assault was Pasig, Rizal. Alleged in the information as
witnessed by Hilaria dela Cruz who was aggravating circumstances were evident
present in the room during the attack, and premeditation, abuse of superiority and
by Lina Pajes, a tenant in the next room. disregard for sex. Puno was sentenced to
After killing the old lady Puno went into the death and ordered to pay P22K to the heirs
next room, where the girls had taken refuge of the victim
& made the following confession & threat
"Huag kayong magkakamaling tumawag ng Issue: WON Puno was insane when he killed Aling
pulis at sabihin nunyo na umalis kayo ng Kikay.
bahay at hindi ninyo alam kung sino ang
pumatay sa matanda." Or according to Lina Held: No. Record from Puno's stay at the National
"pinatay ko na ang iyong matanda. Huag Mental Hospital stated that he had been an out
kayong tumawag ng pulis. Pag tumawag patient for schizophrenia in 1962, recovered, had a
kayo ng pulis, kayo ang pahihigantihan ko." relapse in 1964, improved and in 1966 his sickness
After Puno left, Lina called the police. Puno remained UNIMPROVED. Treatment continued in
fled to his parents' house then later on to his San Lazaro Compound up to 1970 where he was
second cousin, Teotimo’s house. relieved of symptoms and did not come back for
• 10 Sep. 1970 -‐ Puno's father surrendered medication. It cited that he was quiet and as usual
him to the police. He was brought to the manageable. The report stated that he "is presently
National Mental Hospital in Mandaluyong, free from any social incapacitating psychotic
Rizal. He was charged with murder in the symptoms", but persons suffering from
municipal court. schizophrenia may retain some of the residual
• Puno's wife, his sister in law and his 2nd symptoms but it wouldn't affect their discernment
cousin all testified in court describing his of right and wrong.
appearance [bloodshot eyes] and his
behavior immediately before and after them The court says: "in the light of the strict rule just
murder, [boxing the dog, having an stated and the circumstance surrounding the killing,
imaginary bumble bee flying around him, we are led to the conclusion that Puno was not
singing, etc..] legally insane when he killed, the victim'' The court
• The defense presented 3 doctors to prove cited that had he been a homicidal maniac he would
insanity but the doctors instead proved that have killed Lina and Hilaria too. The evidence
Puno had acted with discernment when he should prove clearly that he was insane at the time
killed Aling Kikay. of the commission of the crime.
Rañeses 103

report revealed that the victim sustained 14
Insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation wounds, 5 of which were fatal.
of intelligence in committing the act, that is, the
accused is deprived of reason, he acts without the Rodolfo Sigua, husband of the deceased, testified
least discernment because there is a complete that sometime in February 1987, the accused
absence of the power to discern, or total Rosalino Dungo inquired from him why his wife
deprivation of freedom of wilt. Mere abnormality of was requiring so many documents from him.
the mental faculties will not exclude imputability. Rodolfo explained to him the procedure at the DAR.

Two aggravating circumstances, dwelling and The accused, in defense of himself, tried to show
disregard of the respect due to the age of the victim that he was insane at the time of the commission of
are off set by the mitigating circumstances of the offense:
voluntary surrender and the offender's mental • Two weeks prior to March 16, 1987,
illness (mild schizophrenic reaction) which Rosalino's wife noticed that he appears to
diminished him of his will power but did not be in deep thought always, maltreating their
deprive him of consciousness of his acts. children when he was not used to it before.
There were also times that her husband
Judgment: Medium penalty for murder imposed. would inform her that his feet and head
Death penalty is set aside. Accused is sentenced to were on fire when in truth they were not.
RECLUSION PERPETUA • On that fateful day, Rosalino complained of
stomachache but they didn't bother to buy
Makasiar, dissenting: The appellant should not be medicine as the pain went away
held liable for the crime of murder. He was mentally immediately. Thereafter, he went back to
ill when he committed the alleged killing of the store. But when Andrea followed him to
Francisca Col (Aling Kikay). His medical records the store, he was no longer there. Worried,
properly evaluated & confirmed undeniably she looked for him. On her way home, she
establish the fact that he had been ailing with a heard people saying that a stabbing
psychotic disorder medically known as chronic occurred. She saw her husband in her
schizophrenia of the paranoid type. His record for parents-‐in-‐law's house with people milling
treatment stated him to be "unimproved" upon around. She asked her husband why he did
discharge and his out patient record merely stated the act, to which Rosalino answered, "That's
him as "improved" not "recovered" or the only cure for my ailment. I have cancer
"unimproved". Appellant was treated 18 times in of the heart. If I don't kill the deceased in a
the National Mental Hospital and Jose Reyes number of days, I would die.” That same
Memorial Hospital in a span of 8 years, day, the accused went to Manila.
characteristic of the chronic nature of his mental
illness. This was confirmed by Dr. Carlos Vicente. Dr. Santiago and Dr. Echavez of the National Center
for Mental Health testified that the accused was
People v. Dungo, 199 SCRA 860 (1991) confined in the mental hospital, as per order of the
Facts: On March 16, 1987 between 2:00 and trial court dated Aug. 17, 1987. Based on the
3:00pm, the accused went to Mrs. Sigua's office at reports of their staff, they concluded that Rosalino
the Department of Agrarian Reform, Apalit, was psychotic or insane long before, during and
Pampanga. After a brief talk, the accused drew a after the commission of the alleged crime and
knife from the envelope he was carrying and classified his insanity as an organic mental disorder
stabbed Mrs. Sigua several times. After which he secondary to cerebro-‐vascular accident or stroke.
departed from the office with blood stained clothes, But Dr. Balatbat who treated the accused for
carrying a bloodied bladed weapon. The autopsy ailments secondary to stroke, and Dr. Lim who
Rañeses 104

testified that the accused suffered dorm occlusive The fact that the accused was carrying an envelope
disease, concluded that Rosalino was somehow where he hid the fatal weapon, that he ran away
rehabilitated after a series of medical treatment in from the scene of the incident after he stabbed the
their clinic. victim several times, that he fled to Manila to evade
arrest, indicate that he was conscious and knew the
Issue: WON the accused was insane during the consequences of his acts in stabbing the victim.
commission of the crime charged. (This was taken from the TC's decision).

Held: No. For insanity to relieve the person of Judgment: questioned decision AFFIRMED.
criminal liability, it is necessary that there be a
complete deprivation of intelligence in committing People v. Yam-‐id, 308 SCRA 651 (1999)
the act, that he acts w/o the least discernment and Facts: Julius Cantutay and Jerry Tejamo passed by
that there be complete absence or deprivation of the house of the accused who greeted them “Good
the freedom of the will. Evening,” unsheathed a long bolo and ran after the
Under Philippine jurisdiction, there's no definite two. Appellant caught up with Jerry and stabbed
test or criterion for insanity. However, the him on the left portion of his back, then held him by
definition of insanity under Sec 1039* of the the hair and hacked him on the nape. As Jerry fell to
Revised Administrative Code can be applied. In ground, the appellant further stabbed him on the
essence, it states that insanity is evinced by a right side of his back then the appellant knelt over
deranged and perverted condition of the mental the prostrate body of Jerry and sucked the blood
faculties, which is manifested in language or from his neck . At the automatic review at the
conduct. An insane person has no full and clear Supreme Court, the appellant admitted to killing
understanding of the nature and consequence of his Jerry and pleaded insanity as his defense which
act. contends that he has schizophrenia.

Evidence of insanity must refer to the mental Issue: WON the appellant can use the defense of
condition at the very time of doing the act. insanity in killing of Jerry Tejamo
However, it is also permissible to receive evidence
of his mental condition for a reasonable period Held: No. Insanity must be proven beyond
before and after the time of the act in question. The reasonable doubt to exist before or at the very
vagaries of the mind can only be known by outward moment the crime was committed, by whoever
acts. invokes it as a defense. Defense failed to discharge
its burden of proving that accused-‐appellant was
It is not usual for an insane person to confront a insane at the time of the commission of the crime.
specified person who may have wronged him. But Also, no evidence was presented that the accused
in the case at hand, the accused was able to Mrs. was insane at the time of the commission of the
Sigua. From this, it can be inferred that the accused crime and the fact that the defense of insanity was
was aware of his acts. This also established that the not even raised during the trial of the case gives the
accused has lucid intervals. impression that is but an afterthought.
Moreover, Dr. Echavez testified to the effect that the
appellant could have been aware of the nature of People v. Belonio, 429 SCRA 579 (2004)
his act at the time he committed it when he shouted Facts: RTC found Randy Belonio y Landas guilty of
(during laboratory examination) that he killed Mrs. the murder of Ramy Tamayo and sentenced him to
Sigua. This statement makes it highly doubtful that death. The night of a wake, Ramy decided to buy
the accused was insane when he committed the act. cigarettes from a store. Ramy was occupying that
space in front of the opening to pay when the
accused Randy Belonio arrived. Randy tried to force
Rañeses 105

his way in front of the opening and as a insanity and must be clearly proven.
consequence, he bumped on Ramy. (People v. Gimena, 55 Phil. 604)

Jennifer and Ramy sat and talked on the bench. The People v. Taneo, 58 Phil. 255 (1933)
accused came over and sat on the other end of the Facts: Potenciano Taneo and his wife lived in his
bench and conversed with Ramy. The accused left parent's house in Dolores, Ormoc. On January 16,
but after a few minutes he returned, delivered a 1932, a fiesta was being celebrated in the said
stabbing blow with a dagger which was concealed barrio and guests were entertained in the house,
in his hand. among them were Fred Tanner and Luis Malinao.
Early that afternoon, Potenciano went to sleep and
Randy Belonio raised the defense of insanity and while sleeping, he suddenly got up, left the room
relied on the expert assessment of his witness, Dr. bolo in hand and, upon meeting his wife who tried
Antonio Gauzon, who certified that he is suffering to stop him, wounded her in the abdomen. He also
from schizophrenia triggered by abuse of shabu and attacked Fred and Luis and tried to attack his father,
marijuana. RTC found appellant guilty of Murder after which, he wounded himself. Potenciano's wife,
and that he had full control of his mental faculties. who was 7 months pregnant at that time, died five
days later as a result of the wound.
Issue: WON appellant‘s defense of insanity as an
exempting circumstance is tenable. The trial court found Potenciano guilty of parricide
and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
Held: NO. Appellant is found GUILTY of murder.
The defense utterly failed to discharge its burden of It appears from the evidence that the day before the
proving that appellant was insane. The evidence commission of the crime, the defendant had a
adduced by the defense is sorely insufficient to quarrel over a glass of "tuba" with Collantes and
establish his claim that he was insane at the time he Abadilla, who invited him to come down and fight.
killed Tamayo. When he was about to go down, he was stopped by
his wife and his mother. On the day of the
Belonio’s acts tend to establish that Belonio was commission of the crime, it was noted that the
well aware of what he had just committed, and was defendant was sad and weak, had a severe
capable of distinguishing right from wrong. stomachache that's why he went to bed in the early
Otherwise, he would not have attempted to escape afternoon. The defendant stated that when he fell
and go into hiding. Evidence of insanity after the asleep, he dreamed that Collantes was trying to stab
fact of commission of the offense may be accorded him with a bolo while Abadila held his feet. That's
weight only if there is also proof of alleged why he got up and it seemed to him that his
abnormal behavior immediately before or enemies were inviting him to come down; he armed
simultaneous to the commission of the crime. Dr. himself with a bolo and left the room. At the door,
Guazon‘s report was silent as regards the incidents he met his wife who seemed to say to him that she
occurring prior to or during the circumstance for was wounded. Then, he fancied seeing his wife
which Belonio stands trial. really wounded and in desperation wounded
himself. As his enemies seemed to multiply around
Somnambulism him, he attacked everybody that came his way.
Reyes:
1. Another case of lack of intelligence. Issue: WON defendant acted while in a dream.
2. Somnambulism or sleepwalking, where
the acts of the person afflicted are Held: Yes. The defendant acted while in a dream &
automatic, is embraced in the plea of his acts, therefore, weren’t voluntary in the sense of
entailing criminal liability.
Rañeses 106

b. Conditional responsibility –
The apparent lack of motive for committing a between 9 and 15 years.
criminal act does not necessarily mean that there c. Full responsibility – 18 or over
are none, but that simply they are not known to us. (adolescence) to 70 (maturity).
Although an extreme moral perversion may lead a d. Mitigated responsibility – over 9
man to commit a crime without a real motive but and under 15, offender acting with
just for the sake of committing it. In the case at discernment; 15 or over but less
hand, the court found not only lack of motives for than 18; over 70 years of age.
the defendant to voluntarily commit the acts
complained of (read: he loved his wife dearly, he Senility – although said to be the
tried to attack his father in whose house the lived second childhood, is only a
and the guests whom he invited), but also motives mitigated responsibility,
for not committing the acts. 5. Discernment: mental capacity to
understand the difference between right
Dr. Serafica, an expert witness in the case, stated and wrong, and such capacity may be
that considering the circumstances of the case, the known and should be determined by taking
defendant acted while in a dream, under the into consideration all the facts and
influence of a hallucination and not in his right circumstances afforded by the records in
mind. each case, the very appearance, the very
attitude, the very comportment and
The wife's wound may have been inflicted behavior of said minor, not only before
accidentally. The defendant did not dream that he during the commission of the act, but also
was assaulting his wife, but that he was defending after and even during the trial.
himself from his enemies. a. May be shown by:
i. Manner of committing the
Minority crime.
Reyes: ii. Conduct of offender.
1. “Under nine years” to be construed “nine 6. The child in conflict with the law shall
years or less.” enjoy the presumption of minority.
2. Age of absolute irresponsibility raised to 7. Age may be determined through:
fifteen years of age. Republic Act No. 9344 a. Birth certificate
otherwise known as “Juvenile Justice and b. Baptismal certificate or any other
Welfare Act of 2006” raised the age of pertinent documents
absolute irresponsibility from nine (9) to c. In the absence of the above,
fifteen (15) years of age. information from child
3. Children above fifteen (15) but below himself/herself
eighteen (18) years of age who acted d. Testimonies of other persons
without discernment exempt from e. Physical appearance of the child
criminal liability. It is incumbent upon the
prosecution to prove that a minor who is People v. Doquena, 68 Phil. 580 (1939)
over 15 but under 18 years of age has acted Facts: Between 1-‐2 pm of Nov. 19, 1938, Juan
with discernment, in order for the minor Ragojos and Epifanio Rarang were playing
not to be entitled to this exempting volleyball in the yard of their school in Sual,
circumstance. Pangasinan. Valentin Doquena, the accused,
4. Periods of criminal responsibility intercepted the ball, and threw it a Ragojos, who
a. Absolute irresponsibility – 9 years was hit in the stomach. Miffed, Ragojos chased
and below (infancy). Doquena, and upon catching him, slapped Doquena
Rañeses 107

on the nape, and punched him in the face. After People v. Navarro, 51 OG 4062
doing this, Ragojos went back to Rarang to resume Facts: Luisa Navarro 13 years old who was
playing volleyball. Insulted, Doquena looked for approached by agents of the Price Enforcement
something to throw at Ragojos, finding none, he got Division of PRISCO asking frot he price of one tin of
his cousin's (Romualdo Cocal) knife, and confronted Hershey’s Cocoa. She was arrested after allegedly
Ragojos. Ragojo's denied Doquena's request for a selling cocoa 11 cents more that ceiling price. Found
fight and resumed playing. Doquena stabbed the guilty of violating E.O. 447 in connection with Sec
unaware Ragojos in the chest, thereby killing the 12 of RA 509-‐ Anti-‐ Profiteering law and was sent to
latter. The court held that in committing the act, the the custody of Phil. Training School for Girls
accused acted with discernment and was conscious
of the nature and consequences of his acts, Issue: WON Article 12 par 3 can be applied despite
therefore his defense that he was a minor was being charged with violation of a special law
untenable (given that the Doquena was a 7th grade
pupil, one of the brightest in his class, and was an Held: Yes. Nothing in the law says that RPC is not
officer in the CAT program), and thus convicted him suppletory to their provisions (Art10)
of the crime of homicide. The court ordered him to While intent is immaterial in crimes mala prohibita,
be sent to the Training School for Boys until he the circumstances, which exempt from criminal
reaches the age of majority. Thus, the appeal by the liability, are based on lack of intelligence, intent and
accused, stating that to determine whether or not spontaneity. In the language of art 12 (3), state has
there was discernment on the part of the minor, the the burden of proving that the minor acted with
following must be taken into consideration: discernment. Discernmentbeing more than mere
a. The facts and circumstances which gave rise understanding is the mental capacity to understand
to the act committed. the difference between right and wrong. In the
b. The state of mind at the time the crime was instant case, accused did not fully grasp the
committed importance of the question and there was no record
c. The time he had at his disposal that she was a merchant. Such minor, over 9 but
d. The degree of reasoning of the minor less than 15 is not criminally responsible.

Issue: WON the accused acted with discernment Remiendo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
184874 (2009)
Held: Decision affirmed. Yes, the accused acted with Facts: Petitioner was a minor above 15 but below
discernment. Accused mistakes the discernment for 18 years old when he raped a minor when the latter
premeditation, or at least for lack of intention, as a was left alone in her house. He threatened to kick
mitigating circumstance. However, the the latter if she would shout for help. Petitioner was
DISCERNMENT that constitutes an exception to the convicted of rape but on appeal invoked suspension
exemption from criminal liability of a minor under of sentence pursuant to RA 9344. By the time he
15 years but over nine, who commits an act was convicted by the trial court, he was already 22
prohibited by law, is his MENTAL CAPACITY to years old
understand the difference between right and
wrong, and such capacity may be known and should Issue: WON petitioner is exempt from criminal
be determined by taking into consideration all the liability and entitled to suspension of sentence
facts and circumstances afforded by the records in under sec 38, 40 of RA 9344
each case, the very appearance, the very attitude,
the very comportment and behavior of said minor, Held: NO. Since he is above 15but below 18, finding
not only before and during the commission of the of discernment is necessary to determine
act, but also after and even during the trial. exemption from criminal liability. His act of waiting
for victim’s parents before defiling her and
Rañeses 108

threating to kick her if she shouts prove that the 2. With due care;
petitioner can differentiate b/w right and wrong. 3. He causes an injury to another by
mere accident;
Sec 38 and 40 can no longer be availed since by the 4. Without fault or intention of causing
time sentence was imposed, he was already 22 it.
years old. Sec 40 provides that if the child in 2. Accident: something that happens outside
conflict with law has reached 18 years while under the sway of our will, and although it comes
suspended sentence, the court can determine about through some act of our will, lies
whether to discharge the child in accordance with beyond the bounds of humanly forseeable
the act or to order execution of sentence or to consequences.
suspend the sentence for a certain period until the 1. Presupposes lack of intention to
child reaches maximum age of 21 years. commit the wrong done.
3. Accident and negligence are intrinsically
Sierra v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. contradictory.
182941 (2009) 1. Accident: a fortuitive (sic)
Facts: Petitioner was 15 years old when he raped a circumstance, event or happening;
minor. He was convicted of rape where penalty was an event happening without any
reclusion perpetua and a fine. During the pendency human agency, or if happening
of appeal to CA, RA 9344 took effect. CA affirmed wholly or partly through human
the conviction and denied the defense of minority agency, an event which under the
since age was not established by presenting birth circumstance is unusual or
certificate but only alleged testimonies of petitioner unexpected by the person to whom
and his mother. According to them, burden of proof it happen.
of age is upon the prosecution 2. Negligence: failure to observe, for
the protection of the interest of
Issue: Who has the burden of proof in establishing another person, that degree of care,
age of accused and can RA 9344 be given precaution and vigilance which the
retroactive application? circumstances justly demand
without which such other person
Held: Minority is usually established through birth suffers injury.
certificate of the child, baptismal certificate,
testimonies of other persons and physical People v. Bindoy, 56 Phil. 15 (1931)
appearance. In case of doubt, minority should be in Facts: On May 6, 1930, Donato Bindoy offered some
favor of the child. Minority in this case was tuba to Tibay, Faustino Pacas' wife. She refused and
established by testimonies of he petitioner and his Bindoy threatened to injure her if she did not
mother. This was not objected to by prosecution accept. Pacas stepped in to defend his wife and
and did not even present contrary evidence. attempted to take away from Bindoy the bolo he
carried. The disturbance attracted the attention of
Law should be given retroactive effect since it is Emigdio Omamdam. In the course of the struggle,
favorable to the accused as provided for by the RPC. Bindoy succeeded in disengaging himself from
Case is dismissed and petitioner is referred to Pacas, wrenching the bolo from the latter's hand,
appropriate local social welfare. with such violence that the point of the bolo
reached Omamdam's chest, who was then behind
Negligence Bindoy. The trial court held that Bindoy was guilty
Reyes: of the crime of homicide. Bindoy appealed, alleging
1. Elements: that the death of Omamdam was caused
1. A person is performing a lawful act; accidentally and without malicious intent.
Rañeses 109

Facts: On January 26, 1909, Cecilio Tanedo, a
Issue: WON the crime of which Bindoy was found landowner, went with some workers to work on the
guilty of can be mitigated on the ground of accident. dam on his land, carrying with him his shotgun & a
few shells. Upon reaching the dam, the accused
Held: Yes. Decision is reversed. Bindoy is acquitted went on his way to hunt for wild chickens, meeting
according to Article 8, No. 8 of the Revised Penal the victim, Feliciano Sanchez, the latter's Mother &
Code Uncle. The accused went into the forest upon the
recommendation of the deceased to continue his
1. There is no evidence to show that Bindoy search for the elusive wild chickens. Upon seeing
deliberately and intentionally killed one, Tanedo shot one, but simultaneously, he heard
Omamdam. a human cry out in pain. After seeing that Sanchez
• No evidence that Omamdam took part in was wounded, Tanedo ran back to his workers and
the fight between Bindoy and Pacas. asked one, Bernardino Tagampa, to help him hide
• No evidence that Bindoy was aware of the body, which they did by putting it amidst the tall
Omamdam's presence. cogon grass, & later burying in an old well. Only 1
• No evidence that there was shot was heard that morning & a chicken was killed
disagreement or ill feelings between by a gunshot wound. Chicken feathers were found
Bindoy & Omamdam. On the contrary, at the scene of the crime. There was no enmity
they were nephew & uncle, & were on between the accused and the deceased. Prior to the
good terms with each other. trial, the accused denied all knowledge of the crime,
2. The witness for the defense corroborates but later confessed during the trial. The lower court
the defendant to the effect that Pacas and found the accused guilty of homicide, having invited
Bindoy were actually struggling for the the deceased into the forest & intentionally
possession of the bolo, and that when the shooting him in the chest. Accused was sentenced to
latter let go, the former had pulled so 14 yrs, 8 mos & 1 day of reclusion temporal,
violently that it flew towards Omamdam, accessories, indemnifications & costs. The accused
who was therefore hit in the chest, without appealed.
Bindoy's seeing him, because Omamdam
had passed behind him. The testimony of Issue: WON the accused is guilty
this witness was not contradicted by any
rebuttal evidence adduced by the fiscal. Held: No. The idea that Tanedo intended to kill
3. If, in the struggle, the defendant had Sanchez is negated by the fact that the chicken and
attempted to wound his opponent, and the man were shot at the same time, there having
instead of doing so, had wounded only one shot fired. Also, according to:
Omamdam, he would be liable for his act, • Article 1 of the Penal Code: Crimes or
since whoever willfully commits a felony or misdemeanors are voluntary acts and
a misdemeanor incurs criminal liability, omissions punished by law…
although the wrongful act done is different • Article 8: He who while performing a legal
from that which he intended. act with due care, causes some injury by
mere accident without liability or intention
This is not the case here. Bindoy did not try of causing it.
to wound Pacas. He was only trying to • Section 57 of Code of Criminal Procedure: A
defend his possession of the bolo, which defendant in a criminal action shall be
Pacas was trying to wrench away from him. presumed to be innocent until the contrary
His conduct was perfectly lawful. is proved, and in case of a reasonable doubt
that his guilt is satisfactorily shown he shall
U.S. v. Tanedo, 15 Phil. 196 (1910) be entitled to an acquittal.
Rañeses 110

possession of the gun while the left hand was
In this case there is no evidence of negligence on warding off Balboa. Under such circumstance,
the part of the accused, nor is it disputed that the Pomoy could not have coolly and effectively
accused was engaged in a legal act, nor is there released the safety lock, aim and fire at Balboa. The
evidence that the accused intended to kill the grappling was fierce and vicious. The logical
deceased. The only thing suspicious is his denial of conclusion is the safety lock was released through
the act and his concealment of the body. the scuffle and accidentally fired as the .45 pistol
immediately replaces the empty bullet with a new
The court quoted State vs. Legg: "Where accidental one making it prone to accident/ The location of the
killing is relied upon as a defense, the accused is not wound cannot be taken into account as the nozzle’s
required to prove such a defense by a direction was continuously changing in the
preponderance of the evidence, because there is a struggle. His defense of the possession of his gun
denial of intentional killing, and the burden is upon was a lawful act. No intent or negligence was
the state to show that it was intentional, and if, from proven and he even had precautionary measures
a consideration of all the evidence, both that for the keeping the gun in the holster. The circumstance
state and the prisoner, there is a reasonable doubt was beyond the control of Pomoy. Pomoy is
as to whether or not the killing was accidental or AQUITTED.
intentional, the jury should acquit."
Irresistible force/Uncontrollable fear
Court held that the evidence was insufficient to Reyes:
support the judgment of conviction. 1. Irresistible force
1. Elements:
Decision: Judgment of Conviction is reversed, the 1. That the compulsion is by
accused acquitted, and discharged from custody. means of physical force.
2. That the physical force must
Pomoy v. People, 439 SCRA 439 (2004) be irresistible.
Facts: Balboa was arrested for being one of the 3. That the physical force must
suspects in a robbery. Sergeant Pomoy went to the come from a third person.
cell of Balboa and started to escort him to the 2. Passion or obfuscation cannot be
investigation room. When they reached the main irresistible force.
building, 2 gunshots were heard and Pomoy was 3. Basis: complete absence of freedom
still holding the gun with Balboa lying in a pool of 2. Uncontrollable fear
blood dead. The lone witness said that Pomoy and 1. Elements:
Balboa were grappling possession of the gun with 1. That the threat which causes
Pomoy’s right hand on the handle with Balboas left the fear is of an evil greater
hand over the right hand of Pomoy and such hand than or at least equal to, that
positions did not change when the gun was out of which he is required to
the holster. The witness did not see who pulled the commit;
trigger. Pomoy was convicted of homicide by the 2. That is promises an evil of
trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals such gravity and imminence
because he was said to have control of the gun as he that the ordinary man would
held it and 2 shots were fired. have succumbed to it.
2. Duress as a valid defense should
Issue: WON Pomoy had control of the gun. be based on real, imminent or
reasonable fear for one’s life or
Held: The testimony of the witness showed that limb and should not be
Pomoy’s right hand was trying to maintain
Rañeses 111

speculative fanciful or remote when the burial took place. Their failure to report
fear. the crime is not an offense punished by the Penal
3. The accused must not have Code.
opportunity for escape or self-‐
defense. A threat of future injury is United States v. Exaltacion, 3 Phil. 339 (1904)
not enough. The compulsion must be Facts: On March 26, 1903, Liberate Exaltacion and
of such character as to leave no Buenaventura Tanchinco were charged with
opportunity to the accused for rebellion – willfully and illegally bound themselves
escape or self-‐defense. to take part in a rebellion against the government of
4. Speculative, fanciful and remote the US, swearing allegiance to the Katipunan Society
fear is not uncontrollable fear. (whose purpose was to overthrow the government
5. In irresistible force, the offender by force of arms). Exaltacion and Tanchinco claim
uses violence or physical force to that they were captured by armed bandits and were
compel another erson to commit compelled to sign documents (containing oath
a rime; in uncontrollable fear, the taken in the name of God and a covenant to carry
offender employs intimidation or out superior orders of the Katipunan Society and
threat in compelling another to never disobey them until their death in the defense
commit a crime. of the mother country) under threat of death.
6. Basis: complete absence of freedom. Exaltacion and Tanchinco reported the incident to
the governor, lieutenant of volunteers and the
United States v. Caballeros, 4 Phil. 350 (1905) president of Meycauayan. Witnesses testified to this
Facts: Robert Baculi and Apolonio Caballeros were fact as well.
convicted as accessories to the crime of
assassination or murder of four American school-‐ Issue:
teachers, having buried the corpses of the victims to 1. WON the defendants are guilty of the crime
conceal the crime. They were allegedly coerced. of rebellion
2. WON defendants incur criminal liability
Issue: WON the defense under Art12(5) is tenable when they signed the documents?

Held: Yes. Not only is Baculi’s confession that he Held: No. The evidence for the prosecution and the
only assisted in the burial of the corpses because he documents signed by the accused is not sufficient to
was compelled by the murderers, but this was prove the guilt of the latter or to justify the
corroborated by the only eyewitness to the crime, imposition upon them of the penalty inflicted by the
Sabate. Sabate said that he was present when the judgment of the court below. The facts, established
Americans were killed; that Baculi was not a by the evidence, that the defendants were
member of the group of murderers but he was in kidnapped by brigands who belonged to the
the banana plantation gathering some bananas; that Contreras Band, and that they signed the said
when he heard the shots he began to run; that he documents under compulsion and while in
was, however, seen by Damaso and Isidro, the captivity, relieve them from all criminal liability
leaders of the band; that the latter called to him and from the crime of rebellion of which they are
striking him with the butts of their guns forced him charged. The conduct of the defendants in
to bury the corpses. As for Caballeros, there was no presenting themselves to the authorities as soon as
proof that he took any part in the execution of the they were released is corroborative of their
crime; there was conclusive proof to the contrary. innocence. Guilt of defendants was not established
Sabate and Baculi declared that Caballeros did not beyond reasonable doubt.
take any part in the burial of the aforesaid corpses,
nor was he even in the place of the occurrence Insuperable cause
Rañeses 112

Reyes: 2. Other absolutory causes. Aside from the
1. Elements: justifying and exempting circumstances,
1. That an act is required by law to be there are also other absolutory causes (Arts.
done; 6, 20, 124, 247, 280, 332, 344)
2. That a person fails to perform such 3. Instigation is an absolutory cause.
act; 1. Must be made by public officers or
3. That his failure to perform such act private detectives
was due to some lawful or 4. Entrapment is not an absolutory cause.
insuperable cause. 5. There is a wide difference between
2. Basis: Absence of intent. entrapment and instigation, for while in
the latter case the instigator practically
U.S. v. Vicentillo, 19 Phil. 118 (1911) induces the would-‐be accused into the
Facts: Municipal Pres. Vicentillo was found guilty of commission of the offense and himself
illegal and arbitrary detention after detaining Ney become a co-‐principal, in entrapment,
for three days without bringing the latter to the ways and means are resorted to for the
proper judicial authority for trial. purpose of trapping and capturing the
lawbreaker in the execution of his
Issue: WON Pres. acted arbitrarily and without criminal plan.
legal authority in such detainment 6. There is neither instigation nor
entrapment when the violation of the law
Held: No. It was conclusively proven that neither is simply discovered.
the local justice of the peace nor his auxiliary were 7. Assurance of immunity by a public
in the municipality, and to reach the justice of the officer does not exempt a person from
peace of either of the two adjoining municipalities, criminal liability.
it was necessary to take a long journey by boat.
People v. Lua Chu, 56 Phil. 44 (1931)
People v. Bandian, 63 Phil. 530 (1936) Background of Case: On Nov. 1929, Uy Se Tieng,
Facts: Josefina was seen going to the bushes was the consignee of the Shipments of Opium
coming from Hongkong, who represented agents of
apparently to respond to a call of nature. When she
the real Owners of Shipments of Opium containing
emerged from the bushes her clothes were stained 3,252 tins. He collaborated w/ Samson & Natividad
with blood and she was weak and dizzy. Neighbors of the Customs by paying them an amount of P6K
helped her go up to her house and later found a for the opium to be released safely from Customs.
dead newborn in the bushes. On Dec. 1929, upon arrival of the Shipment of Opium
in the ports of Cebu, Uy Se Tieng informed Samson
Issue: WON she is guilty of infanticide that the former consult the real owners on how to
proceed the payment of P6K & will come over to

Samson house on Dec. 17, 1929 to inform the
Held: No. Evidence does not show that she decision of the owners.
willfully, consciously or imprudently left her child
when she was continuously ill, dizzy, and On the same day Samson informed the
inexperienced as to childbirth. Constabulary represented by Captain Buencosejo &
the Provincial Fiscal requesting a stenographer to
take down the conversation between Samson & Uy
Instigation and entrapment
Se Teung.
Reyes:
1. Absolutory causes: those where the act On the night of Dec. 17, 1929, Captain Buencosejo
committed is a crime but for reasons of and a stenographer named Jumapao from a law firm
public policy and sentiment there is no and hid themselves behind the curtains in the house
penalty imposed. of Samson to witness the conversation between
Samson, Uy Se Teung and Lua Chu.
Rañeses 113

Captain Buencosejo & Jumapao noted the ff. ordered the opium
important facts: without the consent or
1. Uy Se Teung informed Samson that Lua Chu was participation of Juan
one of the owners of the Opium. Samson.
2. Lua Chu informed Samson that aside from him, • Did not help the accused
there were co-‐owners named Tan and another to successfully
located in Amoy. implement there plan
3. Lua Chu promised to pay the P6,000 upon rather, Samson assured
delivery of the opium from the warehouse of Uy the seizure of the
Se Tieng. imported drug and the
4. A Customs Collector had a conversation before arrest of the smugglers.
when Samson was on vacation in Europe, with Trial judge Not one of the means
Lua Chu and agreed on the business of shipping refusal of prescribed in section 342 of
the Opium. exclusion of the Code of Civil Procedures
The following morning Uy Se Tieng and companion, Juan Samson in
Uy Ay presented papers to Samson & Captain the witness
Buencosejo showed up & caught them in the act & stand even
arrested the two Chinese. The Constabulary then though he was
arrested Lua Chu & confiscated P50K worth of already
Opium (3,252 tins). dismissed from
Facts of Case: An Appeal was made by Uy Se Tieng the Customs
& Lua Chu & made 10 assignments of errors made secret service
by the TC in its judgment. In accepting 1. The transcript contains
the transcript certain admissions made by
Appelant’s Held taken down by the defendants.
Point of Jumapao as the 2. Stenographer attested that
Defense true & correct it was faithfully taken down.
Juan Samson 1. A public official shall be conversation 3. Corroborated by statement
induced the involved in the crime if: between Juan of Juan Statement in the
defendants to • He induces a person to Samson & Uy court.
import the commit a crime for Se Tieng
opium. personal gain
• Does not take the Concluding Remarks:
necessary steps to seize Entrapment
the instrument of the 1. The practice of entrapping persons into crime
crime and to arrest the for the purpose of instituting criminal
offenders before he prosecutions
obtained the profits in 2. It is a scheme or technique ensuring the
mind. apprehension of the criminals by being in the
• He obtained the profits in actual crime scene.
mind even through 3. The law officers shall not be guilty to the crime if
afterwards does take the he have done the following:
necessary steps seize the a. He does not induce a person to commit a
instrument of the crime crime for personal gain or is not involved in
& to arrest the offenders. the planning of the crime.
2. Even though Juan Samson b. Does take the necessary steps to seize the
smoothed the way for the instrument of the crime and to arrest the
introduction of the offenders before he obtained the profits in
prohibited drugs, the ff mind.
should be noted that held
Samson not guilty for the Instigation: This is the involvement of a law officer
crime: in the crime itself in the following manners:
• The accused have already a. He induces a person to commit a crime for
planned and actually personal gain
Rañeses 114

b. Doesn’t take the necessary steps to seize the 1. Ordinary mitigating – those
instrument of the crime & to arrest the offenders enumerated in subsections 1 to 10
before he obtained the profits in mind. of Art. 13.
c. He obtained the profits in mind even through
afterwards does take the necessary steps seize Those mentioned in subsection 1
the instrument of the crime and to arrest the of Art. 13 are ordinary mitigating
offenders. circumstances, if Art. 69, for
instance is not applicable.
United States v. Phelps, 16 Phil. 440 (1910) 2. Privileged mitigating –
Facts: BIR employee Smith (under the guise of a. Art. 68. Penalty to be imposed
Lockwood) came to Phelps’ house and asked if upon a person under eighteen
Phelps knew anyone who could assist Smith to years of age. When the offender
smoke opium. Smith acted like he was having is a minor under eighteen years
convulsions and he needed to smoke opium but of age and his case falls under
refused to be brought to the hospital, so Phelps the provisions of the Juvenile
helped him find a Chinaman who prepared opium. Justice and Welfare Act, the
following rules shall be
At the opium house, a Chinaman gave them a pipe of observed:
opium, which Smith took as evidence to get a (1) A person under fifteen
warrant of arrest. Phelps was arrested 40 minutes years of age, and a
later. person over fifteen and
under eighteen years of
The Chinaman testified that he prepared the opium age who acted without
after repeated demands by Smith. discernment, are exempt
from criminal liability;
Issue: WON Phelps was instigated (2) Upon a person over
fifteen and under
Held: Yes. Smith not only suggested but also stated eighteen years of age
that he desired to commit the offense and would who acted with
pay the expense necessary for the commission of discernment, the penalty
the act. next lower than that
prescribed by law shall
When an employee of the Government encourages be imposed, but always
or induces persons to commit a crime in order to in the proper period. (As
prosecute them, such conduct is most amended by RA No.
reprehensible. 9344)
b. Art. 69. Penalty to be imposed
Phelps is not guilty. The judgment of the lower when the crime committed is
court is reversed and the appellant acquitted. not wholly excusable. A
penalty lower by one or two
C. Mitigating Circumstances degrees than that prescribed by
Reyes: law shall be imposed if the deed
1. Mitigating circumstances are those is not wholly excusable for
which, if present in the commission of reason of the lack of some of the
the crime, do not entirely free the actor conditions required to justify the
from criminal liability, but serve only to same or to exempt from criminal
seduce the penalty. liability x x x, provided that the
2. Basis: Mitigating circumstances are based majority of such conditions be
on the diminution of either freedom of present.
action, intelligence, or intent, or on the c. Art. 64. Rules for the
lesser perversity of the offender. application of penalties which
3. Classes of mitigating circumstances. contain three periods. In cases
in which the penalties
prescribed by law contain three
Rañeses 115

periods, whether it be a single 6. Mitigating circumstances only reduce the
divisible penalty or composed of penalty, but do not change the nature of
three different penalties, each the crime.
one of which forms a period x x • Where the accused is charged with
x, the courts shall observe for murder, as when treachery as a
the application of the penalty the qualifying circumstance is alleged in the
following rules, according to information, the fact that there is a
whether there are or are not generic or privileged mitigating
mitigating or aggravating circumstance does not change the felony
circumstances: or homicide.
• If there is any ordinary or generic
x x x. mitigating circumstance, not offset by
any aggravating circumstance, the
(5) When there are two or more accused should be found guilty of the
mitigating circumstances and no same crime of murder, but the penalty
aggravating circumstances are to be imposed is reduced to the
present, the court shall impose minimum of the penalty for murder.
the penalty next lower to that • If there is a privileged mitigating
prescribed by law, in the period circumstance, the penalty for murder
that it may deem applicable, will be reduced by one or two degrees
according to the number and lower.
nature of such circumstances. • In every case, the accused should be
held guilty for murder.
x x x. • The judgment of the trial court that the
4. Privileged mitigating circumstances mitigating circumstance of non-‐habitual
applicable only to particular crimes. drunkenness changes the felony to
1. Voluntary release of the person homicide is erroneous, because
illegally detained within 3 days treachery is alleged in the information
without the offender attaining his and the crime committed by the
purpose and before the institution of appellant is that of murder. The
criminal action. (Art. 268, par. 3) mitigating circumstance reduces the
The penalty is one degree lower. penalty provided by law but does not
2. Abandonment without justification change the nature of the crime. (People
of the spouse who committed v. Talam, C.A., 56 O.G. 3654)
adultery. (Art. 333, par. 3) The
penalty is one degree lower.
RPC, Art. 13
5. Distinctions.
1. Ordinary mitigating circumstance is Mitigating circumstances. -‐ The following are
susceptible of being offset by any mitigating circumstances:
aggravating circumstance; while
privileged mitigating cannot be 1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when
offset by aggravating circumstance. all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to
2. Ordinary mitigating, if not offset by exempt from criminal liability in the respective
an aggravating circumstance, cases are not attendant.
produces only the effect of applying
the penalty provided by law for the 2. That the offender is under eighteen years of age
crime in its minimum period, in case or over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he
of divisible penalty; whereas shall be proceeded against in accordance with the
privileged mitigating produces the provisions of article 80.
effect of imposing upon the offender
the penalty lower by one or two 3. That the offender had no intention to commit so
degrees that that provided by law for grave a wrong as that committed.
the crime.

Rañeses 116

4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part § Uncontrollable fear. (Art. 12,
of the offended party immediately preceded the act. par. 6)
2. Same. When all the requisites
5. That the act was committed in the immediate necessary to justify the act are not
vindication of a grave offense to the one committing attendant.
the felony (delito) his spouse, ascendants, § Incomplete self-‐defense,
descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted defense of relatives, and
brothers or sisters or relatives by affinity within the defense of stranger. Unlawful
same degrees. aggression must be present,
it being an indispensable
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful requisite. What is absent is
as naturally to have produced passion or either one or both of the last
obfuscation. two requisites.
3. Same. Par. 1 is applicable only
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered when unlawful aggression is
himself to a person in authority or his agents, or present but the other two
that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before requisites are not in any of the
the court prior to the presentation of the evidence cases referred to in circumstances
for the prosecution. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of Art. 11.
§ Art. 13, par. 1, applies only
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or when unlawful aggression is
otherwise suffering some physical defect which present, but the other two
thus restricts his means of action, defense, or requisites are not present.
communication with his fellow beings. (Guevara)
§ When two of the three
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the requisites mentioned therein
exercise of the will-‐power of the offender without are present (for example,
however depriving him of consciousness of his acts. unlawful aggression and any
one of the other two), the
10. And, finally, any other circumstance of a similar case must not be considered
nature and analogous to those above mentioned. as one in which an ordinary
or generic mitigating
circumstance is present.
Reyes: Instead, it should be
1. Par. 1. “Those mentioned in the considered a privileged
preceding chapter.” mitigating circumstance
1. Refers to justifying and exempting referred to in Art. 69 of this
circumstances. Code.
§ Self-‐defense (Art. 11, par. 1); § If there is no unlawful
§ Defense of relatives (Art. 11, aggression, there could be
par. 2); no self-‐defense or defense of
§ Defense of stranger (Art. 11, a relative, whether complete
par. 3); or incomplete.
§ State of necessity (Art. 11, 4. Same. Incomplete justifying
par. 4); circumstance of avoidance of
§ Performance of duty (Art. greater evil or injury. If any of the
11, par. 5); last two requisites is absent, there is
§ Obedience to order of only a mitigating circumstance.
superior (Art. 11, par. 6); 5. Same. Incomplete justifying
§ Minority over 9 and under circumstance of performance of
15 years of age (Art. 12, par. duty. Since the Supreme Court
3); considered one of the two requisites
§ Causing injury by mere as constituting the majority, it seems
accident (Art. 12, par. 4); and that there is no ordinary mitigating
Rañeses 117

circumstance under Art. 13, par. 1, background without resulting to formal
when the justifying or exempting court proceedings. (Section 4[j], Rep. Act.
circumstance has two requisites No. 9344)
only.
6. Same. When all the requisites “Diversion Program” refers to the program
necessary to exempt from that the child in conflict with the law is
criminal liability are not required to undergo after he/she is found
attendant. responsible for an offense without resorting
7. Same. Incomplete exempting to formal court proceedings. (Section 4[j],
circumstance of minority over 9 Rep. Act. No. 9344)
and under 15 years of age. The 4. Same. System of Diversion. Children in
case of a minor invoking this conflict with the law shall undergo diversion
circumstance is specifically covered procceedings without undergoing court
by Art. 68. proceedings subject to the following
8. Same. Incomplete exempting conditions:
circumstance of accident. If the 1. Imposable penalty is not more
second requisite (performance of a than six (6) years. Law
lawful act) and the first part of the enforcement officer or Punong
fourth requisite are absent (without Barangay with the assistance of the
fault), the case will fall under Art. local DSWD officer or other
365 which punishes a felony by members of the Local Councils for
negligence or imprudence. the Protection of Children (LCPC)
§ In effect, there is a mitigating established in a all levels of local
circumstance, because the government shall conduct
penalty is lower than that mediation, family conferencing and
provided for intentional conciliation and, where appropriate,
felony. adopt indigenous modes of conflict
If the first requisite (performance of resolution in accordance with the
a lawful act) and the second part of best interest of the child with a view
the fourth requisite (without to accomplishing the objectives of
intention of causing it) are absent, it restorative justice and the
will be an intentional felony. The 2nd formulation of a diversion program.
and 3rd requisites will not be present 2. In victimless crimes where the
either. imposable penalty is not more
• In this case, there is not even than six (6) years of
a mitigating circumstance. imprisonment. Local DSWD officer
9. Same. Incomplete exempting shall meet with child and his/her
circumstance of uncontrollable parents or guardians for the
fear. If only of the requisites of development of the appropriate
uncontrollable fear as an exemting diversion and rehabilitation
circumstance is present, there is program, in coordination with the
only mitigating circumstance. Barangay Council for the Protection
2. Par. 2. Impliedly repealed by RA 9344. An of Children (BCPC).
offender fifteen (15) or over but under 3. Imposable penalty for the crime
eighteen (18) years of age is exempt from committed exceeds six (6) years
criminal liability should he/she act without imprisonment. Diversion measures
discernment. may be resorted to only by the court.
3. Same. Diversion and Diversion Program (see Section 23, Republic Act No.
under RA 9344. “Diversion” refers to an 9344)
alternative, child-‐appropriate process of 5. Same. Contract of Diversion. If during the
determining the responsibility and conferencing, mediation or conciliation, the
treatment of a child in conflict with the law child voluntarily admits the commission of
on the basis of his/her social, cultural, the act, a diversion program shall be
economic, pasychological, or educational developed when appropriate and desirable
Rañeses 118

as determined under Section 30. Such to the law enforcement officer, prosecutor
admission shall not be used against the child or the appropriate court, as the case may be.
in any subsequent judicial, quasi-‐judicial or Upon the issuance of the corresponding
administrative proceedings. The diversion document, certifying to the fact that no
program shall be effective and binding if agreement has been reached by the parties,
accepted by the parties concerned. The the case shall be filed according to the
acceptance shall be in writing and signed by regular process. (See Section 27, Republic
the parties concerned and the appropriate Act No. 9344)
authorities. The local social welfare and
development officer shall supervise the If the offense does not fall under Section
implementation of the diversion program. 23(a) and (b), or if the child, his/her parents
The diversion proceedings shall be or guardian does not consent to a diversion,
completed within forty-‐five (45) days. The the Women and Children Protection Desk of
period of prescription of the offense shall be the PNP, or other law enforcement officer
suspended until the completion of the handling the case of the child under custody,
diversion proceedings but not to exceed to the prosecutor or judge concerned for the
forty-‐five (45) days. conduct of inquest and/or preliminary
investigation to determine whether or not
The child shall present himself/herself to the child should remain under custody and
the competent authorities that imposed the correspondingly charged in court. The
diversion program at least once a month for document transmitting said records shall
reporting and evaluation of the display the word "CHILD" in bold letters.
effectiveness of the program. (Sec. 28, Rep. Act No. 9344)
8. Determination of age of child in conflict
Failure to comply with the terms and with the law. The child in conflict with the
conditions of the contract of diversion, as law shall enjoy the presumption of minority.
certified by the local social welfare and He/She shall enjoy all the rights of a child in
development officer, shall give the offended conflict with the law until he/she is proven
party the option to institute the appropriate to be eighteen (18) years old or older. The
legal action. age of a child may be determined from the
child's birth certificate, baptismal certificate
The period of prescription of the offense or any other pertinent documents. In the
shall be suspended during the effectivity of absence of these documents, age may be
the diversion program, but not exceeding a based on information from the child
period of two (2) years. (Sec. 26, Rep. Act. himself/herself, testimonies of other
No. 9344) persons, the physical appearance of the
6. Where diversion may be conducted. child and other relevant evidence. In case of
Diversion may be conducted at the doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be
Katarungang Pambarangay, the police resolved in his/her favor.
investigation or the inquest or preliminary
investigation stage and at all 1evels and Any person contesting the age of the child in
phases of the proceedings including judicial conflict with the law prior to the filing of the
level. (Section 24, Republic Act No. 9344) information in any appropriate court may
7. Duty of the Punong Barangay or the Law file a case in a summary proceeding for the
Enforcement Officer when there is no determination of age before the Family
diversion. If the offense does not fall under Court which shall decide the case within
Section 23(a) and (b), or if the child, his/her twenty-‐four (24) hours from receipt of the
parents or guardian does not consent to a appropriate pleadings of all interested
diversion, the Punong Barangay handling parties.
the case shall, within three (3) days from
determination of the absence of jurisdiction If a case has been fiied against the child in
over the case or termination of the conflict with the law and is pending in the
diversion proceedings, as the case may be, appropriate court, the person shall file a
forward the records of the case of the child motion to determine the age of the child in
Rañeses 119

the same court where the case is pending. 1. It is appreciated when the victim
Pending hearing on the said motion, dies.
proceedings on the main case shall be 9. Not applicable to felonies by negligence.
suspended. 10. Applicable only to offenses resulting in
physical injuries or material harm.
In all proceedings, law enforcement officers, 11. Basis: Intent, an element of voluntariness in
prosecutors, judges and other government intentional felony, is diminished.
officials concerned shall exert all efforts at
determining the age of the child in conflict People v. Ural, 56 SCRA 138 (1974)
with the law. (Section 7, Republic Act No. Facts: Ural was convicted of murder by the
9344) Zamboanga CFI sentencing him to reclusion
9. That the offender is over 70 years of age perpetua, and orderinh im to indemnify the heirs of
is only a generic mitigating Felix Napola, in the sum of P12K and to pay the
circumstance. costs. The judgment of conviction was based on the
10. Basis: The mitigating circumstance in testimony of Brigido Alberto, former detention
paragraph 2 of Art. 13 are based on the prisoner who witnessed what happened. Ural, a
diminution of intelligence, a condition of policeman, boxed the deceased, Felix Napola, a
voluntariness. detention prisoner, inside the jail. As a consequence
of the fistic blows, the deceased collapsed on the
Lack of intention to commit so grave a floor. The accused stepped on the prostate body and
wrong left. After a while he returned with a bottle poured
Reyes: its contents on the re¬cumbent body of the
1. This circumstance can be taken into deceased, ignited it with a match and left the cell
account only when the facts proven show again. As a consequence, the victim later on died of
tat there is a notable and evident the burns. The crime committed by appellant Ural
disproportion between the means was murder by means of fire (incendio) (Art
employed to execute the criminal act and 248(3), RPC)
its consequences. (U.S. vs. Reyes, 36 Phil.
904, 907) Issue: WON the mitigating circumstance of lack of
2. Intention, being an internal state, must intention to commit so grave a wrong can be
be judged by external acts. Intention, as appreciated in thie case at bar.
an internal act, is judged not only by the
proportion of the means employed by him Held: Yes. The trial court correctly held that the
to the evil produced by his act, but also by accused took advantage of his public position (Art
the fact that the blow was or was not aimed 14(1), RPC) but it failed to appreciate the mitigating
at a vital part of the body. cir¬cumstance of "no intention to commit so grave a
3. The weapon used, the part of the body wrong as that committed." (Art.13(3), RPC). The
injured, the injury inflicted, and the intention, as an internal act, is judged not only by
manner it is inflicted may show that the the pro-‐portion of the means employed by him to
accused intended the wrong committed. the evil produced by his act, but also by the fact that
4. Not applicable when the offender the blow was or was not aimed at a vital part of the
employed brute force. body. Thus, it may be deduced from the proven
5. Lack of intention to commit so grave a facts that the accused had no intent to kill the
wrong mitigating in robbery with victim, his design being only to maltreat him, such
homicide. that when he realized the fearful consequences of
6. Appreciated In murder qualified by his felo¬nious act, he allowed the victim to secure
circumstances based on manner of medical treatment at the municipal dispensary.
commission, not on state of mind of
accused. Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong offsets
7. Not appreciated in murder qualified by the generic aggravating, circumstance of abuse of
treachery. his official position. The trial court properly
8. Lack of intent to kill not mitigating in imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua which is
physical injuries. the medium period of the penalty for murder (Arts
64(4) and 248, RPC)
Rañeses 120

Sufficient provocation Leonor stabbed Dr. Tarlengco, grabbed her watch
Reyes: and ran away. Dr. Tarlengco struggled out of the
1. Provocation is understood as any unjust clinic and saw the man running out of the building,
or improper conduct or act of the Dr. Tarlengco shouted for help.
offended party, capable of exciting,
inciting, or irritating any one. Reynaldo Baquilod, building security guard, heard
2. Requisites: Dr. Tarlengco shouting, “Tulungan ninyo ako,
1. That the provocation must be sinaksak ako ng taong iyon.” Baquilod noticed that
sufficient. Dr. Tarlengco was referring to the man “running out
§ Sufficient – adequate to of the building, coming from upstairs.” Baquilod
excite a person to commit chased Leonor up to Daang Hari Street where he
the wrong and must was joined by traffic policeman Luis Galeno who
accordingly be was alerted by people running after a person with
proportionate to its gravity. bloodied shirt. When Galeno and Baquilod caught
§ Dependent on the act up with Leonor, Baquilod grabbed Leonor’s hand
constituting provocation, the and took therefrom a Titus wristwatch and P900
social standing of the person cash. When queried, Leonor readily answered, “Sir,
provoked, the place and the hindi ko naman gusto po ito. Ginawa ko lang ito
time when the provocation dahil kailangan ng pamilya ko.” Leonor was
is made. brought to the Parañaque Police Block Station, PO3
2. That it must originate from the Interia who was instructed to investigate proceeded
offended party. to Dr. Tarlengco’s clinic, where they saw, among
3. That the provocation must be other[ ] [things], a bloodied balisong (fan knife) at
immediate to the act, i.e., to the the ground floor of the Hermano’s building.
commission of the crime by the Baquilod turned over the watch and money he took
person who is provoked. from Leonor to Interia. Thereafter, Galeno and
3. Difference between sufficient Interia returned to the police station where they
provocation as requisite of incomplete were interrogated.
self-‐defense and as a mitigating
circumstance. As an element of self-‐ Issue: WON the mitigating circumstance of
defense, it pertains to its absence on the sufficient provocation can be invoked in the case at
part of the person defending himself, while bar.
as a mitigating circumstance, it pertains to
its presence on the part of the offended Held: No. CHRISTOPHER is thus claiming that a
party. push and “bad words” justify retaliation with a
4. Provocation must be immediate to the knife. Such claim is undeserving of belief and does
commission of the crime. not entitle CHRISTOPHER to the benefit of the
5. Basis: Diminution of intelligence and intent. mitigating circumstance prior provocation by the
offended party.
People v. Leonor, 305 SCRA 285
Facts: In the morning of May 15, 1995, Dr. Maria Immediate vindication of a grave offense
Teresa Tarlengco, a dentist by profession, was at Reyes:
her clinic at the third floor of the Hermanos 1. Requisites:
Building, Bicutan, Parañaque, Metro Manila, when a 1. That there be a grave offense done
man entered and inquired about the cost of tooth to the one committing the feloy, his
extraction. After Dr. Tarlengco quoted her spouse, ascendants, descendants,
professional fee, the man, who was later on legitimate, natural or adopted
identified as Christopher Leonor, said that he would brothers or sisters, or relatives by
come back and then left in a hurry. Minutes later, affinity within the same degrees;
Leonor came back[,] and Dr. Tarlengco told him to 2. That the felony is committed in
take a seat and wait. Dr. Tarlengco was preparing vindication of such grave offense. A
her dental instruments when Leonor barged in and lapse of time is allowed between the
demanded money. Dr. Tarlengco told Leonor that vindication and the doing of the
her money [was] on the table. On hearing this, grave offense.
Rañeses 121

§ The word “immediate” used came up behind him and struck him on the head
in the English text is not the with an ax.
correct translation. The
Spanish text uses “proxima.” Issue: WON immediate vindication of a grave
2. Distinguish provocation from offense is available as a mitigating circumstance in
vindication. this case.
1. In the case of provocation, it is made
directly only to the person Held: While it may be mere trifle to an average
committing the felony; in person, it evidently was a serious matter to an old
vindication, the grave offense may man, to be made the butt of a joke in the presence of
be committed also against the so many guests. The accused was given the benefit
offender’s relatives mentioned by of the mitigating circumstance of vindication of a
law. grave offense. In this case, the age of the accused
2. In vindication, the offended party and the place were considered in determining the
must have done a grave offense to gravity of the offense.
the offender or his relatives
mentioned by the law; in People v. Pajares, 210 SCRA 237 (1992)
provocation, the cause that brought Facts: Renato R. Perez, a resident of 1386-‐K Burgos
about the provocation need not be a St., Paco, Manila, is the same Renato Perez who is
grave offense. the victim in Criminal Case No. 85-‐40580 for
3. In provocation, it is necessary that Frustrated Homicide. He testified that at about
the provocation or threat 11:30 p.m. on October 11, 1985, he and the
immediately preceded the act, i.e., deceased Diosdado Viojan were on their way to a
that there be no interval of time store located at Gomez St., Paco, Manila to buy
between the provocation and the something. They were walking abreast with each
commission of the crime; while in other, the deceased was at his right side and was a
vindication, the vindication of the bit ahead of him, when appellant Pajares suddenly
grave offense may be proximate, appeared from behind and hit Viojan with a
which admits of an interval of time baseball bat at the back of his head. The latter ran a
between the grave offense done by short distance and fell down near the store of one
the offended party and the Alex Blas. When Perez tried to help Viojan. he, too,
commission of the crime by the was attacked by Pajares with the baseball bat
accused. hitting him at the back below the left shoulder. He
3. Same. Reason for difference. Greater then grappled with the appellant for the possession
leniency in the case of vindication is due of the baseball bat but the latter's companions,
undoubtedly to the fact that it concerns the namely: Rudy Dokling, Popoy, Inggo and Lauro
honor of a person, an offense which is more Duado mauled him until he lost consciousness. He
worthy of consideration than mere spite was brought to the Philippine General Hospital by
against the one giving the provocation or Eugene Panibit and Joselito Perez where he was
threat. treated for the injuries he sustained. He identified in
4. Basis to determine the gravity of offense court the baseball bat used by Pajares.
in vindication. Social standing, place and
time when the insult was made. Issue: WON the mitigating circumstance of
5. Basis: Diminution of the conditions of immediate vindication can be applied in the case at
voluntariness. bar.

United States v. Ampar, 37 Phil. 201 (1917) Held: Yes. Having established the guilt of herein
Facts: During a fiesta, an old man 70 years of age appellant. the next question is whether or not the
asked the deceased, Patobo, for some roast pig. In mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of
the presence of many guests, the deceased insulted a grave offense can be appreciated in his favor.
the old man, saying: "There is no more. Come here While it may be true that appellant's brother
and I will make roast pig of you." A little later, while Roberto Pajares was mauled by the companions of
the deceased was squatting down, the old man the deceased at about 11:30 a.m. of October 11,
1985 as show in the entry in the Police Blotter
Rañeses 122

(Exhibits "A" to "A-‐3", Original Records of Criminal 8. Provocation and obfuscation arising
Case No. 85-‐40579. pp. 30-‐33) and by appellant's from one and the same cause should be
brother himself (Exhibits "G", "Q" and "A" Nos. 7-‐9, treated as only one mitigating
Ibid., p. 219), it must be emphasized that there is a circumstance.
lapse of about ten (10) hours between said incident 9. Vindication of grave offense cannot co-‐
and the killing of Diosdado Viojan. Such interval of exist with passion and obfuscation.
time was more than sufficient to enable appellant to 10. Exception – When there are other facts,
recover his serenity (People v. Benito, G.R. No. L-‐ although closely connected. But where
32042, December 17, 1976 [74 SCRA 271]). Hence, there are other facts, although closely
the mitigating circumstance of immediate connected with the fact upon which one
vindication of a grave offense cannot be appreciated circumstance is premised, the other
in his favor. circumstance may be appreciated as based
on the other fact. (People vs. Diokno, 63
Passion or obfuscation Phil. 601)
Reyes: 11. Passion or obfuscation compatible with
1. Requisites: lack of intention to commit so grave a
1. The accused acted upon impulse. wrong.
2. The impulse must be so powerful 12. Passion or obfuscation incompatible
that it naturally produced passion or with treachery.
obfuscation in him. 1. Vindication or obfuscation cannot be
2. Rules for application of this paragraph. considered when the person
• Passion or obfuscation may attacked is not the one who gave
constitute a mitigating circumstance cause therefor.
only when the same arose from 13. Passion and obfuscation cannot co-‐exist
lawful sentiments. with evident premeditation.
• For the above reason, there is no 14. Passion or obfuscation distinguished
mitigating circumstance when: from provocation.
1. The act is committed in a 15. Passion or obfuscation distinguished
spirit of lawlessness; or from provocation.
2. The act is committed in a 1. Provocation comes from the injured
spirit of revenge. party; passion or obfuscation is
3. Exercise of a right or fulfillment of duty produced by an impulse which may
is not a proper source for passion or be caused by provocation.
obfuscation. 2. Provocation must immediately
4. No passion or obfuscation after 24 hours, precede the commission of the
or several hours or half an hour. crime; in passion or obfuscation, the
1. The defense must prove that the act offense which engenders
which produced passion or perturbation of mind need not be
obfuscation took place at a time not immediate. It is only required that
far removed from the commission of the influence thereof lasts until the
the crime. moment the crime is committed.
2. The crime committed must be the 3. In both, the effect is the loss of
result of a sudden impulse of natural reason and self-‐control on the part
and uncontrollable fear. of the offender.
5. Obfuscation – when relationship is
illegitimate – is not mitigating. United States v. Hicks, 14 Phil. 217 (1909)
6. The cause producing passion or Facts: For about 5 years, the accused and the
obfuscation must come from the deceased lived illicitly in the manner of husband
offended party. and wife. Afterwards, the deceased separated from
7. Basis: Passion or obfuscation is a mitigating the accused and lived with another man. The
circumstance because the offender who acts accused enraged by such conduct, killed the
with passion or obfuscation suffers a deceased.
diminution of intelligence and intent.
Rañeses 123

Issue: WON the mitigating circumstance of passion 3. A diseased mind, not amounting to
or obfuscation can be invoked. insanity, may give place to mitigation.
4. Basis: Diminution of intelligence and intent.
Held: No. Even if it is true that the accused acted
with obfuscation because of jealousy, the mitigating People v. Javier, 311 SCRA 576 (1999)
circumstance cannot be considered in his favor Facts:
because the causes which mitigate criminal 1. Dec 1954: Accused-‐appellant Eduardo Javier
responsibility for the loss of self-‐control are such was married to Florentina Laceste. They
which originate from legitimate feelings, and not begot 10 children. On June ’96, after 41 yrs
those which arise from vicious, unworthy and of marriage, Javier admitted killing his wife.
immoral passions. 2. Testimonies of SPO1 Rotelio Pacho, a desk
investigator, and Consolacion Javier Panit &
United States v. De la Cruz, 22 Phil. 429 (1912) Alma Javier, daughters of the sps:
Facts: The accused, in the heat of passion, killed his 3. Between 2–3am, Consolacion, who lived 10-‐
common-‐law wife upon discovering her in flagrante 15m. away, heard her mom shouting, “your
in carnal communication with a common father is going to kill me!” (translated from
acquaintance. local dialect). She ran outside & met her
sister Alma who was weeping & informed
Issue: WON the mitigating circumstance of passion her of their parents’ quarrel. Together, they
or obfuscation can be invoked in the case at bar. went to their brother Manuel’s house, about
70-‐80m. away from their parents’ house.
Held: Yes. In this a case, the accused was entitled to 4. Upon reaching the latter, Manuel, who
the mitigating circumstance of passion or entered first, found the lifeless body of his
obfuscation. The facts in this case must be mother in their bedroom and his father,
distinguished from the case of U.S. vs. Hicks where wounded in the abdomen.
it was found that the accused, deliberately and after 5. Their father, Eduardo, confessed to son
due reflection resolved to kill the woman who had Manuel that he killed his wife and thereafter
left him for another man. With a clean and well-‐ stabbed himself.
prepared weapon, he entered the house; disguising 6. April 1997: RTC held Javier guilty of the
his intention and calming her by his apparent crime of parricide and sentenced him to
repose and tranquility, doubtless in order to suffer the penalty of death, and to indemnify
successfully accomplish his criminal design. In this the heirs of the victim in the amount of
case, the cause of the alleged passion and PhP50K as moral damages and PhP21,730
obfuscation of the accused was his vexation, as actual expenses.
disappointment and anger engendered by the 7. In his appeal, Javier claims he killed his wife
refusal of the woman to continue to live in illicit because he was suffering from insomnia for
relations with him, which she had a perfect right to a month and at the time of the killing, his
do. In the present case, however, the impulse was mind went totally blank and he did not
caused by the sudden revelation that she was know what he was doing. He claims that he
untrue to him, and his discovery of her in flagrante was insane then.
in the arms of another.
Issues:
Illness 1. WON accused-‐appellant Javier can claim
Reyes: mitigating circumstances of illness and of
1. Requisites: passion and obfuscation
1. That the illness of the offender must 2. WON he should be sentence to suffer a
diminish the exercise of his will-‐ lower penalty
power.
2. That such illness should not deprive Held:
the offender of consciousness of his 1. No to both. On illness, since Javier has
acts. already admitted to the killing, it is
2. When the offender completely lost the incumbent upon him to prove the claimed
exercise of will-‐power, it may be an mitigating circumstance. OSG found no
exempting circumstance. sufficient evidence or medical finding to
Rañeses 124

support his claim. For the mitigating 2. Over 60 years old with failing eyesight,
circumstance of illness of the offender to be similar to over 70 years of age
appreciated, the law requires the presence mentioned in par. 2.
of the following requisites: 3. Outraged feeling of owner of animal
1. Illness must diminish the exercise of taken for ransom analogous to
the willpower of the offender, and vindication of a grave offense.
2. Such illness should not deprive the 4. Outraged feeling of creditor, similar to
offender of consciousness of his acts. passion and obfuscation mentioned in
par. 6.
For the circumstance of passion and 5. Impulse of jealous feeling, similar to
obfuscation of the offender to be passion and obfuscation.
appreciated, the law requires the presence 6. Manifestations of Battered Wife
of the ff requisites: Syndrome, analogous to an illness that
1. There should be an act both diminishes the exercise of will power.
unlawful and sufficient to produce 7. Esprit de corps, similar to passion and
such condition of mind, and obfuscation.
2. Such act w/c produced the 8. Voluntary restitution of stolen property,
obfuscation was not far removed similar to voluntary surrender
from the commission of the crime by mentioned in paragraph 7.
a considerable length of time, during 9. Extreme poverty and necessity, similar
w/c the perpetrator might recover to incomplete justification based on state
his moral equanimity. of necessity.
10. Testifying for the prosecution, analogous
The defense never presented any medical to plea of guilty.
record of the accused nor was a psychiatrist
presented to validate the defense of Canta v. People, 353 SCRA 250 (2001)
insanity. None of the elements-‐requisites Facts:
were proved to be present & in his 1. Narciso Gabriel acquired a cow upon its
testimony, Javier even stated that he was birth on March 10, 1984
not jealous of his wife. Equally important, 2. Narciso left it with his sister in law Erlinda
the defense, during the trial, never alleged Montes, then he left it with Generoso
the above-‐claimed mitigating circumstances Cabonce, then with Maria Tura, and then
of illness & passion & obfuscation, thus with Gardemo Agapay.
weakening the case of accused-‐appellant. 3. Agapay took the cow up a mountain for
The alleged mitigating circumstances are grazing and it was gone when he came back
mere afterthought to whittle (to shape) for it
down his criminal liability. 4. Hoof prints led him to Valejos house and he
2. Yes. The crime of parricide, not being a was told that Canta had taken it.
capital crime per se is not punishable by 5. Narciso instructed Maria Tura to get the
mandatory death penalty but by the flexible cow. She met Canta who said that he gave it
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, two to his father, the barangay captain. They
indivisible penalties. The application of the went to father‘s house and Tura recognized
lesser of greater penalty depends on the cow. Canta said he will consult with his
presence of mitigating and aggravating father on what to do and call her about it
circumstances. Thus, in the absence of any later.
aggravating or mitigating circumstance for 6. Canta didn‘t call so Narciso reported it to
the accused, the lesser penalty of reclusion police
perpetua should be imposed. 7. In the investigation Canta admitted he took
cow, but he contended that it was his cow.
Analogous circumstances He lost it Dec 3 1985. He produced 2
Reyes: certificates of ownership dated March 17,
1. Must be of similar nature and analogous 1986 and Feb 27, 1988.
to those mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 9 8. Narciso presented certificate of ownership
of Art. 13. dated Mar 9 1986 signed by municipal
Rañeses 125

treasurer. I contained a description of the d. Filed complaint against Nicolas for cattle
cow including identifying marks (cowlicks rustling.
on the head, back and legs; coloring). 4 3. Cattle Rustling requisites
previous caretakers certify that this is the a. Large cattle is taken
cow they took care of. b. It belongs to another
9. Canta said that he got the baby cow as 4. No question cattle belongs so Narciso Gabriel
payment for taking care of Pat. Villanueva‘s a. Taking without consent of owner
cow. It was born on Dec 5, 1984 and was 5. Canta took cow from Agapay even if he knew
lost Dec 2 1985. He reported loss to Padre Agapay was holding it for Narciso.
Burgos. a. Taking done by any means method or
10. His uncle said he saw the cow under the scheme
care of Agapay. Canta went to the Agapay‘s 6. He falsified certificate of ownership, a scheme
grazing place with the mommy cow to see if a. Taking is with or without intent to gain
the baby cow would drink its milk, it did so 7. Canta concocted a ploy to obtain ownership so
Canta assumed the baby cow was his. he had an obvious intent to gain
11. He brought it to his father and Maria tried to a. Taking without violence or intimidation
get it but Canta‘s father refused and asked 8. No violence
Narciso to come by so they can discuss. a. Fact that Canta went to barangay
Narciso never came by. Canta took cow to captain does not prove good faith. He
Padre Burgos. already committed a crime, also the
barangay captain was his father.
Issues/Held/Ratio: b. Calves suckle on strange cows. It don‘t
1. Canta‘s Certificate of Ownership have to be the mom.
a. It was not filed by the municipal 9. Petitioner says that even if his certificate of
treasurer, but by Canta‘s friend Franklin ownership is ―not in order‖ it does not mean
Telen who was a janitor at the municipal he did not believe in good faith that the cow was
treasurer‘s office. Telen issued his. Merely mistake of fact.
certificate on March 24, 1986 but he a. His certificate was FRADULENT.
antedated it Feb 27, 1985 at the request Negates good faith.
of Canta who assured Telen that he b. If he had been responsible he could have
owned the cow. No registration verified ownership of cow first. He was
recorded in municipal records. negligent
b. Trial Court said: Obviously Canta took c. He was NOT justified to take cow, tried
the cow using strategy and stealth to take law into own hands
considering Agapay was separated by a 10. MITIGATING circumstances
hill and couldn‘t see him. Canta tries to a. Analogous with voluntary surrender,
justify taking the cow with a certificate which has the ff elements
of ownership but Telen said he b. Offender not actually arrested
antedated the certificate. 11. In the case: Canta not yet arrested. There was
c. It is clear Canta falsified and no complaint filed against him when he
manipulated the certificate of title. He surrendered cow. The intent to unconditional
only got it after the incident happened submission was there. Also there was intent to
on March 14, 1986. His claim has no leg save authorities the trouble of search and
to stand on. CA agrees. capture.
2. Petitioner Canta claims good faith and honest 12. He voluntarily took cow to municipal hall of
belief in his right to the cow Padre Burgos and put it in custody of
a. Brought mother cow and calf suckled its authorities.
milk 13. Can be considered analogous to voluntary
b. Compared marks on the cow to the surrender
recorded marks on his certificate. a. Offender surrenders to authority
Match. b. Surrender is voluntary
c. He turned over cow to barangay captain, c. PD 533 Anti-‐Cattle Rustling Law is not a
and later to police when the dispute special law. It‘s penalties are discussed
began in RPC.
Rañeses 126

14. DECISION: One mitigating circumstance equals crime its proper and exclusive name
the case be fixed in minimum period. CA but also to place the author thereof
decisions lessened. 4 yrs. 2 mos. (minimum) 10 in such a situation as to deserve no
yrs 1 day maximum. other penalty than that specially
prescribed by law for said crime.
D. Aggravating Circumstances (People v. Bayot, 64 Phil. 269, 273)
Reyes: 2. A qualifying circumstance cannot be
1. Definition. Aggravating circumstances are offset by a mitigating circumstance;
those which, if attendant in the commission a generic aggravating circumstance
of the crime, serve to increase the penalty may be compensated by a mitigating
without, however, exceeding the maximum circumstance.
of the penalty provided by law for the 3. A qualifying circumstance to be such
offense. must be alleged in the information.
2. Basis: Greater perversity of the offender If it is not alleged, it is a generic
manifested in the commission of the felony aggravating circumstance only.
as shown by: (1) the motivating power 5. Aggravating circumstances (a) which in
itself, (2) the place of commission, (3) the themselves constitute a crime specially
means and ways employed, (4) the time, or punishable by law, or (b) which are
(5) the personal circumstances of the included by the law in defining a crime
offender, or of the offended party. and prescribing the penalty therefor
3. Four kinds of aggravating circumstances. shall not be taken into account for the
1. Generic – Those that can generally purpose of increasing the penalty. (Art.
apply to all crimes. 62, par. 1) Same rule shall apply with
• Par. Nos. 1, 2, 3 (dwelling), 4, respect to any aggravating circumstance
5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 18, 19 and 20, inherent in the crime to such a degree that it
“except by means of motor must be of necessity accompany the
vehicles,” are generic commission thereof (Art. 62, par. 2).
aggravating circumstances. 6. Aggravating circumstances which arise:
2. Specific – Those that apply only to (a) from the moral attributes of the
particular cimes. offender, or (b) from his private
• Par Nos. 3 (except dwelling), relations with the offended party, or (c)
15, 16, 17 and 21 are specific from any other personal cause, shall only
aggravating circumstances. serve to aggravate the liability of the
3. Qualifying – Those that change the principals, accomplices, and accessories
nature of the crime. as to whom such circumstances are
• Art. 248 enumerates the attendant.
qualifying circumstances 7. The circumstances which consist (1) in
which qualify the killing of a the material execution of the act, or (2)
person to murder. in the means employed to accomplish it,
4. Inherent – Those that must of shall serve to aggravate the liability of
necessity accompany the those persons only who had knowledge
commission of the crime. (Art. 62, of them at the time of the execution of
par. 2) the act or their cooperation therei. (Art.
4. Qualifying circumstances distinguished 62, par. 4)
from generic aggravating circumstance. 8. Aggravating circumstances not
1. The effect of a generic aggravating presumed.
circumstance, not offset by any
mitigating circumstance, is to RPC, Art. 14
increase the penalty which should
be imposed upon the accused to the Aggravating circumstances. -‐ The following are
maximum period, but without aggravating circumstances:
exceeding the limit prescribed by
law; while that of a qualifying 1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his
circumstance is not only to give the public position.

Rañeses 127

2. That the crime be committed in contempt of or 13. That the act be committed with evident
with insult to the public authorities. premeditation.
3. That the act be committed with insult or in 14. That craft, fraud, or disguise be employed.
disregard of the respect due to the offended party
on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that it be 15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or
committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if means be employed to weaken the defense.
the latter has not given provocation.
16. That the act be committed with treachery
4. That the act be committed with abuse of (alevosia).
confidence or obvious ungratefulness.
There is treachery when the offender commits any
5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the of the crimes against the person, employing means,
Chief Executive, or in his presence, or where public methods, or forms in the execution thereof which
authorities are engaged in the discharge of their tend directly and specially to insure its execution,
duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship. without risk to himself arising from the defense
which the offended party might make.
6. That the crime be committed in the nighttime, or
in an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever 17. That means be employed or circumstances
such circumstances may facilitate the commission brought about which add ignominy to the natural
of the offense. effects of the act.
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall 18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful
have acted together in the commission of an entry.
offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed
There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is
by a band.
effected by a way not intended for the purpose.
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a
19. That as a means to the commission of a crime a
conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic, or
wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken.
other calamity or misfortune.
20. That the crime be committed with the aid of
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of
persons under fifteen years of age or by means of
armed men or persons who insure or afford
motor vehicles, motorized watercraft, airships, or
impunity.
other similar means. (As amended by Rep. Act No.
9. That the accused is a recidivist. 5438, approved Sept. 9, 1968.)
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for 21. That the wrong done in the commission of the
one crime, shall have been previously convicted by crime be deliberately augmented by causing other
final judgment of another crime embraced in the wrong not necessary for its commission.
same title of this Code.

10. That the offender has been previously punished Insult to public authorities
for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or Reyes:
greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which 1. Basis: Greater perversity of offender, as
it attaches a lighter penalty. shown by the lack of respect for the public
authorities.
11. That the crime be committed in consideration of 2. Requisites:
a price, reward, or promise. 1. That the public authority is engaged
in the exercise of his functions.
12. That the crime be committed by means of 2. That he who is thus engaged In the
inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a exercise of said functions is not the
vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment of person against whom the crime is
a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice committed. (U.S. vs. Rodriguez, 19
involving great waste and ruin.

Rañeses 128

Phil. 150, 156; People vs. Siojo, 61 Facts: Floro Rodil was found guilty of the crime of
Phil. 307, 317) murder by the Circuit Criminal Court for the death
3. The offender knows him to be a of Lt.Masana.
public authority.
4. His presence has not prevented the Version of the prosecutor
offender from committing the • April 24, 1971 around 1:00 pm – Masana
criminal act. together with Fidel, Ligsa and Mojica was
3. Meaning of “public authority.” A public having lunch inside a restaurant in front of
authority, sometimes also called a person in the Indang Market. While they were eating,
authority, is a public officer who is already their attention was called by Rodil who was
vested with jurisdiction, that is, a public outside blowing his whistle. Masana, in
officer who has the power to govern and civilian clothing, accompanied by Fidel went
execute the las. The councilor, the mayor, outside and asked Rodil, after identifying
the governor, etc., are persons in authority. himself as a PC officer, whether the gun that
The barangay captainand barangay was tucked under his shirt had a license
chairman ae also persons in authority. (Art. • Instead if answering Rodil attempted to
152, as amended by P.D. No. 1232, Nov. 7, draw his gun but Fidel grabbed the gave and
1977) gave it to Masana.
4. Not applicable when crime is committed • The three went inside the restaurant and
in the presence of an agent only. An agent Masana wrote a receipt for the gun and he
of a person in authority is “any person who, asked Rodil to sign it but the appellant
by direct provision of law or by election or refused to do so. Masana refused to return
by appointment by competent authority, is the gun to Rodil and as Masana was about to
charged with the maintenance of public stand up Rodil pulled out his dagger and
order and the protection and security of life stabbed Masana several times on the chest
and property, such as barrio councilman, and stomach causing his death after several
barrio policeman and barangay leader, and hours.
any person who comes to the aid of perons • The companions of Masana took the accused
in authority.” (Art. 152, as amended by BP into custody.
Blg. 873)
5. The crime should not be committed Version of the defense
against the public officer. If the crime is • Rodil is claiming self-‐defense
committed against a public authority while • Rodil together with his wife were eating
he is in the performance of his official duty, inside the restaurant and while they were
the offender commits direct assault (Art. waiting for their food Masana approached
148.) without this aggravating and inquired whether he was a member of
circumstance, because it is not a crime the Anti-‐smuggling Unit. Rodil answered in
committed “in contempt of or with insult” to the affirmative and Masana invited him to
him, but a crime directly committed against join him in his table.
him. • Rodil accepted the invitation. During their
6. Knowledge that a public authority is conversation Masana asked for
present is essential. Lack of knowledge on identification of Rodil and the latter showed
the part of the offender that a public his ID. Masana told Rodil that his ID was
authority is present indicates lack of fake and Rodil insisted that it was genuine.
intention to insult the public authority. Masana was demanding that Rodil
7. Presence of public authority has not surrender his ID to him but Rodil refused.
prevented offender from committing the When Rodil refused Masana pulled out his
crime. An offense may said to have been gun and hit the accused on the head with its
committed in contempt of a public authority handle for 2 times and as a result blood
when his presence, made known to the gushed out from his head and face.
offender, has not prevented the latter from • Rodil pulled out his dagger and stabbed
committing the criminal act. Masana and then ran out of the restaurant.

• Rodil went to the direction of the Municipal
People v. Rodil, 109 SCRA 308 (1981) building where he intended to surrender.
Rañeses 129

On his was he met the Chief of Police and he it at the same time possible or hard for the
was accompanied to the municipal building victim to defend himself or retaliate.
and was given first aid treatment. • Treachery exists when the offender
commits any of the crimes against the
Issues: person employing means, methods, or forms
1. WON self-‐defense can be availed by Rodil. in the execution thereof which tend to
2. WON the crime committed was murder or directly and specially to insure its execution,
homicide merely or murder or homicide w/o risk to himself arising from the defense
complexed (sic) with assault upon an agent of which the offended party might make.
authority. • Information does not allege the fact that the
3. WON the AC disregard of rank should be accused then knew that, before or at the
appreciated time of the assault, the victim was an agent
of a person in authority.
• Such knowledge must be expressly and
Held: specifically averred in the information;
1. No. Self-‐defense must be proven by clear, otherwise, in the absence of such allegation,
sufficient, satisfactory and convincing the required knowledge would only be
evidence appreciated as a generic aggravating
• Accused must rely on the strength of his circumstance.
own evidence and not on the weakness of • It is essential that the accused must have
the prosecution. knowledge that the person attacked was a
• Having admitted the wounding or killing of person in authority or his agent in the
the victim, the accused must be held liable exercise of his duties, because the accused
for the crime unless he establishes to the must have the intention to offend, injure, or
satisfaction of the court the fact of assault the offended party as a person in
legitimate self-‐defense. authority or agent of a person in authority.
• Court cannot perceive how the refusal of the 3. Yes. Whenever there is a difference in social
accused to give his ID could have provoked condition between the offender and the
or enraged the deceased to the extent of offended party, this aggravating
initiating the aggression by drawing his circumstance sometimes is present.
pistol and hitting the accused with its butt. • Mesana identified himself as a PC officer and
• It is the accused who had every reason to be the accused is merely a member of the Anti-‐
resentful of the deceased and to be enraged Smuggling Unit and therefore inferior both
after the deceased refused to heed his plea in rank and social status.
that his gun be returned. • Rank – refers to a high social position or
standing
2. Crime committed was homicide (No • Cases wherein the aggravating circumstance
complex crime but there is a general of disregard of rank was appreciated
aggravating circumstance) o People vs. Benito – clerk murdered
• Murder – it was established by the assistant chief of the personnel
prosecution that during the stabbing transaction division
incident, appellant suddenly and without o People vs. Torres – murder of Col.
giving the victim a chance to defend himself, Salgado and injuries to Gen.
stabbed the latter several times with a Castaneda
dagger, inflicting mortal wounds. o People vs. Valeriano – murder of
• No treachery – assailant & victim was face district judge
to face. Attack wasn’t treacherous because • Chief of Police (Panaligan) was present
the victim was able to ward off the same w/ during the incident. Panaligan was the one
his hand. Force of warding off the attack who wrested the dagger from Rodil and the
was so strong that the accused bump his accused knew him to be the chief of police.
head on a table nearby, causing injuries to • Chief of police is considered a public
him. Failed to show that the accused made authority or a person in authority for he is
any preparation to kill his victim so as to vested with jurisdiction or authority to
insure the commission of the crime, making maintain peace and order and is specifically
Rañeses 130

duty bound to prosecute and to apprehend c. “The home is a sort of sacred place for
violators of the law its owner. He who goes to another’s
house to slander him, hurt him or do
Dissent: Melencio-‐Herrera him wrong, is more guilty than he who
• Contempt of, or which insult to public offends him elsewhere.” (Viada, 5th
authorities to be considered as aggravating, edition, Bol. II, pp. 323-‐324)
it is essential that: 4. Offended party must not give
• Crime is committed in the presence of a provocation. If the offended party
public authority, not a mere agent of the provoked the incident, he loses his right to
authorities respect and consideration due him in his
• Public authority is engaged in the exercise own house. (People vs. Ambis, supra)
of his functions and is not the person 5. Meaning of provocation in the
against whom the crime is committed. aggravating circumstance of dwelling.
• Masana is not a public authority nor a a. Given by the owner of the dwelling
person in authority he is a mere agent of a b. Sufficient, and
person in authority c. Immediate to the commission of the
• Disregard of the respect due to rank crime.
• There must be a difference in social If the above conditions are present, the
condition of the offender and the offended offended party is deemed to have given
party provocation, and the fact that the crime is
• Offender and offended are of the same rank committed in the dwelling of the offended
the aggravating circumstance does not party is not an aggravating circumstance.
apply
• Difference in rank bet a lieutenant and On the other hand, if any of those conditions
officer of anti-‐smuggling unit is not such of a is not present, the offended party is deemed
degree as to justify consideration of not to have given provocation, and the fact
disrespect of rank due to the offended party. that the crime is committed in the dwelling
of the offended party is an aggravating

circumstance.
Note: The ruling in this case directly contradicts
6. There must be close relation between
Reyes’s statement with regard to the Chief of Police
provocation and commission of the
being mere agent. In the case at bar, the chief of
crime in the dwelling.
police is now a person of authority as well.
7. Because the provocation is not

immediate, dwelling is aggravating.
Dwelling 8. Owner of dwelling gave immediate
Reyes:
provocation à dwelling is not
1. Dwelling must be a building or structure,
aggravating.
exclusively used for rest and comfort. A
9. Prosecution must prove that no
“combination house and store” (People vs.
provocation was given by the offended
Magnaye, 89 Phil. 233, 239), or a market
party.
stall where the victim slept is not a dwelling.
10. The offender need not enter the dwelling
2. Basis: Greater perversity of offender, as
for the circumstance to apply.
shown by the place of the commission of the
11. If the crime took place outside the
offense.
dwelling, it is still aggravating if the
3. What aggravates the commission of the
commission of the crime was begun
crime on one’s dwelling?
inside.
a. The abuse of confidence which the
12. Dwelling is not included in treachery.
offended party reposed in the offender

by opening the door to him; or
People v. Daniel, 86 SCRA 511 (1978)
b. The violation of the sanctity of the home
Facts: 13-‐yr old Margarita Paleng filed complaint
by trespassing therein with violence or
against Amado Daniel alias “Amado Ato” for the
against the will of the owner.
crime of rape.
(Dissenting opinion of Justice Villareal,
• On Sept 20, 1965, Margarita, a native of Mt
People vs. Ambis, 68 Phil. 635, 637)
Province, arrived in Baguio City from Tublay
Rañeses 131

in a Dangwa bus. She was then en route to the place where he lives or dwells. Be he a lessee, a
her boarding house in Guisad as she was a boarder, or a bed-‐spacer, the place is his home the
high school student at the Baguio Eastern sanctity of w/c the law seeks to protect and uphold.
High School. While she was waiting inside
the bus, the accused Daniel came and Nighttime/Disguise
started molesting her by inquiring her name Reyes:
and getting hold of her bag. She did not 1. Par.6. (Nighttime). Basis: Time and place
allow the latter and instead called the of the commission of the crime and the
attention of the bus driver and the means and ways employed.
conductor but was merely shrugged by 2. Same. When aggravating.
them. It seemed that they were also afraid a. When it facilitated the commission of
of the accused. Despite the rain, she left the the crime; or
bus and went to ride in a jeep parked some b. When especially sought for by the
100meters away. The accused followed her offender to insure the commission of the
and rode and sat beside her. When crime or for the purpose of impunity
Margarita alighted in Guisad, she was again (People vs. Pardo, 79 Phil. 568, 578); or
followed by the accused. Reaching her c. When the offender took advantage
boarding house, she opened the door and thereof for the purpose of impunity.
was about to close it when the accused (U.S. vs. Billedo, 32 Phil. 574, 579;
dashed in and closed the door behind him. People vs. Mathagon, 60 Phil. 887, 893)
He pulled a dagger 8 inches long and
threatened her saying, “If you will talk, I will Although nocturnity (sic) should not be
kill you.” Because of her fear, Margarita fell estimated as an aggravating
silent. She was then forced to lie down w/ circumstance, since the time for the
the accused placing a handkerchief in her commission of the crime was not
mouth and holding a dagger to her neck. deliberately chosen by the accused; yet,
Her attempts to flee was to no avail as she if it appears that the accused took
was only 4 ft 8 inches tall & 95 lbs while advantage of the darkness for the more
Daniel was 5 ft 7 inches tall and weighed successful consummation of his plans, to
126 lbs. The accused was successful in prevent his being recognized, and that
having carnal knowledge of Margarita. the crime might be perpetrated
Thereafter she lost consciousness. When unmolested, the aggravating
she recovered, Daniel had already gone. circumstance of nocturnity should be
• For his defense, Daniel asserts that he and applied.
Margarita have known each other since 3. Same. Nighttime may facilitate the
1963 and this was in fact the 2nd time he commission of the crime, when because
had carnal knowledge of her. Also, he of the darkness of the night the crime can
alleges that he promised to marry Margarita be perpetrated unmolested, or
and was actually surprised the she filed the interference can be avoided, or there
complaint against him. Medico-‐Legal report would be greater certainty in attaining
indicated that Margarita was a virgin before the ends of the offender. (People vs.
the incident complained of. Matbagon, 60 Phil. 887, 894)
4. Same. Nighttime need not be specifically
Issue: WON the aggravating circumstance of sought for when (1) it facilitated the
“dwelling” can be appreciated in the case at bar. commission of the offense, or (2) the
offender took advantage of the same to
Held: Yes. The crime committed by Daniel is rape commit the crime.
w/ the use of a deadly weapon w/ the aggravating 5. Same. “Nighttime” should be understood,
circumstance of having been committed in the according to Viada, as that period of
dwelling of the offended party. Although Margarita darkness beginning at end of dusk and
was merely renting a bedspace in a boarding house, ending at dawn. Nights are from sunset
her room constituted for all intents and purposes a to sunrise. (Art. 13, Civil Code)
“dwelling” as the term is used in Art 14 (3) RPC. It is 6. Same. The information must allege that
not necessary, under the law, that the victim owns nighttime was sought for or taken
Rañeses 132

advantage of by the accused or that it Bonaobra told him it was Jose Abion. The two
facilitated the commission of the crime. accused pretended to paddle away. When they were
7. Same. Not aggravating when the crime about 7 meters away, Bermas‘ companion fired his
began at daytime. Armalite m16 rifle at Bonaobra and his companions.
a. The commission of the crime must begin They heard 2 volleys fired at them. They lay down
and be accomplished in the nighttime. but could not avoid the attack. After 5 minutes,
b. The offense must be actually committed Renato, upon instruction from his father Arturo,
in the darkness of the night. crawled to turn off remaining pressure gas lamp
c. When the place of the crime is and loosen the anchor. He then lost consciousness.
illuminated by light, nighttime is not The boat was carried away by the currents of the
aggravating. sea and into the shore, where they were found by
8. Par. 14. (Disguise). Disguise is the use of Jose, Rudy, and Santiago Abion the following
any device to conceal identity. morning. Arturo Abion and Catalino Bellen were
9. Same. The purpose of the offender in already dead. Renato Abion, Jesus Lotera, and
using any device must be to conceal his Bonaobra were seriously wounded, such that had
identity. they not received medical attention, they would
have died from said wounds. Antonio Abion was
People v. Bermas, 309 SCRA 741 (1999) also injured though not as grave. Teodoro Cas was
Facts: missing, and his body was found 3 days later in a
Lower court ruling: Rustom Bermas and Galma neighboring town in Albay. Santiago found 2 slugs
Arcilla were found guilty of Multiple Murder and inside the fishing boat, which he surrendered to the
Multiple Frustrated Murder, “with evident police.
premeditation, conspiring, confederating and
helping one another, with treachery, taking Prior to the night in question, the following events
advantage of nighttime, with the use of high happened:
powered firearms, and with intent to kill.”
Rustom Bermas worked in a mining firm and was a October 13, 1984 – at a public dance at Namanday,
councilman for Brgy. Liguan while Galma Arcilla Albay, Arcilla was involved in a fistfight with
was a member of the PC Company, with the position Leopoldo Abion. He boxed Leopoldo in the chest
of Asst. Detachment Commander, and was in leaving him writhing in pain on the ground.
possession of an Armalite M-‐16. Thereafter, the Abion brothers arrived to get even
with Arcilla and Daniel Abion was able to hit
On April 20, 1985, at around 8:30 in the evening, at appellant on the face with a piece of wood. Rustom
the sea of Albay, Arturo, Abion, Antonio Abion, Bermas, the usual confederate and companion of
Renato Abion, Teodoro Cas, Jesus Lotera, Catalino accused, arrived to seek revenge for Arcilla, but
Bellen, and Expedito Bonaobra (barangay captain) Daniel had already left.
were aboard a fishing boat named ―Sagrada
Familia‖, owned by the Abion family, for the October 14, 1985 – Galma Arcilla, with a group of
purpose of catching fish. armed men forced open a window in Santiago‘s
house looking for the latter. Santiago‘s pregnant
The accused Rustom Bermas and a masked wife was so scared, she miscarried.
companion, which the courts held to be Galma April 4, 1985 – Rustom Bermas pounded on a table
Arcilla, approached the party through a small and said to Santiago, ―I will bring home the
paddled boat. They circled the fishing boat Sagrada Baraka‖. Baraka is the appellation (title/label) of
four times which gave survivors/witnesses the Abion family. This was considered a death
Bonaobra and Renato Abion opportunity to threat to the family.
recognize Bermas as the one paddling the boat.
Bonaobra asked Arturo to remove the shade of the On appeal: Defendants‘ defense was alibi, insisting
gas lamp so they could recognize Bermas‘ that they were at a different place at the time of the
companion but they still could not due to the mask crime in question. Arcilla further contends that
he was wearing. Bonaobra asked Bermas if they lower court erred in ruling it was he who was the
were fishing. The accused said yes, and that they masked companion since none of the witnesses
were looking for somebody. He then asked identified him as the masked man who fired at the
Bonaobra who owned the fishing boat and victims. There was also that question of the firearm,
Rañeses 133

and that the one used to commit the felony was not with the one who executed the criminal act.
the same one he was issued with, and that the In this case, Bermas‘ act of paddling to and
firearm he owned was not in his possession that from the boat, as well as his silence while
night. Bermas claims he had no motive to kill and the victims were being gunned down by his
that conspiracy was not proven. companion, was enough to warrant a
conspiracy. He must be equally liable as co-‐
Issues: principal. It was also a well-‐known fact that
1. WON defendant’s alibi can be accepted. he was a close companion of his co-‐accused
2. WON the aggravating circumstance of and they were frequently seen together, as
nighttime may be appreciated. testified by other witnesses.
3. WON the aggravating circumstance of
disguise may be appreciated. Treachery was appreciated in this case
because it satisfied the requirements that a)
Held: malefactor employed means of execution to
1. No. Alibi is the weakest of all defenses ensure his safety from retaliatory acts of the
because it is easy to contrive and difficult to victim b) said means were deliberate.
disprove. Defendant‘s defense of alibi easily Essence of treachery is in the swift and
crumbles in the weight of evidence unexpected attack on unsuspecting and
presented against them. unarmed victims.

Although the witnesses were unable to 2. No. Nighttime was not appreciated as an
identify the masked man, it is of no moment aggravating circumstance in this case. The
because there were enough circumstantial mere fact that the offense happened at night
evidence on which the ruling could be based was not enough to sustain a finding of
on. The facts established are enough to nocturnity. It only becomes an aggravating
warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable circumstance when the following requisites
doubt. Circumstantial evidence may be are present: 1. It was specially SOUGHT by
sufficient to warrant a conviction. Physical the offender 2. It was TAKEN ADVANTAGE
evidence speaks more eloquently than all by him, or 3. It FACILITATES commission of
the witnesses put together. the crime by insuring immunity from
capture.
The firearm used in the felony was found to
be exactly the one issued to Galma Arcilla. In this case, nothing suggests that it was
That he allegedly left his gun in the custody consciously resorted to.
of another person was dubious because the
military requirement is to leave firearms at 3. Yes. Disguise, however, was appreciated as
the headquarters where it would be safer. an aggravating circumstance because of
He also failed to satisfactorily explain where appellant‘s use of a mask.
and how the missing ammunitions were
used. Evident premeditation
Reyes:
In sum, court held that Arcilla had been 1. Basis: Ways of committing the crime,
lying in order to exculpate himself. because evident premeditation implies a
deliberate planning of the act before
With regard to Bermas‘ contention that he executing it.
had no ill motive since the quarrel was 2. Evident premeditation may be
between Arcilla and the Ambions, court held considered as to principal by induction.
that proof of ill motive becomes irrelevant 3. Essence of premeditation. Execution of
in the face of positive identification. Bermas the criminal act must be preceded by cool
was positively identified by Bonaobra and thought and reflection upon the resolution
Renato Ambion. to carry out the criminal intent during the
space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm
Conspiracy is proven by the specific acts judgment. (People vs. Durante, 53 Phil. 363,
done with such closeness and coordination 369)
Rañeses 134

4. The premeditation must be “evident.” Facts: The accused, Manalinde, who pleaded guilty
There must be evidence showing that the confessed that his wife died about one hundred
accused meditated and reflected on his days before; that he was directed by Datto Mupuck
intention between the time when the crime to go huramentado and to kill the two persons he
was conceived by him and the time it was would meet in the town; that if he was successful in
actually perpetrated. the matter, Mupuck would give him a pretty woman
5. Requisites: on his return; that in order to carry out his
1. The time when the offender determined intention to kill two persons in the town of
to commit the crime; Cotobato, he provided himself with a kris, which he
2. An act manifestly indicating that the concealed in banana leaves; that he traveled for a
culprit has clung to his determination; day and a night from his home; that upon reaching
and the town, he attacked from behind a Spaniard
3. A sufficient lapse of time between the named Igual, and immediately after, he attacked a
determination and execution, to allow Chinaman named Choa, who was close by; and that
him to reflect upon the consequences of he had no quarrel with the assaulted persons. Both
his act and to allow his conscience to victims died as a result.
overcome the resolution of his will.
6. The date and time when the offender Issue: WON the aggravating circumstance of
determined to commit the crime evident premeditation is established by the facts.
essential.
7. The premeditation must be based upon Held: Yes. Those facts establish the aggravating
external acts and not presumed from circumstance of evident premeditation.
mere lapse of time. (U.S. vs. Ricafort, 1 Phil.
173, 176) The three requisites of evident premeditation are
8. Mere threats without the second element illustrated by the facts:
(external acts) does not show evident
premeditation. First requisite: On a certain date, Manalinde
9. Existence of ill-‐feeling or grudge alone is accepted the proposition that he would turn
not proof of evident premeditation. hurmentado and kill the first two persons he would
10. Three hours or less considered sufficient meet in the market place. On said date, the offender
lapse of time. is said to have determined the crime.
11. Why sufficient time is required. The
offender must have an opportunity to coolly Second requisite: He undertook the journey to
and serenely think and deliberate on the comply therewith and provided himself with a
meaning and the consequences of what he weapon. The journey and the carrying of the
planned to do, an interval long enough for weapon are acts manifestly indicating that the
his conscience and better judgment to offender clung to his determination to commit the
overcome his evil desires and scheme. crime.
(People vs. Mendoza, 91 Phil. 58, 64)
12. There must be sufficient time between Third requisite: After the journey for a day and a
the outward acts and the actual night, he killed the victims. One day and one night
commission of the crime. constitute a sufficient lapse of time for the offender
13. Conspiracy generally presupposes to realize the consequences of his contemplated act.
premeditation.
14. Evident premeditation and price or Treachery
reward can co-‐exist. Reyes:
15. When victim is different from that 1. Basis: Reference to the means and ways
intended, premeditation not aggravating. employed in the commission of the crime.
16. It is not necessary that there is a plan to 2. Meaning of treachery. There is treachery
kill a particular person. For premeditation when the offender commits any of the
to exist, it is not necessary that the accused crimes against the person, employing
plan to kill a particular person. means, methods or forms in the execution
thereof which tend directly and specially to
United States v. Manalinde, 14 Phil. 77 (1909) insure its execution, without risk to himself
Rañeses 135

arising from the defense which the offended 2. When the assault was not continuous, in
party might make. that there was an interruption, it is
3. Rules. sufficient that treachery was present at
1. Applicable only to crimes against the the moment the fatal blow was given.
person. 10. Treachery is not to be considered as to
2. Means, methods or forms need not the principal by induction when it is not
insure accomplishment of crime. shown that the principal by induction
3. The mode of attack must be consciously directed or induced the killer of the
adopted. deceased to adopt the means or methods
4. Treachery cannot be presumed. The actually used by the latter in
suddenness of the attack does not, of itself, accomplishing the crime.
suffice to support a finding of alevosia, even 11. Treachery, abuse of superior strength,
if the purpose was to kill, so long as the and means employed to weaken the
decision was made all of a sudden and the defense, distinguished.
victim’s helpless position was accidental. 1. Treachery – means, methods or forms
The qualifying circumstance of treachery of attack are employed by the offender
may not be simply deduced from to make it impossible or hard for the
presumption as it is necessary that the offended party to put up any sort of
existence of this qualifying or aggravating resistance.
circumstance should be proven as fully as 2. Abuse of superior strength – the
the crime itself in order to aggravate the offender does not employ means,
liability or penalty incurred by the culprit. methods or forms of attack; he only
5. The mode of attack must be consciously takes advantage of his superior strength.
adopted. 3. Means employed to weaken the
1. The accused must make some defense – employs means but the
preparation to kill the deceased in such means employed only materially
a manner as to insure the execution of weakens the resisting power of the
the crime or to make it impossible or offended party.
hard for the person attacked to defend 12. When there is conspiracy, treachery is
himself or retaliate. considered against all the offenders.
2. The mode of attack must be thought of 13. The mastermind should have knowledge
by the offender, and must not spring of the employment of treachery if he was
from the unexpected turn of events. not present when the crime as
6. Treachery cannot be appreciated where committed.
there is nothing in the record to show 14. If the intervention of other persons did
that the accused had pondered upon the not directly and especially insure the
mode or method to insure the killing of execution of the crime without risk to the
the deceased or remove or diminish any accused there is no treachery.
risk to himself that might arise from the 15. Treachery, evident premeditation and
defense that the deceased might make. use of superior strength are absorbed in
7. Requisites: in treason by killings.
1. That at the time of the attack, the victim 16. Treachery absorbs abuse of superior
was not in a position to defend himself; strength, aid of armed men, by a band
and and means to weaken the defense.
2. That the offender consciously adopted 17. Nighttime inherent in treachery.
the particular means, method or form of 18. Craft is included in and absorbed by
attack employed by him. treachery.
8. Treachery must be proven by clear and 19. Age and sex are included in treachery.
convincing evidence. 20. Treachery cannot co-‐exist with passion
9. Guiding principles. or obfuscation.
1. When the aggression is continuous,
treachery must be present in the People v. Sangalang, 58 SCRA 737 (1974)
beginning of the assault. Facts: June 9, 1968, 6 a.m.: Ricardo Cortez left his
nipa hut in Silang, Cavite to gather tuba from a
Rañeses 136

nearby coconut tree. His wife Flora Sarno was left didn’t give any immediate provocation.
inside the hut. While on top of the tree, Cortez was Deliberate & surprise attack insured
struck by a valley of shots. He later on fell to the victim’s killing w/o any risk to the offenders
ground at the base of the coconut tree. Flora went arising from any defense w/c the victim
outside & was supposed to help his husband but the could have made. Thus, offense is murder.
five persons each armed w/a long firearm fired at • Treachery absorbs the AC of band.
her too. She went back to the hut for cover but she • Evident premeditation, though alleged,
was able to recognize the 5 as Conrado Gonzales, was not proven.
Irineo Canuel, Perino Canuel, Eleuterio Cuyom &
Laureano Sangalang. The latter was known to Flora Ignominy
& her bro Ricardo since childhood. The five left after Reyes:
about 5mins & when she returned to her husband, 1. Ignominy is a circumstance pertaining to
he was already dead. L the moral order, which adds disgrace
and obloquy to the material injury
Ricardo Sarno, Flora’s bro who lived nearby, heard caused by the crime.
the gunshots too. He went out & saw Sangalang 2. Applicable to crimes against chastity,
shooting Cortez w/a Garand carbine. He was less serious physical injuries, light or
supposed to help Cortez but he was fired upon by grave coercion, and murder.
the men too.
Sarno & Flora executed sworn statements & based People v. Torrefiel, 45 OG 803
on these, a complaint against the 5 offenders was Facts: The accused and his companion were
filed. Only Sangalang was arrested. CFI convicted guerillas of the USAFFE.
him of murder & was sentenced to RP. On their way to their headquarters, they stopped at
the house of the offended party and asked her
Defense: Sangalang claims that during that time, he husband for khaki clothes.
was in Sampaloc, Manila to borrow money from a
certain Gatdula for the tuition fees of his children. The offended party accused them of being looters.
He likewise impugns the credibility of Mrs. Cortez & They then decided to bring the spouses to their
Ricardo. headquarters supposedly to investigate the
accusations.
Issues:
1. WON Sangalang’s alibi is admissible The accused was initially assigned to accompany
2. WON the qualifying AC of treachery the husband and his companion the wife. However,
(alevosia) should be appreciated. the accused was lost on their way, which led to the
escape of the husband.
Held:
1. No. Discrepancies in the testimonies of He eventually kept up with his companion, who,
Sarno & Mrs. Cortez are not glaring and after realizing that the husband escaped, left the
instead these strengthen their credibility & wife with the accused to look for said husband.
show that they did not rehearse their
testimonies. The wife then testified that the accused, after
• Cortez & Sarno clearly & consistently winding cogon grass around his genital organ,
testified that Sangalang was among raped her.
those who shot Ricardo. Their
unwavering identification negates Issue: WON the aggravating circumstance of
Sangalang’s alibi. ignominy can be appreciated.
• Although motive for killing was not
proven, it was not shown either that Held: Yes. The court appreciated the aggravating
Cortez & Sarno were impelled by circumstance stating that the manner of
malicious desires to falsely incriminate commission augmented the wrong done by
Sangalang. increasing the pain and adding ignominy thereto.
2. Yes. When the crime happened, victim was
on top of a coconut tree. He was unarmed & People v. Alfanta, 320 SCRA 357 (1999)
defenseless. The assault was unexpected. He
Rañeses 137

Facts: The offended party testified that, while • Spouse,
sleeping in the living room of a friend, was suddenly • Ascendant,
pulled and boxed by the accused, and then covered • Descendant,
her mouth with his hand. • Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother
or sister, or,
With a bolo, the accused allegedly ordered her to go • Relative by affinity in the same degree of
out, climb up the fence to the next house. the offender.
5. Same. Same. When mitigating and when
The accused then ordered her to undress and to aggravating.
separate her legs. She was then raped. • As a rule, relationship is mitigating in
crimes against property, by analogy to
Allegedly, the accused also inserted his genital the provisions of Art. 332.
organ in her genital organ. • It is aggravating in crimes against
The accused defense was that they were persons in cases where the offended
sweethearts. party is a relative of a higher degree
than the offender or when the offender
The court rejected this theory, it being belied by the and the offended party are relatives of
offended party stabbing him, after which she the same level.
reported the incident to the police. 6. Same. Same. If the crime against persons
is any of the serious physical injuries, the
The court also appreciated two aggravating fact that the offended party is a
circumstances. descendant of the offender is not
mitigating. But when the offense
Issue: committed is less serious physical injuries
1. WON the aggravating circumstance of (Art. 265); or slight physical injuries (Art.
nighttime can be appreciated. 266), relationship is a mitigating
2. WON the aggravating circumstance of circumstance, if the offended party is a
relative of a lower degree of the offender;
Held: and an aggravating circumstance, if the
1. Yes. Nighttime: The accused took advantage offended party is a relative of a higher
of the time in order to facilitate the crime degree of the offender.
without being recognized. 7. Same. Same. Relationship is neither
2. Yes. Ignominy: While the accused claimed mitigating nor aggravating, when
that the manner in which the rape was done relationship is an element of the offense.
was normal for lovers, the court did not 8. Same. Same. In crimes against chastity,
think so. relationship is always aggravating.
9. Same. Intoxication.
E. Alternative Circumstances • Mitigating – (1) if intoxication is not
Reyes: habitual, or (2) if intoxication is not
1. Alternative circumstances are those subsequent to the plan to commit a
which must be taken into consideration felony.
as aggravating or mitigating according to • Aggravating – (1) if intoxication is
the nature and effects of the crime and habitual; or (2) if it is intentional
the other conditions attending its (subsequent to the plan to commit a
commission. felony).
2. Basis: nature and effects of the crime and 10. Same. Same. The accused’s state of
the other conditions attending its intoxication must be proved.
commission. 11. Same. Same. Drunkenness must affect
3. The alternative circumstances are: mental faculties.
1. Relationship; 12. Same. Even if intoxication is not habitual,
2. Intoxication; and it is aggravating when subsequent to the
3. Degree of instruction and education of plan to commit the crime.
the offender. 13. Same. Same. Presumption is that
4. Same. Relationship. intoxication is accidental.
Rañeses 138

14. Same. Same. Non-‐habitual intoxication, of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or
lack of instruction and obfuscation are subsequent to the plan to commit said felony; but
not be taken separately. when the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it
15. Same. Degree of instruction and shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
education of the offender. Low degree of
instruction and education or lack of it is
generally mitigating.. High degree of Intoxication
instruction and education is aggravating
when the offender avails himself of his People v. Camano, 115 SCRA 688 (1982)
learning in committing the crime. Facts:
• Lack of sufficient intelligence is required • Feb. 17, 1970 bet. 4 & 5 p.m. in Nato,
in illiteracy. Sagnay, Camarines Sur: Camano, after
• Lack of sufficient instruction is not drinking liquor, stabbed Godofredo Pascua
mitigating when the offender is a city w/a bolo while the latter was walking along
resident who knows how to sign his the barrio street almost in front of the store
name. of one Socorro Buates. Pascua sustained 2
16. Same. Same. Lack of instruction must be mortal wounds w/c caused his death.
proved by the defense. It must be Afterwards, Camano went to the seashore of
positively and directly proved and cannot the barrio where he found Mariano
be based on mere deduction or inference. Buenaflor leaning at the gate of the fence of
17. Same. Same. The question of lack of his house in a kneeling position w/both
instruction cannot be raised for the first arms on top of the fence & his head stooping
time in appellate court. down. Camano then hacked Buenaflor
18. Same. Same. Ordinarily, low degree or w/the same bolo sustaining 8 wounds w/c
lack of instruction is mitigating in all caused latter’s death. No proof of any
crimes. altercation between the accused & victims
19. Same. Same. High degree of instruction as prior to the incidents.
aggravating. • 3 yrs before the incident, the victims had a
• Degree of instruction is aggravating misunderstanding w/the accused. Camano
when the offender availed himself or asked for Pascua to tow his fishing boat
took advantage of it in committing the w/the motorboat owned by Buenaflor but
crime. the two refused to do so. Camano resented
such refusal. Even if they were seen
RPC, Art. 15 drinking together later on, the friendly
attitude was more artificial than real.
Their concept. -‐ Alternative circumstances are those Camano refused to associate w/the 2 & a
which must be taken into consideration as neighbor’s attempt to reconcile the 3 was
aggravating or mitigating according to the nature repeatedly refused. And in instances when
and effects of the crime and the other conditions Camano was drunk, he’d even challenge
attending its commission. They are the relationship, Buenaflor to a fight & announce his evil
intoxication and the degree of instruction and intention to kill them.
education of the offender. • Prosecution: Camano surrendered upon
demand of the peace officers. He admitted
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall that he owned the bolo used in the killing &
be taken into consideration when the offended such was hidden under the table of his
party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant, house. Patrolman Baluyot found the bolo at
legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or the place indicated by Camano. The bolo
relative by affinity in the same degrees of the was still stained w/human blood. He
offender. likewise admitted that killed Pascua &
Buenaflor in self-‐defense but he refused to
The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into sign his statement. He was charged
consideration as a mitigating circumstance when w/murder attended by evident
the offender has committed a felony in a state premeditation & treachery.

Rañeses 139

• Defense: Camano claims that he went 3. WON the alternative circumstance of
fishing early morning of Feb. 17. Buenaflor, intoxication should be appreciated as an
upon seeing that he had a big catch, aggravating circumstance.
demanded a percentage for the fishery 4. WON death is a cruel & unusual penalty &
commission. Camano refused to pay & saw not proper in the case at bar.
Buenaflor called him hard headed. He went
home afterwards. After dinner, he prepared Held:
to go out to sea again. While standing in the 1. No. Evident Premeditation is present when
yard of his house, he saw Buenaflor & the offender had carefully planned the
Pascua having a drinking session w/a group killing.
of men at the score of Socorro Buates. He a. Requisites: a) time when offender
claims that the Buenaflor’s group determined to commit the crime; b)
approached him & w/o any provocation, act manifestly indicating that the
Pascua boxed him. Buenaflor punched him culprit had clung to his
also. He claims that when Pascua was about determination; c) sufficient lapse of
to bolo him, he was able to grab the bolo time bet the determination &
from Pascua. Pascua then fell on the ground execution of the crime to allow him
& the rest of the group ran away except for to reflect upon the consequences of
Buenaflor who approached him. Buenaflor his act & to allow his conscience to
was also armed w/a bolo w/c prompted overcome the resolution of his will.
Camano to bolo him. Buenaflor ran away b. No proof of the requisites in this
once he was wounded but Camano ran after case. Trial court merely concluded
him claiming that former had a gun at home that crime was premeditated due to
w/c he might use to shoot Camano later on. the incident w/c occurred 3 yrs ago.
Thus, he hacked Buenaflor to death. He But such did not establish the time
denies killing Pascua & claims that the fight when Camano decided to commit
was due to a heated argument & their the crime. It can only establish his
drunkenness. motive for killing the victims.
• CFI Camrines Sur: sentenced Camano to Previous incidents wherein Camano
death. Claims of Camano are w/o challenged Buenaflor to a fight did
evidentiary support & are mere fictions. His not reveal a persistence of criminal
cousin & lone witness, Nemesio Camano is design since there’s no proof that he
not credible either. His testimonies had a lot was making plans in between those
of inconsistencies. Besides, if Camano were threats & the consummation of the
really innocent, he should have produced crime.
more witnesses considering that the crime
was committed in broad daylight w/many 2. Yes. Amado Payago, one of the men drinking
people witnessing it. But only Nemesio was w/Pascua & Buenaflor during the incident,
presented. Nemesio & Camano’s testimonies testified that Camano attacked Pascua from
were changed many times too. Evidence behind. Such is a measure w/c ensures the
show that he is guilty of murder beyond accomplishment of criminal act w/o any
reasonable doubt w/evident premeditation, risk to the perpetrator arising from the
treachery, abuse of superior strength & defense that his victim may put up
intoxication. characterizing treachery. Payago’s
• Appeal: Camano’s counsel claims that the testimony is further strengthened by the
accused is only guilty of homicide & not nature & location of the wounds sustained
murder. by Pascua w/c show that the point of entry
of the stab wounds were at the back & point
Issues: of exit were in front.
1. WON evident premeditation should be
appreciated. Buenaflor was hacked while he was in a
2. WON treachery should be appreciated kneeling position. The attack was sudden,
unexpected & lethal such as to disable &
Rañeses 140

incapacitate him from putting up any barbarous, something more that the
defense. mere extinguishments of life.

3. No. IT’S MITIGATING. Camano’s counsel Aquino dissenting: Premeditation is aggravating
claims that there was no proof of accused’s thus accused should be sentenced to 2 RPs.
intoxication at the time of the killing other
than Payago’s testimony that he saw Makasiar concurring: Voluntary surrender will
Camano drinking in his house about 30 also mitigate guilt of the accused. He had a choice to
meters away. No police report/doctor’s surrender or not when demanded by the policemen
certification was presented either. who didn’t place him under arrest nor did they have
Furthermore, there’s no proof that accused any arrest warrant.
purposefully got drunk to facilitate the
commission of the offense. If intoxication
should be appreciated it should be used as
mitigating circumstance since it diminished
his capacity to know the injustice of his acts
& comprehend fully the consequence of his
acts.
• Mitigating if accidental, not habitual or
intentional & not subsequent to the plan
to commit the crime. It must be
indubitably proven.
• Aggravating if habitual or intentional.
Habitual drunkard is one given to
intoxication by excessive use of
intoxicating drinks. Habit should be
actual & confirmed. Not necessarily a
daily occurrence but it must lessen the
individual’s resistance to evil thought &
undermine will power making its victim
a potential evildoer.
• No proof that Camano was a habitual
drinker although he used to get drunk
every now & then. Even Pagayo’s
testimony does not establish the
habitual drinking of Camano. The
intoxication not being habitual & since
accused was in a state of intoxication at
the time of the commission of the crime,
intoxication should be appreciated as a
mitigating circumstance.
4. No. Camano’s counsel claims that the
penalty violates Art. IV, Sec. 21 of the Consti
w/c provides that excessive fines shall not
be imposed nor cruel or unusual
punishment inflicted.
• Harden vs. Dir of Prisons: DP is not
cruel, unjust or excessive. Punishments
are cruel when they involve torture or a
lingering death but the punishment of
death is not cruel w/in the meaning of
that word as used in the Consti. It
implies something inhuman &

Rañeses 141

Persons Criminally Liable 3. An artificial or juridical person
cannot act with malice or
negligence.
A. In Grave and Less Grave Felonies 4. Other penalties consisting in
imprisonment and other deprivation
RPC, Art. 16.
of liberty, like destierro, can be
executed only against individuals.
Who are criminally liable. -‐ The following are (Albert)
criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies: 4. Officers, not corporation, are
criminally liable.
1. Principals. 5. Juridical persons are criminally
liable under certain special laws.
2. Accomplices. 6. Only the officers of the corporation
who participated either as principals
3. Accessories. by direct participation or principals
by induction or by cooperation, or as
The following are criminally liable for light felonies:
accomplices in the commission of an
1. Principals act punishable by law are liable.
7. Passive subject of crime. The holder of
2. Accomplices. the injured rights: the man, the juristic
person, the group and the State.

Reyes: Principals
1. Treble division of persons criminally
liable. This division rests upon the very RPC, Art. 17.
nature of their participation in the
commission of the crime. Principals. -‐ The following are considered
principals:
When a crime is committed y many, without
being equally shared by all, a different 1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of
degree of responsibility is imposed upon the act;
each and every one of them. In that case,
they are criminally liable either as 2. Those who directly force or induce others to
principals, accomplices or accessories. commit it;
2. Active subject and passive subject of
crime. In all crimes there are always two 3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the
parties, namely; the active subject (the offense by another act without which it would not
criminal) and the passive subject (the have been accomplished.
injured party). Art. 16 enumerates the
active subjects.
3. Only natural persons can be active Reyes:
subjects of crime. Only natural persons can 1. Difference between a principal under
be the active subject of crime because of the any of the three categories enumerated
highly personal nature of the criminal in Art. 17 and a co-‐conspirator. The
responsibility. difference between an accused who is a
1. The RPC requires that the culprit principal under any of the three categories
should have acted with personal enumerated in Art. 17 of the RPC and a co-‐
malice or negligence. An artificial or conspirator who is also a principal is that
juridical person cannot act with while the former’s criminal liability is
malice or negligence. limited to his own acts, as a general rule, the
2. A juridical person, like a latter’s responsibility includes the acts of his
corportation, cannot commit a crime fellow conspirators.
in which a willful purpose or a
malicious intent is required. Principals by direct participation
Rañeses 142

Reyes: 8. When there is no conspiracy, each of the
1. Two or more persons may take direct offenders is liable only for the act
part in the execution of the act, in which performed by him.
case they may be principals by direct 9. Conspiracy is implied when the accused
participation. had a common purpose and were united
2. Requisites: in its execution.
a. That they participated in the 10. Unity of purpose ad intention in the
criminal resolution; commission of the crime.
b. That they carried out their plan and a. Spontaneous agreement at the
personally took part in its execution moment of the commission of the
by acts which directly tended to the crime is sufficient to create just
same end. responsibility.
3. Conspiracy. A conspiracy exists when two b. Active cooperation by all the
or more persons come to an agreement offenders in the perpetration of the
concerning the commission of a felony and crime will also create joint
decide to commit it. (Art. 8, par. 2) responsibility.
a. To be a party to a conspiracy, one c. Contributing by positive acts to the
must have the intention to realization of a common criminal
participate in the transaction with a intent also creates joint
view to the furtherance of the responsibility.
common design and purpose. d. Presence during the commission of
4. Silence does not make one a conspirator. the crime by a band and lending
5. Conspiracy transcends companionship. moral support thereto, also create
6. Existence of conspiracy. The existence of joint responsibility with the material
conspiracy does not require necessarily an executors.
agreement for an appreciable length prior to e. Where one of the accused knew of
the execution of the purpose, since from the the plan of the others to commit a
legal viewpoint, conspiracy exists if, at the crime and accepted the role
time of the commission of the offense, the assigned to him and he actually
accused had the same purpose and were performed the role.
united in its execution. (People v. Binasing, 11. There may be conspiracy even if
et al., 98 Phil. 908) there is no evident premeditation on
7. Proof of conspiracy. the part of the accused.
a. In the absence of collusion among 12. Where there is conspiracy, the act of
the declarants, their confessions one is the act of all.
may form a complete picture of the 13. A conspirator is not liable for
whole situation and may be another’s crime which is not an
considered collectively as object to the conspiracy or which is
corroborative and/or confirmatory not a necessary and logical
of the evidence independent consequence thereof.
therefrom. 14. A person in conspiracy with others,
b. It is not essential that there be who had desisted before the crime
proofs as to the previous agreement was committed by the others, is not
and decision to commit the crime, it criminally liable.
being sufficient that the malefactors 15. When there is conspiracy, it is not
shall have acted in concert pursuant necessary to ascertain the specific act
to the same objective. of each conspirator.
c. Formal agreement or previous 16. When there is conspiracy, the fact
acquaintance among several that an element of the offense is not
persons not necessary in conspiracy. present as regards one of the
d. Conspiracy must be established by conspirators is immaterial.
positive and conclusive evidence. 17. There could be no conspiracy to
commit an offense through
negligence.
Rañeses 143

18. In cases of criminal negligence or Siaga, who remained below in the tienda and
crimes punishable by special law, engaged the woman in conversation while the other
allowing or failing to prevent an act defendants went up into the house, should only be
to be performed by another, makes held as a accomplice (accessary before the fact) as
one a co-‐principal. defined in the Penal Code, and not as a principal.
19. The principals by direct participation
must be at the scene of the crime, Issue: WON defendant Eustaquio Siaga should only
personally taking part in the be held liable as accomplice?
execution.
20. When the second requisite is lacking Held: No. The defendant Siaga acted concurrently
(culprits personally took part), there with the other defendants, and must be held to have
is only conspiracy. been present with them aiding and abetting them in
21. There is collective criminal the commission of the crime by remaining below
responsibility when the offenders are and talking with the woman in order to distract her
criminally liable in the same manner attention from what was going on upstairs. In doing
and to the same extent. The penalty to so he was evidently serving as a guard to warn his
be imposed must be the same for all. companions in case there should arise any necessity
22. In the absence of previous for giving an alarm. When the other defendants
conspiracy, unity of criminal purpose came down out of the house he went away with
and intention immediately before the them.
commission of the crime, or
community of criminal design, the This court has repeatedly held that one who shares
criminal responsibility arising from the guilty purpose and aids and abets the
different acts directed against one commission of a crime by his presence at the time
and the same person is individual of its perpetration, even though he may not have
and not collective, and each of the taken an active part in its material execution, is
participants is liable only for the act guilty as a principal. We have also held that one
committed by him. who stands as guard near the place where a crime is
committed to keep others away or to warn his
United States v. Diris, 26 Phil. 133 (1918) companions and fellow conspirators of danger of
Fact: Fulgencio Seal, who lived in the pueblo of discovery, takes a direct part in the commission of
Calauag, Province of Tayabas, received from the the crime and is therefore guilty as a principal
railroad company, more than P400 in payment of under article 13 of the Penal Code.
certain land expropriated by that company, and that
the defendant Tomas Olea, a nephew of Fugencio Principals by inducement
Seal, was present when the money was counted and Reyes:
paid over to his uncle. Thereafter, after Fulgencio 1. The principal by induction becomes
Seal left the house leaving his wife in charge of their liable only when the principal by direct
tienda, the three defendants appeared at the tienda participation committed
and Eustaquio Siaga engaged the woman in 2. Two ways of becoming principal by
conversation while the other two defendants went induction.
upstairs, broke open the trunk, and took the money, a. by directly forcing another to commit
amounting to P353, and a receipt for P100. After the a crime, and
discovery of the commission of the crime, The • By using irresistible force.
nephew when found admitted the theft of the • By causing uncontrollable
money and promised that if the uncle would not fear.
make any trouble about it he would try and recover b. by directly inducing another to
it from the other defendants. commit a crime.
• By giving price, or offering
At the trial the defendants denied that they were reward or promise.
the authors of the crime; Olea and Diris denied that • By using words of command.
they were present at the house on the morning in 3. Requisites
question. However, they were convicted for the
crime of robbery. On appeal, defendant Eustaquio
Rañeses 144

a. That the inducement be made directly 7. Ascendancy or influence as to amount to
with the intention of procuring the moral coercion is not necessary when
commission of the crime; and there is conspiracy.
b. That such inducement be the 8. One who planned the crime committed
determining cause of the commission by another is a principal by inducement.
of the crime by the material executor. 9. If the crime committed is not
• It is necessary that contemplated in the order given, the
inducement be the inducement is not material and not the
determining cause of the determining cause thereof.
commission of the crime by 10. Distinguish principal by inducement
the principal by direct from the offender who made proposal to
participation, that is, without commit a felony.
such inducement the crime a. In both, there is an inducement to
would not have been commit a crime.
committed. b. In the first, the principal by inducement
• The indicement must becomes liable only when the crime is
precede the act induced and committed by the principal by direct
must be so influential in participation; in the second the mere
producing the criminal act proposal to commit a felony is
that without it, the act would punishable in treason or rebellion. The
not have been performed. person to whom the proposal is made
should not commit the crime; otherwise,
To constitute inducement, there must the proponent becomes a principal by
exist on the part of the inducer the inducement.
most positive resolution and the most c. In the first, the inducement involves any
persistent effort to secure the crime; in the second, the proposal to be
commission of the crime, together punishable must involve only treason or
with the presentation to the person rebellion.
induced by the very strongest kind of 11. Effects of acquittal of principal by direct
temptation to commit the crime. participation upon the liability of
4. A thoughtless expression without principal by inducement.
intention to produce the result is not an a. Conspiracy is negatived (sic) by the
inducement to commit a crime. acquittal of the co-‐defendant.
5. The words of advice or the influence b. One cannot be held guilty of having
must have actually moved the hands of instigated the commission ofa crime
the principal by direct participation. without first being shown that the crime
6. In order that a person using words of has been actually committed by another.
command may be held liable as principal
under paragraph no. 2 of Art. 17, the People v. Ong Chiat Lay, 60 Phil. 788 (1934)
following five requisites must all be Facts: Appellant and two others, Ong Ban Hua and
present: Kua Sing, were jointly informed against by the
a. That the one uttering the words of provincial fiscal of Zamboanga, charging them with
command must have the intention of having feloniously burned a building in which was
procuring the commission of the crime. located a store belonging to the appellant. Upon a
b. That the one who made the command plea of "not guilty," appellant and his codefendants
must have an ascendancy or influence were tried jointly upon said information; and, after
over the person who acted. trial, while Ong Ban Hua and Kua Sing were
c. That the words used must be so direct, acquitted, appellant was found guilty of the crime of
so efficacious, so powerful as to amount arson
to physical or moral coercion.
d. The words of command must be uttered Issue: WON the appellant is criminally liable as
prior to the commission of the crime. principal by direct participation.
e. The material executor of the crime has
no personal reason to commit the crime.
Rañeses 145

Held: No. In order to convict a defendant as • One is induced directly to commit a crime
principal in the commission of a crime, it must be either by command, or for a consideration,
shown either (1) that he took a direct part in the or by any other similar act w/c constitutes
execution of the criminal act; (2) that he directly the real & moving cause of the crime & w/c
forced or induced another or others to commit it; or was done for the purpose of inducing such
(3) that he cooperated in the commission of the criminal act & was sufficient for that
offense by an act without which it would not have purpose. We’ve already seen in our
been accomplished. (Revised Penal Code, article commentary on par. 12 of A8 that the 1 who
17.) They take direct part in the execution of a physically commits the crime may escape
criminal act who, participating in the criminal criminal responsibility by showing that he
design, proceed to carry out their plan and acted w/ due obedience to an order; in such
personally take part in its execution by acts which case the criminal responsibility falls entirely
directly tend to the same end. (Viada, Codigo Penal, upon the 1 who orders, i.e., upon him who
5th ed., vol. 1, p. 341; Albert's Revised Penal Code by his commands has directly induced the
Ann., 144.) other to commit the act. But in case the
obedience of the inferior isn’t due to the
In the instant case, it is not claimed that appellant superior & thus not necessary, & doesn’t,
had taken a direct part in the burning of the thus, exempt him from criminal
building. In fact, the prosecution lays stress on responsibility as the physical author of the
appellant's absence from the scene of the fire as one crime, he who thus, by his command,
of the suspicious circumstances indicating his guilt. directly induced him to the criminal act is
considered by the law also as principal in
United States v. Indanan, 24 Phil. 203 (1913) the crime.
Facts: Panglima Indanan, accussed is the headman • The pacto by virtue of w/c 1 purchases for a
of Parang. consideration the hand w/c commits the
• On Mar. 24, 1912, Indanan ordered the crime makes him who gives, promises, or
killing of Sariol to his men Akiran, Kalyakan offers the consideration the principal in the
& Suhuri in the Chinese Cemetary asserting crime by direct inducement, because w/o
that Indanan had an order to that effect such offer or promise the criminal act would
from the governor. never have been committed. But this doesn’t
• The CFI found Indanan guilty of the crime of mean that the 1 who actually commits the
murder & sentencing him to be hanged. crime by reason of such promise,
remuneration or reward is exempted from
Issues: WON Indanan is guilty of murder by criminal responsibility; on the contrary,
inducement. such circumstance constitutes an
aggravation of his crime.
Held: Yes. A13(2), of the Penal Code declares those • We have heretofore said that in addition to
to be principals in a crime "who directly force or the precepto & the pacto there are similar
induce others to commit it." means by w/c another may be induced to
• Commenting upon this paragraph, Viada commit a crime w/c also make the 1 who
says: offers the inducement the principal in the
• They force another to commit a crime who crime by virtue of the provisions of A13(2).
physically by actual force or grave fear, for But it must be borne in mind that these acts
example, with a pistol in hand or by any of inducement do not consist in simple
other threatening means, oblige another to advice or counsel given before the act is
commit the crime. In our commentary on committed, or in simple words uttered at
par. 9 of A8 (page 28), we have already said the time the act was committed. Such advice
that he who suffers violence acts w/o will & & such words constitute undoubtedly an
against his will, is no more than an evil act, an inducement condemned by the
instrument, & therefore is guilty of no moral law; but in order that, under the
wrong. The real culprits in such case, the provisions of the Code, such act can be
only guilty persons, are those who use the considered direct inducement, it is
violence, those who force the other to necessary that such advice or such words
commit the crime. have a great dominance & great influence
Rañeses 146

over the person who acts; it is necessary powerful as physical or moral coercion or as
that they be as direct, as efficacious, as violence itself.
powerful as physical or moral coercion or as
violence itself. Hence, the 3 co-‐defendants of Autor are not
responsible for the injury inflicted by him on Angel
People v. Kiicihi Omine, 61 Phil. 609 (1935) Pulido. Judging from the nature of the wound, w/c
Facts: Defendants appeal from a decision of the CFI was abt 11 inches in length, it is probable that it
finding them guilty of frustrated homicide, w/ the was caused by the point of the bolo on a downward
AC that advantage was taken of their superior stroke. It was not a stab wound, and was probably
strength, & sentencing them each to suffer an IS given during a commotion and w/o being aimed at
from 6 yrs of prision correccional to 12 yrs of any particular part of the body. Moreover, as Autor
prision mayor. struck the offended only once, it is indicative that it
was not his intention to take the offended party’s
Defendants Eduardo Autor, Luis Ladion and Agapito life.
Cortesano were working under co-‐defendant Kiichi
Omine, the overseer or manager of the hemp Wherefore, Eduardo Autor is guilty of lesiones
plantation owned by Angel Pulido. The 4 graves w/ a sentence of 1yr 8 mos & 21 days of
defendants lived together in a house on the prision correccional, since the offended party was
plantation. Kiichi Omine asked Angel Pulido incapacitated for the performance of his usual work
permission to open a new road through the for a period of more than 90 days, and not of
plantation. Acdg to Omine, Pulido did give his frustrated homicide. The rest of the co-‐defendants
permission that’s why he began working on the new are acquitted.
road. But acdg to Pulido, he refused to grant this
request because there was already an unfinished Principals by indispensable cooperation
road. Reyes:
1. To cooperate means to desire or wish in
As Pulido and his son along w/ 2 others were common a thing. But that common will or
returning home from a cockpit, they noticed that a purpose does not necessarily mean
considerable number of hemp plants were previous understanding, for it can be
destroyed by the construction of the new road. explained or inferred from the
Angered by this, they went to the defendants’ house circumstances of each case. (People vs.
and there happened a violent altercation resulting Apelgido, 56 Phil. 571, 576)
to the owner Pulido’s death from a wound by a bolo 2. Requisites:
struck in his breast. a. Participating in the criminal
resolution, that is, there is either
Issue: WON Kiiche Omine is a principal by anterior conspiracy or unity of
induction. criminal purpose and intention
immediately before the commission
Held: No. Although it is alleged that Kiichi Omine of the crime charged; and
uttered words of inducement to Eduardo Autor, it b. Cooperation in the commission of
would be insufficient to make him a principal by the offense by performing another
induction. Eduardo Autor though working under act, without which it would not have
the direction of Omine was still being paid by been accomplished.
Pulido. Moreover, it is necessary that inducement
be made directly w/ the intention of procuring the People v. Montealegre, 161 SCRA 700 (1988)
commission of the crime and that such inducement Facts:
be the determining cause of the commission of the • Edmundo Abadilla was eating in a resto
crime. It must be precede the act induced and must when he detected the smell of marijuana
be so influential in producing the criminal act that smoke coming from a nearby table.
w/o it the act wouldn’t have been performed. • Intending to call a policeman, he quietly
Moreover, as words of direct inducement, it is went outside and saw Pfc. Renato
essential that such advice or words have great Camantigue. Camantigue joined Abadilla in
dominance and great influence over the person who the resto and they both smelled the
acts, that they be as direct, as efficacious, as
Rañeses 147

marijuana smoke from the table of Vicente • Montealegre was correctly convicted of the
Capalad and Napoleon Montealegre. complex crime of murder, qualified by
• Camantigue collared the 2 & said treachery, w/ assault upon a person of
“Nagmamarijuana kayo, ano?” He forced authority.
them up, holding 1 in each hand but Capalad
pulled out a knife & started stabbing People v. Simbra, 117 SCRA 242 (1982)
Camantigue at the back. Camantigue let go Facts: Sergio Tolibas was charged and found guilty
of Montealegre to get his gun but of the crime of rape of one Gresilda Gonzales, a 16-‐
Montealegre restrained Camantigue’s hand yr old girl.
to prevent the latter from defending himself.
• They grappled & fell on the floor. Capalac Prosecution’s version: One night, Gonzales left her
fled and Camantigue pursued him firing house to fetch water from the artesian well. In the
some shots. Then he stopped and asked to public market. About 36 meters away from her
be brought to a hospital. Capalac was found house, along an unlighted portion of the road,
slumped in the street, with a bullet to his appellant Tolibas and one Simbra, both smelling of
chest. Both he and Camantigue died the next ‘tuba’, accused her. Simbra grabbed her by the arms
day. Montealegre on the other hand, while Tolibas quickly covered her mouth with a
escaped through the confusion. He was later handkerchief. Helping each other, they dragged the
apprehended. girl to a serin, where the bad deed happened.
During the first commission of rape, Simbra was the
Issue: WON Montealegre was rightly considered a one who succeeded having carnal knowledge while
co-‐principal for having corroborated with Capalad Tolibas held the girl’s arms and covered her mouth.
in the killing of the police officer. Simbra succeeded twice. Afterwards, it was Tolibas
who had carnal knowledge of the girl 3 times while
Simbra was holding the complainant. After the
Held: YES. The two acted in concert, with Capalad commission of the crime, the two brought the girl to
actually stabbing Camantigue 7 times and the house of Tolibas’ sister, where she was fetched
Montealegre holding on to victim’s hands to prevent by her aunt. Police interrogation followed.
him from drawing the pistol and defending himseld,
as Abadilla had testified. Defense’s version: Gonzales was Simbra’s
• While it is true that Montealegre did not sweetheart and what happened in the serin was
himself commit the act of stabbing, he was done with the consent of the girl.
nonetheless equally guilty thereof for
having prevented Camantigue for resisting Issue: WON Simbra was a principal by
the attack against him. indispensable cooperation.
• Montealegre was a principal by
indispensable cooperation under A17(3), Held: Yes. Appellant’s version is hard to believe.
RPC. The requisites of this provision Tolibas committed the crime of rape through direct
• Participating in the criminal resolution, i.e., participation when he himself had carnal
there’s either anterior conspiracy or unity of knowledge of the girl. And, when he aided Simbra,
criminal purpose & intention immediately he committed another crime of rape through
before the commission of the crime charged; indispensable cooperation. He is hereby guilty of
& two crimes of consummated rape.
• Cooperation in the commission of the
offense by performing another act w/o w/c Accomplices
it would not have been accomplished.
• But although there was no evidence of prior RPC, Art. 18.
agreement between Capalad & Montealegre,
their subsequent acts should prove the Accomplices. -‐ Accomplices are those persons who,
presence of such conspiracy. The Court has not being included in article 17, cooperate in the
consistently upheld such view in previous execution of the offense by previous or
cases (People v. Laganson, People v. simultaneous acts.
Cercano, People v. Garcia Cabarse, Dacanay

v. People)
Reyes:
Rañeses 148

1. Quasi-‐collective criminal responsibility. 2. When the accomplice
Between collective criminal responsibility saw the criminal acts
and individual criminal responsibility, there of the principal
is the so-‐called quasi-‐collective criminal b. That he cooperates in the execution
responsibility. of the offense by previous or
simultaneous acts, with the
In quasi-‐collective criminal responsibility, intention of supplying material or
some of the offenders in the crime are moral aid in the execution of the
principals and the others are accomplices. crime in an efficacious way; and
2. The participation of an accomplice i. Moral aid may be through
presupposes the commission of the advice, encouragement or
crime by the principal by direct agreement.
participation. c. That there be a relation between the
3. In case of doubt, the participation of the acts done by the principal and those
offender will be considered that of an attributed to the person charged as
accomplice rather than that of a accomplice.
principal. 8. The accomplice intends by his acts, to
4. When the participation of an accused is commit or take part in the execution of the
not disclosed, he is only an accomplice. crime.
5. An accomplice does not have previous 9. The community of design need not be to
agreement or understanding or is not in commit the crime actually committed. It is
conspiracy with the principal by direct sufficient if there was a common purpose to
participation. commit a particular crime and that the
6. Conspirators and accomplices have one crime actually committed was a natural or
thing in common: they know and agree probable consequence of the intended
with criminal design. Conspirators, crime.
however, know the criminal intention 10. Principal in general and accomplice,
because they themselves have decided upon distinguished. An accomplice is one who does
such course of action. Accomplices come to not take a direct part in the commission of the
know about it after the principals have act, who does not force or induce others to
reached the decision, and only then do they commit it, or who does not cooperate in the
agree to cooperate in its execution. commission of the crime by another act without
Conspirators decide that a crime should be it would not have been accomplished, yet
committed; they merely assent to the plan cooperates in the execution of the act by
and cooperate in its accomplishment. previous or simultaneous actions.
Conspirators are the authors of a crime; 11. Principal by cooperation and accomplice,
accomplices are merely instruments who distinguished. Participation of an accomplice is
perform acts not essential to the not indispensable as in the case of a co-‐principal
perpetration of the offense. by cooperation.
7. Requisites: 12. Principal by direct cooperation and
a. That there be community of design; accomplice, distinguished.
that is, knowing the criminal design a. In both, there is community of
of the principal by direct criminal design.
participation, he concurs with the b. No clear-‐cut distinction between the
latter in his purpose; acts of the accomplice and those of
i. Principal originates the the principal by direct participation.
original design. In case of doubt, it shall be resolved
ii. Accomplice merely concurs. in favor of lesser responsibility.
iii. Knowledge acquired: c. Between or among principals, there
1. When the principal must be conspiracy; but between the
informs or tells the principals and the accomplices,
accomplice of the there is no conspiracy.
former’s criminal
purposes. People v. Nierra, 96 Phiil. 1 (1980)
Rañeses 149

Facts: Juliana Gadugdug-‐Nierra and Pagano Nierra, accomplices. It is true, strictly speaking, that as co-‐
her brother-‐inlaw, were competitors in the conspirators they should be punished as co-‐
businesses of launch transportation and the sale of principals. However, since their participation was
soft drinks in Barrio Tinago, General Santos City. not absolutely indispensable to the consummation
of the murder, the rule that the court should favor
In order to monopolize those businesses in the the milder form of liability may be applied to them
locality, Paciano Nierra conceived the Idea of (People vs. Tamayo, 44 Phil. 38 and other cases).
liquidating his competitor, Juliana. For that purpose, In some exceptional situations, having community
Felicisimo Doblen, a cousin-‐in-‐law of Paciano, of design with the principal does not prevent a
accompanied to Paciano's house Gaspar Misa, a malefactor from being regarded as an accomplice if
convicted murderer who had escaped from the his role in the perpetration of the homicide or
Davao Penal Colony murder was, relatively speaking, of a minor
character (See People vs. Ubiña, 97 Phil. 515; U.S.
Thereafter, Doblen, in behalf of Pagano Nierra, vs. Doming 1st, 37 Phil. 446; People vs. Daligdig, 89
delivered to Misa at the beach a package containing Phil. 598; People vs. Largo, 99 Phil. 1061).
a caliber .38 pistol with five bullets. Misa contacted
his friend, Vicente Rojas, and apprised him that he People v. Doble, 114 SCRA 131 (1982)
(Misa) had been hired to kill Juliana. Misa asked Facts: Late in the night of June 13, 1966, 10 men,
Rojas to act as lookout when the killing would be almost all heavily armed w/ pistols, carbines and
perpetrated. thompsons, left the shores of Manila in a motor
banca & proceeded to Navotas,Rizal to rob the
Thereafter, the unwary Juliana went to the beach beach-‐bank Prudential Bank & Trust Co. Said bank
where she was accustomed to void and when she wad an unusual banking hours, open from midnight
squatted, Misa unexpectedly appeared behind her, till 8AM. Once docked in Navotas and taking
held her hair, thus tilting her face, and while in that advantage of the darkness of the night, 8 men
posture, he inserted into her mouth the muzzle of disembarked from the banca and proceeded to their
the pistol and fired it. Paciano and Gaudencia, who mission. Once inside, they started firing at the
were near the beach, witnessed the actual killing. bank’s ceiling, walls & door of the vault. The 8 men
then returned to the waiting motor banca w/ about
On August 7, 1969, Misa was interrogated by P10.5K & sped away. As a result of the shooting,
Patrolman A.B. Vencer Jr. of the city police many people got killed & injured. Among those who
department. He signed a confession admitting the got killed were agents of the law.
killing of Juliana Nierra and implicating the other Only 5 of the 10 men were brought to trial, the rest
accused therein. , Misa testified at the preliminary still remain at large. 2 of the 5 accused were
in-‐vestigation. In his testimony, he admitted again acquitted. It is only Cresencio Doble, Simeon Doble
the killing and confirmed his confession implicating and Antonio Romaquin appealing in the charge of
Paciano Nierra, his wife Gaudencia, Doblen and bank robbery committed in band, w/ multiple
Rojas homicide, multiple frustrated homicide and assault
upon agents of persons in authority.
Thereafter, Misa, Doblen, Rojas and the Nierra
spouses, as co-‐conspirators, were charged with Issue: WON defendant is an accomplice.
murder aggravated by reward, treachery, evident
premeditation, nocturnity, ignominy and abuse of Held: Yes. First, as to appellant Simeon, evidence
superiority and, as to Misa, recidivism, since he had shows that the malefactors met in his house to
been sentenced to reclusion perpetua for the discuss the plan to rob the bank. This circumstance
murder of Antonio Abad Tormis in Cebu City. alone doesn’t conclude his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. The facts do not show that he performed any
Issue: WON Dublin and Rojas are criminally liable act tending to the perpetration of the robbery, nor
as accomplice. that he took a direct part therein or induced other
persons to commit, or that he cooperated in its
consummation by some act w/o w/c it would not
Held: Yes. After a conscientious reflection on the have been committed. At most, his act amounted to
complicity of Doblen and Rojas, we have reached joining in a conspiracy w/c is not punishable.
the conclusion that they should be held guilty as Simeon then was not a principal both by agreement
Rañeses 150

and encouragement for his non-‐participation in the liable as mere accomplices may appear too lenient
commission of the crime. Nor was it clearly proven but evidence fails to establish their conspiracy w/
that he had received any part/fruits of the looted the real malefactors who actually robbed the bank
money as to make him an accessory. As and killed several people.
recommended by SolGen, Simeon Doble is entitled
to acquittal w/ no sufficient evidence to establish Wherefore, Doble & Romaquin are guilty beyond
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. reasonable doubt as accomplices for the crime of
robbery in band. The penalty imposable upon
Next, as regards Romaquin & Doble, the malefactors appellants is prision mayor min. The commission of
who waited in the banca, both contend that their the crime was aggr by nighttime & the use of a
extra-‐judicial statements upon w/c their conviction motorized banca. There being no MC, both
was principally made to rest, are inadmissible for appellants should be sentenced to an indeterminate
having been allegedly obtained by force and penalty of prision correccional from 5 yrs, 4 mos, 21
intimidation, torture and maltreatment, and in days to 8 yrs of prision mayor as maximum.
violation of basic consti’l rts to counsel and against
self-‐incrimination. However, it must be noted that People v. Doctolero, 193 SCRA 632 (1991)
they didn’t present any medical cert to attest to the Facts:
injuries allegedly inflicted. More so that their • Ludovico, Virgilio, and Conrado were
testimonies match each other’s. And it should also stoning the house of Marcial.
be noted that Celso Aquino’s testimony, as one of • After the two women inside protested their
the accused, admitted that no violence was inflicted acts, the three went up the house.
on him to procure his statement. This is evidence • While inside the house, Ludovico boloed
enough that the appellants could not have been both women inside, as well as a child.
dealt w/ differently as their co-‐accused Aquino who
was allowed to give his statement freely. Issue: WON defendants are liable as accomplices.

The extra-‐judicial statements of the appellants are Held: Yes.
convincing to show that their liability is less than • It is reasonable to believe that Conrado and
that of a co-‐principal by conspiracy or by actual Virgilio merely stood by as Ludovico was
participation. Cresencio was merely in-‐charge of boloing the two deceased women. Their
the banca and had no knowledge of the concrete presence gave Ludovico the encouragement
plan and execution of the crime. The mastermind and reliance to proceed as he did.
obviously did not extend confidence in him as he • This is similar to the case of US v. Balili
was only asked to provide a banca just a few hours where it was held that one who goes with
before the commission of the crime. Nor was the principals, and in staying outside of the
Romaquin considered a principle malefactor as house while the others went inside to rob
there was a gun pointed at him by Cresencio to and kill the victim, effectively supplies the
prevent him from fleeing away from the scene, criminals with material and moral aid,
evident to show that he never joined in the criminal making him guilty as an accomplice.
purpose and that his acts were not voluntary.
Accessories
An accomplice is one who, not being principal as
defined in Art 17 RPC, cooperates in the execution
of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. RPC, Art. 19
There must be a community of unlawful purpose
Accessories. -‐ Accessories are those who, having
between the principal and accomplice and
knowledge of the commission of the crime, and
assistance knowingly and intentionally given to
supply material and moral aid in the consummation without having participated therein, either as
of the offense. In this case, the appellants’ principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to
cooperation is like that of a driver of a car used for its commission in any of the following manners:
abduction w/c makes the driver a mere accomplice.
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender
But it isn’t established by evidence that in the mtg
to profit by the effects of the crime.
held in the house of Simeon that they all agreed to
kill and not just rob. The finding that appellants are
Rañeses 151

2. By concealing or destroying the body of the 4. Two classes of accessories are
crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order contemplated in paragraph 3 of Article
to prevent its discovery. 19.
1. Public officers who harbor, conceal
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the or assist in the escape of the
escape of the principal of the crime, provided the principal of any crime (not light
accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or felony) with abuse of his public
whenever the author of the crime is guilty of functions.
treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the
i. Requisites
1. The accessory is a
life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be
public officer
habitually guilty of some other crime.
2. He harbors, conceals,
RPC, Art. 20 or assists in the
escape of the
Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. -‐ principal.
The penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be 3. The public officer
imposed upon those who are such with respect to acts with abuse of his
their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, public functions.
natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or 4. The crime committed
relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with by the principal is
the single exception of accessories falling within the
any crime, provided
it is not a light felony.
provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding
2. Private persons who harbor, conceal
article.
or assist in the escape of the author
of the crime -‐ guilty of treason,
Reyes: parricide, murder, or an attempt to
1. An accessory does not participate in the take the life of the Chief Executive,
criminal design, nor cooperate in the or is known to be habitually guilty of
commission of the felony, but, with some other crime.
knowledge of the commission of the i. Requisites:
crime, he subsequently takes part in 1. The accessory is a
three ways: private person
1. Profiting from the effects of the 2. He harbors, conceals
crime or assists in the
2. Concealing the body, effects or escape of the author
instruments of the crime in order to of the crime.
prevent its discover 3. The crime committed
3. Assisting in the escape or by the principal is
concealment of the principal of the either (a) treason,
crime, provided he acts with abuse (b) parricide, (c)
of his public functions or the murder, (d) an
principal is guilty of treason, attempt against the
parricide, murder, or an attempt to life of the President,
take the life of the Chief Executive, or € that the
or is known to be habitually guilty of principal is known to
some other crime. be habitually guilty
2. An accessory must have knowledgeof the of some other crime.
commission of the crime, and having that 5. One who kept silent with regard to the crime
knowledge, he took part subsequent to he witnessed is not an accessory.
its commission. 6. Conviction of an accessory is possible
3. Knowledge may be established by notwithstanding acquittal of principal if the
circumstantial evidence. crime was in fact committed, but the
principal not held criminally liable because
of an exempting circumstance.
Rañeses 152

7. Apprehension and conviction of principal for more than 3 weeks. It was suspected that Teresa
not necessary for the accessory to be held is having an illicit affair with Talingdan, a policeman
criminally liable. who lives nearby. Two days before the crime,
8. Arraignment, trial and conviction of Teresa was slapped several times by Bernardo after
accessory during the pendency of a separate a violent quarrel. She sought the help of Talingdan
case against the principal are null and void. who challenged Bernardo to come down, but the
Accessory may be prosecuted and convicted latter refused. Then, Talingdan left after shouting "If
when principal is not yet apprehended. I will find you someday, I will kill you." Two days
9. Principal, accomplice and accessory, before the commission of the crime, Corazon
distinguished. overheard her mother’s meeting with the other
1. The accessory does not take direct accused-‐appellants about their plot to kill her father
part or cooperate in, or induce the as one of them said, “Shall he elude a bullet?”
commission of the crime. Corazon was then driven away by her mother
2. The same does not cooperate in the saying, “You tell your father that we will kill him.”
commission of the offense by acts On the night of the murder, Corazon was cooking
either prior thereto or simultaneous food for supper when she saw her mother talking
therewith. with the other accused-‐appellants in their “batalan”
3. The participation of the accessory in armed with long guns. After a while, Teresa went
all cases always takes place after the inside the room to put her baby to sleep. After
commission of the crime. eating supper alone, Corazon told her father about
10. Exemptions in Art. 20. Based on ties of blood the persons outside but he ignored her. He went to
and the preservation of the cleanliness of one’s the kitchen and sat on the floor near the door then
name, which compels one to conceal crimes he was fired at. Talingdan and Tobias fired their
committed by relatives so near as those guns again. Bides threatened to kill Corazon if she
mentioned in the article. would ask for help. Corazon confessed to her
11. Principals related to accessories exempt father’s relatives the identities of the murderers
from criminal liability. during his burial. The trial court found them guilty
1. Spouse of the offense and so the five accused appealed to
2. Ascendant their conviction.
3. Descendant
4. Legitimate, natural or adopted Trial Court: Murder. Life imprisonment with
brother, sister or relative by affinity indemnity to the offended party, the heirs of the
within the same degree. deceased Bernardo Bagabag, in the amount of
12. Accessory is not exempt from criminal P12,000
liability even if the principal is related to
him, if such accessory (1) profited by the Contention of the Accused: Teresa denied having an
effects of the crime, or (2) assisted the illicit affair with Talingdan, having quarrels with or
offender to profit by the effects of the crime. being maltreated by the victim, and leaving home
for so long. She contends that her in-‐laws used her
People v. Talingdan, 84 SCRA 19 (1978) daughter to testify against her because they don’t
Facts: Bernardo Bagabag was murdered in his own want Teresa from the start. She even added that
house in Abra on June 24, 1967 by Talingdan, Bernardo had some enemies during his lifetime.
Tobias, Berras, Bides and Teresa Domogma, his Talingdan said that he escorted the Mayor as a
alleged wife [whom cannot be charged with bodyguard, while the other three accused also
parricide because no certificate or proof of claimed that they were at a certain Mrs. Bayongan’s
marriage could be presented by the prosecution]. house during the night of the murder.
The murder was witnessed by Corazon [12], the
eldest child of Bernardo and Teresa. She testified to Contention of the People: The sworn statement of
the crime committed by the accused-‐appellants. the 13-‐year old Corazon was true. She knew the
accused because they live nearby. Besides, the
Summary of Corazon’s testimony: Prior to the accused-‐appellants testimonies are indefensible
violent incident, Bernardo and Teresa have had and futile. Moreover, her mother claimed to have no
several conflicts in their married life. She would suspect in mind during the investigation in their
often withdrew from their house. The longest even
Rañeses 153

house although she was in conspiracy with the Ordono in the Municipal Trial Court of Balungao,
other four accused. Pangasinan. However, on March 22, 1985, the
municipal court indorsed the case of Salazar to the
Issue: WON Teresa is an accessory. Judge Advocate General's Office (JAGO) inasmuch as
he was a member of the military, while the case
Held: Yes. There are two aggravating against Vino was given due course by the issuance
circumstances present, treachery and evident of a warrant for his arrest. Ultimately, the case was
premeditation, with no mitigating circumstances to indorsed to the fiscal's office who then filed an
offset the accused-‐appellants. Talingdan, Tobias, information charging Vino of the crime of murder in
Berras, and Bides are guilty beyond reasonable the Regional Trial Court of Rosales, Pangasinan.
doubt of murder and are sentenced to DEATH to be
executed in accordance with law. Teresa Domogma Upon arraignment, the accused Vino entered a plea
is guilty as accessory to the same murder, and is of not guilty. Trial then commenced with the
hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate presentation of evidence for the prosecution.
penalty of 5 years prision correccional as minimum Instead of presenting evidence in his own behalf,
to 8 years of prision mayor as maximum, with the the accused filed a motion to dismiss for
accessory penalties of the law. insufficiency of evidence to which the prosecutor
filed an answer. On January 21, 1986, 2 a decision
Teresa was more or less passive in her attitude was rendered by the trial court finding Vino guilty
regarding her co-‐appellants' conspiracy, known to as an accessory to the crime of murder and
her. After Bernardo was killed, she became active in imposing on him the indeterminate penalty of
her cooperation with them. These subsequent acts imprisonment of 4 Years and 2 months of prision
of her constitute "concealing or assisting in the correccional as minimum to 8 years of prision
escape of the principal in the crime" which makes mayor as maximum. He was also ordered to
her liable as an accessory -‐-‐-‐ par. 2 and 3 of Article indemnify the heirs of the victim in the sum of
19, RPC. P10,000.00 being a mere accessory to the crime and
to pay the costs.
Vino v. People, 178 SCRA 626 (1989)
Facts: At about 7:00 o'clock in the evening of March Issue: WON Vino is an accessory.
21, 1985, Roberto Tejada left their house at Burgos
Street, Poblacion, Balungao, Pangasinan to go to the Held: Yes. Petitioner was charged as a principal in
house of Isidro Salazar to watch television. At the commission of the crime of murder. Under
around 11:00 P.M., while Ernesto, the father of Article 16 of the Revised Penal Code, the two other
Roberto, was resting, he heard two gunshots. categories of the persons responsible for the
Thereafter, he heard Roberto cry out in a loud voice commission of the same offense are the accomplice
saying that he had been shot. He saw Roberto ten and the accessory. There is no doubt that the crime
(10) meters away so he switched on the lights of of murder had been committed and that the
their house. Aside from Ernesto and his wife, his evidence tended to show that Jessie Salazar was the
children Ermalyn and Julius were also in the house. assailant. That the petitioner was present during its
They went down to meet Roberto who was crying commission or must have known its commission is
and they called for help from the neighbors. The the only logical conclusion considering that
neighbor responded by turning on their lights and immediately thereafter, he was seen driving a
the street lights and coming down from their bicycle with Salazar holding an armalite, and they
houses. After meeting Roberto, Ernesto and Julius were together when they left shortly thereafter. At
saw Lito Vino and Jessie Salazar riding a bicycle least two witnesses, Ernesto and Julius Tejada,
coming from the south. Vino was the one driving attested to these facts. It is thus clear that petitioner
the bicycle while Salazar was carrying an armalite. actively assisted Salazar in his escape. Petitioner's
Upon reaching Ernesto's house, they stopped to liability is that of an accessory.
watch Roberto. Salazar pointed his armalite at
Ernesto and his companions. Thereafter, the two In the present case, the commission of the crime of
left. murder and the responsibility of the petitioner as
an accessory was established. By the same token
Lito Vino and Sgt. Jesus Salazar were charged with there is no doubt that the commission of the same
murder in a complaint filed by PC Sgt. Ernesto N. offense had been proven in the separate case
Rañeses 154

against Salazar who was charged as principal. (a) The penalty of prision mayor, if the value of the
However, he was acquitted on the ground of property involved is more than 12,000 pesos but not
reasonable doubt by the same judge who convicted exceeding 22,000 pesos; if the value of such property
Vino as an accessory. The trial court held that the exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this
paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period,
identity of the assailant was not clearly established.
adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the
It observed that only Julius Tejada identified Salazar total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed
carrying a rifle while riding on the bicycle driven by twenty years. In such cases, the penalty shall be termed
Vino, which testimony is uncorroborated, and that reclusion temporal and the accessory penalty pertaining
two other witnesses, Ernesto Tejada and Renato thereto provided in the Revised Penal Code shall also be
Parvian who were listed in the information, who imposed.
can corroborate the testimony of Julius Tejada,
were not presented by the prosecution. (b) The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods, if the value of the property robbed or
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1612 stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but not exceeding 12,000
pesos.
ANTI-‐FENCING LAW OF 1979
(c) The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum
WHEREAS, reports from law enforcement agencies and medium periods, if the value of the property
reveal that there is rampant robbery and thievery of involved is more than 200 pesos but not exceeding 6,000
government and private properties; pesos.

WHEREAS, such robbery and thievery have become (d) The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to
profitable on the part of the lawless elements because of prision correccional in its minimum period, if the value
the existence of ready buyers, commonly known as fence, of the property involved is over 50 pesos but not
of stolen properties;lawphil.net exceeding 200 pesos.

WHEREAS, under existing law, a fence can be prosecuted (e) The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period if
only as an accessory after the fact and punished lightly; such value is over five (5) pesos but not exceeding 50
pesos.
WHEREAS, is imperative to impose heavy penalties on
persons who profit by the effects of the crimes of robbery (f) The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period if
and theft. such value does not exceed 5 pesos.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President Section 4. Liability of Officials of Juridical Persons. If the
of the Philippines by virtue of the powers vested in me fence is a partnership, firm, corporation or association,
by the Constitution, do hereby order and decree as part the president or the manager or any officer thereof who
of the law of the land the following: knows or should have known the commission of the
offense shall be liable.
Section 1. Title. This decree shall be known as the Anti-‐
Fencing Law. Section 5. Presumption of Fencing. Mere possession of
any good, article, item, object, or anything of value which
Section 2. Definition of Terms. The following terms shall has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be
mean as follows: prima facie evidence of fencing.

(a) "Fencing" is the act of any person who, with intent to Section 6. Clearance/Permit to Sell/Used Second Hand
gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, Articles. For purposes of this Act, all stores,
possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall establishments or entities dealing in the buy and sell of
buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, any good, article item, object of anything of value
item, object or anything of value which he knows, or obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof,
should be known to him, to have been derived from the shall before offering the same for sale to the public,
proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. secure the necessary clearance or permit from the
station commander of the Integrated National Police in
(b) "Fence" includes any person, firm, association the town or city where such store, establishment or
corporation or partnership or other organization entity is located. The Chief of Constabulary/Director
who/which commits the act of fencing. General, Integrated National Police shall promulgate
such rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of
Section 3. Penalties. Any person guilty of fencing shall be this section. Any person who fails to secure the clearance
punished as hereunder indicated: or permit required by this section or who violates any of
the provisions of the rules and regulations promulgated
Rañeses 155

thereunder shall upon conviction be punished as a fence.
lawphi1.net 2. If the person seeking the clearance or permit is a
partnership, firm, corporation, or association or group of
Section 7. Repealing Clause. All laws or parts thereof, individuals, the clearance or permit shall be obtained by
which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Decree or in the name of the president, manager or other
are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. responsible officer-‐in-‐charge thereof.

Section 8. Effectivity. This Decree shall take effect upon 3. If a store, firm, corporation, partnership, association or
approval. other establishment or entity has a branch or subsidiary
and the used secondhand article is acquired by such
Done in the City of Manila, this 2nd day of March, in the branch or subsidiary for sale to the public, the said
year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-‐nine. branch or subsidiary shall secure the required clearance
or permit.
RULES AND REGULATIONS TO CARRY OUT THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6 OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE 4. Any goods, article, item, or object or anything of value
NO. 1612, KNOWN AS THE ANTI-‐FENCING LAW. acquired from any source for which no receipt or
equivalent document evidencing the legality of its
Pursuant to Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 1612, acquisition could be presented by the present possessor
known as the Anti-‐Fencing Law, the following rules and or holder thereof, or the covering receipt, or equivalent
regulations are hereby promulgated to govern the document, of which is fake, falsified or irregularly
issuance of clearances/permits to sell used secondhand obtained, shall be presumed as having been acquired
articles obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier from an unlicensed dealer or supplier and the possessor
thereof: or holder thereof must secure the required clearance or
permit before the same can be sold or offered for sale to
I. Definition of Terms the public.

1. "Used secondhand article" shall refer to any goods, III. Procedure for Procurement of Clearances or Permits
article, item, object or anything of value obtained from an
unlicensed dealer or supplier, regardless of whether the 1. The Station Commanders concerned shall require the
same has actually or in fact been used. owner of a store or the president, manager or
responsible officer-‐in-‐charge of a firm, establishment or
2. "Unlicensed dealer/supplier" shall refer to any other entity located within their respective jurisdictions
persons, partnership, firm, corporation, association or and in possession of or having in stock used secondhand
any other entity or establishment not licensed by the articles as defined herein, to submit an initial affidavit
government to engage in the business of dealing in or of within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice for the
supplying the articles defined in the preceding purpose thereof and subsequent affidavits once every
paragraph. fifteen (15) days within five (5) days after the period
covered, which shall contain:
3. "Store", "establishment" or "entity" shall be construed
to include any individual dealing in the buying and (a) A complete inventory of such articles acquired daily
selling used secondhand articles, as defined in paragraph from whatever source and the names and addresses of
hereof. the persons from whom such articles were acquired.

4. "Buy and Sell" refer to the transaction whereby one (b) A full list of articles to be sold or offered for sale as
purchases used secondhand articles for the purpose of well as the place where the date when the sale or offer
resale to third persons. for sale shall commence.

5. "Station Commander" shall refer to the Station (c) The place where the articles are presently deposited
Commander of the Integrated National Police within the or kept in stock.
territorial limits of the town or city district where the
store, establishment or entity dealing in the buying and The Station Commander may, at his discretion when the
selling of used secondhand articles is located. circumstances of each case warrant, require that the
affidavit submitted be accompanied by other documents
II. Duty to Procure Clearance or Permit showing proof of legitimacy of the acquisition of the
articles.
1. No person shall sell or offer to sell to the public any
used secondhand article as defined herein without first 2. A party required to secure a clearance or permit under
securing a clearance or permit for the purpose from the these rules and regulations shall file an application
proper Station Commander of the Integrated National therefor with the Station Commander concerned. The
Police. application shall state:
Rañeses 156

the Commission on Audit of the case and comply with
(a) The name, address and other pertinent circumstances such procedure as may be proper under applicable
of the persons, in case of an individual or, in the case of a existing laws, rules and regulations.
firm, corporation, association, partnership or other
entity, the name, address and other pertinent 4. The Station Commander concerned shall, within
circumstances of the president, manager or officer-‐in-‐ seventy-‐two (72) hours from receipt of the application,
charge. act thereon by either issuing the clearance/permit
requested or denying the same. Denial of an application
(b) The article to be sold or offered for sale to the public shall be in writing and shall state in brief the reason/s
and the name and address of the unlicensed dealer or therefor.
supplier from whom such article was acquired.
5. The application, clearance/permit or the denial
In support of the application, there shall be attached to it thereof, including such other documents as may be
the corresponding receipt or other equivalent document pertinent in the implementation of Section 6 of P.D. No.
to show proof of the legitimacy of acquisition of the 1612 shall be in the forms prescribed in Annexes "A", "B",
article. "C", "D", and "E" hereof, which are made integral parts of
these rules and regulations.
3. The Station Commander shall examine the documents
attached to the application and may require the 6. For the issuance of clearances/permit required under
presentation of other additional documents, if necessary, Section 6 of P.D. No. 1612, no fee shall be charged.
to show satisfactory proof of the legitimacy of acquisition
of the article, subject to the following conditions: IV. Appeals

(a) If the legitimacy of acquisition of any article from an Any party aggrieved by the action taken by the Station
unlicensed source cannot be satisfactorily established by Commander may elevate the decision taken in the case to
the documents presented, the Station Commander shall, the proper INP District Superintendent and, if he is still
upon approval of the INP Superintendent in the district dissatisfied therewith may take the same on appeal to
and at the expense of the party seeking the the INP Director. The decision of the INP Director may
clearance/permit, cause the publication of a notice in a also be appealed to the INP Director-‐General whose
newspaper of general circulation for two (2) successive decision may likewise be appealed to the Minister of
days enumerating therein the articles acquired from an National Defense. The decision of the Minister of
unlicensed dealer or supplier, the names and addresses National Defense on the case shall be final. The appeal
of the persons from whom they were acquired and shall against the decision taken by a Commander lower than
state that such articles are to be sold or offered for sale to the INP Director-‐General should be filed to the next
the public at the address of the store, establishment or higher Commander within ten (10) days from receipt of
other entity seeking the clearance/permit. In places notice of the decision. The decision of the INP Director-‐
where no newspapers are in general circulation, the General should be appealed within fifteen (15) days from
party seeking the clearance or permit shall, instead, post receipt of notice of the decision.
a notice daily for one week on the bulletin board of the
municipal building of the town where the store, firm, V. Penalties
establishment or entity concerned is located or, in the
case of an individual, where the articles in his possession 1. Any person who fails to secure the clearance or permit
are to be sold or offered for sale. required by Section 6 of P.D. 1612 or who violates any of
the provisions of these rules and regulations shall upon
(b) If after 15 days, upon expiration of the period of conviction be punished as a fence.
publication or of the notice referred to in the preceding
paragraph, no claim is made with respect to any of the 2. The INP Director-‐General shall recommend to the
articles enumerated in the notice, the Station proper authority the cancellation of the business license
Commander shall issue the clearance or permit sought. of the erring individual, store, establishment or the entity
concerned.
(c) If, before expiration of the same period for
publication of the notice or its posting, it shall appear 3. Articles obtained from unlicensed sources for sale or
that any of the articles in question is stolen property, the offered for sale without prior compliance with the
Station Commander shall hold the article in restraint as provisions of Section 6 of P.D. No. 1612 and with these
evidence in any appropriate case to be filed. Articles held rules and regulations shall be held in restraint until
in restraint shall be kept and disposed of as the satisfactory evidence or legitimacy of acquisition has
circumstances of each case permit, taking into account all been established.
considerations of right and justice in the case. In any case
where any article is held in restraint, it shall be the duty 4. Articles for which no satisfactory evidence of
of the Station Commander concerned to advise/notify legitimacy of acquisition is established and which are
Rañeses 157

found to be stolen property shall likewise be held under containing a consolidation of the information stated in
restraint and shall, furthermore, be subject to the reports of Station Commanders in his jurisdiction.
confiscation as evidence in the appropriate case to be
filed. If, upon termination of the case, the same is not 3. Reports from INP District Superintendent shall serve
claimed by their legitimate owners, the article/s shall be as basis for a consolidated report to be submitted semi-‐
forfeited in favor of the government and made subject to annually by INP Directors to the Director-‐General,
disposition as the circumstances warrant in accordance Integrated National Police.
with applicable existing laws, rules and regulations. The
Commission on Audit shall, in all cases, be notified. 4. In all cases, reports emanating from the different levels
of the Integrated National Police shall be accompanied
5. Any personnel of the Integrated National Police found with full and accurate inventories of the articles acquired
violating the provisions of Section 6 of P.D. No. 1612 or from unlicensed dealers or suppliers and proposed to be
any of its implementing rules and regulations or who, in sold or offered for sale in the jurisdictions covered by the
any manner whatsoever, connives with or through his report.
negligence or inaction makes possible the commission of
such violations by any party required to comply with the These implementing rules and regulations, having been
law and its implementing rules and regulations, shall be published in a newspaper of national circulation, shall
prosecuted criminally without prejudice to the take effect on June 15, 1979.
imposition of administrative penalties.
FOR THE CHIEF OF CONSTABULARY DIRECTOR-‐
VI. Visitorial Power GENERAL, INP:

It shall be the duty of the owner of the store or of the PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1829
president, manager or responsible officer-‐in-‐charge of
any firm, establishment or other entity or of an PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OF APPREHENSION AND
individual having in his premises articles to be sold or PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL OFFENDERS
offered for sale to the public to allow the Station
Commander or his authorized representative to exercise WHEREAS, crime and violence continue to proliferate
visitorial powers. For this purpose, however, the power despite the sustained vigorous efforts of the government
to conduct visitations shall be exercise only during office to effectively contain them;
or business hours and upon authority in writing from
and by the INP Superintendent in the district and for the WHEREAS, to discourage public indifference or apathy
sole purpose of determining whether articles are kept in towards the apprehension and prosecution of criminal
possession or stock contrary to the intents of Section 6 of offenders, it is necessary to penalize acts which obstruct
P.D. No. 1612 and of these rules and regulations. or frustrate or tend to obstruct or frustrate the successful
apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders;
VII. Other Duties Imposed Upon Station Commanders
and INP District Superintendent and Directors Following NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND, E. MARCOS, President
Action on Applications for Clearances or Permits of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me
by law do hereby decree and order the following:
1. At the end of each month, it shall be the duty of the
Station Commander concerned to: Section 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its
maximum period, or a fine ranging from 1,000 to 6,000
(a) Make and maintain a file in his office of all pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who
clearances/permit issued by him. knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or
delays the apprehension of suspects and the
(b) Submit a full report to the INP District investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by
Superintendent on the number of applications for committing any of the following acts:
clearances or permits processed by his office, indicating
therein the number of clearances/permits issued and the (a) preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal
number of applications denied. The report shall state the proceeding or from reporting the commission of any
reasons for denial of an application and the offense or the identity of any offender/s by means of
corresponding follow-‐up actions taken and shall be bribery, misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, force or
accompanied by an inventory of the articles to be sold or threats;
offered for sale in his jurisdiction.
(b) altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any
2. The INP District Superintendent shall, on the basis of paper, record, document, or object, with intent to impair
the reports submitted by the Station Commander, in turn its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability, or
submit quarterly reports to the appropriate INP Director admissibility as evidence in any investigation of or
official proceedings in, criminal cases, or to be used in
Rañeses 158

the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal Done in the City of Manila, this 16th day of January, in the
cases; year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and eighty-‐one.

(c) harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, B. In Light Felonies
any person he knows, or has reasonable ground to
believe or suspect, has committed any offense under
*Refer to p. 141 for Art. 16.
existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest
prosecution and conviction;

Reyes:
(d) publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of 1. Accessories are not liable for light
concealing a crime, evading prosecution or the execution felonies.
of a judgment, or concealing his true name and other 2. Rules
personal circumstances for the same purpose or a. Light felonies are punishable only
purposes; when they have been consummated.
(Art. 7)
(e) delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by b. But when light felonies are
obstructing the service of process or court orders or
committed against persons or prope
disturbing proceedings in the fiscal's offices, in
Tanodbayan, or in the courts; c. rty, they are punishable even if they
are only in the attempted or
(f) making, presenting or using any record, document, frustrated stage of execution. (Art.
paper or object with knowledge of its falsity and with 7)
intent to affect the course or outcome of the investigation d. Only principals and accomplices are
of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases; liable for light felonies. (Art. 16)
e. Accessories are not liable for light
(g) soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any benefit felonies, even if they are committed
in consideration of abstaining from, discounting, or against persons or property. (Art.
impeding the prosecution of a criminal offender;
16)

(h) threatening directly or indirectly another with the
infliction of any wrong upon his person, honor or
property or that of any immediate member or members
of his family in order to prevent such person from
appearing in the investigation of, or official proceedings
in, criminal cases, or imposing a condition, whether
lawful or unlawful, in order to prevent a person from
appearing in the investigation of or in official
proceedings in, criminal cases;

(i) giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or
prevent the law enforcement agencies from
apprehending the offender or from protecting the life or
property of the victim; or fabricating information from
the data gathered in confidence by investigating
authorities for purposes of background information and
not for publication and publishing or disseminating the
same to mislead the investigator or to the court.

If any of the acts mentioned herein is penalized by any
other law with a higher penalty, the higher penalty shall
be imposed.

Section 2. If any of the foregoing acts is committed by a
public official or employee, he shall in addition to the
penalties provided thereunder, suffer perpetual
disqualification from holding public office.

Section 3. This Decree shall take effect immediately.

Criminal-Law-1-Finals-Reviewer (From Scribd) PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Criminal-Law-1-Finals-Reviewer (From Scribd) PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

UP

LAW BLOCK B BATCH 2015

Law 109 (I-‐B)

Consolidated reviewer for Criminal Law 1 under Prof.

Penalty to be imposed upon principals of a RPC, Art. 56.

Penalty to be imposed upon principals of attempted RPC, Art. 57.

Reyes: 3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or

Você também pode gostar

Criminal-Law-1-Finals-Reviewer (From Scribd) PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Criminal-Law-1-Finals-Reviewer (From Scribd) PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

UP

LAW BLOCK B BATCH 2015

Law 109 (I-­‐B)

Consolidated reviewer for Criminal Law 1 under Prof.

Penalty to be imposed upon principals of a RPC, Art. 56.

Penalty to be imposed upon principals of attempted RPC, Art. 57.

Reyes: 3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or

Você também pode gostar

Law 109 (I-‐B)