CRIME - is an act committed or omitted in violation
of a public law forbidding or commanding it.
Sources of Criminal Law in PH:
 RPC ACT. 3815
 Special Penal Laws enacted by Congress
 Penal Presidential Decrees issued during
Martial Law
State - has the authority to police
power
- have a large measure of discretion in
creating and defining criminal offenses.
Limitation on the power of the lawmaking body to
enact penal legislations:
1. No Ex post facto of Bill attainder - shall be
enacted
2. No persons hall be held to answer for criminal
offense without due process
Ex Post Facto
 law which makes the act criminal although
at the time it was committed, it was not
 Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater that it
was, when committed
Bill of Attainder
 Legislative act which inflicts punishment
without trial
 Essence is the subtitution of a legislative act
for a juridical determination of guilt.
 Punishes the accused without the benefit of
due process.
Retroactive Application prohibited by:
 Art 21 and 22 of RPC
 Art 3 Sec. 22 of Constitution
Constitutional Rights of the Accused:
 Art . 3 Bill of Rights
1. Speedy disposition of their case before all
Judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative
bodies (Sec. 16)
2. No persons should be held to answer for
criminal offenses without due process of law
(Sec. 14)
3. All persons, except those charged with
offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua
when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before
conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties,
or be released on recognizance as may be
provided by law. The right to bail shall not be
impaired even when the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail
shall not be required.
4. 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.
5. No person shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself.
(1) Any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right
to be informed of his right to remain silent and
to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the person
cannot afford the services of counsel, he must
be provided with one. These rights cannot be
waived except in writing and in the presence
of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat,
intimidation, or any other means which vitiate
the free will shall be used against him. Secret
detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or
other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in
violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him.
6. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor
cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
inflicted. Neither shall the death penalty be
imposed, unless, for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes, the Congress
hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty
already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion
perpetua
7. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of
punishment for the same offense. If an act is
punished by a law and an ordinance,
conviction or acquittal under either shall
constitute a bar to another prosecution for the
same act.
 8. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial
bodies and adequate legal assistance shall
not be denied to any person by reason of
poverty.
Statutory Rights of the Accused :
Rights of accused at the trial. — In all
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be
entitled to the following rights:
(a) To be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved beyond reasonable
doubt.
(b) To be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation against him.
(c) To be present and defend in person and
by counsel at every stage of the
proceedings, from arraignment to
promulgation of the judgment. The accused
may, however, waive his presence at the
trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth in
his bail, unless his presence is specifically
ordered by the court for purposes of
identification. The absence of the accused
without justifiable cause at the trial of which
he had notice shall be considered a waiver
of his right to be present thereat. When an
accused under custody escapes, he shall
be deemed to have waived his right to be
present on all subsequent trial dates until
custody over him is regained. Upon motion,
the accused may be allowed to defend
himself in person when it sufficiently
appears to the court that he can properly
protect his right without the assistance of
counsel.
(d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf
but subject to cross-examination on matters
covered by direct examination. His silence
shall not in any manner prejudice him.
(e) To be exempt from being compelled to
be a witness against himself.
(f) To confront and cross-examine the
witnesses against him at the trial. Either
party may utilize as part of its evidence the
testimony of a witness who is deceased, out
of or can not with due diligence be found in
the Philippines, unavailable or otherwise
unable to testify, given in another case or
proceeding, judicial or administrative,
involving the same parties and subject
matter, the adverse party having the
opportunity to cross-examine him.
(g) To have compulsory process issued to
secure the attendance of witnesses and
production of other evidence in his behalf.
(h) To have speedy, impartial and public
trial.
(i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the
manner prescribed by law.
Waivable Rights : right to confrontation/cross-
examination (involves personal interest)
Non-waivable rights: right to be informed of
nature/cause (Involves public interest, cannot be
waived)
Characteristic of Criminal Law
1. General
- The criminal law of the country governs all
persons who live or sojourn within the country
regardless of their race, belief, sex, or creed
XPNs: T/L/P
a. Treaty stipulations and international
agreements, e.g. RP-US Visiting Forces
Accord.
b. Laws of Preferential Application, e.g.
RA 75 penalizes acts which would
impair the proper observance by the
Republic and its inhabitants of the
immunities, rights, and privileges of
duly-accredited foreign diplomatic
representatives in the Philippines.
c. The Principles of public international
law. d. Members of the Congress are
not liable for libel or slander in
connection with any speech delivered
on the floor of the house during a
regular or special session (1987
Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 11)
Only the heads of the diplomatic missions, as
well as members of the diplomatic staff,
excluding the members of administrative,
 technical and service staff, are accorded
diplomatic rank. Consuls, vice-consuls, and
other commercial representatives of foreign
nation are not diplomatic officers. Consuls are
subject to the penal laws of the country where
they are assigned (Minucher v. CA, G.R. No.
142396, February 11, 2003).
US V. SWEET:
 Sweet is an employee of US Army in the PH.
 Assaulted a prisoner of war for which he was
charged with crime of physical injuries
 He interposed the defense that the fact that
he was an employee of the US military
 Authorities deprived the court of the
jurisdiction to try and punish him.
Held:
 Case is open to the application of the
general principle that the jurisdiction of
civil tribunals is unaffected by the military or
other special character of the
person brought them for trial.
* CIVIL COURTS:
- have jurisdiction over murder cases committed
by persons subject to military law.
- concurrent jurisdiction with the military courts or
general courts- martial over soldiers of Armed
Forces of the PH.
- have jurisdiction over the offense of
malversation committed by an army finance officer
 The Articles of War apply, not the RPS or
other penal law.
2. Territoriality
- The penal laws of the country have force and
effect only within its territory. (BAR 1994)
XPNs: Art. 2 of the RPC
3. Prospectivity
- Acts or omissions classified as crimes will be
scrutinized in accordance with the relevant penal
laws if these are committed after the effectivity of
those penal laws.
XPN: Whenever a new statute dealing with a crime
establishes conditions more lenient or favorable to
the accused.
The retroactive effect shall benefit the accused
even if at the time of the publication of the law, a
final judgment has been pronounced and the
convict is already serving his sentence.
XPNs to the XPN: The new law cannot be given
retroactive effect even if favorable to the accused:
a. When the new law is expressly made
inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes
of actions (Tavera v. Valdez, G.R. No. 922,
November 8, 1902). b. When the offender is a
habitual criminal (RPC, Art. 22).
PEOPLE V. TAMAYO

o Accused was prosecuted for and
convicted of a violation of an ordinance
o The case was pending appeal, the
ordinance was repealed by eliminating
the section under which the accused
was being prosecuted
Held
 repeal is absolute where the repeal is
absolute
 not a reenactment or repeal by implication
 Offense ceases to be criminal
 Accused must be aquitted
US V. CUNA
 Accused was charged selling opium in
violation Act No. 1461 of the PH commission.
 During the pendency of the case, Act 1761
took effect repealing the former law but both
Act 1461 and Act 1751 penalize offenses
against the opium laws
Held
 An act of Legislature which penalizes an
offense repeals a former Act which penalized
the same offense
 Such repeal does not have the effect of
thereafter depriving the courts of jurisdiction
to try, convict and sentence offenders
charged w/ violations of the old law prior to its
repeal.
Self-repealing law
- Where an act expires by its own limitation, the
effect is the same as though it had been
repealed at the time of its expiration
Effect of repeal of penal law to liability of
offender
Total or absolute, or partial or relative repeal. —
As to the effect of repeal of penal law to the liability
of offender, qualify your answer by saying whether
the repeal is absolute or total or whether the repeal
is partial or relative only.
A repeal is absolute or total when the crime
punished under the repealed law has been
decriminalized by the repeal. Because of the repeal,
the act or omission which used to be a crime is no
longer a crime. An example is Republic Act No.
7363, which decriminalized subversion.
A repeal is partial or relative when the crime
punished under the repealed law continues to be a
crime inspite of the repeal. This means that the
repeal merely modified the conditions affecting the
crime under the repealed law. The modification may
be prejudicial or beneficial to the offender.
Consequences if repeal of penal law is total or
absolute
(1) If a case is pending in court involving the
violation of the repealed law, the same shall be
dismissed, even though the accused may be a
habitual delinquent.
(2) If a case is already decided and the accused is
already serving sentence by final judgment, if the
convict is not a habitual delinquent, then he will be
entitled to a release unless there is a reservation
clause in the penal law that it will not apply to those
serving sentence at the time of the repeal. But if
there is no reservation, those who are not habitual
delinquents even if they are already serving their
sentence will receive the benefit of the repealing
law. They are entitled to release.
If they are not discharged from confinement, a
petition for habeas corpus should be filed to test the
legality of their continued confinement in jail.
If the convict, on the other hand, is a habitual
delinquent, he will continue serving the sentence in
spite of the fact that the law under which he was
convicted has already been absolutely
repealed. This is so because penal laws should be
given retroactive application to favor only those who
are not habitual delinquents.
Consequences if repeal of penal law is partial or
relative
(1) If a case is pending in court involving the
violation of the repealed law, and the repealing law
is more favorable to the accused, it shall be the one
applied to him. So whether he is a habitual
delinquent or not, if the case is still pending in court,
the repealing law will be the one to apply unless
there is a saving clause in the repealing law that it
shall not apply to pending causes of action.
(2) If a case is already decided and the accused is
already serving sentence by final judgment, even if
the repealing law is partial or relative, the crime still
remains to be a crime. Those who are not habitual
delinquents will benefit on the effect of that repeal,
so that if the repeal is more lenient to them, it will be
the repealing law that will henceforth apply to them.
Under Article 22, even if the offender is already
convicted and serving sentence, a law which is
beneficial shall be applied to him unless he is a
habitual delinquent in accordance with Rule 5 of
Article 62. Basic maxims in criminal law
1. Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (There is no
crime when there is no law punishing the same) –
No matter how wrongful, evil or bad the act is, if there
is no law defining the act, the same is not considered
a crime.
2. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea (The act
cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal) –
This is true to a felony characterized by dolo, but not
to a felony resulting from culpa.
3. Doctrine of Pro Reo – Whenever a penal law is to
be construed or applied and the law admits of two
interpretations, one lenient to the offender and one
strict to the offender, that interpretation which is
lenient or favorable to the offender will be adopted.
4. Actus me invito factus non est meus actus (An act
done by me against my will is not my act) –
Whenever a person is under a compulsion of
irresistible force or uncontrollable fear to do an act
against his will, in which that act produces a crime or
offense, such person is exempted in any criminal
liability arising from said act.
ACT NO . 3815 AN ACT REVISING THE PENAL
CODE AND OTHER PENAL LAWS
Dec 8, 1930 – RPC as enacted by the PH
Legislature was approved.
RPC 2 BOOKS :
1. Basic principles affecting criminal liability
 2. Penalties including criminal and civil liability
(Art 21- 113)
ARTICLE 1
Jan 1, 1932 – RPC took effect
Theories in Criminal Law:
1. Classical theory – The basis of criminal liability is
human free will and the purpose of the penalty is
retribution. It is endeavoured to establish a
mechanical and direct proportion between crime
and penalty, and there is scant regard to the human
element.
NOTE: The RPC is generally governed by this
theory.
2.Positivist theory – The basis of criminal liability is
the sum of the social, natural and economic
phenomena to which the actor is exposed. The
purposes of penalty are prevention and correction.
This theory is exemplified in the provisions
regarding impossible crimes (RPC, Art. 4), the
mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and
plea of guilty (RPC, Art. 13, par 7,) and habitual
delinquency [RPC, Art. 62(5]).
3.Eclectic or Mixed theory – It is a combination of
positivist and classical thinking wherein crimes that
are economic and social in nature should be dealt
in a positive manner, thus, the law is more
compassionate. Ideally, the classical theory is
applied to heinous crimes, whereas, the positivist is
made to work on economic and social crimes.
4.Utilitarian or Protective theory – The primary
purpose of punishment under criminal law is the
protection of society from actual and potential
wrongdoers. The courts, therefore, in exacting
retribution for the wronged society, should direct
the punishment to potential or actual wrongdoers
since criminal law is directed against acts or
omissions which the society does not approve.
Consistent with this theory is the mala prohibita
principle which punishes an offense regardless of
malice or criminal intent.
ARTICLE 2
Applicable to the ff cases:
1.Offender should commit an offense while on a PH
ship or Airship
- PH Vessel, although beyond 3 miles from
seashore = nat'l territory
- Any person who committed a crime on
BOARD a PH ship or airship while the same
is outside of PH territory can be tried before
our civil courts for violation of Penal Code
- PH vessel -> territory of foreign country =
subject to the laws of the foreign country
• PH vessel or aircraft should be understood
as = REGISTERED in the PH Bureau of
Customs.
• Registration - accordance with law of
• Not applicable to a filipino owner if not
registered.
• Crime of theft committed on the HIGH
SEAS on board a vessel not registered or
licensed in PH = PH COURT NO
JURISDICTION
2. When the offender should forge or counterfeit
any coin or currency note of the PH or obligations
and securities issued by the Gov't
○ Art 163 and 166
3. When the offender should be liable for acts
connected with the introduction into the Philippines
of the obligations and securities mentioned in the
preceding number
○ Reason: introduction of forged or
counterfeited obli and securities into the PH
IS AS DANGEROUS AS the forging or
counterfeiting of same = economical interest
of the country
4. When the offender, while being a public officer or
employee, should commit an offense in the exercise
of his functions.
- Direct Bribery
- Indirect Bribery
- Frauds against the public treasury
- Possession of Prohibited interest
- Failure of accountable officer to render
accounts
- Illegal use of public funds or property
- Failure to make delivery of public funds or
property
- Falsifiation by a public officer or employee
committed w/ abuse of his official position
* committed in abroad but exercise of his function =
can be prosecuted in PH

5. When the offender should commit any of
the crimes against the national security and the law
of nations.
- crimes against national sec and law of
nations are TREASON.
- Conspirancy and proposal to commit
TREASON
- Espionage - the practice of spying or of
using spies, typically by governments to obtain
political and military information
- Inciting to was and giving motives for
reprisals
- Violation of neutrality
- Correspondence with hostile country
- Flight to enemy's country
- Piracy and mutiny on the high seas
Regional Trial Court
- are cognizable to the crimes punishable in
the PH under Art 2
- first filed
-formerly known CFI
- original jurisdiction over all crimes and
offenses committed on high seas or beyond
the jurisdiction of any court on board a ship,
warcraft of any kind registered and licensed
in the PH
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THE TREATIES AND
LAWS OF PREFERENTIAL APPLICATION:
- the exemption to the general rule
ITS ATMOSPHERE
- penal laws extend to all the air space which
covers its territory.
INTERIOR WATERS
- includes creeks, rivers, lakes and bays,
gulfs, straits, coves, inlets and roadsteads lying
wholly within the three-mile limit
MARITIME ZONE
- fixed its length to three miles from the coastline,
starting from the low water mark.
- includes those bays, gulfs, adjacent parts of the
sea or recesses in the coastline whose width at their
entrance is not more than 12 miles measured in a
straight line from headland to headland, and all
straits of less than 6 miles wide.
-those straits having more than that width, the
space in the center outside of the marine league
limits is considered as open sea.
US V. BULL
- On December 2, 1908, a steamship vessel
engaged in the transport of animals named Stanford
commanded by H.N. Bull docked in the port of
Manila, Philippines. It was found that said vessel
from Ampieng, Formosa carried 674 heads of cattle
without providing appropriate shelter and proper
suitable means for securing the animals which
resulted for most of the animals to get hurt and
others to have died while in transit.
- This cruelty to animals is said to be contrary
to Acts No. 55 and No. 275 of the Philippine
Constitution. It is however contended that cases
cannot be filed because neither was it said that the
court sitting where the animals were disembarked
would take jurisdiction, nor did it say about ships not
licensed under Philippine laws, like the ships
involved.
Issue: WON the court had jurisdiction over
an offense committed on board a foreign ship while
inside the territorial waters of the Philippines.
Held:
Yes. When the vessel comes within 3 miles
from the headlines which embrace the entrance of
Manila Bay, the vessel is within territorial waters and
thus, the laws of the Philippines shall apply. A crime
committed on board a Norwegian merchant vessel
sailing to the Philippines is within the jurisdiction of
the courts of the Philippines if the illegal conditions
existed during the time the ship was within the
territorial waters - regardless of the fact that the
same conditions existed when the ship settled from
the foreign port and while it was on the high seas,
In light of the above restriction, the defendant
was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of two
hundred and fifty pesos with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the
costs
2 RULES OVER CRIMES COMMITTED ABOARD
FOREIGN MERCHANT VESSEL
French Rule. — Such crimes are not triable in the
courts of that country, unless their commission
affects the peace and security of the territory or the
safety of the state is endangered.
English Rule. — Such crimes are triable in that
country, unless they merely affect things within the
vessel or they refer to the internal management
thereof.

****In this country, we observe the English Rule.
US V. LOOK CHOW
Facts:
Between 11 and 12 o'clock a.m. in August 19, 1909,
the Port of Cebu and internal revenue agent of Cebu,
respectively, went aboard the steamship Erroll to
inspect and search its cargo, and found two sacks
containing opium. The defendant stated freely and
voluntarily that he had bought these sacks of opium
in Hong Kong with the intention of selling them as
contraband in Mexico or Vera Cruz, and that as his
hold had already been searched several times for
opium he ordered two other chinamen to keep the
sack. All the evidence found properly constitutes
corpus delicti.
It was established that the steamship Erroll was of
English nationality, that it came from Hong Kong,
and that it was bound for Mexico, via the call ports in
Manila and Cebu.
Issue:
Whether or not courts of local state can exercise its
jurisdiction over foreign vessels stationed in its port.
Held:
Yes. The Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the
matter. The mere possession of a thing of prohibited
use in these Islands, aboard a foreign vessel in
transit, in any of their ports, does not, as a general
rule, constitute a crime triable by the courts of this
country, on account of such vessel being considered
as an extension of its own nationality. However, the
same rule does not apply when the article, whose
use is prohibited within the Philippines, in the
present case, a can of opium, is landed from the
vessel upon the Philippine soil, thus committing an
open violation of the penal law in force at the place
of the commission of the crime. Only the court
established in the said place itself has competent
jurisdiction, in the absence of an agreement under
an international treaty
** Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over
offenses committed on board foreign warships in
territorial waters.
PEOPLE V. WONG CHENG
Facts:
The appellant, in representation of the Attorney
General, filed an appeal that urges the revocation of
a demurrer sustained by the Court of First Instance
of Manila presented by the defendant. The
defendant, accused of having illegally smoked
opium aboard the merchant vessel Changsa of
English nationality while the said vessel was
anchored in Manila Bay, two and a half miles from
the shores of the city. In the said demurrer, the
defendant contended the lack of jurisdiction of the
lower court of the said crime, which resulted to the
dismissal of the case.
Issue:
Whether or not the Philippine courts have jurisdiction
over the crime committed aboard merchant vessels
anchored in our jurisdictional waters.
Held:
Yes. The crime in the case at bar was committed in
our internal waters thus the Philippine courts have a
right of jurisdiction over the said offense. The Court
said that having the opium smoked within our
territorial waters even though aboard a foreign
merchant ship is a breach of the public order
because it causes such drugs to produce pernicious
effects within our territory. Therefore, the demurrer
is revoked and the Court ordered further
proceedings.
*** Smoking opium constitutes a breach of public
order.
Extra-territorial application of Republic Act No. 9372.
Rep. Act No. 9372, otherwise known as the "Human
Security Act of 2007" ---6 March 2007 has
extraterritorial application.
Section 58 of Rep. Act No. 9372 provides that
subject to the provision of an existing treaty of which
the Philippines is a signatory and to any contrary
provision of any law of preferential application, the
provisions of the Act shall apply:
- individual persons who commit any of the
crimes defined and punished in the Act within the
terrestrial domain, interior waters, maritime zone
and airspace of the Philippines
• to individual persons who, although
physically outside the territorial limits of the
Philippines, commit, conspire of plot any of the
crimes denned and punished in the Act inside the Elements of felonies:
territorial limits of the Philippines;
1. An act or omission;
• to individual persons who, although 2. Punishable by the Revised Penal Code;
physically outside the territorial limits of the 3. The act is performed or the omission
Philippines, commit any of the said crimes on board incurred by means of deceit or fault
Philippine ship or airship;
Kinds of felonies
• to individual persons who commit any of
said crimes within any embassy, consulate or 1. Intentional felonies(Dolo) – committed with
diplomatic premises belonging to or occupied by the criminalintent
Philippine government in an official capacity;
2. Negligent felonies(Culpa) – where the wrongful
• to individual persons who, although acts result from imprudence, negligence, lack of
physically outside the territorial limits of the foresight or lack of skill
Philippines, commit said crimes against Philippine
citizens or persons of Philippine descent, where their
citizenship or ethnicity was a factor in the
commission of the crime; and

• to individual persons who, although

physically outside the territorial limits of the
Philippines, commit said crimes directly against the
Philippine government.

ARTICLE 3

Felonies - are acts or omissions punishable by the

RPC.

Act as contemplated in criminal law

- An act refers to any bodily movement tending
to produce some effect
- in the external world it being unnecessary that
the same be actually produced, as the
possibility of its production is sufficient (Reyes,
2012).

Kinds of acts which are punishable

1. External– Mere criminal thoughts are not

felonious.

2. Voluntary– Both dolo and culpa have to be

voluntary. Requisites of dolo

Omission as contemplated in criminal law
- law means inaction; the failure to perform a
positive duty which one is bound. There must be a
law requiring the doing or performance of a duty.
Examples: Misprision of treason, failure of an
accountable officer to render accounts.
If any of the following requisites is absent, there is
no dolo.
1. Criminal intent – the purpose to use a particular
means to effect such result. Intent to commit an act
with malice, being purely a mental process, is
presumed from the proof of commission of an
unlawful act. A mental state, hence, its existence is
shown by overt acts.
NOTE: If there is NO criminal intent, the act is
justified. Offender incurs NO criminal liability.
2. Freedom of action – voluntariness on the part of
the person to commit the act or omission.
NOTE: If there is lack of freedom, the offender is
exempt from liability.
3. Intelligence – means the capacity to know and
understand the consequences of one's act.
NOTE: If there is lack of intelligence, the offender is
exempt from liability.
Requisites of culpa
1. Criminal negligence on the part of the offender,
that is, the crime was the result of negligence,
reckless imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of
skill;
2. Freedom of action on the part of the offender,
that is, he was not acting under duress; and
3. Intelligence on the part of the offender in
performing the negligent act.
Negligence - means deficiency in perception or lack
of foresight, or failure to pay proper attention and to
use due diligence in foreseeing injury or damage to
be caused.
Imprudence - means a deficiency in action or lack
of skill, or failure to take necessary precaution to
avoid injury to another. It usually involves lack of
skill.
Negligence vis-à-vis Imprudence
In negligence, there is deficiency of perception,
while in imprudence, there is deficiency of action.
Crimes which cannot be committed through culpa
(negligence or imprudence)
1. Murder
2. Treason
3. Robbery
4. Malicious mischief
PEOPLE V LOPEZ
Facts: Lopez was driving a truck. A girl was
crossing the street during a torrential rain. The girl
was struck down by the truck. During the trial,
Lopez claimed that he had no intention of causing
injury to the girl.
Held: Lopez was not accused of intentional
homicide, but of having caused her death by
reckless imprudence, which implies lack of malice
and criminal intent. Acts executed negligently are
voluntary, although done without malice or criminal
design. In this case, Lopez was not compelled to
refrain or prevented from taking the precaution
necessary to avoid injury to persons.
When there is compulsion or prevention by force or
intimidation, there is no voluntariness in the act.
Mens rea
Referred to as the gravamen of the offense. Mens
rea of the crime depends upon the elements of the
crime.
Examples:
1. In theft, the mens rea is the taking of property
belonging to another with intent to gain.
2. In falsification, the mens rea is the commission of
forgery with intent to pervert the truth.
3. In robbery, the mens rea is the taking of property
belonging to another coupled with the employment
of intimidation or violence upon persons or things.
Intent
-Refers to the use of a particular means to
effect the desired result. It is a mental state,
the existence of which is demonstrated by
the overt acts of a person.
Categories of intent in criminal law
1. General criminal intent – Is presumed from the
mere doing of a wrong act (or the actus reus). This
does not require proof.
NOTE: In felonies by means of dolo, the third
element of voluntariness is a general intent.
2. Specific criminal intent – Is not presumed
because it is an ingredient or element of a crime.
NOTE: In some felonies, proof of specific intent is
required to produce the crime such as in frustrated
and attempted homicide, robbery, and acts of
lasciviousness.
Presumption of criminal intent from the commission NOTE: Good faith is not a defense to the
of an unlawful act prosecution of a malum prohibitum.

Criminal intent is always presumed to exist, PEOPLE V. SIA TEB BAN

provided that there is proof of the commission of an
unlawful act.
This presumption does not arise when the act
performed is lawful. Moreover, the presumption can
always be rebutted by proof of lack of intent. (BAR
2014)
From the felonious act of the accused, freely and
deliberately executed, the moral and legal
presumption of a criminal intent arises conclusively
and indisputably, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary (People v. Sia, G.R. No. L-31695,
November 26, 1929).
Facts: The accused took a watch without the owner's
consent. He was prosecuted for theft. The accused
alleged as a defense that the prosecution failed to
prove the intent to gain on his part, an element of the
crime of theft.
Held: From the felonious act (taking another's
property) of the accused, freely and deliberately
executed, the moral and legal presumption of a
criminal and injurious intent arises conclusively and
indisputably, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary.

Crime may be committed without criminal intent Basis Mala in se Mala Prohibita
(BAR 1996)
Concept There must be Sufficient that
A crime may be committed without criminal intent if a criminal the prohibited
such is: intent act was done
1. A negligent felony, wherein intent is substituted Wrong from its Wrong merely
by negligence or imprudence very nature because
2. A malum prohibitum. prohibited by
statute
Motive -- It is the moving power or force which Criminal intent Criminal intent
impels a person to a desired result. governs is not
necessary
- Motive as determinant of criminal liability
Punished by Violations of
- GR: Motive is not an element of a crime and RPC Special laws
becomes immaterial in the determination of Mitigating and Such
criminal liability. aggravating circumstances
circumstances are not
XPNs: Motive is material when: are appreciated appreciated
in imposing the unless the
1. The acts bring about variant crimes; penalties special law has
2. The identity of the accused is doubtful; adopted the
3. The evidence on the commission of the crime is scheme or
purely circumstantial; scale of
4. There is a need to determine whether direct penalties under
assault is present, as in offenses against person in RPC.
authority when the assault is committed while not
being in the performance of his duties;
5. In ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic
theories or versions of the killing; and
6. Where there are no eyewitnesses to the crime and
where suspicion is likely to fall upon a number of
persons.
 As to legal (a) Good faith a) Good faith
implication (b) lack of or Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea — a crime
criminal (b) lack of is not committed if the mind of the person performing
intent; or ( criminal intent to act complained be innocent. It is true that a
c) negligence are not valid presumption of criminal intent may arise from proof
are valid defenses; it is of the commission of a criminal act; and the general
defenses enough that the rule is that if it is proved that the accused committed
prohibition was the criminal act charged, it will be presumed that the
voluntarily act was done with criminal intention and that it is for
violated. the accused to rebut this presumption. But it must be
borne in mind that the act from which such
presumption springs must be a criminal act. In the
Criminal liability Criminal liability case at bar, the act was not criminal.
is incurred is generally
even when the incurred only US V AH CHONG
crime is when the crime
attempted or is Facts: Ah Chong was a cook in Ft. McKinley. He was
frustrated. consummated afraid of bad elements. One evening, before going
to bed, he locked himself in his room by placing a
chair against the door. After having gone to bed, he
Penalty is The penalty of was awakened by someone trying to open the door.
computed on the offender is He called out twice, "Who is there," but received no
the basis of the same as answer. Fearing that the intruder was a robber, he
whether he is a they are all leaped from his bed and called out again, "If you
principal deemed enter the room I will kill you." But at that precise
offender, or principals. moment, he was struck by the chair that had been
merely an placed against the door, and believing that he was
accomplice or being attacked he seized a kitchen knife and struck
accessory. and fatally wounded the intruder who turned out to
be his roommate.
Held:
Ah Chong must be acquitted because of mistake of
US V CATOLICO fact. Had the facts been as Ah Chong believed them
Facts: The accused was a justice of the peace. He to be, he would have been justified in killing the
rendered decisions in certain cases, each one for intruder under Article 11, paragraph 1, of the
damages resulting from a breach of contract, from Revised Penal Code, which requires, to justify the
which the defendants appealed. As required by law, act, that there be —
the defendants deposited P16.00 and a bond of (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the person
f*50.00 for each case. It appeared that the sureties killed,
on the said bonds were insolvent and that the (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to
defendants did not present new bonds within the prevent or repel it, and
time fixed (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
by the accused as justice of the peace. Upon petition person defending himself. If the intruder was really a
of the plaintiffs, the accused dismissed the appeals robber, forcing his way into the room of Ah Chong,
and ordered said sums attached and delivered to the there would have been unlawful aggression on the
plaintiffs in satisfaction of the judgment. The part of the intruder. There would have been a
accused was prosecuted for malversation (a felony necessity on the part of Ah Chong to defend himself
punishable now under Art. 217). and/or his home. The knife would have been a
Held: The act of the accused, in permitting the sums reasonable means to prevent or repel such
deposited with him to be attached in satisfaction of aggression. And Ah Chong gave no provocation at
the judgment rendered by him, was not unlawful. all. Under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code,
Everything he did was done in good faith under the there is nothing unlawful in the intention as well as
belief that he was acting judiciously and correctly. in the act of the person making the defense
The act of a person does not make him a criminal,
unless his mind be criminal. Mistake of fact

Mistake of fact is the misapprehension of facts on
the part of the person who caused injury to another.
He is not, however, criminally liable, because he did
not act with criminal intent. It is necessary that had
the facts been true as the accused believed them to
be, the act is justified. Moreover, the offender must
believe that he is performing a lawful act.
An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption
of criminal intent which arises upon the commission
of a felonious act.
NOTE: Mistake of fact is a defense only in intentional
felonies.
Requisites of mistake of fact
1. That the act done would have been lawful had the
facts been as the accused believed them to be; 2.
That the intention of the accused in performing the
act is lawful; and 3. That the mistake must be without
fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.
--- Q: Ah Chong was afraid of bad elements so one
evening, before going to bed, he locked himself in
his room and placed a chair against the door. After
going to bed, he was awakened by someone who
was trying to open the door. He called out, “Who is
there?” twice but received no answer. He then said,
“If you enter the room, I will kill you.” At that moment,
he was struck by the chair. Believing he was being
attacked, he took a kitchen knife and stabbed the
intruder who turned out to be his roommate. Is he
criminally liable?
A: NO. There was mistake of fact. Had the facts
been as Ah Chong believed them to be, he would
have been justified in killing the intruder under Article
11, paragraph 1; self-defense (U.S. v. Ah Chong,
G.R. No. L-5272, March 19, 1910).
PEOPLE V . OANIS
Facts: Chief of Police Oanis and his co-accused
Corporal Galanta were under instructions to arrest
one Balagtas, a notorious criminal and escaped
convict, and if overpowered, to get him dead or alive.
Proceeding to the suspected house, they went into
a room and on seeing a man sleeping with his back
towards the door, simultaneously fired at him with
their revolvers, without first making any reasonable
inquiry as to his identity. The victim turned out to be
an innocent man, Tecson, and not the wanted
criminal.
Held: Both accused are guilty of murder.
Even if it were true that the victim was the notorious
criminal, the accused would not be justified in killing
him while the latter was sleeping.
In apprehending even the most notorious criminal,
the law does not permit the captor to kill him. It is
only when the fugitive from justice is determined to
fight the officers of the law who are trying to capture
him that killing him would be justified
PEOPLE V DE FERNANDO
Facts: The accused, a policeman, was informed that
three convicts had escaped. In the dark, he saw a
person going up the stairs of a house, carrying a bolo
and calling for someone inside. The daughter of the
owner of the house was at that time with the accused
who fired a shot in the air. As the unknown person
continued to ascend the stairs and believing that he
was one of the escaped convicts, the accused fired
directly at the man who turned out to be the nephew
of the owner of the house.
Held: He is guilty of homicide through reckless
negligence. The victim called for someone in the
house. That fact indicated that he was known to the
owner of the house. The accused should have
inquired from the daughter of the owner of the house
as to who the unknown person might be.
PEOPLE V. BAYONA
Facts: Defendant was driving his automobile on a
road in front of electoral precinct No. 4 in Barrio de
Aranguel, Pilar, Capiz. He had a revolver with him.
He was called by his friend, Jose D. Benliro. He
alighted from his automobile and approached him to
find out what he wanted. He did not leave his
revolver in the automobile, because there were
many people in the road in front of the polling place
and he might lose it. He was within the fence
surrounding the polling place when Jose E.
Desiderio, a representative of the Department of the
Interior, took possession of the revolver defendant
was carrying.
The Solicitor-General was for his acquittal.
Held: The law which defendant violated is a statutory
provision, and the intent with which he violated is
immaterial. It may be conceded that defendant did
not intend to intimidate any elector or to violate the
law in any other way, but when he got out of his
automobile and carried his revolver inside of the
fence surrounding the polling place he committed
the act complained of, and he committed it wilfully.
The Election Law does not require for its violation
that the offender has the intention to intimidate the
voters or to interfere otherwise with the election.
ARTICLE 4
Criminal Liability – is incurred by any person in
the cases mentioned in the two paragraphs of
Article 4.
Paragraph 1 – Doctrine : EL QUE ES CAUSA DE
LA CAUSA ES CAUSA DEL MAL CAUSADO
- He who is the cause of the cause is the cause
of the evil cause
Criminal liability (BAR 1997, 1999, 2001, 2004,
2009)
Criminal liability is incurred by any person:
1. Committing a felony although the wrongful act
done be different from that which he intended; and
2. Performing an act which would be an offense
against persons or property, were it not for the
inherent impossibilityof its accomplishment or on
account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means (RPC,Art. 4).
PEOPLE V. BINDOY
FACTS: Appeal from a judgement of the CFI of
Occidental Misamis, for appelant was stenced to 12
years and 1 day of reclusion temporal and to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased with the
amount of P1,000. The crime charged against the
accused is homicide.
In the afternoon of May 6, 1930, a disturbance
arose in a tuba wineshop. Donato Bindoy offered
some tuba to Faustino Paca's wife Tibay. She
refused because she already have one, but Bindoy
threatened to injure her if she did not accept. Pacas
stepped in to defend his wife, attempting to take
away from Bindoy the bolo he carried. Emigdio
Omamdam who came to the wine shop to see
what;s happening, instead got stabbed in the chest
by Bindoy. This happened when Bindoy succeeded
in disengaging himself from Pacas, wrenching the
bolo from the latter's hand towards the left behind
the accused and with such violence that the point
of the bolo reached Omamdam's chest who was
then behind Bindoy.
ISSUE(S): Whether or not Bindoy is criminally
liable?
HELD: Corroborated by Gaudencio Cenas of the
testimony of the accused, Pacas and Bindoy were
actually for the possession of the bolo. When
Pacas let go of the bolo, Bindoy had pulled so
violently that it flew towards his left side, at the very
moment when Emigdio Omamdam came up and
who was therefore hit in the chest without Bindoy
seeing him. Bindoy alleges that it was caused
accidentally and without malicious intent because
he was only defending his possession of the bolo
which Pacas was trying to wrench away from him
and his conduct was perfectly lawful. The Court
therefore acquitted Bindoy based on the facts
stated.
"In many criminal cases, one of the most important
aids in completing the proof of the commission of
the crime by the accused is the introduction of
evidence disclosing the motives which tempted the
mind of the guilty person to indulge the criminal
act."
Requisites of Art. 4 Par. 1, “committing a felony
although the wrongful act done be different from
that which he intended” where greater injury results
1. That an intentional felony has been committed;
and
2. That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be
the direct, natural and logical consequence of the
felony committed by the offender (U.S. v. Brobst,
G.R. No. 4935, October 25, 1909).
Meaning of “direct, natural and logical
consequence”
1. Blow was efficient cause of death;
2. Blow accelerated death; or
3. Blow was proximate cause of death.
--- Q: In an act to discipline his child, the father
claims that the death of his child was not intended
by him. Is his contention correct?
A: NO. He is liable under Art. 4(1) of the RPC. In
order that a person may be criminally liable for a
felony different from that which he intended to
commit, it is indispensable (a) that a felony was
committed and (b) that the wrong done to the
aggrieved person be the direct consequence of the
crime committed by the perpetrator. In beating his
son and inflicting upon him physical injuries, he
committed a felony. As a direct consequence of
the beating suffered by the child, he expired. His
criminal liability for the death of his son, is thus
clear (People v. Sales, G.R. No. 177218, October
3, 2011). ---
Causes which may produce a result different from
that which the offender intended
1. Mistake in identity (error in personae)– The
offender intends the injury on one person but the
harm fell on another. In this situation the intended
victim was not at the scene of the crime
Example: A, wanting to kill B, killed C instead. (BAR
2003, 2015)
NOTE: There are only two persons involved: the
actual but unintended victim, and the offender.
2. Mistake in blow (aberratio ictus)– A person
directed the blow at an intended victim, but
because of poor aim, that blow landed on
somebody else. In aberratio ictus, the intended
victim and the actual victim are both at the scene of
the crime. (A, shot at B, but because of lack of
precision, hit C instead). (BAR 1993, 1994, 1996,
1999, 2015)
PEOPLE V. MABUGAY
Facts: The accused and Juana Buralo were
sweethearts. One day, the accused invited Juana
to take a walk with him, but the latter refused him
on account of the accused having frequently visited
the house of another woman. Later on, the accused
went to the house of Cirilo Bayan where Juana had
gone to take part in some devotion. There the
accused, revolver in hand, waited until Juana and
her niece, Perfecta, came downstairs. When they
went in the direction of their house, the accused
followed them. As the two girls were going upstairs,
the accused, while standing at the foot of the
stairway, fired a shot from his revolver at Juana but
which wounded Perfecta, the slug passing through
a part of her neck, having entered the posterior
region thereof and coming out through the left eye.
Perfecta did not die due to proper medical
attention.
Held: The accused is guilty of frustrated murder,
qualified by treachery, committed on the person of
Perfecta Buralo
Aberratio ictus vis-à-vis Error in personae

NOTE: There are three persons involved: the

offender, the intended victim, and the actual victim.

3. Injurious consequences are greater than that

intended (praeter intentionem)– The injury is on the
intended victim but the resulting consequence is so
grave a wrong than what was intended. It is
essential that there is a notable disparity between
the means employed or the act of the offender and
the felony which resulted.

This means that the resulting felony cannot be

foreseen from the acts of the offender. (A, without
intent to kill, struck the victim on the back, causing
the victim to fall down and hit his head on the
pavement.)

NOTE: Praeter intentionem is a mitigating

circumstance particularly covered by paragraph 3
of Art. 13.
The three enumerated situations are always the
result of an intentional felony or dolo. These
situations do not arise out of criminal negligence.
NOTE: Error in Personae and Aberatio Ictus are
NOT valid defenses under the “Transfer Intent”
doctrine: the law transfers the criminal intent to the
actual victim.
--- Q: A and B went on a drinking spree. While they
were drinking, they had some argument so A
stabbed B several times. A’s defense is that he had
no intention of killing his friend and that he did not
intend to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed. Is praeter intentionem properly
invoked?
A: NO, praeter intentionemis improperly invoked
because it is only mitigating if there is a notable
disparity between the means employed and the
resulting felony. The fact that several wounds were
inflicted on B is hardly compatible with the idea that
he did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as
that committed.
PEOPLE V. TOMOTORGO
FACTS: Magdalena de los Santos, the wife of
Jaime Tomotorgo, had been persistently asking her
husband to sell the conjugal home and that their
family transfer to the house of her husband's in-
laws. Tomotorgo would not accede to his wife's
request. He did not like to abandon the house
wherein he and his wife were then living.
Furthermore, he had no inclination to leave
because he has many plants and improvements on
the land which he was then farming.
On June 23, 1977, at about seven o'clock in
the morning, the accused left his home to work on
his farm Upon his return, he found his wife and his
three-month old baby already gone. He finally saw
his wife carrying his infant son and bringing a bundle
of clothes some 200m away from their home. He
asked and pleaded with his wife that she should
return home with their child but she adamantly
refused to do so. When appellant sought to take the
child from his wife, the latter threw the baby on the
grassy portion of the trail hereby causing the latter to
cry. This conduct of his wife aroused the ire of the
herein accused. Incensed with wrath and his anger
beyond control, appellant picked lip a piece of wood
nearby and started hitting his wife with it until she fell
to the ground complaining of severe pains on her
chest. Realizing what he had done, the accused
picked his wife in his arms and brought her to their
home. He then returned to the place where the child
was thrown and he likewise took this infant home.
Soon thereafter, Magdalena de los Santos died
despite the efforts of her husband to alleviate her
pains.
After the accused changed the dress of his
wife, he reported the tragic incident to the Barangay
Captain of their place who brought him to Policeman
Arellosa to whom the accused surrendered. He also
brought with him the piece of wood he used in
beating his wife.
He was charged with parricide and
pleaded not guilty. Upon realizing the gravity of his
offense, he changed his plea to guilty. The court
found him guilty of parricide but with three mitigating
circumstances – voluntary surrender, plea of guilty
and that he acted upon an impulse so powerful as
naturally to have produced passion and obfuscation.
He was given the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. Appellant claims that the court handed him
the wrong punishment. Appellant claims that article
49 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes the proper
applicable penalty when the crime committed is
different from what was intended. If the penalty
prescribed for the felony committed is higher than
the offense which the accused wanted to commit,
the penalty corresponding to the later shall be
imposed as the maximum period. Appellant avers
that the penalty for the felony committed by him –
parricide – was higher than that which he intended
to commit – physical injuries.
ISSUE: W/N accused is guilty of physical injuries
only and not parricide.
HELD: NO
RATIO: Accused is guilty of parricide. Article 4 of
the Revised Penal Code expressly states that
criminal liability shall be incurred by any person
committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful
act be different from that which he intended and
that the accused is liable for all the consequences
of his felonious acts.
Article 49 of the RPC does not apply to cases
where more serious consequences not intended by
the offender result from his felonious act because
under Art. 4 (1) of the same code, he is liable for all
the direct and natural consequences of his unlawful
act. His lack of intentiosn to commit a grave wrong
is at best mitigating.
The reference made by the accused to
Article 263 of the Revised Penal Code which
prescribes graduated penalties for the
corresponding physical injuries committed is
entirely misplaced and irrelevant considering that in
this case the victim died very soon after she was
assaulted. The court held that the fact that the
appellant intended to maltreat the victim only or
inflict physical imjuries does not exempt him from
liability for the resulting and more serious crime
committed.
Proximate cause
- has been defined as 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(People v. Villacorta, G.R. No.
186412, September 7, 2011).
As a rule, the offender is criminally liable for all the
consequences of his felonious act, although not
intended, if the felonious act is the proximate cause
of the felony.
Requisites of proximate cause
1. The direct, natural, and logical cause;
2. Produces the injury or damage;
3. Unbroken by any efficient intervening cause; and
4. Without which the result would not have occurred
Difference between proximate cause and
immediate cause
Immediate cause may be a cause which is far and
remote from the consequence which sets into
motion other causes that resulted in the felony.
Proximate cause does not require that the offender
needs to actually touch the body of the offended
party. It is enough that the offender generated in the
mind of the offended party the belief that made him
risk himself.
If a man creates in another person’s mind an
immediate sense of danger, which causes such
person to try to escape, and, in so doing, the latter
injures himself, the man who creates such a state of
mind is responsible for the resulting injuries (People
v. Toling, G.R. L-27097, January 17, 1975).
Example:
X and Y are crew members of cargo vessel. They
had a heated argument. X with a big knife in hand
threatened to kill Y. The victim Y, believing himself
to be in immediate peril, threw himself into the water.
X died of drowning. In this case, Y is liable for
homicide for the death of Y.
Even if other causes cooperated in producing the
fatal result as long as the wound inflicted is
dangerous, that is, calculated to destroy or endanger
life, the actor is liable.
It is important that there be no efficient intervening
cause.
Instances when the felony committed is not the
proximate cause of the resulting injury
The felony committed is not the proximate cause of
the resulting injury when:
1. There is an efficient intervening cause between
the felony committed and the resulting injury; or 2.
Resulting injury or damage is due to the intentional
act of the victim.
Efficient intervening cause
It is an intervening active force which is a distinct act
or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of
the accused.
--- Q: Cruz and Villacorta were regular customers at
Mendeja’s store. At around two o’clock in the
morning of January 23, 2002, while Cruz was
ordering bread at Mendeja’s store, Villacorta
suddenly appeared and, without uttering a word,
stabbed Cruz on the left side of Cruz’s body using a
sharpened bamboo stick. When Villacorta fled,
Mendeja chased Villacorta but failed to catch him.
When Mendeja returned to her store, she saw Aron
removing the broken bamboo stick from Cruz’s
body. Mendeja and Aron then brought Cruz to Tondo
Medical Center and was treated as an outpatient.
Cruz was later brought to the San Lazaro Hospital
on February 14, 2002, where he died the following
day of tetanus infection secondary to stab wound.
What is the proximate cause for the death of Cruz?
A: The proximate cause of Cruz’s death is the
tetanus infection, and not the stab wound. There had
been an interval of 22 days between the date of the
stabbing and the date when Cruz was rushed to San
Lazaro Hospital, exhibiting symptoms of severe
tetanus infection. If Cruz acquired severe tetanus
infection from the stabbing, then the symptoms
would have appeared a lot sooner than 22 days
later. Cruz’s stab wound was merely the remote
cause, and its subsequent infection with tetanus
might have been the proximate cause of Cruz’s
death. The infection of Cruz’s stab wound by
tetanus was an efficient intervening cause later or
between the time Cruz was stabbed to the time of
his death (People v. Villacorta, G.R. No. 186412,
September 7, 2011).
Q: A and B had a quarrel and started hacking each
other. B was wounded at the back. Cooler heads
intervened and they were separated. Somehow,
their differences were patched up. A agreed to
shoulder all the expenses for the treatment of the
wound of B, and to pay him also whatever lost of
income B may have failed to receive. B, on the other
hand, signed a forgiveness in favor of A and on that
condition, he withdrew the complaint that he filed
against A. After so many weeks of treatment in a
clinic, the doctor pronounced the wound already
healed. Thereafter, B went back to his farm. Two
months later, B came home and he was chilling.
Before midnight, he died out of tetanus poisoning.
The heirs of B filed a case of homicide against A. Is
A liable?
A: NO. Taking into account the incubation period of
tetanus toxic, medical evidence were presented that
tetanus toxic is good only for two weeks. That if,
indeed, the victim had incurred tetanus poisoning
out of the wound inflicted by A, he would not have
lasted two months. What brought about tetanus to
infect the body of B was his working in his farm using
his bare hands. Because of this, the SC ruled that
the act of B of working in his farm where the soil is
filthy, using his own hands, is an efficient
supervening cause which relieves A of any liability
for the death of B. A, if at all, is only liable for physical
injuries inflicted upon B (Urbano v. IAC, G.R. No.
7296, January 7, 1988).
Circumstances which are considered as inefficient
intervening causes
1. The weak physical condition of the victim
2. The nervousness or temperament of the victim
3. Causes which are inherent in the victim, such as
the victim’s inability to swim
4. Refusal of the injured party to be subjected to
medical attendance
5. Erroneous or unskillful medical treatment
NOTE: Although the above-mentioned
circumstances may have intervened in the
commission of the crime, the offender is still liable
for the resulting crime because the proximate cause
his act remains and these circumstances are
inefficient.
Death presumed to be the natural consequence of
physical injuries inflicted
The death of the victim is presumed to be the
natural consequence of the physical injuries
inflicted, when the following facts are established:
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.
3. That death ensued within a reasonable time.
PEOPLE V LUCES
Facts: Accused Ramon Luces gave a fist blow on
the stomach of Feliciana, causing her to fall
unconscious. She never regained consciousness
and a few minutes thereafter she died. In the
autopsy report, it was found that the probable
cause of death was cardiac failure. The accused
contended that the fist blow was not the proximate
cause of Feliciana's death.
Held: Whether Feliciana died as a direct effect of
the fist blow, or as an outcome of the fall that
followed the blow, or as a consequence of the blow
and the fall that caused her to lose consciousness,
or of heart failure due to shock caused by the blow
and her fall to the ground, the result would be the
same — that the blow was the primary and
proximate cause of her death.
The gravity of the crime does not depend on the
more or less violent means used, but on the result
and consequence of the same and if the accused
had not ill-treated the deceased she would not have
died. Known is the Latin maxim that "he who is the
cause of the cause, is the cause of the evil
caused."
Note: Ill-treating another by deed without causing
any injury, is a felony under Art. 266 of this Code
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
1. Act performed would be an offense against
persons or property;
NOTE: Kidnapping is a crime against personal
security and not against person or property, thus
there can be no impossible crime of kidnapping
2. Act was done with evil intent; 3. Accomplishment
is inherently impossible or means employed is
either inadequate or ineffectual; and 4. Act
performed should not constitute a violation of
another provision of RPC
NOTE: The offender must believe that he can
consummate the intended crime. A man stabbing
another who he knew was already dead cannot be
liable for an impossible crime.
Essence of an impossible crime - is the inherent
impossibility of accomplishing the crime or the
inherent impossibility of the means employed to
bring about the crime.
Inherent impossibility means that under any and
all circumstances, the crime could not have
materialized.
Kinds of inherent impossibility
1. Legal impossibility– occurs where the intended
acts, even if completed would not amount to a
crime. (E.g. killing a dead person.)
2. Physical impossibility– occurs where extraneous
circumstances unknown to the accused prevent the
consummation of the intended crime. (E.g. pick
pocketing an empty wallet.)
Penalty imposed on impossible crimes
The law imposes penalties to such crimes, having
in mind the social danger and the degree of
criminality shown by the offender. The penalty
imposed shall be that of arresto mayor or a fine
ranging from 200 to 500 pesos.
Reason for penalizing impossible crimes
To teach the offender a lesson because of his
criminal perversity. Although objectively, no crime is
committed, but subjectively, he is a criminal.
NOTE: It is a principle of criminal law that the
offender will only be penalized for an impossible
crime if he cannot be punished under some other
provision of the RPC. An impossible crime is a
crime of last resort.
--- Q: Four culprits, all armed with firearms and with
intent to kill, went to the intended victim’s house
and after having pinpointed the latter’s bedroom, all
four fired at and riddled said room with bullets,
thinking that the intended victim was already there
as it was about 10:00 in the evening. It so
happened that the intended victim did not come
home on the evening and so was not in her
bedroom at that time. Was it an impossible crime or
attempted murder? A: The SC held that the culprits
are liable only for the so-called impossible crime.
The factual situation in this case presents a
physical impossibility which rendered the intended
crime impossible of accomplishment. Under Art. 4
of the RPC, such is sufficient to make the act an
impossible crime (Intod v. CA, G.R. No. 103119,
October 21, 1992). Here however, their acts
constitute malicious mischief. --- --- Q: A, a
collector of Mega Foam failed to remit to the
company a check which was given to him as
payment for a merchandise. She tried to deposit
the check, but he found out that the check
bounced. What crime was committed?
A: The crime committed is an impossible crime of
theft. The evil intent cannot be denied, as the mere
act of unlawfully taking the check meant for Mega
Foam showed her intent to gain or be unjustly
enriched. Were it not for the fact that the check
bounced, she would have received the face value
thereof, which was not rightfully hers. Therefore, it
was only due to the extraneous circumstance of the
check being unfunded, a fact unknown to the
accused at the time, that prevented the crime from
being produced. The thing unlawfully taken by the
accused turned out to be absolutely worthless,
because the check was eventually dishonored, and
Mega Foam had received the cash to replace the
value of said dishonored check (Jacinto v. People,
G.R. No. 162540, July 2009).
--- --- Q: Buddy always resented his classmate,
Jun. One day, Buddy planned to kill Jun by mixing
poison in his lunch. Not knowing where he can get
poison, he approached another classmate Jerry to
whom he disclosed his evil plan. Because he
himself harbored resentment towards Jun, Jerry
gave Buddy a poison, which Buddy placed on Jun’s
food. However, Jun did not die because; unknown
to both Buddy and Jerry, the poison was actually
powdered milk. What crime or crimes, if any, did
Jerry and Buddy commit? (BAR 1998, 2000, 2003,
2004, 2009)
A: Jerry and Buddy are liable for the so-called
impossible crime because, with intent to kill, they
tried to poison Jun and thus perpetrate murder, a
crime against persons. Jun was not poisoned only
because the would-be killers were unaware that
what they mixed with the food of Jun was powdered
milk, not poison. Criminal liability is incurred by
them although no crime resulted, because their act
of trying to poison Jun is criminal. ---
Impossible crime a formal crime
By its very nature, an impossible crime is a formal
crime. It is either consummated or not
consummated at all. There is therefore no
attempted or frustrated impossible crime. (BAR
2005)
Impossible crime vis-à-vis Unconsummated
felonies (attempted or frustrated felony)
Felonies against persons are:
a. Parricide (Art. 246)
b. Murder (Art. 248)
c. Homicide (Art. 249)
d. Infanticide (Art. 255)
e. Abortion (Arts. 256, 257, 258 and 259)
f. Duel (Arts. 260 and 261)
g. Physical injuries (Arts. 262, 263, 264, 265 and
266)
h. Rape (Art. 266-A)
Felonies against property are:
a. Robbery (Arts. 294, 297, 298, 299, 300, 302 and
303)
b. Brigandage (Arts. 306 and 307)
c. Theft (Arts. 308, 310 and 311)
d. Usurpation (Arts. 312 and 313)
e. Culpable insolvency (Art. 314)
f. Swindling and other deceits (Arts. 315, 316, 317
and 318)
g. Chattel mortgage (Art. 319)
h. Arson and other crimes involving destruction
(Arts. 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325 and 326)
i. Malicious mischief (Arts. 327, 328, 329, 330 and
331)
INTOD V. CA
FACTS: At about 10:00 o'clock in the evening,
Petitioner, Mandaya, Pangasian, Tubio and
Daligdig, all armed with firearms, arrived at
Palangpangan's house. At the instance of his
companions, Mandaya pointed the location of
Palangpangan's bedroom. Thereafter, Petitioner,
Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig fired at said room. It
turned out, however, that Palangpangan was in
another City and her home was then occupied by
her son-in-law and his family. No one was in the
room when the accused fired the shots. No one
was hit by the gun fire.
RTC: Convicted Intod of ATTEMPTED MURDER
CA: Affirmed in toto
ISSUE: Whether or not the crime committed is
impossible crime (YES)
HELD: Legal impossibility occurs where the
intended acts, even if completed, would not amount
to a crime. Thus, legal impossibility would apply to
those circumstances where:
1) the motive, desire and expectation is to perform
an act in violation of the law;
2) there is intention to perform the physical act;
3) there is a performance of the intended physical
act; and
4) the consequence resulting from the intended act
does not amount to a crime.
The impossibility of killing a person already dead
falls in this category.
On the other hand, factual impossibility occurs
when extraneous circumstances unknown to the
actor or beyond his control prevent the
consummation of the intended crime. One example
is the man who puts his hand in the coat pocket of
another with the intention to steal the latter's wallet
and finds the pocket empty.
The case at bar belongs to this category. Petitioner fact that accused committed the crime at a tender
shoots the place where he thought his victim would age.
be, although in reality, the victim was not present in
said place and thus, the petitioner failed to The Court held that accused may be confined in an
accomplish his end. agricultural camp or any training facility in
accordance with Sec 51 of RA 9344. The case was
In Philippine jurisdiction, impossible crimes are remanded to the court of origin to take appropriate
recognized. The impossibility of accomplishing the action in accordance to the said provision.
criminal intent is not merely a defense, but an act
penalized by itself HOMICIDE MURDER
The unjustified killing It is the crime
PEOPLE V JACINTO of a human being committed by the killing
Appellant Hermie Jacinto was found guilty beyond which does not of a human being which
reasonable doubt for the rape of the then 5-year-old constitute murder, does not constitute
victim. The crime was committed when appellant parricide, or infanticide parricide or infanticide
was only 17; Judgment was rendered when The accused will be and where it is both
appellant was already 25. convicted of Homicide alleged and proven that
in the following the killing was attended
Issue: Whether or not, appellant may benefit from instances: by any of the qualifying
the provisions of RA9344 regarding criminal liability aggravating
of an accused who was a minor during the 1. When in the circumstances under
commission of the crime and the suspension of commission thereof, Article 248 of the
sentence of one who is no longer a minor during there is absent any of Revised Penal Code.
the pronouncement of verdict. the qualifying
circumstances of B. The concept of the
Held: The Court sustained the conviction of the murder or qualifying
appellant in view of the straightforward testimony of 2. None of the circumstances are the
the victim and the inconsistencies of the qualifying same as in Article 14
testimonies of the defense witnesses. circumstance has 1. Except for “outraging
been alleged in the or scoffing at the person
The Court did not exempt accused of his criminal Information or or corpse”, which
liability although he was only 17 during the 3. Even if a qualifying occurs after the victim is
commission of the crime since, in view of the circumstance is already dead, all the
circumstances to which accused committed the alleged but it was not other circumstances
felony, it was proved that he acted with proved. occur either prior to or
discernment. (Sec 6, RA 9344). There was showing simultaneous with the
that the accused understood the consequences of B. Principles involved: act of killing. Scoffing or
his action. outraging includes
1. This may be doing any act upon the
Applying, the provision of RA 9346, the accused committed by corpse which adds to
was meted with reclusion perpetua instead of the negligence. However the mental suffering or
death penalty. where the victim does humiliation of the heirs
not die, the crime is of the victim or which
As to the civil liability of accused, his minority also either Reckless offends the public.
had no bearing to the decision of the Court, Imprudence Resulting
ordering accused to pay the victim for damages. in Physical Injuries Examples: (i)
(Serious, Less Serious dismembering the
However, the Court afforded the accused the or Slight). There is no corpse by cutting off the
benefit of the suspension of his sentence provided crime of Reckless head (ii) urinating on it
in Section38 of RA 9344, which made no distinction Imprudence Resulting (ii) putting it on a sack
to an accused found guilty of a capital offense. The to Frustrated or and throwing the sack in
Court stated that what was important was the intent Attempted Homicide a garbage pit (iv)
of the Act to uphold the welfare of a child in conflict because intent is stripping if off the
with the law. What was to be considered was the incompatible with clothes
negligence
 2. Where there are 2. Where the 1. The act committed by the accused
two or more persons circumstance pertains appears not punishable by any law;
who inflicted injuries to the means, methods 2. But the court deems it proper to repress
on the person, all are or forms, it is usually such act;
liable for the death if: treachery which is 3. In that case, the court must render the
a). There is preferred and the rest proper decision by dismissing the case and
conspiracy are absorbed; such as acquitting the accused;
b). There is no night time, advantage of 4. The judge must then make a report to the
conspiracy but the superior strength, aid of Chief Executive, through the Secretary of
wounds inflicted by armed men. Justice, stating the reasons which induce
each of the assailants 3. Where treachery is him to believe that the said act should be
are mortal wounds present with other made the subject of penal legislation.
c). There is no circumstances not Basis of par. 1, Art. 5.
conspiracy but it relating to the means, The provision contained in paragraph 1 of
cannot be determined methods or forms, (e.g. Art. 5 is based on the legal maxim "nullum
who inflicted the price, reward or crimen, nulla poena sine lege," that is, that
mortal wounds promise) it is treachery there is no crime if there is no law that
3. As in all other which will be used to punishes the act.
killings, the accused qualify and the rest will
may be convicted of be considered as "In cases of excessive penalties."
homicide even if the merely generic The 2nd paragraph of Art. 5 requires that —
body of the victim has aggravating, provided 1. The court after trial finds the accused
not been found, so they were duly alleged guilty;
long as the corpus in the Information
delicti has been 4. Where fire is used, 2. The penalty provided by law and which
proven the death of the victim the court imposes for the crime committed
must be the purpose or appears to be clearly excessive, because —
objective of the
accused, such as Art. 5 WHEN ACTS ARE NOT COVERED BY LAW
burning his person, AND IN CASES OF EXCESSIVE PENALTIES
throwing him into a fire
or pouring gasoline on a. the accused acted with lesser degree of
his body and lighting it. malice, and/ or;
If the intent or purpose b. there is no injury or the injury caused is of
was to destroy property lesser gravity.
by means of fire and it 3. The court should not suspend the
was incidental that a execution of the sentence.
person was killed, the 4. The judge should submit a statement to
result is the special the Chief Executive, through the Secretary
complex of Justice, recommending executive
crime/composite crime clemency.
of Arson Resulting in
Homicide. Judge has the duty to apply the law as
5. Murder cannot be interpreted by the Supreme Court.
committed by
negligence - If a Judge of a lower court feels, in the
fulfillment of his mission of deciding cases, that
the application of a doctrine promulgated by
the Supreme Court is against his way of
reasoning, or against his conscience, he may
ARTICLE 5 state his opinion on the matter, but rather than
disposing of the case in accordance with his
The 1st paragraph of this article which personal view, he must first think that it is his
contemplates a trial of a criminal case requires the duty to apply the law as interpreted by the
following: Highest Court of the land, and that any
 deviation from a principle laid down by the
latter would unavoidably cause, as a sequel,
unnecessary inconveniences, delays and
expenses to the litigants. (People vs. Santos,
et al, 104 Phil. 560)
- Accused-appellant claims that the penalty of
reclusion perpetua is too cruel and harsh a
penalty and pleads for sympathy. Courts are
not the forum to plead for sympathy. The duty
of courts is to apply the law, disregarding their
feeling of sympathy or pity for an accused.
DURA LEX SED LEX. The remedy is
elsewhere — clemency from the executive or
an amendment of the law by the legislative, but
surely, at this point, this Court can but apply
the law.
PEOPLE V CANJA
Fact: Defendant Teopista Canja has been
maltreated by her husband Pedto Jongque. Apart
from beating her, he squandered their money and
kept a woman. Per her signed confession, on the
night of 25 May 1948 when the victim came home he
hit the defendant on the stomach without any
reason. After dinner and going out he hit her again
and Teopista felt utmost resentment against him.
That night she took she got a hammer and a chisel
and struck his head and face until he was dead. She
woke up her eldest daughter Exuperia to help her
carry the body to the creek. As her defense, Teopista
stated that she woke up when a man was
strangulating her and to defend herself grabbed a
piece of wood and struck the assailant twice and
later on learned that it was her husband. Court of
First Instance found her guilty on the basis of her
daughter’s testimony against her, her signed
confession and the autopsy report showing that the
injuries suffered by the victim can’t be from two
blows.
Issue: Whether or not Canja is exempt from criminal
liability due to self defense.
Decision: Judgment affirmed. Victim’s cruelty is not
mitigating circumstance. Self-defense version was
rejected due to her voluntary and signed confession,
her daughter’s testimony and the autopsy report.
EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY - It refers to the
- Commutation of Sentence, - It is the reduction
of the period of a prison sentence.
- Conditional Pardon- It is the conditional
exemption of a guilty offender for the
punishment imposed by a court.
- Absolute Pardon - It is the total extinction of the
criminal liability of the individual to whom it is
granted without any condition whatsoever
resulting to the full restoration of his civil rights.
maybe granted by the president upon
recommendation of the Board.
WHO MAY FILE THE PETITION?
A prisoner who has served at least one-half (1/2) of
the maximum of the original indeterminate and/or
definite prison term
ARTICLE 6
Stages in committing a crime
1. Internal Acts– mere ideas in the mind of a
person, not punishable even if, had they been
carried out, they would constitute a crime
2. External Acts – include (a) preparatory acts and
(b) acts of execution
a. Preparatory acts–those that do not have a direct
connection with the crime which the offender
intends to commit. These are ordinarily not
punishable except when expressly provided for or
when they are considered in themselves as
independent crimes. (e.g. Possession of picklocks
under Art. 304, which is a preparatory act to the
commission of robbery under Arts. 299 and 302).
b. Acts of execution– those punishable under the
Revised Penal Code
Classifications of felonies according to the stage of
execution
1. Consummated
2. Frustrated (BAR 1992, 1994, 2009)
3. Attempted
Purpose of the classification of felonies --- To bring
about a proportionate penalty and equitable
punishment.
NOTE: The penalties are graduated according to
their degree of severity. The stages may not apply
to all kinds of felonies. There are felonies which do
not admit of division.
Phases of felony
1. Subjective phase – that portion of execution of
the crime starting from the point where the offender
begins up to that point where he still has control
over his acts. If the subjective phase has not yet
passed, the felony would be a mere
attempt. If it already passed, but the felony is not
produced, as a rule, it is frustrated.
NOTE: If it reaches the point where he has no more
control over his acts, the subjective phase has
passed.
2. Objective phase – results of the acts of
execution, that is, the accomplishment of the crime.
If the subjective and objective phases are present,
then is the felony is consummated.
Consummated felony
- A felony is consummated when all the acts
necessary for its accomplishment and
execution are present.
Frustrated felony
- A felony is frustrated when the offender
performs all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a result, but which
nevertheless do not produce it by reason of
causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
--- Q: X stabbed Y in the abdomen, penetrating the
liver and chest of Y. Y was rushed to the hospital
and was given immediate medical treatment. Is X
liable for consummated homicide?
A: NO, because the prompt medical treatment
received by the offended party saved his life
(People v. Honrada, G.R. No. 112178-79, April 21,
1995). --- --- Q: A, a doctor, conceived the idea of
killing his wife B, and to carry out his plan, he mixed
arsenic with the soup of B. Soon after taking the
poisonous food, A suddenly had a change of heart
and washed out the stomach of B. A also gave B
an antidote. Is A liable for frustrated parricide?
A: NO, the cause which prevented the
consummation of the crime was not independent of
the will of the perpetrator. It cannot be considered
attempted parricide, because A already performed
all acts of execution. A can only be liable for
physical injuries
Crimes which do not admit of a frustrated stage
1. Rape – the gravamen of the offense is carnal
knowledge, hence, the slightest penetration to the
female organ consummates the felony.
2. Corruption of public officers – mere offer
consummates the crime.
3. Physical injury – consummated at the instance
the injuries are inflicted.
4. Adultery – the essence of the crime is sexual
congress.
5. Theft– the essence of the crime is the taking of
property belonging to another. Once the thing has
been taken, or in the possession of another, the
crime is consummated. (BAR 2014)
Attempted felony
- There is an attempt when the offender
commences the commission of a felony directly
by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts
of execution which should produce the felony,
by reason of some cause or accident other
than his own spontaneous desistance.
NOTE: The word directly, emphasizes the
requirement that the attempted felony is that which
is directly linked to the overt act performed by the
offender not the felony he has in his mind.
Overt acts
- are some physical activity or deed, indicating
the intention to commit a particular crime, more
than mere planning or preparation, which if
carried to its complete termination following its
natural course, without being frustrated by
external obstacles nor by the voluntary
desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and
necessarily ripen into a concrete offense.
Indeterminate offense
- It is where the purpose of the offender in
performing an act is not certain. Its nature and
relation to its objective is ambiguous.
--- Q: A person enters the dwelling of another.
However, at the very moment of his entry and
before he could do anything, he is already
apprehended by the household members, can he
be charged with attempted robbery?
A: NO. The act of entering alone is not yet
indicative of robbery although he may have planned
to do so. Instead, he may be held liable for
trespassing. --- ---
Q: One night Jugeta with his cohorts had gone to
the residence of the victim where they violated his
domicile by first pulling off the sack that covers their
nipa hut where they slept. The victim pleaded to
accused-Jugeta to stop but the latter instead fired a
shot wherein the victim used his body to cover his
family. Jugeta still fired volleys of shots which
landed fatally on the body of the daughters of the
victim. The two daughters expired upon arrival in
the hospital. Is Jugeta liable for double murder and
multiple attempted murder?
A: YES. Notwithstanding the other crimes
JUGUETA committed, he is also liable for multiple
attempted murder since the design of the crime
was to neutralize the entire family instead of the
two daughters specifically. They have commenced
all the acts of execution but was not able to push
through due to reasons unknown to them (People
v. Jugeta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016). ---
Criteria involved in determining the stage (whether
it be in attempted, frustrated or consummated
stage) of the commission of a felony
1. The manner of committing the crime;
2. The elements of the crime; and
3. The nature of the crime itself.
The difference between the attempted stage and
the frustrated stage lies on whether the offender
has performed all the acts of execution for the
accomplishment of a felony.
Literally, under the article, if the offender has
performed all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony as a consequence but the felony
was not realized, then the crime is already in the
frustrated stage.
If the offender has not yet performed all the acts of
execution but he was not able to perform all the
acts of execution due to some cause or accident
other than his own spontaneous desistance, then it
is an attempted felony.
NOTE: The SC held that in case of killing, whether
parricide, homicide or murder, the killing will be in
the frustrated stage if the injury sustained is fatal,
sufficient to bring about death but death did not
supervene because the immediate medical
intervention. If the wound inflicted was not fatal, the
crime is only in its attempted stage because the
offender still has to perform another act in order to
consummate the crime (People v. Gutierrez, G.R.
No. 188602, February 4, 2010).
Instances wherein the stages of a crime will not
apply
1. Offenses punishable by Special Penal Laws,
unless otherwise provided for;
2. Formal crimes (e.g. slander, adultery, etc.);
3. Impossible crimes;
4. Crimes consummated by mere attempt (e.g.
attempt to flee to an enemy country);
5. Felonies by omission; and
6. Crimes committed by mere agreement (e.g.
betting in sports, corruption of public officers).
--- Q: Two police dressed as civilians were
conducting surveillance in Binangonan, Rizal. They
went near a store when suddenly Rolando and his
wife arrived and approached the police officers not
knowing their real identity. Rolando spoke to one of
the officers and asked “gusto mo bang umi-score
ng shabu?” The officer replied, “bakit, meron ka
ba?” Rolando answered in the affirmative and then
he took a sachet of shabu and showed it. When the
officer asked how much the shabu was, Rolando
replied P200. Upon seeing the sachet, the police
officers immediately introduced themselves and
arrested Rolando and his wife. They were charged
of attempted illegal sale of dangerous drugs which
is found under Sec 26 of RA 9165. Can there be an
attempted stage in the illegal sale of dangerous
drugs?
A: YES. According to the SC, the identity of the
buyer and seller are present. The seller was
Rolando while the buyers would be the officers.
The corpus delicti was also established however,
there was no delivery because they immediately
introduced themselves as police officers therefore;
the consummated sale of the drugs was aborted by
the act of the police introducing themselves and
arresting Rolando. Hence, the crime committed is
only attempted illegal sale of dangerous drugs
(People v. Rolando Laylo y Cepres, G.R. No.
192235, July 6, 2011). ---
Formal crimes
Crimes which are consummated in one instance
and thus do not admit of stages e.g. physical
injuries, false testimony, oral defamation.
CONTINUING CRIMES
Continuing crime - It is a single crime, consisting of
a series of acts but arising from one criminal
resolution.
Continued crime (BAR 1996)
- Here, the offender is impelled by a single
criminal impulse but committed a series of acts
at about the same time in about the same
place and all the overt acts violate one and the
same provision law. e.g. theft of 13 cows
belonging to different owners committed by the
accused at the same place and at the same
time.
COMPLEX CRIMES (ART. 48, RPC) AND
COMPOSITE CRIMES (BAR 2004, 2005, 2007,
2009, 2015)
Plurality of crimes
It is the successive execution by the same
individual of different criminal acts upon any of
which no conviction has yet been declared.
Kinds of plurality of crimes
1. Formal or ideal– only one criminal liability
a. Complex crime – defined in Art 48 b. When the
law specifically fixes a single penalty for 2 or more
offenses committed c. Continued crimes (BAR
1996)
2. Real or material – there are different crimes in
law and in the conscience of the offender. In such
cases, the offender shall be punished for each and
every offense that he committed.
PEOPLE V. LAMAHANG
FACTS:
 The defendant Aurelio Lamahang is on a
ppeal from a decision finding him guilty of at
tempted robbery.
 At early dawn on March 2, 1935, policeman
Jose Tomambing, who was patrolling his be
at on Delgado and C.R. Fuentes streets of t
he City of Iloilo, caughtthe accused in the a
ct of making an opening with an iron bar
on the wall of a store of cheap goods loc
ated on the last named street.
 At that time the owner of the store, Tan Yu,
was sleeping inside with another Chinaman.
 The accusedhad only succeeded in breaki
ng one board and in unfastening another
from the wall, when the policeman showed
up, who instantly arrested him and placed h
im under custody.
ISSUE:
WON the accused was erroneously declared guilty
of attempted robbery
RULING:YES, he was erroneously declared guilty o
f attempted robbery. The accused is then held guilt
y of attempted trespass to dwelling, committed by
means of force, with the aforesaid aggravating and
mitigating circumstances and sentenced to three m
onths and one day of arresto mayor.
RATIONALE:
It is necessary to prove that said beginning of exec
ution, if carried to its complete termination following
its natural course, without being frustrated by exter
nal obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the
perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into
a concrete offense. In the case of robbery, it must
be shown that the offender clearly intended to t
ake possession, for the purpose of gain, of som
e personal property belonging to another. In the
instant case, it may only be inferred as a logical con
clusion that his evident intention was to enter by me
ans of force said store against the will of its owner.
That his final objective, once he succeeded in enter
ing the store, was to rob, to cause physical injury to
the inmates, or to commit any other offense, there i
s nothing in the record to justify a concrete finding.
It must be borne in mind (I Groizard, p. 99) that in
offenses not consummated, as the material dama
ge is wanting, the nature of the action intended (
accion fin) cannot exactly be ascertained, but th
e same must be inferred from the nature of the a
cts executed (accion medio). The relation existin
g between the facts submitted for appreciation and
the offense which said facts are supposed to produ
ce must be direct; the intention must be ascertained
from the facts and therefore it is necessary, in orde
r to avoid regrettable instances of injustice
Under article 280 of the Revised Penal Code, the C
ourt is of the opinion that the fact under considerati
on does not constitute attempted robbery but attem
pted trespass to dwelling. Against the accused mus
t be taken into consideration the aggravating circum
stances of nighttime and former convictions, — inas
much as the record shows that several final judgme
nts for robbery and theft have been rendered again
st him — and in his favor, the mitigating circumstan
ce of lack of instruction.
PEOPLE V. BORINAGA
Facts:
The victim Harry Mooney, an American who resided
in Calubian Leyte,contracted with Juan Lawaan for
the construction of a fish corral. Lawaanattempted to
collect the whole amount of the contract even though
the corralis not yet finished.
Upon Mooney‘s refusal to pay, Lawaan warned and
threatened him that something would happen to
him.On that evening, Mooney was in the store of
his neighbor, sitting with his back towards a window
when suddenly Basilio Borinaga struck him with a
knife. Theknife imbedded on the back of the seat
though. Mooney fell off from theimpact but was not
injured. Borinaga left the scene but after ten minutes,
hereturned to have another attempt at Mooney but
was warded off by Mooneyand his neighbor
frightening him by turning a flashlight on him.
Issue:
Whether or not the crime is frustrated murder.
Held
YES. As an essential condition of a frustrated crime,
Borinaga performed all theacts of execution,
attending the attack. There was nothing left that he
could dofurther to accomplish the work. The cause
resulting in the failure of the attack arose by reason
of forces independent of his will. Borinaga also
voluntarilydesisted from further acts. The subjective
phase of the criminal act was passed.
Dissenting opinion, J. Villa-Real:
“The acts of execution perfomed by [Borinaga] did
not produce the death of Mooney as a consequence
not could they have produced it because the blowdid
not reach his body; therefore, the culprit did not
perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony. There was lacking the infliction
of the deadly wound upon a vital spot of the body of
Mooney.”
What the back of the chair prevented was the
wounding of Mooney, not hisdeath. It is the
preventing of death by causes independent of the
will of theperpetrator, after all the acts of execution
which should produce the felony as aconsequence
had been performed, that constitutes a frustrated
felony,according to the law, and not the preventing
of the performances of all theacts of execution which
constitute a felony, as in the present
case. Attempted murder only
PEOPLE V SY PIO
Facts: Sy Pio shot three people early in the morning
of September 3, 1949. Tan Siong Kiap, Ong Pian
and Jose Sy. Sy Pio entered the store at 511
Misericordia Sta Cruz Manila and started firing with
a .45 caliber pistol. First to be shot was Jose Sy.
Upon seeing Sy Pio fire at Jose Sy, Tan asked
―what is the idea?‖ thereupon, Sy Pio turned
around and fired at him as well. Tan was shot at his
right shoulder and it passed through his back. He ran
to a room behind the store to hide. He was still able
to hear gunshots from Sy Pio‘s pistol, but afterwards,
Sy Pio ran away.
Tan Siong Kiap was brought to the Chinese General
Hospital where his wound was treated. He stayed
there from Septenber 3-12, 1949. He was released
upon his request and against physician‘s advice and
was requested to return for further treatment which
he did 5 times in a period of 10 days. His wound was
completely healed; he spent P300 for hospital and
doctor‘s fees.
Sy Pio was found by the Constabulary in Tarlac.
Lomotan, a police from Manila Police Department
went to Tarlac to get Sy Pio. He admitted to Lomotan
that he shot the victims and handed him the pistol
used in the shooting.
According to Sy Pio‘s declaration, some months
prior to the incident, he was employed in a restaurant
owned by Ong Pian. Sy Pio‘s wife, Vicenta was also
employed by Ong Pian‘s partner. When he tried to
borrow money from Ong Pian fpr his wife‘s sick
father, Ong Pian only lent him P1. his wife was able
to borrow P20 from her employer.
Afterwards, defendant-appellant was dismissed
from his work. Ong Pian presented a list of Sy Pio‘s
debts and these were deducted from his wife‘s
monthly salary. Sy Pio could not remember incurring
such debts. As such, he was resentful of Ong Pian‘s
conduct.
In Tan Siong Kiap‘s case, a few months before
Sept3, Sy Pio was able to realize the sum of P70 and
he put his money in a place in his room. The next
day, Sy Pio found that his money was gone. Tan tolf
Sy Pio that he had probably given the money to his
wife. Thereafter, Sy Pio could hear that he had lost
his money gambling. ASo early in the morning of
Sept 3, while Ngo Cho, a Chinaman who has a pistol
was away, he got his pistol and went to a restaurant
in Ongpin where Ong Pian worked and shot him.
Afterwards he went to Sta Cruz and shot Jose Sy
and Tan.
Issues:
- Trial court erred in not finding that Tan received
the shot accidentally from the same bullet that
had been fired at Jose Sy.
- The evidence is not sufficient to sustain the
judgment of conviction.
- Lower court erred in sentencing him to pay an
indemnity of P350.
- Defendant-appellant should only be found guilty
of less serious physical injuries instead of
frustrated murder.
Held:
1. Sy Pio had to turn around to shoot Tan
Siong Kiap.
2. There is sufficient proof. (Uncontradicted
testimony of the victim, admissions made to
Lomotan, testimony of physician, etc.)
3. Assignment of error must be dismissed.
Offended party spent P300 for the hospital
fees.
4. The fact that he was able to escape which
appellant must have seen, must have
produced in the mind of the defendant-
appellant that he was not able to hit his victim
at a vital part of the body. The defendant
appellant knew that he had not actually
performed all acts of execution necessary to
kill his victim. Under these circumstances, it
cannot be said that the subjective phase of
the acts of execution had been completed.
-Adapted
PEOPLE V VALENZUELA
FACTS: While a security guard was manning his
post the open parking area of a supermarket, he saw
the accused, Aristotel Valenzuela, hauling a push
cart loaded with cases of detergent and unloaded
them where his co-accused, Jovy Calderon, was
waiting. Valenzuela then returned inside the
supermarket, and later emerged with more cartons
of detergent. Thereafter, Valenzuela hailed a taxi
and started loading the boxes of detergent inside. As
the taxi was about to leave the security guard asked
Valenzuela for the receipt of the merchandise. The
accused reacted by fleeing on foot, but were
subsequently apprehended at the scene. The trial
court convicted both Valenzuela and Calderon of the
crime of consummated theft. Valenzuela appealed
before the Court of Appeals, arguing that he should
only be convicted of frustrated theft since he was not
able to freely dispose of the articles stolen. The CA
affirmed the trial court’s decision, thus the Petition
for Review was filed before the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner Valenzuela is guilty
of frustrated theft.
Held: No. Article 6 of the RPC provides that a felony
is consummated when all the elements necessary
for its execution and accomplishment are present. In
the crime of theft, the following elements should be
present – (1) that there be taking of personal
property; (2) that said property belongs to another;
(3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that
the taking be done without the consent of the owner;
and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the
use of violence against or intimidating of persons or
force upon things. The court held that theft is
produced when there is deprivation of personal
property by one with intent to gain. Thus, it is
immaterial that the offender is able or unable to
freely dispose the property stolen since he has
already committed all the acts of execution and the
deprivation from the owner has already ensued from
such acts. Therefore, theft cannot have a frustrated
stage, and can only be attempted or consummated.
PEOPLE V DINO
On June 20, 1946, Roberto Diño was hired as a
driver of the US army at a station in Quezon City. At
above 11:30 in the morning, he brought a truck load
of articles to manila harbor; the article came from the
US army. At the check point a guard approached the
truck and found three boxes, containing ten caliber
30 army rifles. The guard brought Diño to the
lieutenant of the US army for questioning, Diño
pointed to the gang but later denied. Later Diño
confessed that there were four persons who placed
the boxes on board and he was instructed to bring
them out of the area. While they were to meet after
the truck passed the checkpoint.
Issue: whether or not the crime f theft was
consummated considering the foregoing.
Ruling:
Trial Court: Diño was found guilty as an
accomplice in the consummated crime of theft.
Supreme Court: Diño was found guilty as a principal
in the frustrated crime of theft.
Reason: in order for the crime of theft to be
consummated the article should have passed the
checkpoint, so that the thief could have full control
and could dispense of the property.
ARTILCE 9
Importance of classifying the felonies as to their
severity
To determine:

1. Whether these felonies can be complexed or not
(Art. 48, RPC);
2. The prescription of the crime and the prescription
of the penalty (Art. 90, RPC);
3. Whether the accessory is liable (Art. 16, RPC);
4. The duration of the subsidiary penalty [Art. 39(2),
RPC];
5. The duration of the detention in case of failure to
post the bond to keep the peace (Art. 35); and
6. The proper penalty for quasi-offenses (Art. 365,
par. 1, RPC).
Classifications of felonies according to their gravity
1. Grave– those to which the law attaches the
capital punishment or penalties which in any of their
periods are afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of
the RPC (RPC, Art. 9, par. 1). 2. Less grave –
those which the law punishes with penalties which
in their maximum period are correctional, in
accordance with Art. 25 of the RPC (Art. 9, par. 2,
RPC).
NOTE: The criminal can still be rehabilitated and
hence can be the subject of probation and
Alternative Dispute Resolution insofar as the civil
aspect is concerned.
3. Light– those infractions of law for the
commission of which the penalty of arresto menor
or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both, is
provided (RPC ,Art. 9, par. 3,).
Factors to be considered in imposing a penalty
1. Stages of execution;
2. The degree of participation; and
3. The presence of attending circumstances.
Persons liable for grave or less grave felonies
The principals, accomplices and accessories.
When light felonies are punishable
GR: Light felonies are punishable only when they are
consummated.
E.g. An attempt to conceal one’s true name under
the 2nd par. of Art. 178 is not punishable. Also, an
attempt to commit Alarms and Scandals (Art. 155,
RPC).
NOTE: It involves insignificant moral and material
injuries, if not consummated, the wrong done is so
slight that a penalty is unnecessary (or the de minis
principle).
XPN: Light felonies are punishable in all stages
when committed against persons or property. E.g. A
thing stolen with a value that does not exceed 5
pesos which carries the penalty of arresto menor,
may be the subject of an attempted theft.
NOTE: It presupposes moral depravity.
Persons liable in light felonies
Only the principals and their accomplices are made
liable for the commission of light felonies.
Accessories are not liable for the commission of light
felonies.
Crimes considered as light felonies
1. Slight physical injuries; 2. Theft (when the value
of thing stolen is less than 5 pesos and theft is
committed under the circumstances enumerated
under RPC, Art. 308, par.3); 3. Alteration of
boundary marks; 4. Malicious mischief (when the
value of the damage does not exceed P200 or
cannot be estimated); 5. Intriguing against honor;
and 6. Alarms and Scandals.
NOTE: If one assists in the escape of another who
committed Alarms and Scandals, he is not liable
under RPC but may be liable under PD 1829
** ART 26 **
Imposition of fines
When a fine is considered afflictive, correctional, or
light penalty
Same basis may be applied by analogy to Bond to
keep the peace.
Light felony under Art. 9 vis-à-vis Classification of
fine under Art. 26

NOTE: If the fine prescribed by the law for a felony
is exactly P200, it is a light felony because Art. 9 (3),
which defines light felony should prevail.
Considerations by the court in imposing the amount
of fine
a. The mitigating and aggravating circumstances;
and Modifying circumstances are only of secondary
importance. There is subsidiary imprisonment if the
penalty of fine is not paid (Regalado, 2007). b.
More particularly, the wealth or means of the culprit.
This is the main consideration in the imposition of
fines.
Penalty cannot be imposed in the alternative
The law does not permit any court to impose a
sentence in the alternative, its duty being to indicate
the penalty imposed definitely and positively (People
v. Mercadejas, C.A., 54 O.G. 5707; People v. Tabije,
C.A., 59 O.G. 1922).
Under the Bench Book in Criminal Procedure issued
by the SC, the imposition of the alternative penalty
may be considered during the plea bargaining in the
pre-trial of criminal cases.
---
Q: E and M are convicted of a penal law that
imposes a penalty of fine or imprisonment or both
fine and imprisonment. The judge sentenced them
to pay the fine, jointly and severally, with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency. (BAR 2005) 1.
Is the penalty proper? Explain.
A: Imposing the penalty of fine jointly and severally
on E and M is not proper. The penalty should be
imposed individually on every person accused of the
crime. Any of the convicted accused who is insolvent
and unable to pay the fine, shall serve the subsidiary
imprisonment.
2. May the judge impose an alternative penalty of
fine or imprisonment? Explain. A: The judge may
not validly impose an alternative penalty. Although
the law may prescribe an alternative penalty for a
crime, it does not mean that the court may impose
the alternative penalties at the same time. The
sentence must be definite; otherwise, the judgment
cannot attain finality.
Doctrine of Pro Reo in relation to Article 48
(Penalty for complex crimes) of the RPC (BAR
2010)
Following the Doctrine of Pro Reo, crimes under Art.
48 of the RPC are complexed and punished with a
single penalty (that prescribed for the most serious
crime and to be imposed in its maximum period).
The rationale being, that the accused who commits
two crimes with a single criminal impulse
demonstrates lesser perversity than when the
crimes are committed by different acts and several
criminal resolutions (People v. Comadre, G.R. No.
153559, June 8, 2004)
ARTICLE 11
Justifying circumstances
They are those acts of a person said to be in
accordance with law, such that a person is deemed
not to have committed a crime and is therefore free
from both criminal and civil liability. They are:
1. Self-defense;
2. Defense of relatives;
3. Defense of stranger;
4. Avoidance of greater evil or injury;
5. Fulfillment of duty or exercise of right or office;
and
6. Obedience to an order of a superior.
Burden of proving the existence of justifying
circumstances
In cases where the accused interposes justifying
circumstance, this prosecutorial burden is shifted to
the accused who himself must prove all the
indispensable ingredients of such defense (People
v. Roxas, G.R. No. 218396, February 20, 2016). El
incombit probotion qui decit non qui negat — He
who asserts, not he who denies, must prove.
Basis for these justifying circumstances
The basis for these justifying circumstances is the
lack of criminal intent, and with the maximactus non
facit reum, nisi mens sit rea (an act does not make
the doer guilty, unless the mind is guilty), there is
no crime and there is no criminal in the situations
contemplated in this article provided the respective
elements are all present.

Civil liability in the circumstances mentioned in Art.
11
GR: Since there is no crime, necessarily there is no
civil liability ex delicto.
XPN: In paragraph 4, wherein civil liability may be
adjudged against those who benefited from the act
which caused damage to the property of the victim
but spared their own properties from consequent
damages. The civil liability in Par. 4 is provided for
in Art. 101, and is commendably in line with the rule
against unjust enrichment.
SELF-DEFENSE ART. 11(1), RPC
Rights included in self-defense
Self-defense includes not only the defense of the
person or body of the one assaulted but also that of
his rights, the enjoyment of which is protected by
law. Thus, it includes:
1. Defense of the person’s home; 2. Defense of
rights protected by law; and 3. The right to honor;
NOTE: Hence, a slap on the face is considered as
unlawful aggression since the face represents a
person and his dignity. It is a serious, personal
attack (Rugas v. People, G.R. No. 147789, January
14, 2004).
4. The defense of property rights can be invoked if
there is an attack upon the property although it is
not coupled with an attack upon the person of the
owner of the premises. All the elements for
justification must however be present (People v.
Narvaez, G.R. Nos. L-33466-67, April 20, 1983);
and
NOTE: However, if A snatches the watch of B
inside a running passenger jeep, and then B
punches A to protect the possession of his watch,
and A fell from the running jeep, his head hitting a
hard pavement causing his death, B is not liable
criminally for the defense of his property rights,
there was no attack against the B’s person.
5. Self-defense in libel – Physical assault may be
justified when the libel is aimed at the person’s
good name, and while the libel is in progress, one
libel deserves another.
NOTE: What is important is not the duality of the
attack but whether the means employed is
reasonable to prevent the attack.
Reason for justifying self-defense
It is impossible for the State to protect all its
citizens. Also, a person cannot just give up his
rights without resistance being offered.
Effects of self-defense
1. When all the elements are present – the person
defending himself is free from criminal liability and
civil liability.
2. When only a majority of the elements are present
– privileged mitigating circumstance, provided there
is unlawful aggression.
Nature of self-defense
The rule consistently adhered to in this jurisdiction
is that when the accused’s defense is self-defense
he thereby admits being the author of the death of
the victim, thus it becomes incumbent upon him to
prove the justifying circumstance to the satisfaction
of the court (People v. Del Castillo et al., G.R. No.
169084, January 18, 2012).
Requisites of self-defense (Bar 1993, 1996, 2002,
2003, 2005)
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it; and
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself.
No transfer of burden of proof when pleading self-
defense
The burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
is not lifted from the shoulders of the State, which
carries it until the end of the proceedings. It is the
burden of evidence that is shifted to the accused to
satisfactorily establish the fact of self-defense. In
other words, only the onus probandi shifts to the
accused, for self-defense is an affirmative
allegation that must be established with certainty by
sufficient and satisfactory proof (People v. Del
Castillo et al., G.R. No. 169084, January 18, 2012).
But in case of an agreement to fight, self-defense is
not feasible as in case of a fight, the parties are
considered aggressors as aggression is bound to
arise in the course of the fight.

Nature of the unlawful aggression (BAR 1993,
2004)
For unlawful aggression to be appreciated, there
must be an “actual, sudden and unexpected attack,
or imminent danger thereof, not merely a
threatening or intimidating attitude” and the
accused must present proof of positively strong act
of real aggression (People v. Sabella y Bragais,
G.R. No. 183092, May 30, 2011; People v. Campos
and Acabo, G.R. No. 176061, July 4, 2011).
NOTE: There is no unlawful aggression when there
was an agreement to fight and the challenge to
fight has been accepted. But aggression which is
ahead of a stipulated time and place is unlawful.
Elements of unlawful aggression
There are three elements of unlawful aggression:
1. There must be a physical or material attack or
assault;
2. The attack or assault must be actual, or, at least,
imminent; and
3. The attack or assault must be unlawful (People
v. Mapait, G.R. No. 172606, November 23, 2011).
Lawful aggression
Lawful aggression means the fulfillment of a duty or
the exercise of a right in a more or less violent
manner.
Example of lawful aggression
The act of a chief police who used violence by
throwing stones at the accused when the latter was
running away from him to elude arrest for a crime
committed in his presence, is not unlawful
aggression, it appearing that the purpose of the
peace officer was to capture the accused and place
him under arrest (People v. Gayrama, G.R. Nos.
L39270 and L-39271, October 30, 1934).
NOTE: If a public officer exceeded his authority he
may become an unlawful aggressor.
Two kinds of unlawful aggression
1. Actual or material unlawful aggression which
means an attack with physical force or with a
weapon, an offensive act that positively determines
the intent of the aggressor to cause the injury; and
2. Imminent unlawful aggression which is an attack
that is impending or at the point of happening; it
must not consist in a mere threatening attitude
(People v. Mapait, G.R. No. 172606, November 23,
2011).
Kind of threat that will amount to unlawful
aggression
In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong,
positively showing the wrongful intent to cause
injury. It presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected
or imminent danger––not merely threatening and
intimidating action. It is present only when the one
attacked faces real and immediate threat to one’s
life (People v. Maningding, G.R. No. 195665,
September 14, 2011 reiterating People v. Gabrino
and People v. Manulit).
Test for unlawful aggression in self-defense
The test for the presence of unlawful aggression
under the circumstances is whether the aggression
from the victim put in real peril the life or personal
safety of the person defending himself (People v.
Mapait, ibid.).
Effect if there was a mistake of fact on the part of
the accused
In relation to mistake of fact, the belief of the
accused may be considered in determining the
existence of unlawful aggression.
Example: There is self- defense even if the
aggressor used a toy gun provided that the
accused believed it to be a real gun.
Person who employed the unlawful aggression
In order to constitute an element of self-defense,
the unlawful aggression must come, directly or
indirectly, from the person who was subsequently
attacked by the accused (People v. Gutierrez, G.R.
No. 31010, September 26, 1929).
--- Q: A claims that the death of B was an accident
and his act was just for self-defense when his
revolver accidentally hit the victim while he was
struggling the same with his real enemy, C. Is his
contention correct?
A: NO. In this case, A was not repelling any
unlawful aggression from B, thereby rendering his
plea of self-defense unwarranted. His act amounted
to aberratio ictus (Matic v. People, G.R. No.
180219, November 23, 2011). ---
Requisites to satisfy the “reasonable necessity of
the means employed to prevent or repel it”
1. Nature and quality of the weapon used by the
aggressor; 2. Physical condition, character, size
and other circumstances of both the offender and
defender; and 3. Place and occasion of the assault.
NOTE: Perfect equality between the weapons used
by the one defending himself and that of the
aggressor is not required or material
commensurability between the means of attack and
defense. This is because the person assaulted
does not have sufficient tranquility of mind to think,
to calculate and to choose the weapon used. What
the law requires is rational equivalence.
Factors taken into consideration in determining the
reasonableness of means employed by the person
defending himself
1. Means were used to prevent or repel; 2. Means
must be necessary and there is no other way to
prevent or repel it; and
3. Means must be reasonable – depending on the
circumstances, but generally proportionate to the
force of the aggressor.
Instances when there can be lack of sufficient
provocation on the person defending himself
1. No provocation at all was given to aggressor by
the person defending himself; 2. Even if
provocation was given, it was not sufficient; 3. Even
if provocation was sufficient, it was not given by the
person defending himself; 4. Even if provocation
was given by the person defending himself, it was
not the proximate and immediate to the act of
aggression; and 5. Sufficient means proportionate
to the damage caused by the act, and adequate to
stir one to its commission.
Lack of the sufficient provocation
Sufficient provocation should not come from the
person defending himself, and it must immediately
precede the aggression.
Control of blows of person defending himself
The person defending himself cannot be expected
to think clearly so as to control his blow. The killing
of the unlawful aggressor may still be justified as
long as the mortal wounds are inflicted at a time
when the elements of complete self-defense are
still present.
--- Q: A, unlawfully attacked B with a knife. B then
took out his gun which caused A to run away. B,
after treating his wounds, pursued A and shot him.
Can B invoke self-defense?
A: NO. The unlawful aggression which has begun
no longer exists. When the aggressor runs away,
the one making a defense has no more right to kill
or even to wound the former aggressor. In order to
justify homicide on the ground of self-defense, it is
essential that the killing of the deceased by the
defendant be simultaneous with the attack made by
the deceased, or at least both acts succeeded each
other without appreciable interval of time. ---
NOTE: The aggression ceases except when retreat
is made to take a more advantageous position to
insure the success of the attack which has begun,
as unlawful aggression still continues.
Q: One night, Lina, a young married woman, was
sound asleep in her bedroom when she felt a man
on top of her. Thinking it was her husband Tito,
who came home a day early from his business trip,
Lina let him have sex with her. After the act, the
man said, "I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did."
Not recognizing the voice, it dawned upon Lina that
the man was not Tito, her husband. Furious, Lina
took out Tito's gun and shot the man. Charged with
homicide, Lina denies culpability on the ground of
defense of honor. Is her claim tenable? (BAR 1998,
2000)
A: NO, Lina's claim that she acted in defense of
honor is not tenable because the unlawful
aggression on her honor had already ceased.
Defense of honor as included in self-defense, must
have been done to prevent or repel an unlawful
aggression. There is no defense to speak of where
the unlawful aggression no longer exists. ---
Battered woman
A woman, who is repeatedly subjected to any
forceful physical or psychological behavior by a
man in order to coerce her to do something he
wants her to do without any concern for her rights.
NOTE: In order to be classified as a battered
woman, the couple must go through the battering
cycle at least twice. Any woman may find herself in
an abusive relationship with a man once. If it occurs
a second time, and she remains in the situation,
she is defined as a battered woman (People v.
Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004).
BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME
“Battered Woman Syndrome" (BWS)
It refers to a scientifically defined pattern of
psychological and behavioral symptoms found in
women living in battering relationships as a result of
cumulative abuse [RA 9262, Sec. 3(c)].
Battery
It is any act of inflicting physical harm upon the
woman or her child resulting to physical,
psychological or emotional distress [RA 9262, Sec.
3(b)].
The battered woman syndrome is characterized by
the so-called cycle of violence, which has 3 phases:
1. Tension building phase;
2. Acute battering incident; and
3. Tranquil, loving (or at least non-violent) phase.
NOTE: The defense should prove all three (3)
phases of cycle of violence characterizing the
relationship of the parties (People v. Genosa, ibid).
BWS used as a defense (BAR 2014, 2015)
Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be
suffering from battered woman syndrome do not
incur any criminal or civil liability notwithstanding
the absence of any of the elements for justifying
circumstances of self- defense under the RPC (RA
9262, Sec. 26).
In layman’s terms, if an abused woman kills or
inflicts physical injuries on her abusive husband or
live-in partner, and the trial court determines that
she is suffering from “Battered Woman Syndrome,”
the court will declare her not guilty (People v.
Genosa, ibid.).
The law now allows the battered woman syndrome
as a valid defense in the crime of parricide
independent of self-defense under the RPC (RA
9262, Sec. 26).
In the determination of the state of mind of the
woman who was suffering from battered woman
syndrome at the time of the commission of the
crime, the courts shall be assisted by expert
psychiatrists/ psychologists (RA 9262, Sec. 26).
NOTE: Only a certified psychologist or psychiatrist
can prove the existence of a Battered Woman
Syndrome in a woman.
Women who can avail of BWS as a defense
1. Wife;
2. Former wife;
3. A woman with whom the person has or had a
sexual or dating relationship;
NOTE: The “dating relationship” that the law
contemplates can exist even without a sexual
intercourse taking place between those involved.
4. A woman with whom he has a common child, or
against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate,
within or without the family abode.
Relatives covered under the justifying circumstance
1. Spouse;
2. Ascendants;
3. Descendants;
4. Legitimate, adopted brothers and sisters, or
relatives by affinity in the same degrees (namely:
ascendants-in-law, descendants-inlaw, and
siblings-in-law); and
5. Relatives by consanguinity within the 4th civil
degree.
NOTE: If the degree of consanguinity or affinity is
beyond the fourth degree, it will be considered
defense of a stranger.
NOTE: Death of one spouse does not terminate the
relationship by affinity established between the
surviving spouse and the blood relatives of the
deceased (Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales
Vda. De Carungcong v. People, G.R. No. 181409,
February 11, 2010).
NOTE: Motive is relative in this kind of defense
PEOPLE V. MERCADO
FACTS:
The defendants were convicted by the trial court
with the crime of kidnapping with murder and
sentencing them the punishment of death.
The defendants raised the constitutionality of death
penalty and the alleged haste of the trial court in
deciding the case resulting in grave and serious
errors committed in convicting the accused.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not death penalty is unconstitutional
and "cruel, unjust, excessive or unusual
punishment."
2. Whether or not the trial court’s haste in deciding
the case resulted to grave and serious errors to the
prejudice of the defendants.
RULING:
1. No the death penalty is not unconstitutional.
As settled in People vs. Echagaray, death penalty
is not a "cruel, unjust, excessive or unusual
punishment." It is an exercise of the state's power
to "secure society against the threatened and
actual evil". Procedural and substantial safeguards
to insure its correct application are established.
2. No, the contention of the defendants that the
speed the trial court decided their case resulted in
grave and serious errors to their prejudice. A review
of the trial court's decision shows that its findings
were based on the records of this case and the
transcripts of stenographic notes taken during the
trial. The speed with which the trial court disposed of
the case cannot thus be attributed to the injudicious
performance of its function. Indeed, a judge is not
supposed to study a case only after all the pertinent
pleadings have been filed. It is a mark of diligence
and devotion to duty that a judge studies a case long
before the deadline set for the promulgation of his
decision has arrived. The one-day period between
the filing of accused-appellants' memorandum and
the promulgation of the decision was sufficient time
to consider their arguments and to incorporate these
in the decision. As long as the trial judge does not
sacrifice the orderly administration of justice in favor
of a speedy but reckless disposition of a case, he
cannot be taken to task for rendering his decision
with due dispatch. The trial court in this case
committed no reversible errors and, consequently,
except for some modification, its decision should be
affirmed.
PEOPLE V CABUNGCAL
Facts: On March 21,1926, the accused invited
several persons to a picnic in a fishery on his
property in the barrio of Misua, municipality of
Infanta, Province of Tayabas. They spent the day at
said fishery and in the afternoon returned in two
boats, one steered by the accused and the other by
an old woman named Anastacia Penaojas. Nine
persons were in the boat steered by the accused,
the great majority of whom were women, and among
them the accused's wife and son and a nursing child,
son of a married couple, who had also gone in his
boat. The deceased Juan Loquenario was another
passenger in his boat. Upon reaching a place of
great depth, the deceased rocked the boat which
started it to take water, and the accused, fearing the
boat might capsize asked the deceased not to do it.
As the deceased paid no attention to this warning
and continued rocking the boat, the accused struck
him on the forehead with an oar. The deceased fell
into the water and was submerged, but a little while
after appeared on the surface having grasped the
side of the boat, saying that he was going to capsize
it and started to move it with this end in view, seeing
which the women began to cry, whereupon the
accused struck him on the neck with the same oar,
which submerged the deceased again. The
deceased died as a consequence.
Held: Due to the condition of the river at the point
where the deceased started to rock the boat, if it had
capsized, the passengers would have run the risk of
losing their lives, the majority of whom were women,
especially the nursing child. The conduct of the
deceased in rocking the boat until the point of it
having taken water and his insistence on this action
in spite of the accused's warning, gave rise to the
belief on the part of the accused that it would capsize
if he did not separate the deceased from the boat in
such a manner as to give him no time to accomplish
his purpose. It was necessary to disable him
momentarily. For this purpose, the blow given him
by the accused on the forehead with an oar was the
least that could reasonably have been done. And
this consideration militates with greater weight with
respect to the second blow given in his neck with the
same oar, because then the danger was greater
than the boat might upset, especially as the
deceased had expressed his intention to upset it.
Although the case involves defense of relatives and
at the same time defense of strangers, it is cited here
because unlawful aggression is also a requisite in
defense of relatives and in defense of strangers and commission” which enables the provincial
has the same meaning boards to exercise arbitrary discretion. By
section 11 if the Act, the legislature does not
PEOPLE V VERA seemingly on its own authority extend the
benefits of the Probation Act to the provinces
Facts: but in reality leaves the entire matter for the
Mariano Cu Unjieng was convicted by the trial court various provincial boards to determine.
in Manila. He filed for reconsideration and four 2. The equal protection of laws is a pledge of
motions for new trial but all were denied. He then the protection of equal laws. The
elevated to the Supreme Court and the Supreme classification of equal protection, to be
Court remanded the appeal to the lower court for a reasonable, must be based on substantial
new trial. While awaiting new trial, he appealed for distinctions which make real differences; it
probation alleging that the he is innocent of the crime must be germane to the purposes of the law;
he was convicted of. The Judge of the Manila CFI it must not be limited to existing conditions
directed the appeal to the Insular Probation Office. only, and must apply equally to each member
The IPO denied the application. However, Judge of the class
Vera upon another request by petitioner allowed the
petition to be set for hearing. The City Prosecutor
countered alleging that Vera has no power to place
Cu Unjieng under probation because it is in violation
of Sec. 11 Act No. 4221 which provides that the act
of Legislature granting provincial boards the power
to provide a system of probation to convicted person.
Nowhere in the law is stated that the law is
applicable to a city like Manila because it is only
indicated therein that only provinces are covered.
And even if Manila is covered by the law it is
unconstitutional because Sec 1 Art 3 of the
Constitution provides equal protection of laws. The
said law provides absolute discretion to provincial
boards and this also constitutes undue delegation of
power. Further, the said probation law may be an
encroachment of the power of the executive to
provide pardon because providing probation, in
effect, is granting freedom, as in pardon.

Issues:
1. Whether or not Act No. 4221 constituted an
undue delegation of legislative power
2. Whether or not the said act denies the equal
protection of the laws

Discussions:
1. An act of the legislature is incomplete and
hence invalid if it does not lay down any rule
or definite standard by which the
administrative officer or board may be guided
in the exercise of the discretionary powers
delegated to it. The probation Act does not,
by the force of any of its provisions, fix and
impose upon the provincial boards any
standard or guide in the exercise of their
discretionary power. What is granted, as
mentioned by Justice Cardozo in the recent
case of Schecter, supra, is a “roving