b.

Territoriality Principle
CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW
Embassy – The ground occupied by foreign embassies are not in fact the territory of the foreign state. Hence, a person
who commits a crime within the premises of an embassy will still be prosecuted under PHP Law. However, the
jurisdiction of the PHP over the embassy is limited or restricted by “principles of inviolability of diplomatic premises,”
PART I: REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK I which is a generally accepted principle of international law, Therefore, a warrant of arrest cannot be served inside the
US Embassy without a waiver from their government [Campanilla, Book I, p. 7]

A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES Territorial Waters – All waters seaward to a line 12 nautical miles distant from the archipelagic baseline over which
the PHP exercises jurisdiction. Do not include national waters which are within the baseline drawn in accordance with
the archipelago doctrine. [Campanilla, id.]
1. “Mala in Se” v. “Mala Prohibita”
(1) French Rule (Flag State Rule) – Crimes committed aboard a foreign merchant vessel within the territorial
Mala in Se Mala Prohibita water of the PHP are subject to the flag state’s jurisdiction UNLESS it affects peace and security of PHP.
Acts which are not inherently wrong, but are wrong
Acts which are inherently wrong or immoral (2) English Rule (Coastal State Rule) – Crimes committed aboard a foreign merchant vessel within the
because they are so provided by law.
territorial water of the PHP (coastal state) are subject to PHP jurisdiction, unless their commission does
Good faith or lack of criminal intent is a defense Good faith is not a defense not affect the peace and security of our country, or has no pernicious effect therein (Campanilla)
Modifying Circumstances are not applicable, unless
Modifying circumstances may be appreciated (3) Convention of the Law of the Sea (CURRENT RULE) –
the law adopts the technical nomenclature of the RPC.
Punishable by the Revised Penal Code or in SPL when GR: The flag state of the foreign merchant vessel passing through the territorial sea has jurisdiction over
Punishable only under Special Laws.
the acts punishable are wrong in nature. crimes committed therein.

NOTE – Not all mala in se crimes are solely in the RPC, nor are all crimes under SPLs automatically mala prohibita. The
true test is if the punishable act or omission is immoral in itself, then it is a mala in se; if not, but there is a statute
prohibiting its commission due to public policy, it is mala prohibita [ Dungo v. People (2015) ]
2. Applicability and Effectivity of the RPC
The 3 Cardinal Characteristics / Features of Criminal Law
(a) Generality
(b) Territoriality
(c) Prospectivity
a. Generality
GR: “Penal laws shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the Philippine Territory”
– [Article 14, Civil Code]
• Foreigners – The foreign characteristic of an offender does NOT exclude him from the operation of penal
laws in the Philippines since it applies to all those who “live or sojourn…” [People v. Galagac]
• Military Offender – Courts have jurisdiction to try military offenders charged with violation of penal laws.
however, service-connected crimes shall be tried by the court-martial [Navalers v. Abaya, 2004]
• Territoriality v. Generality – Dependent on issue raised by the accused to invoke immunity. If he invokes
immunity based on the characteristic of his person, i.e. foreigner, military, hermit, etc. the applicable
principle is generality. If he invokes the characteristic of the place, then territoriality applies.
EXCEPTION – The Principle of Generality shall NOT apply in the following:
• Principle of International Law – Penal laws are not obligatory to persons entitled to diplomatic immunity
due to principles of international law. Consular officers are immune from criminal prosecution for acts
performed in the exercise of their function.
• Laws of Preferential Application – i.e. Bigamy is not applicable to Muslims who may marry more than
one spouse under Muslim Laws.
• Case Law – i.e. Presidential Immunity in Estrada v. Desierto (2001)
EXC: The coastal state can exercise jurisdiction to arrest any person or conduct investigation in connection
with any crime committed on board the ship during its passage in the following cases:
(a) Consequences extend to the Philippines
(b) Crime disturbs the PHP or good order of the territorial sea
(c) Assistance of local authorities are requested by the master of the ship or consular officer of flag state
(d) Such measures are necessary for suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs (UNCLOS)
(4) Foreign Country – Under the Principle of Territoriality, the PHP has jurisdiction over crimes committed
inside its territory except as provided by treaties and laws of preferential application. [Art. 2, RPC]
EXTRA-TERRITORIALITY PRINCIPLE – The Philippines has jurisdiction over crimes committed outside its territory in
cases provided by Article 2, RPC.
(1) Flag State Rule – Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship
(2) Forgery of PHP Currency – Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands,
or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the PHP.
(3) Acts Related to Forging PHP Currency – Liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands
of the obligations and securities mentioned in (2)
(4) Function-Related Crimes – While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the
exercise of their functions
(5) National Security – Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the laws of nation as
defined in Title 1, Book II of the RPC. (i.e., Piracy, Qualified Piracy, and Mutiny)
Universality Principle – The PHP court has jurisdiction over piracy committed on the high seas, for being
a universal crime. But it has no jurisdiction over murder qualified by calamity brought about by piracy on
the high seas.
Applicability of Special Laws – The Territoriality and Extra-Territoriality Principle are BOTH applicable even if the
crime punished is by a SPL, UNLESS the SPL has a specific provision for such crime, such as:
(1) Trafficking in Persons – It must be (1) commenced in the PHP, (2) suspect is a Filipino, or a permanent
resident of the PHP, or committed it against a Filipino, and (3) the foreign gov’t has not prosecuted the
accused or is prosecuting with the approval of the DOJ

CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 1

 (2) Terrorism – Although physically outside the PHP, the HAS shall apply to persons who:
a. Conspire or plot to commit terrorism inside the territorial limits of the PHP B. FELONIES
b. Commit any of the crimes of terrorism on board a PHP ship or airship
c. Commit within any embassy, consulate, or diplomatic premises belonging/occupied by PHP in
1. Criminal Liabilities and Felonies
an official capacity
d. Commit against Filipinos or persons of PHP descent, where their citizenship or ethnicity was a
FELONY – Acts and omissions punishable by law. Two ways of committing a felony:
factor in the commission of the crime
e. Commit any of the crimes directly against the PHP Government
(1) Intentional (Dolo or “Deceit”) – Performed with deliberate intent (Art. 3, RPC)
a. Mala in Se
c. Prospectivity b. Mala Prohibita
“Criminal law merely punishes crimes committed on or after its effectivity. No felony shall be punishable by (2) Culpable (Negligence) – Wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or skill (Id.)
any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission.
Elements of an Intentional Felony
“No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission.” [Article 21, RPC]
(1) Criminal Act – Actus reus or criminal act is required to be committed to consummate a felony. i.e. the act
Retroactivity of Penal Laws of killing in “Homicide”

GR: Penal laws shall have PROSPECTIVE application. (2) Mode of Commission – i.e. Robbery through violence.

EXC: Penal laws shall be RETROACTIVE: (3) Criminal Intent – The act must be done with criminal intent; absent this, NO CRIME
a. Specific Criminal Intent – intent to gain, intent to defraud (constitutes elements)
(1) Favorable Law – The law is favorable to the accused AND is not a habitual-delinquent. [Art. 22, RPC] The b. General Criminal Intent – Intent found in Art. 4. It is always presumed and must be rebutted
requirement that the accused not be a habitual delinquent must be express [Campanilla, p. 16] by the accused.
*NOTE – Actual accomplishment of the criminal objective
(2) Decriminalization – The law decriminalizes the act
Felonies and Offenses (SPL) – Special Laws do not always require dolo, and the rules in Book I of the RPC are not
(3) Express Provision – The law expressly provides for its retroactive application, subject to the prohibition always applicable, merely being supplemental (Campanilla)
on ex post facto laws.
Voluntariness – Essential element! Lack of voluntariness (or intention) negates or mitigates the crime.
Effects of Repeal – The two kinds of repeal in Criminal Law are:
NOTE – The crime of Technical Malversation, though punished under the RPC, is malum prohibitum. The mayor’s
(1) Absolute Repeal – Repeal of a penal law deprives the courts of jurisdiction to punish persons charged act of applying 10 boxes of food appropriated for a feeding program to beneficiaries of a shelter program instead, is
with a violation of the old penal law prior to its repeal. The retroactive effect shall benefit a person who is guilty of technical malversation, even if his intentions were noble [Ysidoro v. People]
already convicted or service sentence.
MISTAKE OF FACT – Can negate specific element of a crime, OR dolo, or may be a source of a mitigating circumstance
(2) Partial Repeal – Does NOT deprive the courts of jurisdiction and will not destroy the criminal liability of
the accused. The intention is not to decriminalize but to provide a new rule. If favorable, however, it shall (1) Negating Specific Element – Theft is not committed when the taker honestly believes the property is his
be given retroactive effect. own or that of another which is he has a right of possession to, if in good faith. [Gaviola v. People]

Effect of Amendment – Given prospective effect, but if favorable AND not habitual delinquent, RETROACTIVE! (2) Negating Dolo – Complete defense when:
a. Acts done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be
3. Pro Reo Principle b. The mistake is not due to negligence
c. Mistake is not accompanied with criminal intent.
”When in doubt, for the accused” – [Campanilla]
Examples: Self-defense, performance of a duty, defense of property, irresistible force, death under
Construction of Penal Laws – In cases of doubt, criminal laws must be resolved in favor of the accused. When the exceptional circumstances (killing of cheating spouse caught in the act)
court is faced with 2 possible interpretations of a penal statute – one in favor of the accused and another that is
prejudicial to him, the rule calls for the adoption of an interpretation which is more lenient to accused [Intestate Estate Motive – Proof of motive will not establish the elements, but will help in proving the identity of the accused and the
of Gonzales v. People, 2010] fact that he/she indeed committed the crime. If there is doubt as to identity, showing motive of the accused will help
establish the direct link to the commission thereof. The lack or absence of motive for committing a crime does not
Constitutional Limitations on Power of Congress to Enact Penal Laws preclude conviction where there are reliable witnesses who fully and satisfactorily identified the accused as the
perpetrator of the felony. [Kummer v. People, 2013]
(1) Equal Protection Clause – Law must treat equally persons or properties similarly situated with respect to
the conferment of rights or imposition of obligations • Motive is the moving power which impels a person to do an act for a definite result. NOT essential.
(2) Due Process Clause – In depriving a person of his life, liberty, or property, the law must be fair and • Intent is the purpose for using a particular means to bring about a desired result. ESSENTIAL to crime.
reasonable and that he must be given the opportunity to be heard and afforded all rights he is entitled to. • When Motive Required – Proof of motive is a crucial consideration in a criminal prosecution:
(3) Prohibition against Cruel and Unusual Punishment – The government must not punish a convicted (1) ID – When there is doubt as to identity
felon in a degrading or inhumane manner, and must conform to the Constitution in prescribing penalty. (2) Circumstantial – Evidence is circumstantial or inconclusive, i.e. doubt as to whether crime was committed
(4) Bill of Attainder – Legislation that inflicts punishment on an individual without judicial trial. (Violates SOP) (3) Variance – Act committed gives to variant crimes and there is a need to determine the proper crime
(5) Ex Post Facto Law – Law which retroactively affects that right or condition of an accused who committed (4) Element – It forms an essential element of the crime, i.e. slander, libel, malicious mischief
a crime prior to its effectivity.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 2
 a. Grave v. Less Grave v. Light Felonies
GRAVE FELONIES LESS GRAVE FELONIES LIGHT FELONIES
Law attaches capital punishment or Law punishes with penalties which
Penalty of arresto menor or a fine
penalties which any of their periods in their maximum are correctional.
less than 40k. [Campanilla]
are afflictive i.e. RP, RT, PM, >1.2M (i.e. PC, AM, 40k =<= 1.2M)
b. Aberratio Ictus, Error in Personae, and Praeter Intentionem
ABERRATIO ICTUS – “Mistake of Blow;” A person is criminally responsible for committing an intentional felony,
although the victim is different from the intended victim due to mistake of blow.
Act must be Felonious – If the act, which caused injuries or death of a 3 rd person by reason of mistake of blow, is
NOT an intentional felony, i.e. self-defense, right to defend property, then aberration ictus shall NOT apply and he will
not be liable to the 3rd person [People v. Bindoy, 1931]
Intent to Kill – There are 2 victims: The intended victim, and the 3rd person.
• If the 3rd person died, intent to kill is conclusively presumed. [People v. Adriano]
• If the 3rd person merely suffered injuries, and there is intent to kill, the crime is attempted or frustrated
homicide or murder (with regard to the 3rd person)
• Intent to kill the 3rd person can be established if the accused is aware of the possibility of hitting others in
the process of killing the target victim [People v. Guillen]
• Circumstances negating intent to kill:
o Accused is not aware of the presence of the 3rd person or there is no showing of such awareness
o Victim was hiding
Compound Crime and Aberratio Ictus – If accused killed the 2 victims with the same bullet, he is liable for compound
crime. If it came from separate bullets, his liability is for each bullet (separate and distinct) [People v. Flora]
ERROR IN PERSONAE – “Mistake in Identity;” A person is criminally responsible for committing an intentional
felony although the actual victim is different from the intended victim. Mistake pertains
merely to the identity of the victim.
PRAETER INTENTIONEM – A person shall incur criminal liability for committing an intentional felony although its
wrongful consequence is graver than that intended or that the wrongful act be done
different from that which he intended [Article 4.1, RPC]
Felony Producing Fear – IF a person in committing an intentional felony creates in the mind of the victim an
immediate sense of danger which causes such person to try to escape, and in so doing he injures himself, the person
who creates such a state of mind is responsible for the resulting injuries [U.S. v. Valdez]
Effect on Penalty – Article 49, which provides that “if the penalty for the intended crime is different form that of the
committed crime, the court shall impose the penalty for the intended crime or crime actually committed whichever is
lesser, to be applied in its maximum period,” is NOT APPLICABLE to praeter intentionem, though it such fact may be
appreciated as a mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong than that committed.
Evident Premeditation – If the accused premeditated the assault of the victim, but not the killing and implemented
his criminal resolution by boxing him and causing his death, both evidence premeditation and praeter intentionem
shall be appreciated.
c. Impossible Crime
“Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person performing an act which would have been an offense against
person or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.” [ Article 4.2, RPC ]
Requisites for Liability for Impossible Crime
(1) Performed an act which would have been an offense against persons or property
(2) Performed with evil intent
(3) Offender did not commit it because of the impossibility of its accomplishment or inadequate means
(4) In performing the act, offender is not violating another provision of law
Factual and Legal Impossibility – The crime committed is impossible if the offense is committed either with:
(1) Factual Impossibility – Putting the hand inside an empty pocket with intention to steal
(2) Legal Impossibility – Killing a dead person, rape of a transgender man
Impossible Crime of Theft – IF the check is unfunded, stealing the check of an employer by an employee and
presenting it for payment with the bank will constitute an impossible crime, for the act of depositing the check is
committed with evil intent as the mere act of unlawfully taking the check showed intent to gain [Jacinto v. People]
Impossible Light Crime INAPPLICABLE – The penalty for impossible crime is arresto mayor or/also fine from 200 to
500 pesos, while the penalty for light felony is arresto menor and a fine not exceeding 200 pesos. Hence, Article 59
should not be made applicable to one who attempts to commit a light felony of impossible materialization since the
penalty for the impossible crime is graver than that for the consummated light offense. [Campanilla]
Attempted Felony – In attempted felony, the external cause that prevents the crime is some cause or accident other
than his own spontaneous desistance hence will make him liable.
Frustrated Felony – If the crime is not committed, the accused may be held liable for frustrated felony OR impossible
crime, and NOT for “frustrated impossible crime.” In FRUSTRATED, the crime was not impossible, or the means were
adequate and effectual, but the crime is not consummated due to circumstances independent of his will.
Constitutive of Another Crime – If the act performed constituting an impossible crime AND another crime, he will
be prosecuted for the OTHER CRIME. i.e. throwing a grenade with intent to kill a person, who was not really inside the
room, but in the act burned the room, he will be liable for ARSON.
d. Stages of Execution
ATTEMPTED FRUSTRATED CONSUMMATED
Offender commences commission Performs all acts of execution which
of a felony directly by overt acts, would produce the felony as a All the elements necessary for its
and does not perform all acts of consequence, but which do not execution and accomplishment are
execution due to cause/ accident produce it by reason of causes present.
not thru spontaneous desistance independent of his will
Preparatory Act – In an attempted felony, the offender’s preparatory act requires another act to result in a felony.
One perpetrating preparatory act is not guilty of an attempt to commit a felony, unless such preparatory act is
punishable by a law that prescribes a penalty for its commission [People v. Lizada]
Indeterminate Offense – Accused was caught in the act of making an opening with an iron bar on the wall of a store,
and was held guilty of attempted trespassing and not attempted robbery, due to the fact that his opening of an iron
bar could not be an overt act of robbery since the intention of the accused once he succeeded in entering the store is
not determinate and is subject to several interpretations. (unless his intention to steal was admitted or proven through
evidence. [ People v. Lamahang, 1935 ]
Acts of Execution – Acts of execution in attempted or frustrated felony presuppose that the specific criminal intent
required to commit it must be present. In sum, the external acts performed by the offender and the intended felony
must have a direct connection [ People v. Serrano, 2010, Campanilla ]
CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 3
 ATTEMPTED FRUSTRATED THEFT

Acts of Performed an overt act (of execution) but is not Performed ALL acts of execution that would Constructive Possession – A cargador riding on a truck hauling cases of milk belonging to a complainant threw out
Execution enough to produce the felony. produce a felony as a matter of consequence. two cases as the truck passed a certain street. This is consummated theft since he acquired constructive possession
Non- All acts are performed AND it would normally over the case when he threw the same from the truck. [Campanilla]
Due to the failure to perform all acts of Asportation – Taking is COMPLETE from the moment the offender gains possession over the thing, even if he has no
Commission produce the felony, but the crime is still not
execution required, the felony is not produced. opportunity to dispose of the same. To “take” does not require asportation or carrying away. [Medina v. People, 2015]
of Crime produced as a natural consequence.
External Due to cause or accident other than his own Causes independent of offender’s will.
Cause for spontaneous desistance. • Recovery of Object Immaterial – Even though the stolen property was immediately recovered from the
Non- i.e. inflicted mortal wound but latter did not robbers, the crime is consummated since they gained possession over the property momentarily.
Commission i.e. before killing, was caught and arrested. die due to timely medical intervention.
• When Object Inside Receptacle – In robbery by using force upon thing where the subject property is
Spontaneous As a defense, spontaneous desistance will Mere spontaneous desistance will not absolve inside a receptacle or furniture, the crime is attempted if the property is still inside the receptacle because
Desistance & ABSOLVE the accused, unless the acts already the offender. He must do something other the owner would still have constructive possession. To consummate such, robber must take it out of the
Exclusive constitute a crime i.e. physical injuries instead than desisting to be absolved i.e. providing receptacle AND out of the building. [ People v. Del Rosario, CA, 46 O.G. 4332 ]
Will of homicide. medical treatment to save victim’s life.
NOTE – Other View: Taking it out of the receptacle will consummate the crime, and that there is no need
Belief Doctrine – It is not required that the accused actually commits all the acts of execution necessary to produce for the object to be taken out of the building, UNLESS his intention is to take out THE RECEPTACLE itself.
the death of his victim. It is sufficient that he believes that he has committed all the acts of execution to make him
liable for frustrated felony [ People v. Dagman ] Capacity to Freely Dispose Property – Unlawful taking is deemed consummated from the moment the offender
gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of it. Inability to dispose property is not an
element of theft. Unlawful taking is the element which produces the felony in its consummated stage.
ARSON
• HENCE – There is NO “Frustrated Theft or Robbery” [Valenzuela v. People (2007)]
Attempted Arson – When a person had poured gasoline under the house of another and was about to strike the
match to set the house on fire when he was apprehended, he is guilty of attempted arson (People v. Go Kay) • Accused cannot be charged with frustrated theft because there is no such frustrated stage, nor could he
be convicted for its consummated stage since it was not alleged in the Information. HOWEVER, he could
• BUT – Carrying Gasoline is NOT attempted arson as such act is considered a preparatory act. It is not be convicted of attempted theft because this is necessarily included in frustrated theft [Canceran v. People]
punishable as such because the intent to burn is not yet clear, unless other evidence shows that the
accused did indeed intend to commit arson. [Campanilla]
ESTAFA
Frustrated Arson – Soaking a jute sack and a rag with gasoline and setting them on fire beside the walls of a house is U.S. v. Dominguez (1921) – Theft v. Estafa
considered performance of all acts of execution for arson. Hence, when the arson was not consummated due to the Facts – A salesman with intent to misappropriate the proceeds of a sale failed to surrender the money to the cashier
fire being put out in time, accused was guilty of frustrated arson [U.S. v. Valdes] of the complainant. He delivered them to the cashier only after the deceit had been discovered. What crime is
committed by the accused?
Consummated Arson – Setting the building on fire constitutes consummated arson even if only a portion of the house Ruling – Frustrated Estafa through Misappropriation. Unlike in theft, gaining possession of the property would not
was destroyed, as well as the setting of contents of a building on fire. [People v. Guiterrez, People v. Hernandez] consummate the crime since damage is an important element of estafa. The crime is frustrated inasmuch as he
performed all the acts of execution which should produce the crime as a consequence, but which, by reason of causes
independent of his will, did Not produce it, there being no appreciable damage having been caused to the offended
RAPE party due to the timely discovery of the acts prosecuted.

Consummated Rape – Touching of either labia majora or labia minora of the victim’s pudendum by an erect penis
capable of penetration consummates the crime. If there is no touching of the labia, the crime is either attempted rape
or acts of lasciviousness depending upon the intention of the accused. [People v. Campuhan]
No Frustrated Rape – In sum, there is no such thing as frustrated rape since the performance of all the acts of
execution immediately consummates rape. If there is no touching of the labia, the crime is either attempted rape or
acts of lasciviousness depending on the intention of the offender. [ People v. Orita ]
• When is it Acts of Lasciviousness? – Kissing and undressing the victim is merely AOL because intent to
have sexual intercourse it not clearly shown.
• Attempted Rape? – To be held liable for attempted rape, it must be shown that the erected penis is in a
position to penetrate, or the offender actually commenced to force his penis into the victim’s sexual organ.
[ Cruz v. People ]
Consummated Rape thru Sexual Assault – Touching by the object or instrument of the genital orifice of the victim’s
vagina, and not merely the labia of the pudendum. Unlike ordinary rape, this mode of the offense requires that there
be actual, physical insertion of the object or instrument. [People v. Mendoza (2008)]
DIRECT BRIBERY & CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICER
Consummation in Agreement – In crimes such as betting in sports and corruption of public officers, which require
the intervention of 2 or more persons to commit them, the same are consummated by agreement. The offer made by
one of the parties to the other constitutes attempted felony, if the offer is rejected [Campanilla, citing Reyes]
(1) Corruption of Public Officer – The crime charged to a person who bribes an official. NO frustrated stage
for such crime, and is only either:
a. Attempted Corruption – If the public officer rejects or returns the bribe.
b. Consummated Corruption – Upon mere acceptance of bribe [Pozar v. CA (1984)]
(2) Direct Bribery – ALWAYS CONSUMMATED
a. If the public officer ACCEPTS, the crime is consummated. If he REJECTS the same, or RETURNS
the bribe already accepted, he is NOT LIABLE. There is no attempted or frustrated bribery.
b. Rejected Solicitation of P.O. – Soliciting a bribe is not punished under the RPC which refers to
an agreement to perform or not to perform an act in consideration of a gift or promise, which
is the criminal act to be punished. BUT the crime could be a violation of RA 6713 (Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standard of Public Officer)

CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 4

 e. Continuing Crime v, Continuous Crime (Delito Continuado)
COERCION
CONTINUING CRIME CONTINUOUS CRIME (Delito Continuado)
Frustrated Coercion – A ordered the pilot at P at gunpoint to take the plane to Singapore, and upon refusal, shot the
pilot to death. The crime committed is frustrated coercion AND murder. [Campanilla] Single crime consisting of a series of acts arising from a
One which is consummated in one place but by reason single criminal resolution or intent not susceptible of
Consummated Coercion v. Attempted Kidnapping or Illegal Detention of the nature of the offense, the violation of the law is division, in violation of a single penal provision.
3 accused forcibly took their victim from his car but the latter succeeded in freeing himself form their grip. There being deemed continuing. [Campanilla]
neither actual detention nor confinement, nor clear intent to detain, the accused should be held liable for Elements of CONTINUED CRIME: [Gamboa v. CA]
consummated grave coercion and not attempted kidnapping or illegal detention [People v. Astorga, 1997] The necessary elements of a crime may separately take (1) Plurality of the acts performed separately during
place in different jurisdictions until the crime itself is a period of time
consummated; “Transitory” [Gamboa v. CA (1975)] (2) Unity of criminal intent and purpose
FORMAL CRIMES (3) Unity of Provision infringed upon or violated
Purpose: Determination of proper venue, validity of Purpose: Treat several criminal acts committed under
Formal Crimes – Crimes which are consummated in one instant or one single act of execution, hence, have no arrest, commencement of the running of prescription. a single criminal impulse in violation of a single penal
frustrated or attempted stage. Examples are: Courts where essential elements occurred concur juris. provision as one crime.
(1) Slander
(2) Perjury
Single Larceny Rule – Taking of several things, whether belonging to the same or different owners, at the same time
(3) False Testimony
and place, constitutes ONE LARCENY OR THEFT [People v. Tumlos (1939)]
(4) Illegal possession of picklock
Delito Continuado Not Applicable to VAWC – Delito continuado is NOT applicable to violence against women or
(5) Physical Injuries
sexual abuse under RA 7610. Each incident of sexual intercourse and lascivious act with the same child exploited in
(6) Acts of Lasciviousness
prostitution or other abusive act is a separate and distinct offense, including rape. [Dinamling v. People]
(7) Coup D’etat
• EXCEPTION: When the penis of the accused was inserted into and withdrawn from vicitm’s vagina 3 times
Physical Injuries – When a person throws acid in another’s face with intent to cause blindness, and the victim does
for the purpose of changing position, or for the purpose of resting for 5 to 10 seconds, the several
not go blind as the same healed in 25 days, he is not liable for consummated SPI because no blindness was caused,
penetrations were motivated by a single criminal intent to satisfy his lust in violation of a penal provision.
nor liable for frustrated SPI because it is formal. Hence, the crime is less serious physical injuries (Regalado)
Hence, delito continuado APPLIES. [People v. Pinic (2011), People v. Aaron (2002)]
Acts of Lasciviousness – The mere act of fondling the breast of the victim consummates AOL and it is immaterial that
the victim was able to get away from him. So is the hugging of the victim with lewd design. [People v. Famularcano] • People v. Lucena: 5 Minute Intervals INAPPCLIABLE – Where the penis was inserted into and withdrawn
from victim’s vagina 3 times for the purpose of resting for 5 minutes, he satisfied his lust every time he
Coup D’etat – One the military, police, or public officer makes a swift attack against facilities needed for the exercise would withdraw his penis to rest. The 3 penetrations were motivated by separate 3 criminal impulses to
and continued possession of power for the purpose of seizing or diminishing state power, the crime is consummated. satisfy his lust. Delito continuado is NOT applicable herein.
Actual seizure or diminution is NOT NECESSARY.
Different Impulses to Defraud Single Victim on Different Occasions; Delito NOT APPLICABLE
There is no unity of criminal intent or purpose because while both offenses consisted of conversion of sums of money
• NOTE – Prior to the swift attack, the plotters can be held LIABLE for conspiracy to commit coup d’etat
belonging to the offended party, they took place on different dates and under different circumstances. Each conversion
constitutes a single act with independent existence and intent of its own [People v. Ledesma (1976)]
No Stages in Culpa – Performance of acts to execute a criminal design is not compatible with the concept of culpa. Different Impulses to Defraud Different Victims – Syndicated estafa in one cases is different from those charged
Hence, a person cannot be convicted of attempted or frustrated homicide through imprudence [Campanilla] in the other cases, because while they arise out of the same scheme, the acts charged were committed against different
persons; hence, they do not constitute the same offense. No delito continuado [People v. Balasa]

Foreknowledge Principle – If the accused committed the first criminal act without foreknowledge that he will commit
the second, the acts are not constitutive of a continued crime since the criminal acts could not be said to have been
committed under a single criminal intent or impulse [Gamboa v. CA (1975)]

Delito Continuado Inapplicable for Malum Prohibitum – The rule does not apply to crimes that are malum
prohibitum because malice or criminal intent is immaterial. Basis of delito is unity of intent. [Lim v. People (2001)]

CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 5

 f. Complex Crimes and Composite Crimes
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME (Composite Crime)
A crime composed of 2 or more crimes for which the law fixes ONE penalty. It is indivisible, meaning that the
components of the special indivisible crime could not be divided and treated as separate. [Campanilla]
Original Design – The original design of the offender is to commit the principal component thereof. Hence, there
must be a direct connection between the components: (1) the principal crime, and the (2) component crime.
• Original Design is to KILL – SCC of Homicide/Murder with Theft
• Original Design is to ROB – SCC of Robbery with Homicide. The intent to rob must precede the taking of
human life, but the killing may occur before, during, or after the robbery. Homicide is a mere component
of robbery with homicide if committed
o To facilitate the robbery or the escape
o To preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot
o To prevent discovery of the commission of robbery
o To eliminate witnesses
NOTE – The law does not require that the sole motive is robbery. Even if he intended to kill and rob, or
the intent to rob was tempered with a desire to take revenge, it does NOT preclude his conviction for
special complex crime of robbery with homicide [People v. Daniela (2003)]
Robbery with Homicide and Rape – OG design was to rob, and the accused robbed, then raped, then killed
the victim or another person. Rape is NOT aggravating but merely a component [People v. Larranaga]
• Original Design is to RAPE – Rape with Homicide, Rape with Theft. If their intent to ROB and KILL was
overshadowed by their intent to rape at the time of execution, the crime is rape which homicide & theft.
RAPE WITH HOMICIDE
*NOTE* - Rape with Homicide is a SCC, not a complex crime under Article 48. [Art. 294, RPC]
Raping a Dying Victim – Stabbing a victim and raping her while she was dying is NOT a SCC of RwH because the
original design is to kill and not rape. The bestiality of the rape after the killing shall be regarded either as a form of
ignominy causing disgrace or cruelty which aggravated the murder as it was unnecessary to commission [Campanilla]
Homicide in RwH – Understood in “generic” sense, which includes murder and slight physical injuries committed by
reason or on occasion of the rape.
• HENCE – The aggravating circumstances of treachery, abuse of strength, and evident premeditation shall
NOT qualify the killing to murder, and the crime is still Rape with Homicide.
• HOWEVER – The circumstances shall be regarded as ordinary aggravating circumstance [People v. Laog]
“By Reason or on Occasion of Rape” –
• “By reason of the rape” = that the killing is due to rape, which offender ORIGINALLY designed.
• “On occasion of rape” = killing that occurs immediately before or after, or during the commission of rape
where the victim of homicide may be a person other than the rape victim herself, for as long as the killing
is linked to the rape [People v. Villflores (2012)]
Ex: While X and Y were walking along the road, A struck and killed X with a lead pipe, and proceeded to
rape Y. The crime that A is liable for is Rape with Homicide as there is no doubt that A killed X to prevent
her from helping Y or calling for aid. [People v. Laoag]
Ex: If the accused infected the victim with gonorrhea in the course of rape and as a consequence she died,
the crime committed is Special Complex Crime of rape with homicide. If did not die, it is QUALIFIED RAPE
because the infection of STD is a qualifying circumstance. (Campanilla, Art. 266-B of RPC)
Rape and Attempted or Frustrated Homicide – If by reason or on occasion of rape, attempted/frustrated homicide
is committed there is NO SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, and the accused shall be liable for separate crimes. [Campanilla]
Suicide – Suicide or death caused by the victim himself can be considered as HOMICIDE as a component of special
complex crime of rape with homicide [People v. Arpa (1969)]
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
Resulting Death – Once a homicide results by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, this SCC applies
• A robber in order to scare occupants of a house fired a shot in the ceiling which killed a person of which
he did not know was there. Even if the killing was incidental, the crime is Robbery with Homicide as SCC. It
is immaterial that the death would supervene by mere accident PROVIDED it was by reason or on occasion
of the robbery [People v. Mangulabnan, Campanilla – “Spanish text says ‘resultare homicidio’]
• Direct Connection REQUIRED – The homicide must be integrated and result from the original design and
commission of ROBBERY. See the following:
o People v. Barut – Robbery w/ Homicide APPLIEs because the killing of one member of the
rescue party resulted from that fight, hence connected with the robbery.
o People v. Quemeggen – After taking the passengers’ belongings, accused alighted from the jeep.
Some hours later, police went back to the crime scene where a gunfight ensued and a police
officer was killed. NOT ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE as it was separate and no connection.
Time of Killing – Robbery with Homicide requires that the robbery is the main purpose and the killing is incidental. *
• The intent to robe must precede the taking of human life
• BUT the actual killing may occur before, during, or after
Victim of Homicide – It is IMMATERIAL:
(a) That victim is a third person
(b) Victim is one of the robbers
(c) That 2 or more were killed, unless there was kidnapping involved, hence there are two counts of kidnapping
with homicide.
(d) Victim was killed by stray bullet which came from a police officer (People v. Ombao)
(e) One of the robbers was killed by a police officer or co-robber
Generic Sense of “Homicide” – Includes murder, parricide, and infanticide.
• It is only the resulting death that is to be considered, and there is no robbery with homicide through
reckless imprudence. (People v. De Leon)
• Treachery or Abuse of Strength considered as ORDINARY mitigating and will not quality to “murder”
Other Crimes Committed with Robbery with Homicide
GR: Other crimes committed in the course of Robbery with Homicide shall not be treated as separate crimes (i.e.,
Rape, physical injuries, intentional mutilation, etc.)
EXC: If the other crimes are not directly connected i.e. Arson to conceal crime of Robbery with Homicide.
Robbery by Means of Violence or Intimidation w/ Homicide – There must be a direct connection between (a) the
violence or intimidation, AND (b) homicide, in order to constitute Robbery with Homicide.
• No SCC of Theft with Homicide – Where the taking was not through violence or intimidation, the act of
snatching the bag consummated theft, and the killing that occurred right after is a separate case for
homicide, because there is no SCC of Theft with Homicide. [People v. Jaranilla, Quemeggen)
• By Using Force Upon Things with Homicide NOT an SCC – NO SCC for Robbery (Force Upon Things) with
Homicide as this mode is found in Articles 299 and 302 of the RPC.
Attempted Robbery with Homicide – The accused or a co-conspirator must be responsible for the killing himself to
be liable for this. Otherwise, he is NOT liable for such Special Complex Crime (People v. Manalili, 1998)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 6
 ARSON WITH HOMICIDE
Intent to Kill – If the main objective is to use arson merely as a means to accomplish a crime, the crime committed
is MURDER which was qualified by arson, as murder absorbs arson as an inherent means. [People v. Cedenio (1994)]
Intent to Burn – If the main objective is the burning of the building, but death results by reason or on occasion of
arson, the accused is liable for Special Complex Crime of Arson with Homicide. [People v. Baluntong (2010)]
Intent to Conceal – If the objective is to kill, and in fact the offender already did, and arson is resorted as a means to
cover up the killing, the offender may be convicted of 2 separate crimes of homicide/murder OR arson. [P v. Cedenio]
KIDNAPPING WITH HOMICIDE
Original Design IMMATERIAL – Unlike other SCCs, the original design in Kidnapping with Homicide can either be to
kidnap OR to kill. What is essential is the victim is killed through the course of detention.
“Whether the person kidnapped is killed in the course of detention, regardless of whether the killing was purposely
sought or merely an afterthought, kidnapping and murder/homicide can NEITHER be complex nor be treated as
separate crimes, but shall be punished as a Special Complex Crime of:…
(1) Kidnapping with Homicide
(2) Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide
(3) Kidnapping with Homicide and Rape
(4) Kidnapping with Murder
(5) Kidnapping for Ransom with Murder”
No Detention, No SCC – Kidnapping is a crime against liberty, hence, where there is no actual detention or intent to
deprive liberty, the crime committed is NOT kidnapping with homicide but MURDER, and the demand for ransom will
not convert the crime into kidnapping. See the following:
• People v. Mercado (2000) – Kidnapping with Homicide when the victim was kidnapped for the purpose
of killing him. There is intent to deprive liberty since he was brought to a safehouse before bringing him to
Morong for execution.
• People v. Estacio Jr. (2009) – NOT Kidnapping with Homicide when the victim was kidnapped in QC for
the purpose of killing him, and there was no intent to deprive liberty as he was killed at the precise moment
that he was brought to the locus criminis in Bulacan.
• No SCC of Kidnapping with Frustrated Murder – Under Article 267 of the RPC, homicide as a component
must be at the consummated stage.
COMPLEX CRIME – A single penalty is imposed irrespective of the number of crimes committed.
(1) Compound Crime – Single Act constitutes 2 or more grave or less grave felonies
(2) Complex Crime Proper – 2 or more offenses, one or some of which are necessary means to commit the other
COMPOUND CRIME
Multiple Murders – Single act of rolling the hand grenade on the floor resulting in multiple deaths constitutes the
compound crime of multiple murders. The use of explosives is treated as a qualifying circumstance. (P v. Comadre)
Direct Assault with Homicide or Physical Injuries – Single act produces direct assault and injuries upon the victim:
(1) Direct Assault with SPI or LSPI
(2) Direct Assault with Attempted Murder
(3) Direct Assault with Homicide or Murder
Slight Physical Injuries NOT Complex-able – Since “Slight Physical Injuries” is a light felony, the same cannot be
complexed with other crimes for it is neither a grave or less grave felony. [ Campanilla ]
Single Act of Pressing Trigger – The single act of pressing the trigger of an SMG or armalite is treated as several acts
as many as there are several bullets fired. Because of the special mechanism of the firearm, the single act will cause
the continuous firing of bullets and the accused is liable for as many homicides as there are victims [People v. Desierto]
Variance Rule – If the crime alleged in the information varies with the crime proven, the accused shall be convicted
of the crime ALLEGED or PROVEN, whichever is LESSER. HENCE, between a complex crime and 2 separate ones, he will
be convicted for the complex crime which is a lesser penalty [People v. Bernardo (2013)]
Robbery with (1) Violence & Intimidation AND (2) Force Upon Thing; When Both Consummated
When the elements of both means are present, the crime shall be COMPLEXED under Article 48 hence the penalty for
robbery in inhabited house shall be imposed in its maximum period [People v. Napolis (1972)]
• Entry into Dwelling Without Force upon Thing – Napolis will NOT apply. They did not commit robbery
by using force upon thing that can be complexed. It is simple robbery with dwelling as aggravating.
• Entry into Store Without Force upon Thing – Napolis will NOT apply + NO aggravating circumstance of
dwelling because a “store” is not a dwelling as defined by the RPC.
• Robbery with Homicide – Napolis will NOT apply because in this SCC, all felonies committee by reason of
or on the occasion of the robbery are INTEGRATED into one and indivisible felony of robbery w/ homicide.
SEVERAL KILLINGS – Rules and Doctrines:
GR: Single Act Rule – To constitute a compound crime, there must be a SINGLE ACT constituting SEVERAL crimes.
HENCE, when one fires his firearm in succession, killing and wounding several persons, the different acts must
be considered as distinct crimes. When various victims expire from separate shots, such acts constitute separate
and distinct crimes.
EXC: Despite there being several acts leading to several killings, there is a COMPOUND crime when such acts
were committed under a single criminal impulse:
(1) Lawas Principle (Single Criminal Impulse) – If several accused killed several victims pursuant to a single
criminal impulse to obey the order to fire their guns at the victims, they shall be held liable for compound
crime of multiple murders. Requisites of Lawas:
a. No conspiracy, and
b. Impossible to ascertain the number of deaths caused by each accused
(2) Abella Principle (Single Criminal Purpose) – If several prisoners killed fellow prisoners pursuant to a
single criminal purpose to take revenge, they are held liable for compound crime of multiple murders.
HENCE there must be CONSPIRACY to commit crimes under a single criminal purpose.
NOTE – Abella was applied due to the plight of prisoners. Hence, should be PRISONER v. PRISONER. In the
Mamapasano incident, the incident will not constitute compound crime of multiple murders as there is a
implied conspiracy (Lawas inappcliable) and not against prisoners by prisoners (Abella inapplicable)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 7
 COMPLEX CRIME PROPER
“Necessary” v. “Indispensable” – Necessary is NOT = Indispensable, where the latter refers to elements.
Seduction through Usurpation of Function – Where accused seduced a 15-year old to live with him by procuring
the performance of a fictions marriage ceremony with the help of Bautista, who pretended to be a minister, was held
liable for complex crime proper of simple seduction through usurpation of official function [U.S. v. Hernandez]
• ***NOTE*** - The RPC NO LONGER considers “ministers” as an official function. HENCE, it is NOT
considered as “Usurpation of Official Functions” today.
Falsification, Malversation, Estafa, and Theft – If falsification of a document is a means to commit or conceal
malversation, estafa, or theft, the following rules are to be observed:
(1) M, E, or T thru Falsification of PUBLIC DOCUMENT
a. Means to COMMIT = Complex Crime Proper
b. Means to CONCEAL = Distinct & Separate crimes, UNLESS it to enable commission with less risk
of being detected, then it is a Complex Crime Proper.
(2) M, E, or T thru Falsification of PRIVATE DOCUMENT
a. Means to COMMIT = NO COMPLEX CRIME. Under the Doctrine of Common Element, the
common element of estafa/malversation AND falsification of private document is damage to
the complainant, hence, the use of damage as an element of falsification precludes the reuse
thereof to complete elements of estafa/malversation, and vice versa [Regalado]
BUT – Zoleta v. Sandiganbayan (2015) did not apply the Doctrine of Common Element and
charged the accused with Malversation thru Falsification of Private Document.
b. Means to Conceal = Crime is M, E, or T ONLY because:
i. Use of damage as element in estafa precludes reuse of such for falsification
ii. Damage to 3rd person is not caused by the falsity in the document but by estafa
iii. Estafa can be committed without necessity of falsifying a private document
*If falsification was committed to commit estafa, then Falsification absorbs estafa, vice versa
Splitting the Special Complex Crime or Complex Crime
If the components of a complex crime or special complex crime are alleged in two different Information, the accused
will be convicted of separate crimes. He will not be held liable for a special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
• People v. Cilot – Despite the splitting of kidnapping with rape by filing of 2 informations, the trial court
convicted the accused of SCC. SC: should be convicted of 2 separate crimes.
• People v. Laog – Accused was charged with rape and homicide in 2 different informations, but SC convicted
him of special complex crime of rape with homicide.
DOCTRINE OF ABSORPTION – One crime shall absorb the other if the latter is inherent in, an element of, or a
necessary consequence of the commission of the former. A crime is considered
“inherent” where its commission is an indispensable means to commit another.
• Element of a Crime – Person who through violence coerces a lady to have sexual intercourse with him
should not be held liable for physical injuries and coercion in addition to rape. Physical injuries are a
necessary consequence for the employment of violence, which is an element of rape, while coercion is
inherent therein. [People v. Labra]
• Hernandez Doctrine (Political Crimes) – Where the crimes of murders, robbery, and kidnapping are
committed as a means to or in furtherance of the rebellion charged, they are absorbed by, and form part
and parcel of, the rebellion, therefore accused can be convicted only of the simple crime of rebellion and
not a complex crime of rebellion with murders, robbery, and kidnapping [People v. Hernandez (1956)]
o Membership in Org. Insufficient for Conviction – Mere membership in communist orgs. would not by
and of itself suffice to establish political motive in committing murder. [Id]
o Even though the murder is politically motivated, the court will not convict him of rebellion if the accused
did not claim political motivation to avail of the lesser penalty of rebellion [People v. Ompad (1994)]
o There is neither law nor jurisprudence which can allow this Court to uphold the defendant’s claim
that acts of violence like murder and kidnapping are absorbed by sedition. [People v. Hadji (1963)]
Robbery through Kidnapping – If the accused committed robbery, but thereafter, they detained the victim to forestall
capture by the police, the crime is ROBBERY ONLY because Robbery absorbs kidnapping which was only incidental to
the main crime. [People v. Astor (1987)]
• Exception – If the accused detained the victims (after robbery) to demand additional money and later on
to forestall capture, the crime is COMPLEX CRIME of Robbery through kidnapping, because the detention
was availed of as a means of insuring the consummation of robbery and not merely a matter of restraint
to enable the malefactors to escape. [People v. Salvilla (1990)]
Abductions with Multiple Rapes – If the victim was abducted and raped several times, the following rules shall apply:
(1) When Principal Objective is to Rape – Crime = RAPE, and forcible abduction, illegal detention merely
incidental to rape. Doctrine of Absorption APPLIES since they are indispensable means to commit rape.
(2) Abduction with Lewd Design – If abduction is a necessary means to commit rape, this is a complex crime
proper, except when multiple rapes are committed and therefore only the first rape is complexed.
GR: Forcible abduction is an indispensable means to commit rape
EXC: Victim was brought in a house or motel with considerable distance from the place of abduction,
forcible abduction will be considered as a necessary means to commit rape, hence COMPLEX CRIME PROP.
(3) Intent to Deprive Liberty – The difference between (1) Rape through Forcible Abduction and (2)
Kidnapping with Rape lies on the criminal intention at the precise moment of abduction.
a. If committed with lewd design = Complex Crime of Rape through Forcible Abduction where
subsequent rapes are separate offenses.
b. If without lewd design = Special Complex Crime with Rape (as a consequence), and subsequent
rapes will be considered as components.
c. If no rape – Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
Aggravating or Qualifying Circumstance
• Use of Picklock Absorbed in Robbery – Use of picklock to enter into a dwelling is a constructive force
upon thing that will qualify the taking the taking into robbery in inhabited house. Since use of lockpick and
entry in dwelling are elements of robbery by using force upon thing, illegal possession of picklock and
trespass to dwelling are absorbed in robbery.
• Simulation of Authority – Simulation of authority constitutes the crime of usurpation of authority or
function and can also be a qualifying circumstance:
o Qualified Kidnapping – If accused pretended to be a police officer. Kidnapping absorbs
usurpation of authority.
o Qualified Robbery by Using Force Upon Thing – If the accused pretended that he is a police
officer and by reason thereof, he was able to enter the building and take property therein,
simulation of authority is qualifying.
o Ordinary Aggravating (Rape with Disguise) – Used simulation of authority as disguise.
Doctrine of Absorption APPLIES to Special Penal Laws –
• Rebellion absorbs obstruction of justice (Enrile v. SB)
• Rebellion or Coup d’etat absorbs Illegal Possession of Loose firearm or explosive (People v. Rdoriguez)
• Using a loose firearm shall be considered as a qualifying circumstance because it will change the penalty
for sedition. Qualified sedition ABSORBS Illegal Possession of Loose Firearm
When Absorption NOT Applicable:
(1) Sui Generis Cases – i.e. coup d’etat cannot absorb mutiny under Articles of War
(2) Carnapping – Robbery with homicide OR kidnapping cannot absorb carnapping
(3) Torture – shall not absorb or be absorbed by any other crime or felony committed as a consequence or
as a means in the conduct or commission thereof (Sec. 15, R.A. No. 9745)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 8
 2. Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability Aggression must be Non-Mutual – Even if the victim attacked the defender-accused with a weapon first, if the latter
got a weapon inside the house and confronted the former outside, self-defense will be rejected. By confronting the
a. Justifying Circumstances victim, the accused impliedly accepted a challenge to a fight and exposed himself to such consequences and therefore
could not avail of self-defense as the aggression was MUTUAL [Rugas v. People (2004)]
If present, the accused will NOT INCUR criminal liability:
(1) Self-defense • Mutual Slandering – To avail of self-defense, the defensive libel must be reasonably necessary to
(2) Defense of Relative neutralize the effects of the unlawful aggression against honor in the form of libel, sufficient to restore her
(3) Defense of Stranger ruined reputation or honor and not merely to retaliate by ruining the other’s reputation as well.
(4) Avoidance of Greater Evil or Injury Hence, retaliation or vindictiveness is not the basis for defensive libel. Since both are mutual slanderers,
(5) Performance of Duty neither can avail of self-defense and both are liable for defaming each other. [People v. Rayo]
(6) Obedience to Order made by Superior Officer for lawful purpose
Ceased Aggression – When the unlawful aggression by the victim CEASES, and the defender-accused continues with
his “defense,” the latter now becomes the unlawful aggressor. [Belbis Jr. v, People (2012)]
SELF-DEFENSE, DEFENSE OF RELATIVE, DEFENSE OF STRANGER
• Retaliation is NOT Self-Defense – In retaliation, the unlawful aggression that was begun by the victim
Effect of Availing Self-Defense – Accused thereby admits being the author of the death of the victim, and it becomes ceased when accused attacked him, while in self-defense, the unlawful aggression still existed when the
incumbent upon him to prove the justifying circumstance to the satisfaction of the court. aggressor was injured by the accused. Retaliation is merely a mitigating circumstance of vindication

• Only the onus probandi (Burden of Proof) shifts to the accused. The burden to prove guilt beyond • Disarming the Aggressor –
reasonable doubt still remains with the State. o GR: When the accused already disarmed the aggressor, the subsequent killing of the latter is
• Self-Defense is an affirmative allegation that must be established with certainty by sufficient and NOT justified, as the aggression had already ceased [People v. Pagador (2001)]
satisfactory proof [People v. Roman (2013)] o EXCEPTION: When it could not be said that the aggression ceased even after disarming i.e. the
victim manifested that he would regain possession through violent means [People v. Samson]
Elements of SELF-DEFENSE
• When Merely a “Mitigating Circumstance” – If the unlawful aggression ceased, the accused is not
(1) Unlawful Aggression entitled to complete or incomplete self-defense. However, the ceased aggression can be a source of
(2) Reasonable Necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression mitigating circumstance of vindication of grave offense.
(3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the defender-accused o Wife killed a person who laid in bed with her and (thinking it was her husband) allowed him to
have sex with her. Aggression already ceased, but mitigating as vindication.
Elements of DEFENSE OF RELATIVE o When victim already ran away a considerable distance after raping daughter.
(1) Unlawful aggression against a relative Defense of Property
(2) Reasonable Necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
(3) Lack of participation in relative’s provocation against the victim • Apolinar Doctrine (Old Rule) – Defense of property is not of such importance as right to life, and such
(4) Relatives involved: can only be invoked as a justifying circumstance only when coupled with an attack on the owner
a. Spouse
b. Ascendants or Descendants
• Narvaez Doctrine (Current) – The invasion of property is an unlawful aggression, although not coupled
c. Legitimate, Natural, or Adopted Siblings
with an attack, because the owner has the right to resist invasion of property under Art. 429 of the CC, but
d. Relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and
the means employed must still be reasonably necessary
e. Relatives by consanguinity within the 4th civil degree
o Applicable to “Performance of Duty” when it was the Security Guard to shot the thief, as long
Elements of DEFENSE OF STRANGER
as the means are reasonably necessary [People v. Bentres]
(1) Unlawful Aggression against a stranger
Mistaken Aggression – Even if there was no actual unlawful aggression, the accused is entitled to the defense of
(2) Reasonable Necessity of means employed to prevent or repel it
relative as long as he honestly believed that his relative or the stranger was a victim of unlawful aggression and the
(3) The defender-accused is not motivated by revenge, resentment, other evil motive.
threat to his life and limb were present at the time [U.S. v. Esmedia (1910)]
KINDS OF AGGRESSION
REASONABLE AND NECESSARY MEANS
(1) Actual or Material – An attack with physical force or with a weapon, an offense act that positively
Meaning of Reasonable and Necessary Means – The means employed by a person claiming self-defense must be
determines the intent of the aggressor to cause injury
commensurate to the nature and extent of the attack sought to be averted, and must be rationally necessary to prevent
or repel an unlawful aggression [Belbis Jr. v. People (2012)]
(2) Imminent – An attach that is impending or at the point of happening; it must NOT consist in a mere
threatening attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary, but must be offensive and positively strong (i.e.
DOCTRINE OF RATIONAL EQUIVALENCE – Plea of self-defense would prosper if there is a rational equivalence
aiming a revolver at another with intent to shoot or opening a knife and making a motion to attack)
between the means of attack by the unlawful aggressor and the means of defense by the accused that would
characterize the defense as reasonable. Consideration not only of the nature and quality of weapons used but also
NOTE – The act of pulling “something” out CANNOT constitute unlawful aggression. The mere act of pulling
the totality of circumstances surrounding the defense
out a gun is insufficient to constitute an actual or imminent attack without any other circumstance that
would indicate there was imminent danger [People v. De Leon (2015)]
LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION –
To be entitled to self-defense, accused must not have given cause for the aggression by his unjust conduct or by inciting
Aggression must be UNLAWFUL – A reasonable force made by a police officer to arrest a suspect is NOT unlawful
or provoking the victim. Further, the provocation must be proportionate to the act of aggression and adequate to stir
since the former is merely performing his duty. Killing the officer while engaged int eh performance of a duty of
one to its commission [Rimano v. People (2003)]
arresting the accused constitutes direct assault with homicide [People v. Gayrama (1943)]
CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 9
 BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME
Scientifically defined patter of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relations as
a result of cumulative abuse.
• Battery – Act of inflicting physical harm upon the woman or her child resulting to physical and
psychological or emotional distress. Woman must have martial, sexual, or dating relations
• Elements of BWS:
o Battering husband or boyfriend inflicted physical harm
o Infliction of harm must be cumulative
o Cumulative abuse results to physical and psychological/emotional disress
Effect of Battered Woman Syndrome – It is a DEFENSE notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for
justifying circumstances for self-defense (i.e. unlawful aggression)
Cumulative Abuse – Requires successive addition, hence, a single act of battery or physical harm resulting to the
distress is insufficient to avail of the benefit of justifying circumstance of BWS. In order for BWS to apply, the woman
must undergo through the 3 phases AT LEAST TWICE.
(1) Tension-building phase
(2) Acute-battering incident
(3) Tranquil or loving phase
b. Exempting Circumstances
Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. - the following are exempt from criminal liability:
1. INSANITY – An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall
order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be
permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court.
2. MINORITY – A person under 15 years of age.
3. A person over 15 years of age and under 18, unless he has acted with discernment, in which case, such minor
shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80 of this Code.
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in conformably with the provisions of this and
the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody of his family who shall be charged with his
surveillance and education otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some institution or person mentioned in
said Art. 80.
4. ACCIDENT – Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere
accident without fault or intention of causing it.

AVOIDANCE OF A GREATER EVIL OR INJURY 5. IRRESISTIBLE FORCE – Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.

“Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes damage to another, provided 6. FEAR – Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
that the following requisites are present;
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; 7. LAWFUL & INSUPERABLE CAUSE – Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; by some lawful insuperable cause.
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it. [Article 11, RPC]
Justifying Circumstances v. Exempting Circumstances
Threat to Commit Suicide – Suicide, which his sought to be avoided, is not an evil greater than abortion. Moreover,
the threat to commit suicide is not imminent. In sum, the evil sought to be avoided did NOT exist. [Campanilla] JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
Act complained of is justified Act complained of not justified but actor exempted
Lawful Act NOT EVIL – X, armed with a weapon attacked A. B drew his gun to defend A, but accused-X was able to
prevent B from shooting him and shot B dead. Accused-X CANNOT invoke state of necessity as a defense, because the Act non-felonious, exempt from criminal & civil liability Act is still felonious; not exempt from civil liability
act of B in defending A was lawful [People v. Padernal (1974)] EXC: Avoidance of greater evil (unjust enrichment) EXC: Accident, because there is no culpa or dolo

Euthanasia – Euthanasia or mercy killing is condemned by law although the motive may be to spare prolonged
suffering. The accused, who shut off the oxygen tank is liable for murder and euthanasia is not a defense. IMBECILITY

• Mercy Killing NOT = Assistance to Suicide Mental Age – It is the MENTAL AGE which is essential in determining imbecility.
o In Mercy Killing – The accused himself decided to kill the patient to spare him from suffering • 2 years = Idiot
o In Assistance – Patient decided to commit suicide and the accused assisted him to commit it or • 7 years = Imbecile
lend his assistance to the extent of doing the killing himself • 12 years = Feebleminded (not exempt; only mitigating)

Abortion – Avoidance of a greater evil may justify abortion to save the life of the mother. The life of the mother may
be considered as more important than that of the fetus [Campanilla]
Saving Own Life – Acting to save oneself through the incidental killing of 2 others IS A VALID defense for avoidance
of a greater evil, because the instinct of self-preservation dictates that the life of the actor is of greater importance
than that of another [Campanilla] BUT – May be liable for Reckless Imprudence if circumstances warrant.
INSANITY
Must be Proven – The presumption under Article 800 of the Civil Code is that every human is sane. Anyone who
pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it with clear and convincing evidence. It is
in the nature of confession and avoidance. An accused invoking insanity admits to have committed the crime but
claims that he or she is not guilty due to insanity [People v. Tibon (2010)]

PERFORMANCE OF A DUTY TESTS FOR DETERMINING MENTAL CONDITION (as Exempting or Mitigating)

ELEMENTS OF PERFORMANCE OF DUTY
(1) Performance of Duty – Must have acted in the performance duty OR lawful exercise of a right or office
(2) Necessary consequence – injury must be a necessary consequence of the duty or lawful exercise of right
(1) TEST OF COGNITION – Mental condition is exempting if there was complete deprivation of intelligence
in committing the criminal act OR mitigating if only partial deprivation. [People v. Puno (1981)]
(2) TEST OF VOLITION – Mental condition of the accused is mitigating if there is deprivation of freedom.
Deprivation of freedom is SUFFICIENT to mitigate liability [People v. Rafanan (1991)]

CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 10

 ACCIDENT MINORITY (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006)

Elements of ACCIDENT as Exempting Circumstance [People v. Fallorina (2004)]
(1) Lawful Act – A person is performing a lawful act
(2) Due Care – With due care
(3) Accident – He causes an injury to another by mere accident
(4) W/O Fault – Without any fault or intention of causing it
• When accused shot a chicken, but the bullet recoiled and hit the deceased, the accused is NOT LIABLE for
“accident” as exempting circumstance [U.S. v. Tanedo (1910)]
• When accused shot the wild pig using an unregistered firearm, and the bullet recoiled and killed a person,
he CANNOT avail of accident as exempting circumstance, because the use of a loose firearm is NOT a lawful
act. He is liable for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide [Campanilla]
CHILD IN CONFLICT w/ the LAW – Child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as having committed an offense.
Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility –
• 15 and under = EXEMPT – A child 15 years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall
be EXEMPT from criminal liability but shall be subjected to an intervention program.
• Between 15 and 18 – Exempt + Intervention program, UNLESS he acted with discernment. If so, he is only
entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance
• Not Exempt from Civil Liability – Exemption from criminal liability is without prejudice to civil liability, which
shall be enforced in accordance with law (Sec. 6, RA 9344)

• The accused pointed his gun at the victim as a reasonable means to repel an unprovoked unlawful What is Discernment? – Discernment is his mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong,
aggression committed by the latter, but the gun accidentally fired and hit the victim. Since his act of and such capacity may be known and should be determined by taking into consideration all the facts and
pointing the gun in self-defense was duly proven and justified, he is EXEMPTED. [People v. Tongco] circumstances afforded by the records in each case i.e. appearance, behavior, attitude, etc. [People v. Doquena (1939)]

IRRESISTIBLE FORCE & UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR Determination of Age – The child in conflict shall enjoy the presumption of minority. He shall enjoy all the rights of
a child in conflict until he is proven to be 18 years old or older.
Elements of IRRESISTIBLE FORCE as Exempting Circumstances
(1) Somebody used force compelling accused to commit a crime • Persons contesting the age must, prior to the filing of an information, file a case in a summary proceeding
(2) The force was irresistible with the Family Court for the determination of his age. Decide in 24 hours from receipt of pleadings. If
criminal case already filed, person contesting must file a motion
Elements of UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR as Exempting Circumstances
(1) Uncontrollable Fear – Existence of an uncontrollable fear of an injury • Burden of Proof = Beyond reasonable doubt!
(2) Real & Imminent – Fear is real and imminent
(3) Greater Injury – Fear of injury greater than or at least equal to committed o BOP lies with ACCUSED for purposes of availing the exempting circumstance.
o If the defense was able to establish minority, but there is doubt as to the date of commission,
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR he shall be presumed a minor, and the prosecution must dispute such presumption.
o BOP lies with PROSECUTION for proving that he acted with discernment OR for establishing
Offender uses violence or physical force to compel Offender uses intimidation or threat in compelling that he is actually over 18
another to commit a crime. another to commit a crime.
Generated by threatened act v. 3rd person i.e. wife of Status Offenses (Sec. 57, RA 9344)
Made to operate directly upon person of accused only Offenses which discriminate only against a child, while an adult does not suffer any penalty for committing similar
the accused who was kidnapped.
acts. Hence, it is a crime where one of the elements is that the offender is a “child.” Examples are:
Injury feared may be lesser than damage by accused Injury must be greater or at least equal to the damage
(1) Curfew violations
Real and Imminent – For defense of uncontrollable fear to prosper, duress, force, fear, or intimidation must be (2) Truancy
present, imminent, and impending, and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious (3) Parental Disobedience
bodily harm if the act will not be done [Manansala v. People (2015)]
Child at Risk – A child shall NOT BE punished for committing a status offense (Sec. 57). No penalty shall be imposed
• X was taken to a farm by outlaw members B and C. B gave X a bolo and told him that their leader wanted on children for said violations, and they shall instead be brought to their residence or to any barangay official and
X to kill a farmer sleeping inside the hut. X refused, but was told by C that “if you do not comply, you will recorded as a child at risk and not as a child in conflict with the law.
have to come along with us.” X killed the farmer. X is criminally liable. The threat made will not produce
uncontrollable fear; no showing that B was present when X killed the farmer [People v. Moreno (1946)] Truancy – Student who stays out of school for a certain period without permission from the school authorities and
for no legitimate reason. A truant may be confined in the rehabilitation center. CANNOT be liable under Sec. 57
• It must be shown that in spite of resistance he was still forced to act against his wishes. X, who attempted
to stop giving the bribe to Y (police officer), is still liable, even though Y threatened to plant incriminating Parental Disobedience – Under Act 4002, children guilty of disrespect or disobedience may be held criminally liable
evidence on him, was manhandled by Y upon the complaint of parents. ALSO cannot be held liable.

LAWFUL AND INSUPERABLE CAUSE Offenses NOT APPCLIABLE to Children (Sec. 58, RA 9344) – Persons below 18 shall be exempt from prosecution for
the following crimes:
(1) Prostitution (Art. 202, RPC)
“One who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause, is
(2) Mendicancy
EXEMPT from criminal liability for such failure.”
(3) Sniffing of Rugby
Instead, they shall undergo appropriate counseling and treatment.
A priest is EXEMPT from criminal liability for the crime of Misprision of Treason for failure to disclose to government
authorities information on conspiracy against the gov’t which he obtained by reason of confession made to him by
one of the conspirators. The law which enjoins Filipinos to make such report DOES NOT apply to priests, who, by virtue
of his office, is prohibited from making such disclosure because of the sacred rule on confidentiality of confession
[Campanilla, 2011 Bar Exams]
CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 11
 c. Mitigating Circumstances PRAETER INTENTIONEM

Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. - The following are mitigating circumstances;
1. Incomplete Justification/Mitigation – Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites
necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant.
2. Minority – That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he
shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80.
When Applicable – Praeter Intentionem applies when there is a notable disparity between the means employed by
the accused to commit a wrong and the resulting crime committed. It is the intention at the time of commissionwhich
is considered, the mode of attack and the injury sustained. [People v. Maglian (2011)]
• People v. Centeno (1989): Not Applicable – Chief of Police administered a karate blow to the accused
followed by subsequent blows which killed the accused. Chief of police presumed to have extensive
training in hand-to-hand combat and ought to know effect of a karate chop to the neck.

3. Praeter Intentionem – That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. • People v. Flores (1996): APPLICABLE – Accused, who was a mere civilian, kicked the stomach and chest
of the victim. Victim, who was drunk, died at the hospital. It was clear that his intention was merely to
4. Provocation – Sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act. inflict physical injuries.

5. Vindication – That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing Effect of Death or Survival on Praeter Intentionem
the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
(1) Victim SURVIVED – Presence or absence of intent to kill determines the crime committed.
6. Passion – That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.
(2) Victim DIED – Intent to kill is PRESUMED. Must disprove intention.
7. Voluntary Surrender or Confession – That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in a. Intent to Kill as an ELEMENT – Conclusively presumed in homicide or murder.
authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of b. Lack of Intent = Praeter – If the accused can show lack of intent to kill, or there is notable
the evidence for the prosecution; disparity between the means employed and the resulting crime, praeter shall apply.

8. Physical Defect – That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which THREAT
thus restricts his means of action, defense, or communications with his fellow beings.
Elements for Threat to be Mitigating
9. Illness Diminishing Willpower – Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the willpower of (1) Threat on the part of the offended party
the offender without however depriving him of the consciousness of his acts. (2) Threat is sufficient
(3) Threat immediately precedes the criminal act committed
10. Analogous Circumstance: Any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned.
PROVOCATION
Effect of Mitigating Circumstances
Elements for PROVOCATION to be Mitigating
• ORDINARY MITIGATING (1) Provocation by the victim
o w/ Divisible – Adjustment of the penalty (i.e. reclusion temporal to minimum period) (2) Provocation was sufficient
o w/ Indivisible – Apply the lower penalty (RP to death, impose RP) (3) Provocation must immediately precede the criminal act

• PRIVILEGED MITIGATING – Whether divisible or not, go one degree lower. Meaning of “Provocation” – It requires that the same be sufficient or proportionate to the act committed and that it
be adequate to arouse one to its commission. [Aquino, citing People v. Dolfo]
Offsetting Mitigating and Aggravating – Ordinary mitigating circumstances can be offset by aggravating ones, while
privileged cannot. If there is both privileged mitigating and aggravating: VINDICATION

• FIRST – Lower the penalty by one degree (RP to RT)

Elements for VINDICATION to be Mitigating:
• SECOND – Apply RT to maximum period (1) Victim committed grave offense
(2) Against the offender or his following:
INCOMPLETE JUSTIFICATION or EXEMPTION and MINORITY a. Spouse
b. Ascendants or Descendants
Application of Incomplete Justification/Exemption c. Legitimate, illegitimate, or adopted siblings, relatives by affinity within same degree
(3) Committed the crime in proximate vindication of such grave offense.
(1) Majority Present (2/3 OR 1/2 Requisites) – Privileged Mitigating; Lower by 1 or 2 degrees
Victim Himself must be the OG Offender – If the grave offense is committed by a 3rd person against the adopted
(2) Minority Present (1/3 Requisites) – Ordinary Mitigating; Graduation of penalty brother of the accused, vindication is not mitigating. The victim himself must commit the grave offense [Campanilla]

(3) For Minority Defense – ONLY PRIVILEGED.

(4) For ACCIDENT –

a. If with DOLO, it is an intentional felony. No adjustment of penalty
b. IF with CULPA, Penalty in Art. 67 and 365 imposed

CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 12

 PASSION PHYSICAL DEFECT

Elements for PASSION to be Mitigating:
(1) Act that was both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of the mind
(2) Act was not far removed from the commission by considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator
could have recovered his normal equanimity
(3) Arise from lawful sentiment, not lawlessness or revenge
“Lawful Sentiment” – Accused who raped a woman “out of extreme state of passion” is not entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of passion, because such passion must arise from lawful sentiment of the offender and not from a spirit
of lawlessness or revenge [People v. Sanico]
Meaning of Physical Defect – Offender is deaf, dumb, blind, or otherwise suffering from a physical defect which
restricts his means of action, defense, or communication with his fellow beings. (Art. 13, par. 8, RPC)
• Severed Arm NOT Applicable – The mere fact that accused suffers from a severed hand is insufficient to
avail such as a mitigating circumstance. It must be shown that the defect limited his means to act, defend,
or communicate with fellow beings to such extent that he did not have complete freedom of action,
consequently resulting in diminution of the element of voluntariness [People v. Deopante]
ANALOGOUS OR SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES

Lawful Sentiment v. Right – The exercise of a lawful right cannot be the proper source of obfuscation that may be
Extreme Poverty – The accused who suffers from extreme poverty and committed theft by virtue of such is entitled
considered mitigating. The act of the victim, in demanding that they vacate her land and transfer elsewhere, was NOT
to mitigating circumstance similar to incomplete justification or state of necessity. This is allowed not to encourage
unlawful as she was exercising her right to her land. [People v. Lopez (2000)]
theft but to dull the pain-producing edges of the stark realities of life [People v. Macbul]
PROVOCATION VINDICATION PASSION Surrender of Weapons – Surrender of weapons used to commit crime is not considered as analogous to voluntary
Source of Unlawful act producing surrender [People v. Verges (1981)]
Provocative act of victim Grave offense by victim
Mitigation passion + lawful sentiment
d. Aggravating Circumstances
Time Proximate; Must be Should not be far removed by
Immediately precede the act
interval insufficient to composure considerable length of time
GENERIC AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
Elements of VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
(1) Offender not yet arrested
(2) Offender surrendered himself to person-in-authority (PIA)
(3) Surrender was voluntary
Meaning of “Surrender” – TO be voluntary, it must be spontaneous, showing the intent of accused to submit himself
unconditionally to authorities, because he acknowledges his guilt or wishes to save authorities the time, trouble, and
effort necessarily incurred in his search [People v. Tabarnero (2010)]
Examples of INVALID SURRENDER
(a) Surrendered only after being informed of the charge of rape, which initially denied [People v. Salle]
(b) Went to Barangay Chairman to seek protection against retaliation [People v. Del Castillo (2012)]
(c) Going to police station to make an inquiry. No submission nor acknowledgment of guilt [People v. Verceles]
(d) Considerable interval of time between commission and surrender, compelling the gov’t to spend resources
and manpower to find accused [People v. Pagsanjan (1993)]
(e) Arrest was inevitable, as when the police have surrounded him [Campanilla]
VOLUNTARY CONFESSION
Elements of VOLUNTARY CONFESSION to be Mitigating:
(1) Spontaneously confessed his guilt
(2) Made in open court
(3) Made before a competent court trying the case
(4) Made prior to presentation of evidence [People v. Juan (2004)]
Plea to Lesser Offense –
• IF ALLOWED – Confession shall be appreciated as mitigating.
• IF NOT ALLOWED – Confession may or may not be appreciated depending on crime charged & that proven.
o Charged MURDER, Proved HOMICIDE – the plea to lesser offense of homicide is mitigating
because it is not the fault of accused that prosecution was wrong in the Information
o Charged HOMICIDE, Proved MURDER – NOT MITIGATING, since the offer does not pertain to
the crime proven [People v. Dawatan]
Confession on Appeal – His confession shall NOT be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance. The confession must
be made to the court who has original jurisdiction over the crime, and not appellate. Second, must be before the
presentation of evidence by accused.
GENERIC AGGRAVATING – Unless offset by a mitigating circumstance, shall require the application of divisible penalty
in its maximum period, or the application of the greater penalty of RP to death.
When Mitigating and Aggravating Not Considered – They shall not be considered in the imposition of the penalty
in the following cases:
(1) Imprudence or negligence
(2) Penalty is single and indivisible
(3) Special law has not adopted the technical nomenclature of penalties of RPC
CONTEMPT OF OR INSULT TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES – Art. 14.2, RPC
That the crime be committed in contempt or with insult to the public authorities.
Public Authority – Persons in authority, excludes agent of PIA.
Lawyers & Teachers Not Included – Teachers and Lawyers under Article 52 are persons in authority for purposes of
applying Article 148 and 151 on crimes of Direct Assault and Resistance. Hence, they are not applicable to:
(1) Article 14 – Aggravating Circumstance of contempt of public authorities.
(2) Article 91 on the running of prescription upon discovery of crime by person in authority
PLACES OF COMMISSION – [Art. 14.5, RPC]
(1) Malacanang Palace, or any place where President is present
(2) Place where public authorities are engaged in discharge of their duty
(3) Place dedicated to religious worship
(4) Dwelling (Art. 14.3, RPC)
Inside the Building
• Religious Worship & Palace of President – Aggravating. Presence of priest or President IMMATERIAL
• Place where PA Discharging – Presence of public authority AND discharge of function ESSENTIAL
Outside the Building
• In Presence of Priest – NOT AGGRAVATING
• In presence of President – AGGRAVATING. Not required that President discharge official duties
• In presence of PAs discharging functions – NOT AGGRAVATING.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 13
DISREGARD OF R, A, S, OR DWELLING • Invited a Guest COVERED – One does not lose his right of privacy where he is offended in the house of
That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank, another because as his invited guest, the stranger is sheltered by the same roof and protected by the same
age, or sex, or that is be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation. intimacy of life it affords. [People v. Balansi (1990)]

• What Dwelling Covers – Dwelling includes every dependency of the house that forms an integral part
**NOTE – The court must independently appreciate disregard of dwelling and disregard of rank, age, and sex. The thereof, such as the staircase of the house, its terrace and enclosures under the house. Hence, dwelling is
disrespect in the former pertains to the dwelling of the offended party due to the sanctity of privacy which the law NOT appreciated when he was only about to step on the first rung of the ladder [People v. Suspene (1957)]
accords it. As to the latter, the disrespect pertains to the PERSON of the offended party [People v. De Taga (1929)]
• Entry by Accused IMMATERIAL – It is not necessary that the accused enter the dwelling of the victim. It is
DISREGARD OF RANK enough that the victim was attacked inside his own house although the assailant might have devised means
to perpetrate the assault from outside [People v. Perreras (2001)]
• Intent to Insult – Disregard of rank of the barangay captain shall not be appreciated in the absence of
proof of the specific fact or circumstance that accused disregarded the disrespect due to offended party. Living in the Same Dwelling – If offender and victim lived in the same dwelling, the circumstance of dwelling DOES
It must be shown that he deliberately intended to insult the rank of the barangay captain [People v. Talay] NOT apply, for the sanctity of dwelling may only be invoked against those are not living therein. Instead, abuse of
confidence may be appreciated [People v. Laspardas (1979)] → Applies also to wife and paramour.
• Direct Assault – If the accused killed person in authority
o While engaged in performance OR due to past performance = Direct Assault with Murder/Hom. Provocation – Refers to unjust or improper conduct of the offended party capable of exciting, inciting or irritating
o Not engaged in duty, and not for past performance = Homicide/Murder + Disregard of Rank anyone; it is not enough that the provocative act be unreasonable or annoying as it must excite one to commit the
wrongful act and should immediately precede the act. [Urbano v. People (2009)]
Disregard of Rank v. Contempt of Public Authority v. Place of Commission (Discharge)
Provocation in JUSTIFYING, EXEMPTING, and MITIGATING Circumstance
Disregard of Rank Contempt of Public Authority Place of Commission • In JUSTIFYING – Must be given by accused exciting the victim to commit unlawful aggression against him
Crime against person of higher rank Victim not a person-in-authority. • In EXEMPTING – Given by offended party exciting the crime + blurring reason and self-control of accused
Committed a crime in disregard of
such as a person-in-authority. Crime against another person in • In MITIGATING – Sufficient to deprive the victim of his right to privacy in the dwelling
the respect due to the place where
disregard of the presence of public
public authority was engaged in his
Accused disregarded the respect authorities engaged in discharge of NIGHTTIME – Article 14.6, RPC
official function.
due to the rank of such authority. their duties or official functions. “That the crime be committed in the nighttime, or in an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such circumstances
NOT engaged in the performance of Person in authority was engaged in Engaged in official function inside may facilitate the commission of the offense.”
official function or duty. his official functions outside office. his office at the tiem of crime.
When Nighttime Aggravating – Mere presence of the night INSUFFICIENT to be aggravating. Must be shown that
PIA who is superior to the accused. PIA must NOT be the victim. PIA may or may not be the victim.
accused intentionally chose the darkness of night (or silence of the night) to facilitate commission, or deliberately took
advantage thereof to afford impunity [People v. Morales (1983)]
DISREGARD OF SEX • Conceived Shortly before Commission – NOT aggravating. [People v. Pardo (1947)]
• Commit shortly after seeing him at night – NOT aggravating. Accused did not deliberately choose the night
• How Aggravating – Must show that the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex of the to facilitate the commission of the crime. [Campanilla]
victim, or showed manifest disrespect to her womanhood, i.e. removing her blouse before killing her
[People v. Clementer] Darkness and Silence of the Night – People v. Demate (2004)
GR: Nighttime cannot aggravate the crime if it is committed in a lighted place although at nighttime, because the
• When Absorbed – When a man attacks a woman who was unarmed and defenseless, it constitutes abuse darkness of the night facilitates the crime or affords him impunity.
of superior strength which his sex and the weapon used in the act afforded him. Abuse of superior strength EXC: If the offender purposely selected the night when neighbors and occupants were asleep to facilitate the crime,
absorbs disregard of sex [People v. Ventura and Venturas (2004)] nighttime shall be appreciated even if the place is lighted

DISREGARD OF AGE
• How Aggravating – Accusd must deliberately intend to offend or insult the age of the offended party, i.e.
taking advantage of the helplessness of a baby due to tender age. [People v. Enot (1962)]
• When Absorbed – The qualifying circumstance of under 12 years of age cannot co-exist with qualified
seduction, because such crime can only be committed against a child over 12 years of age.
CRAFT or FRAUD – That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed. [Art. 14.14, RPC]
When Craft Absorbed by Treachery – If it is deliberately adopted as the means, method, or form for treachery. It
shall only exist independently when both circumstances are adopted for different purpose [People v. Lab-eo (2002)]
• To Facilitate Commission – ABSORBED by treachery i.e. hid the knife under jacket to make attack.
• To Afford Impunity – Disguised themselves as army men to escape, not absorbed.

DISREGARD OF DWELLING – Elements of Disregard of Dwelling: AID OF MINOR – Art. 14.20, RPC
(1) Offender committed crime in dwelling of victim 20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age or by means of motor vehicles,
(2) Offender committed crime in disregard of the respect of dwelling motorized watercraft, airships, or other similar means.
(3) Victim has not given provocation

Sanctity of Privacy – Victim must have a right to privacy in the dwelling.
• Ownership Immaterial – The house owned by another person constituted a dwelling of a victim, who used
it for rest and comfort. It is NOT necessary under the law that the victim owned the place, i.e. boarder, bed
spacer, maid, etc. the place is her home, for as long as she is entitled to the sanctity of privacy [People v.
Sapinoso (2000)]
NOTE: Sec. 20-C, RA 9344 – If accused makes use, takes advantage of, or profits from the use of children, or abuses
his authority over the child or takes advantage of the vulnerabilities of the child. Special aggravating circumstance
(which applies maximum period despite presence of mitigating circumstances)
Motor Vehicle – Must facilitate the commission of the crime OR their escape [People v. Salahuddin (2016)]

CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 14

 SPECIAL AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
EFFECT OF SPECIAL AGGRAVATING – AUTOMATICALLY applies maximum penalty but cannot serve to increase
penalty to the higher degree. It is NOT offset by ordinary mitigating circumstances.
Special Aggravating Circumstances:
(1) Taking advantage of position
(2) Organized/Syndicated crime
(3) Quasi-recidivism
(4) Complex Crime
(5) Sue of loose firearm
(6) Under the influence of drugs
(7) Exploitation of minor
ORGANIZED / SYNDICATED CRIME GROUP – Article 62 RPC
The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was committed by any person who belongs to an organized or
syndicated crime group.
An organized/syndicated crime group is a group of two or more persons collaborating, confederating, or mutually
helping one another for purposes of gain in the commission of any crime.
Conspiracy INSUFFICIENT to Constitution Syndicate – A syndicated crime group presupposes a conspiracy among
members of the syndicate to commit a crime for gain, but conspiracy alone is not enough to establish it’s existence.
There must be a group of persons (2 or more) organized for committing crimes for gain. [People v. Alberca (1996)]
Esparas Principle – The aggravating circumstance of syndicated crime is applicable only when offender, who violates
the dangers drugs law, is a MINOR, because the CDDA expressly provides that the provisions of the RPC shall not apply
to this provisions of said act (People v. Esparas)
How Applied – Crime of murder committed by a member of a syndicate organized to extort protection money where
the victim refused to give in is aggravated by circumstance of syndicated crime group [Campanilla]
Band v. Syndicate –
• In BAND – There must be direct participation of at least 4 armed malefactors in committing the crime
• In SYNDICATE – Even if committed only by ONE person who belongs to the syndicate. Hence, number of
accused immaterial and mere membership is sufficient.
TAKING ADVANTAGE OF PUBLIC POSITION – Art. 62, RPC
When in the commission of the crime, advantage is taken by the offender of his public position, the penalty imposed
shall be in its maximum regardless of mitigating circumstances.
Jurisprudence on Factors
• U.S. v. Torida – Municipal councilman used influence, prestige, and ascendancy to induce victims to pay
him 5 pesos per dead animal as fine.
• U.S. v. Dacuycuy – Counsilor did not take advantage of public position to defraud vicitms, as they were
entrusted their money to accused to buy cedula.
UNINHABITED PLACE [Art. 14.6, RPC]
GR: General Aggravating only
EXC: Special aggravating in Robbery by means of violence or intimidation
When Applicable – It must be proven that there were no inhabited houses nearby. BUT even if such house is inhabited
but that was the only house in the said place and the victims are the only inhabitants of such house, uninhabited place
will be appreciated as a circumstance [People v. Corpuz (1960)]
• TEST – Whether or not there was reasonable possibility of the victim receiving help in the place where the
crime was committed. Distance of nearest house to scene of crime IMMATERIAL. [People v. Desalisa]
• To FACILITATE crime AND Afford IMPUNITY – Both will be aggravating.
BAND [Art. 14.6, RPC]
GR: Generic Aggravating
EXC: Special Aggravating if Robbery by means of violence/intimidation.
Elements of Band:
(1) At least 4 malefactors
(2) At least 4 are armed
(3) At least 4 took part or acted together as principals by direct participation
Armed – ANY WEAPON, which by its intrinsic nature or the purpose for which is it used, is capable of inflicting serious
or fatal injuries upon the victim may be considered as arms [People v. Lozano (2003)]
Four Armed Men – Where the accused are FIVE MEN, but only one of the is armed, there is NO BAND [Campanilla]
Principal Participation – Where on of the 4 armed men acted as principal by inducement, NO BAND [id. Lozano]
QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Qualifying Circumstance – It is an aggravating circumstance which qualifies the crime and is an element thereof.
Changes the name and nature of the crime and causes the imposition of a penalty graver than the crime being
qualified. Not subject to offset by ordinary mitigating circumstances.
AID OF ARMED MEN – Can be ORDINARY or QUALIFYING. [Art. 14.8, 248, RPC]
(1) Armed men are accomplices who take part in minor capacity, directly or indirectly.
(2) Accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them during commission.
Must NOT be Principals – The men must act as mere accomplices. They must not be acting in the commission under
the same purpose as the principal accused. Otherwise, they are co-conspirators. [People v. Enoja (2014)]
Principal NEED NOT be armed – The term “aid of armed men” presupposes that the principal is seeking aid and that
armed men are giving material aid as accomplices. [People v. Lozano]
AID OF PERSONS WHO INSURE OR AFFORD IMPUNITY – Ordinary or Qualifying (Murder)
• Aid is not acquired to facilitate crime, but to insure or afford IMPUNITY
• Purposely sought persons to secure him against detection and impunity
• NOT REQUIRED for such persons to be armed
DISGUISE – Art. 14.14, RPC
Ordinary Aggravating – To insure impunity by hiding identity. However, if despite of the mask the identity is
recognized, it will NOT be appreciated as aggravating, as the fact that such identity is recognizable negates the
existence of intent to hide identity to afford impunity [People v. Pingol (1970)]
• ALSO – To facilitate the commission of the crime i.e. disguise as soldier to gain entrance to rape.
Qualifying Aggravating – Used disguise to afford impunity in the crime of murder
CALAMITY or MISFORTUNE – Ordinary or Qualifying (Murder)
That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic, or other calamity
or misfortune. [Article 248)
How Aggravating – The offender must take advantage of the condition brought about by a calamity or misfortune to
facilitate the commission of the crime or to insure impunity [U.S. v. Rodriguez (1911)]
• Engine trouble at sea, Mutiny or coup d’etat, does not come within the phrase other calamity or misfortune
as used in the provision. It must be similar to conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic, such as the
chaotic conditions resulting from war or liberation of the PHP [People v. Lao Wan Sing]
CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 15
USING ARTIFICE INVOLVING GREAT WASTE AND RUIN – Ordinary and Qualifying (Murder) [Art. 14.12, RPC]
“That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel, or intentional
damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin”
Great Waste and Ruin – If the means to commit crime or kill a person are expressly mentioned, it does NOT have to
involve great waste and ruin for it to be aggravating/qualifying. If NOT mentioned, then it must be of great waste and
ruin to be aggravating or qualifying (for murder).
By Means of Fire – If accused burned the building to kill an occupant, the crime committed is murder (by fire).
• When fire engulfed several buildings, and the accused took advantage of the situation by burning his house
to claim insurance, the crime is ARSON with aggravating circumstance of calamity or misfortune. Arson
hereby absorbs the means of fire, but NOT the circumstance of calamity caused by fire.
By Means of Explosives – When the killing is perpetrated with treachery and by means of explosives, the latter shall
be considered as QUALIFYING. The use of explosives is the principal mode of attack, hence treachery shall only be a
generic aggravating circumstance [People v. Barde (2010)]
TREACHERY – The offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in
the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended party might make [Art. 14, RPC]
Ordinary aggravating for other crimes (against person)
Qualifying Aggravating for MURDER
Limited to Crimes Against PERSONS – Treachery can only be appreciated in crimes against persons. However,
treachery can apply to Robbery with Homicide, even though it is classified as crime against property. The law looks at
the constituent crime of homicide, not at robbery [People v. Escote (2003)]
Requisites for Treachery –
(1) Employment of means of execution giving the person attacked no opportunity to defend / retaliate
(2) Means were deliberately and consciously adopted
Examples:
• Took advantage of defenseless condition of victim
• Killing a child of tender age. Due to their tender years, they cannot be expected to put a defense. When an
adult person illegally attacks a child, treachery exists. [People v. Fallorina (2004)]
• Victim was asleep at the time of assault [People v. Clarino (2001)]
Continuous and Non-Continuous Attacks
Continuous – If there is neither break in the continuity of the aggression nor intervention of any factor, which
materially changes the conditions of the aggression with no appreciable time intervening between the first attack and
the final fatal attack [People v. Quiban (1984)]
• If CONTINUOUS – The fatal wound was inflicted in the final stage thereof, treachery to be appreciated must
be present at the beginning of the attack and not at the final stage [Castillo v. Torrempo (1923)]
• If NOT CONTINUOUS – The fatal wound was inflicted in the final stage, treachery shall be appreciated at
the final stage and not the begging. [People v. Geneblazo (2001)]
U.S. v. Baluyot (1919) – Non-continuous example
Accused inflicting gunshots which were non-fatal. Victim was able to get away and hide in a closet which the accused
could not open. Accused judged the position of the head of deceased from the cries emitted and shot in a certain
direction, hitting the person’s head and killing him. Final attack = TREACHERY because the getting into the closet meant
that the crime was not continuous.
Treachery and Nighttime – Treachery is based on the defenseless position of the victim, while nighttime is purposely
sought to afford impunity. if accused purposely sought nighttime or took advantage thereof to make the attack
unexpected so as to render the victim defenseless, treachery absorbs nighttime [People v. Ong (1981)]
EMPLOYMENT OF MEANS TO WEAKEN THE DEFENSE (Ordinary or Qualifying for Murder)
If to WEAKEN Defense – This circumstance applies
If to RENDER DEFENSELESS – Treachery applies and absorbs this circumstance. [People v. Ducusin]
ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH – Ordinary or Qualifying (Murder)
When Applied – Exists where there is inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, considering that a
situation of a superiority of strength is advantageous for the aggressor and is selected or taken advantage of by him
in the commission of the crime [People v. Garchitoerna (2009)]
Cooperated Together to Weaken Defense – Where 2 or more persons participated in the offense, it must appear
that the accused cooperated together in some way designed to weaken the defense to appreciate abuse of superior
strength. It shall not be appreciated where the others participated as accomplices, hence, the crime must be
committed by them in the character of principals. [People v. Cortes (1930)]
Abuse of Strength v. Treachery – The victim SHOULD NOT be completely defenseless, or else it shall be TREACHERY.
When the circumstance concurs with treachery, treachery qualifies the crime and absorbs abuse of strength. [Id.]
Abuse of Strength in Rape (inapplicable) – If the offender used his physical strength to overpower the victim to
consummate the crime of rape, the circumstance of abuse of strength shall not be appreciated. Such circumstance is
INHERENT under normal conditions in rape, as a man is generally stronger than a woman [People v. De Leon, 1999)
CONSIDERATION OF PRICE, REWARD, OR PROMISE – Ordinary or Qualifying (Murder)
When Not Appreciated – If there was no offer prior to the killing and the money was given voluntarily by accused
after the crime had been committed as an expression of his appreciation of their sympathy and aid [US v. Flores (1914)]
• If the accused already decided on the commission, and the promised reward was an additional incentive,
the circumstance will not be appreciated.
• The reward must be the primary consideration in committing the felony [People v. Paredes (1968)]
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION – Ordinary or Qualifying (Murder)
Requisites for Evident Premeditation – The following must concur
(1) The time when offender determined to commit the crime
(2) An act manifestly indicating his intent to commit it
(3) Sufficient interval between determination and execution
• The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution must be preceded by cool thought and
reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at
a calm judgment [People v. Alinao (2013)]
EVIDENT – It is possible that after reflecting on his sinister plan, he decided not to pursue it but resolved anew to kill
the victim, and after a short period of time he implemented his spur-of-the-moment decision. Hence, the
premeditation must be clearly EVIDENT. [People v. Carandang (2011)]
Object of Premeditation – The victim must be the object of the premeditation, unless the accused premeditated to
kill the first 2 people he saw, or anyone (US v. Binayoh (1916)]
• Error in Personae – Premeditation NOT applied because the victim killed was not the one intended.
• Abberratio Ictus – Premeditation not appreciated for the unintended 3 rd person who was hit by mistake
of blow because the accused did not intend to hurt such person [People v. Mabug-at (1926)]
• Praeter Intenionem – Premeditation APPLIES as there is only one victim and he intended such victim to
be harmed, although the harm done was greater than intended. [People v. Enriquez (1933)]
Conspiracy v. Premeditation – There is NO “sufficient interval” in conspiracy required, as the mere concurrence in
the agreement to commit the crime already gives rise to conspiracy. Proof of premeditation can imply conspiracy, but
not vice versa. (People v. Peralta (1968)]
When INHERENT – Robbery, estafa, theft, treason. NOT inherent in Robbery with Homicide (incidental)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 16
IGNOMINY [Art. 14.17, RPC] – BREAKING DOOR OR WINDOW – A wall, roof, door, or window be broken is an ordinary aggravating circumstance or
That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act. a qualifying circumstance in robbery by using force upon a thing [Campanilla]
• Dwelling – NOT an ingredient of unlawful entry and breaking of wall, roof, floor, door, or window.
• Entry – Required that accused entered the building and committed the crime therein.
When Applied – Deliberately perpetrated to augment the moral suffering of the victim. If principal purpose was to • Breaking Window – NOT REQUIRED that accused entered. Enough that it was done to commit crime.
take revenge, hence rape the child, then ignominy is NOT applied. [People v. Diaz (1999)]
• Trespassing – Disregard of dwelling, unlawful entry or breaking window shall not be appreciated for being
inherent.
Ignominy in Rape
o Homicide or Rape AND Trespass = Absorbs trespass. Will still apply dwelling and forcible entry
GR: INEHRENT in the crime of rape, as it is naturally humiliating to the woman.
EXC: The humiliating condition was augmented because of the unnatural way of raping the victim (i.e. dog style,
NO ANALAGOUS AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
pregnant, or other acts unnecessary in rape) [People v. Saylan, People v. Lozano, People v. Torrefiel]
Unlike in Article 13 of the RPC, the aggravating circumstances under Article 14 are EXCLUSIVE and no analogous
circumstances may be considered. Hence, the remedy lies with legislature [People v. Sultan]
Qualifying Circumstances in Rape [R.A. 8353] The following shall QUALIFY the crime of rape:
(1) Committed by 2 or more men
(2) In full view of the spouse, parent, any of the children, or MULTIPLE OFFENSES
(3) In full view of other relatives within the 3rd degree of consanguinity
HABITUAL
RECIDIVISM QUASI-RECIDIVISM REITERACION
CRUELTY – Art. 248 DELINQUENCY
Within a period of 10 yrs.
Previously punished for
When CRUELTY Applied – Must prove that in inflicting several stab wounds on the victim, the perpetrator intended At the time of his trial for Commits a felony after from date of his release or
offense w/c law attaches
one crime, previously conviction by F.J, before conviction of SPI, Theft,
to exacerbate the pain and suffering of the victim. [Simangan v. People (2004)] Definition
convicted for another in serving such sentence or
an equal or greater
Robbery, estafa, or FoD,
penalty, or for 2 or more
the same title of RPC. while serving the same. found guilty of same a 3rd
w/ lighter penalties
• Prolonging the Suffering – Cruelty is perpetrated by the accused to prolong the physical suffering of the time or oftener.
victim. Similar to ignominy, cruelty shall NOT be appreciated if he continued hacking the accused who was Penalty for Crime1 equal Previous, subsequent, &
already dead or totally unconscious and could no longer feel additional pain [People v. Curaraton (1993)] Crimes Both crimes embraced in Nature of both crimes are to or greater than Crime2 present crimes must be
Committed same title of RPC. immaterial. OR Crime1&2 lighter than SPI, theft, robbery, estafa
• Number of Wounds – The number of wounds does NOT per se give rise to cruelty; the test is whether present crime. or falsification of docu.
accused deliberately and sadistically augmented suffering and proof of intent to agonize is required. Convicted of 2nd crime
within 10 years after
Tried for present crime Committed present crime Committing present crime
Cruelty v. Ignominy – Period conviction/release of first
when convicted for before/during service of after serving sentence for
of Time THEN convicted for 3rd
previous crime by F.J. sentence of previous one previous crime
crime w/n 10 years after
• Commission of the Crime: 2nd conviction/release
o CRUELTY – If the acts were necessary for commission, NO CRUELTY Number of 2 crimes
o IGNOMINY – Still appreciated even if necessary, i.e. Rape thru dog-style Crimes At least 2 crimes At least 2 crimes 3 crimes if 2 previous are 3 crimes
Committed lighter than present
• Suffering Involved
Effects in Extraordinary/Special
o CRUELTY – Physical suffering Relation to Ordinary aggravating Special Aggravating Ordinary aggravating Aggravating, which will
o IGNOMINY – Moral suffering Penalty add penalty.

Cruelty v. Treachery – In cruelty, intention is to prolong the suffering + act not necessary for committing crime. In
treachery, the treacherous act is necessary + to render victim defenseless.
ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE AND OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS – Ordinary or Qualifying (THEFT)
Abuse of Confidence – Taking advantage of the confidence reposed by the victim on the offender to facilitate crime.
Obvious Ungratefulness – Commission of crime instead of being grateful to the generosities given by the victim to
the offender. [People v. Zea (1984)]
When Both are Intertwined – Accused was a houseboy who enjoyed the trust and confidence of the Ramos family,
was allowed to sleep in the sala and stay alone in the house when the family was away. He was treated like a member
of the family and was completely trusted. His act of theft contains both abuse of confidence and obvious
ungratefulness which are treated as on [People v. Verdad (1983)]
RECIDIVISM – The phrase “at the time of his trial for an offense” includes everything that is done in the course of the
trial, from arraignment until after sentence is announced. BUT recidivism can still be appreciated even if before his
trial for present crime, he was convicted by final judgment of his previous crime [People v. Bernal (1936)]
REITERACION
• Previously Punished – Accused has already served out the sentence for his previous crime
• Previous and Present Crime –
o If only ONE prior offense, must be punishable by penalty equal or greater than that for the
present crime.
o If MORE than one prior crime, reiteracion is present even if previous crimes are punishable by
a lesser penalty than present crime.
o What is controlling is the penalty PRESCRIBED by law, not the one actually imposed.

UNLAWFUL ENTRY – Ordinary or Qualifying (Robbery with force upon a thing) [Art. 14.18, RPC] • Recidivism v. Reiteracion – If crimes are in the same title, apply Recidivism. Reiteracion only applies when
There is an unlawful entry when an entrance of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken. the 2 crimes belong to different titles. [People v. Real (1995)]

QUASI-RECIDIVISM – Cannot be offset by ordinary mitigating circumstances.

If accused entered the house through a window, which is not intended for entrance, unlawful entry is aggravating in
any crime (such as homicide or murder) committed inside the house [Campanilla] Can be RPC or SPL – QR will be appreciated regardless of whether the previous crime falls under the RPC or SPL. But
the present crime must be a FELONY punishable under RPC or SPL which adopts the technical nomenclature of RPC.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 17
Must be After Finality of Judgment – Where accused commits the 2nd crime while the judgment of conviction for the (4) Informant / witness has not been previously convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, EXCEPT when
1st crime is on appeal, quasi-recidivism cannot be considered as he did not commit the crime. [Campanilla] there is no other direct evidence available for the State other than his testimony
(5) Informant shall comply with any undertaking reduced into writing and lawfully imposed by State.
Before Serving Sentence – One who committed a crime while on probation is a QUASI-RECIDIVIST because if on (6) Accused does NOT appear to be the most guilty.
probation, the judgment is FINAL but the service of the same is merely suspended. Hence, he is considered to have (7) No direct evidence available other than his testimony
committed the same before serving sentence [People v. Salazar] → Also applies for those in parole
Non-Application of RPC Provisions – The provisions of the RPC shall NOT apply to the provisions of this Act, except
While Serving Sentence – There is quasi recidivism: in the case of MINOR OFFENDERS. Hence, penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. RA 9165 has not adopted the
(1) Where the convicted prisoner killed the victim inside New Bilibid Prison technical nomenclature of the RPC.
(2) Where convicted prisoner escaped form penal colony and then committed robbery with homicide
CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012
HABITUAL DELINQUENCY – It is NOT a crime in itself; it is only a factor in determining the total penalty.

(a) Serious and Less Serious Physical Injuries – Frustrated homicide, homicide or slight PI is not within the Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance – Use of Information and Communication Technologies in committing felony.
contemplation of the words “serious or less serious physical injuries” One degree higher than law, but requires that graduation of penalties in RPC apply (adopted technical nomenclature)

(b) Robbery – Can include Robbery with Homicide / SPI. Considered as one conviction.

(c) Stages – HD is applicable to crimes mentioned in the law regardless of the stage of execution. Hence, even
if he is convicted only for attempted and frustrated stages, still a habitual delinquent [People v. Abuyen]

(d) Accomplice and Accessories – The participation of accomplices and accessories in the listed crimes
reveals persistence and inclination to wrongdoing, hence HD also applies [People v. San Juan]

(e) Recidivism and Habitual Delinquency – When both concur, (i.e. conviction for robbery and previous
convictions for theft 3 times): [People v. Tolentino (1942)]
a. Recidivism will apply the penalty for theft in its maximum period. WILL NOT aggravate the
additional penalty for HD because recidivism is inherent in HD. 0
b. HD will impose an additional penalty to the principal penalty of theft

SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

LAWS ON ILLEGAL / UNLAWFUL POSSESSION, MANUFACTURE, DEALING IN, ACQUISITION OR DISPOSITION OF

FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES (R.A. 8294 and R.A. 10591)

When Separate and Distinct Crime – Possession of Loose Firearm is separate crime if a crime is committed without
using the loose firearm.

When Loose Firearm Used in Crime

(1) ABSORPTION – In rebellion or coup d’etat
(2) SPECIAL AGGRAVATING – Prosecuted for graver crime if used in such crime, with the penalty in its
maximum period.
(3) QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING – When loose firearm used in committing a crime with lesser penalty,
prosecuted for lesser but with penalty of Illegal Possession or Use of Loose Firearm.
(4) EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE – If used in crime with penalty the maximum of which is equal to illegal
possession, prosecuted for former crime + prison mayor in its minimum period.

EXPLOSIVES – The use of explosives in committing crime, which results in the death of a person, is an AGGRAVATING
circumstance. Use of explosive can aggravating criminal liability for murder or homicide. (People v. Comadre)

COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002 (R.A. 9165)

Qualifying Aggravating – Any person with a positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs, maximum penalty of
crime charged will be imposed. (More of a special aggravating rather than qualifying)

Immunity from Prosecution and Punishment Coverage – Any person who has committed the crimes under the law
BUT is willing to give information about illegal trafficking or pushing of dangerous drugs, and willingly testifies against
such persons shall be EXEMPTED from prosecution under the following circumstances:
(1) Information and testimony are necessary for conviction of persons described
(2) Information and testimony not yet in possession of the State
(3) Information can be corroborated on material points
CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 18
 e. Alternative Circumstances
INTOXICATION
Article 15. Their concept. - Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as
aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its WHEN MITIGATING – Not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the crime and that he took such quantity as
commission. They are the relationship, intoxication and the degree of instruction and education of the offender. would blur his reason [People v. Fonntillas (2010)]

The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration when the offended party in the spouse, WHEN AGGRAVATING – Habitual or intentional which fortified the accused’s resolve to commit the crime.
ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degrees of
the offender. LACK OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION

The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstances when the offender has WHEN MITIGATING – It is the lack of sufficient intelligence and knowledge to fully realize the consequence of
committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit said his criminal act are necessary to invoke the benefit of mitigating circumstance [People v. Gorospe (1959)]
felony but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
• Illiteracy alone is INSUFFICIENT to consider as mitigating. Must be established that illiteracy was coupled
Alternative Circumstances under the RPC: with such a low degree of intelligence that the malefactor did NOT fully realize the consequences of his
(1) Relationship criminal act [People v. Agustin (1966)]
(2) Intoxication
(3) Lack of instruction • NOT MITIGATING in crimes which are inherently immoral in nature i.e. homicide, robbery [Campanilla]

RELATIONSHIP WHEN AGGRAVATING – To aggravating liability for Instruction and Education:

Relatives Involved (Vindication, Exemption of Accessories, Alternative defense of Relationship, Defense of Relative)
(1) Spouse
(2) Ascendants
(3) Descendants
(4) Legitimate, Natural, or adopted siblings
(5) Relatives by affinity in the same degree
(6) Relatives within 4th civil degree of consanguinity (ONLY FOR DEFENSE OF RELATIVE)
Relative by Affinity within Same Degree; Meaning – These are relatives by marriage, hence referring to the
offender’s spouse, ascendant, descendant, siblings (or in-laws, stepparents and step siblings)
Common-Law-Relationship –
GR: Article 15 DOES NOT include common-law spouses, as there is no blood nor legal relationship between them.
EXCEPTIONS:
(a) Exempting Circumstance – Theft, Swindling, and Malicious Mischief
(b) Qualifying Circumstance – Mother of minor victim AND rapist
Adoptive Relationship – [Sec. 17, RA 8552]
The adoptee shall be considered LEIGTIMATE for all intents and purposes. Hence, the adoptee and adopter are
considered relatives for civil and criminal purposes and appreciated as an alternative circumstance. BUT this is limited
to the adopter and does not extend to other relatives unless provided by law [Teotico v. Del Val Chan}
CRIME AGAINST PERSON –
• Mitigating – If (1) less grave or light felony AND (2) relative of lower level
• Aggravating – (1) Grave felony OR (2) Relative of higher or equal level. No concurrence required.
• Qualifying – Parricide, SPI, Less Serious physical injuries
(1) Offender possesses a high degree of instruction and education
(2) Offender took advantage of such high degree of education in committing the crime
INHERENT AND PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
INHERENT CIRCUMSTANCES – Aggravating circumstances which
(a) in themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by law or
(b) which are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefore or
(c) which are inherent in the crime to such a degree that it must necessarily accompany the commission
PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES – It arises form the moral attribute of the offender, from his private relations with the
offended party, or from any other personal reason. It can only be appreciated against the offender to whom such
circumstance is attendant.
• I.e. Relationship as qualifying in parricide can only be appreciated against the wife, and not against his co-
conspirator who is not the relative of the victim [People v. Bucsit (1922)]
• Abuse of confidence in theft can only be appreciated against the servant to whom the complainant reposed
confidence, but not to his neighbor [People v. Puno (1993)]
NON-PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES – Consists in the material execution of the act or in the means employed to
accomplished it. Appreciated against:
(a) Person whose circumstance is attendant
(b) Person who had knowledge of the same at the time of execution.
• Treachery shall be appreciated against all those accused who had knowledge of the treachery

CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY –

• Exempting – Theft, swindling, or malicious mischief (must be living with victim)

• Mitigating – Other crimes against property not under Art. 332

CRIME AGAINST CHASTITY – AGGRAVATING always!

Other Concept of Relationship – The circumstance of ascendancy/relationship is special aggravating in:

(1) Child prostitution – 2nd degree C or A
(2) Sexual Abuse – 2nd degree C or A
(3) Child Pornography – 3rd degree C or A
(4) Child Trafficking – QUALIFIED Trafficking if spouse, ascendant, parent, sibling, or guardian

CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 19

 f. Absolutory Causes
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES – Where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is
no penalty imposed [People v. Talisic (1997)]
(1) Spontaneous desistance in attempted felony
(2) Relationship in crime committed by an accessory in:
a. Theft
b. Malicious mischief
c. Swindling
(3) Exceptional circumstance of having caught a spouse in the act of infidelity (death or PI)
(4) Marriage in Crime against Chastity and Rape or Forgiveness in Marital Rape
(5) Instigation
RELATIONSHIP IN CRIME AGAINST PROPERTY
No criminal (but only civil) liability shall result from the commission of the crime of THEFT, SWINDLING, OR
MALICIOUS MISCHIEF committed or caused mutually by the following:
(1) Spouses, ascendants, descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same degree
(2) Widowed spouse with respect to property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the same shall
have passed to another
(3) Brothers and sisters and step-siblings if living together
Personal Circumstance – In a robbery committed by the son of the victim and a stranger, only the son is exempt
from criminal liability. Circumstance of RELATIONSHP is personal to accused where such is attendant [Campanilla]
Spouses Include Common-Law – The term spouse embraces common law relation for purposes of exemption from
criminal liability in cases of theft, swindling, and malicious mischief committed mutually by spouses. BUT the
properties involved shall only be those owned in common (co-ownership) under the Family Code. [Campanilla]
Step-Relationship – A stepfather, who is an ascendant by affinity falls within the contemplation of the phrase relatives
by affinity in the same degree under Article 332 [Intestate Estate of Gonzales v. People]
Effect of Spouse’s Death on In-Laws – The principle of pro reo calls for the adoption of the continuing affinity even
after the death of the deceased spouse [Intestate Estate of Gonzales v. People]
Brother and Sister – Siblings (as well as in-law siblings) are exempt from criminal liability for swindling, theft, and
malicious mischief provided they are living with the complainants. [Campanilla]
DEATH or PHYSICAL INJURIES UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
If an accused is prosecuted for parricide, murder, or homicide, and he was able to establish that the killing constitutes
DUEC, the court will sentence him to destierro instead of imposing the original penalty [Art. 247 RPC]
Requisites for Death or PH under Exceptional Circumstances
(1) Legally married person or parent surprises the following having sex with another:
a. Spouse
b. Daughter under 18 years living within him
(2) He / She kills any or both of them or inflicts serious physical injury in the act or immediately thereafter
(3) Has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or that he has not consented to
the infidelity of the other spouse [People v. Puedan]
Legitimate Spouse ONLY – The marriage between the accused and the cheating spouse must be LEGAL. But an
offender who catches his mistress in the act and kills both of them is entitled to passion as mitigating [Campanilla]
Surprised in the Act of Sexual Intercourse – DEUC does NOT APPLY when accused killed the lover while the latter
was buttoning his shirt. Though it does imply that they just had sex, it will not amount to DEUC because he was not
caught in the act of sex. [People v. Gonzales (1939)]
Homosexual Intercourse EXCLUDED – The phrase “in the act of committing sexual intercourse” is interpreted within
the Spanish context of adulterio, which EXCLUDES homosexual intercourse. Mitigating circumstance of passion instead
Mistake of Fact – When accused killed his wife whom he thought was cheating on him, where in fact she was actually
being raped, accused is NOT LIABLE for parricide. It would have produced DUEC had the facts been true as to what he
believed in. Liable for DESTIERRO. [Campanilla]
• ANOTHER – X was declared presumptively dead by the court. His wife married another man. When X came
home, he surprised his wife in the act of sexual intercourse, and killed both of them. X is NOT LIABLE for
parricide. As far as X’s mind is concerned, he caught her in the act of infidelity. DUEC applies [Id]
In the Act or Immediately Thereafter – The killing must concur with her flagrant adultery. There is no DUEC where
killing of the wife occurred the day after she was caught in the commission [People v. Laota (1924)]
• Where the accused engaged in a chase with the man after catching them, DUEC APPLIES because the
discovery, the escape, the pursuit, and the killing were one continuous act [US v. Vargas]
• Accused who was chased away by the paramour, escaped, bought a gun, and thereafter on the same day
found the paramour and killed him, can avail of DUEC. It is not required that it happen instantly after, but
merely that the killing was motivated by the same blind impulse overwhelming him [People v. Abarca]
Effect of DCEU –
• Slight or Less Serious PI – Exempted
• SPI or Death – Destierro
Death Under Exceptional Circumstances is NOT A CRIME
Article 247 does not define a crime but merely provides a privilege or benefit amounting practically to an exemption
from an adequate punishment. [People v. Araquel (1959)]
• Relate to Article 4 – DUEC is NOT an intentional felony. Since Article 4 requires that the act done amounts
to a felony for accused to be liable for all its consequences, the accused CANNOT be held liable for injuries
sustained by 3rd persons who were hit by mistake of blow. Reckless imprudence [People v. Abarca (1987)]
• No Double Jeopardy – For purposes of double jeopardy, DUEC is not a crime. [People v. Araquel]
• DUEC NOT Unlawful Aggression – The paramour cannot invoke self-defense since the attack made by the
husband was not unlawful aggression. He well knew that maintaining unlawful relations with a married
woman would expose himself to vengeance by the aggressor-husband [US v. Merced]
• No Civil Liability – For purposes of DUEC, no civil liability arises from the accused. [People v. Abarca]
• No Violation of Pardon – An accused who was on conditional pardon not to commit any more crimes and
subsequently committed homicide under exceptional circumstances CANNOT be prosecuted for violation
of the conditions of his pardon under Article 159 [Campanilla]
• Violation of Destierro is EVASION of Service – Destierro is still considered a PENALTY for purposes of
Article 157 (Evasion). Hence, entering the prohibited place in violation of destierro is evasion of the service
of sentence. Hence, not entitled to benefits of ISL [People v. Abilong]
INSTIGATION AND ENTRAPMENT
INSTIGATION ENTRAPMENT
Luring the accused into a crime that he had no intention Employment of ways and means to trap or capture a
to commit in order to prosecute him. criminal (who already intended to commit a crime)
Intent originates from inducer and not from accused Intent originates from accused and authorities merely
who had no intention to commit it. facilitate his arrest and apprehension through schemes
Law enforcers act as co-principals + acquit accused. Does not bar prosecution and conviction
Entrapments are VALID – The mere fact that authorities deceived the pusher into believing that the former were
buyers of dangerous drugs does NOT exculpate the latter from liability for selling the prohibited drugs. Immediately
selling drugs when propositioned by the poseur buyer is a circumstance establishing intent to sell [People v. Manolo]
Instigation – The fact that government witnesses made the purchase of marijuana does not make them accomplices,
for their only purpose is to secure evidence to convict the violator [People v. Ramos (1991)]
CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 20
 3. Persons Liable and Degree of Participation
a. Principals, Accomplices, and Accessories
Article 16. Who are criminally liable. –
The following are criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies:
1. Principals.
2. Accomplices.
3. Accessories.
The following are criminally liable for light felonies:
1. Principals
2. Accomplices.
PRINCIPALS
PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION – Those who take direct part in the execution of the act [Art. 17, RPC]
Chief Actor – One who committed the act constituting a crime such as the person who stabbed and killed the victim.
With our without conspiracy, the chief actor is liable as principal by direct participation [People v. Tampis (2003)]
Conspirator – Performs an act in furtherance of conspiracy. Even if he acted as a mere lookout, he will be a principal
by direct participation due to the conspiracy (act of chief actor is the act of all). Hence, it is not even necessary to
determine who delivered the killing blow [People v. Dacibar (2000)]
Overt Acts in Furtherance of Conspiracy
(1) Active Participation – Holding the victim to render him immobile while his co-conspirator inflicted mortal
wounds on him [People v. Duetes (2004)]
(2) Moral Assistance – Accused was lending moral assistance by being armed with a lethal weapon and
present at the time when the latter killed the victim [People v. Esponilla (2003)]
(3) Moral Ascendancy – Accused exerted moral ascendancy over nephew by ordering him to kill a priest. BUT
he is liable not by direct participation but by INDUCEMENT. [U.S. v. Gamao (1912)]
PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT – Directly force or induce others to commit it [Art. 17, RPC]
Directly Forcing Another – Compels another either by using irresistible force or causing uncontrollable fear to
commit a crime. The chief actor will be EXEMPTED from criminal liability.
Directly Inducing Another – To be liable for inducement, the inducement must be made directly with intention of
procuring commission of the crime.
• Imprudent and ill-conceived advice is not sufficient [U.S. v. Indanan (1913)]
• Inducement must be the determining cause of the commission of the crime. It is either by command,
consideration, or any other similar act constituting the moving cause of the crime [Id.]
Consideration – A person who gave, offered, or promised to the chief actor a valuable consideration, which was the
determining cause of the commission of the crime, is liable as principal by inducement, because without such offer,
the criminal act would never have been committed.
Word of Command – To make a word of command as the determining cause of the commission of the crime, it must
be established that:
(1) Inducer by word of command must have ascendancy over chief actor
(2) Word is direct, efficacious, and so powerful to amount to physical or moral coercion
(3) Uttered prior to commission of crime
(4) Chief actor has no personal reason to commit the crime. [U.S. v. Gamao (1912)]
PRINCIPAL BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION – Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another
act without which it would not have been accomplished are principals by indispensable cooperation [Art. 17, RPC]
To be a principal, one must
(1) Participate in the criminal resolution,
(2) A conspiracy or unity in criminal purpose, and
(3) Cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing another act without which it would not have
been accomplished. [People v. Abina (1998)]
Effect of Conspiracy – If there is conspiracy, the accused who cooperated with the chief actor is liable either as
principal by direct participation or by indispensable cooperation.
Community of Design – If there is community of design, the accused who cooperated with the chief actor in the
commission by performing another act without which it would not have been accomplished is liable as principal by
indispensable cooperation.
ACCOMPLICE
Article 18. Accomplices. - Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in Article 17, cooperate in the
execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.
Elements for being an Accomplice
(1) Community of design – Knows of and concurs with criminal design of principal
(2) Performance of previous or simultaneous acts not indispensable to commission
(3) Relation between acts done by principal and alleged accomplice
Effect of Conspiracy – It is immaterial whether accused acted as principal or an accomplice. What matters is that
conspiracy was proven, and he took part in it. They shall all be held equally liable [People v. Cruz (2009)]
Community of Design – If there is community of design, accused, who cooperated with the chief actor in the
execution of the offense, is liable either as ACCOMPLICE or PRINCIPAL depending on extent of cooperation:
• In Case of Doubt – Accused shall be held an ACCOMPLICE (lesser penalty). Accomplices do not decide
whether the crime should be committed, but assent to the plan and cooperate in its accomplishment. For
as long as her participation is NOT indispensable, she is an accomplice [People v. Gambao (2013)]
• Lack of Knowledge – If accused had no knowledge of the criminal design of the chief actor, there is neither
implied conspiracy nor community of design. Hence, neither principal nor accomplice.
Community of Design and Participation – BOTH must be present
• Lending a gun for the purpose of killing a specific person is an act of an accomplice. But if the killer killed
someone else, the lender is NOT LIABLE as an accomplice. To be an accomplice, he must know and concur
with the criminal design of the principal and participates before or during its commission by supplying
moral or material aid. [Campanilla]
• If the killer used another weapon, and not the gun lent, NOT AN ACCOMPLICE. Although he knew and
concurred with the design, he did not supply the material or moral aid.
Extent of Participation – When Accomplice – Previous or simultaneous acts not indispensable to commission
• Material Aid – Supplying a flashlight in to illuminate the target victim. If it was not that dark, ACCOMPLICE.
If it was very dark and he could not have killed without the light, PRINCIPAL [People v. Madali (1990)]
• Moral Aid – Accused’s act of firing his gun towards the ground after the chief actor had ordered the victim
to stop the jeep, manifested his concurrence with the criminal intent. This supplied moral aid to the chief
actor to increase the odds against the victims.
Time of Participation – Must be previous or simultaneous acts. If subsequent, cannot be considered.
• Previous – Looked for a boat to be used for the crime, UNLESS it’s the only boat available (principal)
• Simultaneous – Held victim who had already been stabbed. If held to BE stabbed, Principal!
CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 21
 ACCESSORIES a. Treason
b. Parricide
c. Murder
Article 19. Accessories. –
d. Attempt on life of Chief Executive
Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals e. Other crime committed by habitual delinquent
or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners: f. Accessory acts with Abuse of Public Functions

1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime. Assisting is not merely refraining from reporting the crime to police, but it involves a positive act such as
enjoining a witness not to reveal the crime, or providing false information to deceive authorities. BUT a
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery.
failure to report treason is MISPRISION of TREASON [US v. Romulo (1910)]
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public
functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive,
or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.

Article 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. -

The penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single
exception of accessories falling within the provisions of par. 1 of the next preceding article.

Principal Need Not be Convicted Before Prosecution of Accessory –

It is not necessary that the principal be first declared guilty before an accessory can be made liable as such. He can be
held liable as an accessory because:
(1) The principal is at large
(2) Principal died, or
(3) Principal is unidentified, or was acquitted due to technicality

• Distinct Liabilities of Principals, Accomplices, and Accessories –

The corresponding liabilities of the principal, accomplice, and accessory are distinct from each other. As
long as the offense can be duly established, determination of liabilities of each person can proceed
independently of the principal [People v. Bayabos (2015)]

Basis of Liabilities – The liabilities of each party are based on:

(1) P by DP – Actual commission of the crime OR conspiracy

(2) P by I – Inducement and conspiracy
(3) P by IC – Conspiracy or community of design
(4) Accomplice – Community of design
(5) Accessory – Knowledge

When Liable as P or ACCOMPLICE, No Longer Liable as Accessory

• Accused was held liable as principal for killing the victim. He was not anymore held liable as an accessory
for encasing the body in cement to hide it, but it maybe considered a qualifying circumstance [Campanilla]
• Accused was liable as an accomplice for leading the deceased near the excavation which was to become
their grave. He was not anymore held liable as accessory for filling the excavation to hide [People v. Asesor]

Time of Participation – Liable as ACCESSORY or PRINCIPAL depending on existence of conspiracy

(1) With Conspiracy –

(2) With Conspiracy – Liable regardless of the time of participation.
(3) Without Conspiracy – If there is community of design and cooperates previously or simultaneously, he is
liable as an ACCOMPLICE. If there is knowledge subsequent to its commission, ACCESSORY.

Nature of Participation –

(1) Profiting – Two views, one requiring improvement in economic condition and the other not.

(2) Preventing Discovery – Destroying corpus delicti means doing something that would make it appear that
no crime was committed.

(3) Assisting Escape – The crime committed MUST BE:

CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 22

 b. Conspiracy and Proposal
Article 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. –
Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a
penalty therefor.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it.
There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person
or persons.
GR: Conspiracy applies only to Intentional Felonies, not Omissions – Conspiracy as a mode of committing a
crime for purposes of applying collective responsibility is only applicable to intentional felony.
EXC: Doctrine of Conspiracy of Silence or Inaction [Jaca v. People (2013)]
Public officers’ omissions to question irregularities indicate a common understanding and concurrence of
sentiments respecting the commission of the offense. [Sec. 3(e), RA 3019]
Conspiracy as a CRIME – Conspiracy and Proposal are punishable only where the law provides for a penalty (Art. 8)
(1) C or P for Treason
(2) C or P for Rebellion
(3) C or P for Coup d’etat
(4) C for Sedition
(5) C for Arson (Sec. 7, PD 1613)
(6) C to commit Crimes involving Trafficking of dangerous drugs
(7) C to commit Terrorism
(8) C to commit Child Pornography
(9) C to commit Money Laundering
Conspiracy as a Mode of Committing a Crime
• Not a Crime – Conspiracy is a crime only when the penalty for such is prescribed therefor. However, if the
crime is actually committed, conspiracy shall be a mode of incurring criminal liability.
• If it is a Crime – Even if the conspiracy of a certain act is a crime, but they actually committed it, they shall
be liable for the crime itself and not the crime of conspiracy.
Collective Responsibility – All of the conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the extent and character
of their respective active participation in the commission of the crime that they agreed to commit. [People v. Peralta]
• Act in Furtherance of Conspiracy – Must establish that he performed an act in furtherance of conspiracy.
A conspirator who did not perform an act in furtherance of conspiracy to kidnap shall not be liable for
conspiracy to commit kidnapping for ransom [People v. Berroya (1997)]
• Mastermind – The MASTERMIND is still liable even if he did not do an act in furtherance of conspiracy. One
who plans the commission of a crime is liable as conspirator and principal by inducement [P v. Janjalani]
Detaching from Conspiracy – To be exempted, the conspirator must have performed an overt act to disassociate or
detach himself from the conspiracy to commit the felony and prevent the commission thereof [Quintos v. People]
• Before Commission of Crime – If a conspirator dissuaded his co-conspirator form committing the crime
agreed upon, or made an effort to prevent commission, he is EXEMPT from liability.
• Commission in Progress – Must have left the scene of the crime in progress and REPORTED the incident to
be exempt. If he left the scene without reporting, he is NOT exempt because conspiracy has materialized
• After Commission – If reporting made AFTER commission, he is LIABLE. No conspiracy to be repudiated
since it has already materialized
IMPUTABILITY DOCTRINE – The act of an offender is imputable to his co-conspirator although they are not similarly
situated in relation to the object of the crime. [US v. Ponte]
• Malversation – The act of an accountable officer in committing malversation is imputable to non-
accountable officers or private individuals, though the latter are not similarly situated with the former in
relation to to the object of the crime [U.S. v. Ponte (1911)]
• Rape Through Sexual Intercourse – If there is conspiracy, the act of a man in committing a rape is
imputable to a woman although the latter was not similarly situated. [People v. Dela Torre]
• Violation of BP 22 – Since there is no prohibition on the suppletory application of RPC, conspiracy shall
apply. The act of issuing a bouncing check by the drawer is imputable to the non-issuer although the latter
was not similarly situated with the former [Ladonga v. People (2005)]
• Violence against Women – The act of violence of a man having marital relations with a woman is
imputable to a person (mother-in-law) who has no marital, sexual, or dating relationship [Go-Tan v. Go]
• Corruption – Only a public officer can be held liable for RA 3019. But if there is conspiracy, the act of the
public officer in violating such is imputable to the private individual although not similarly situated. Further,
liability for private individual is express in Sec. 9. Even if public officer dies, the private individual can still
be prosecuted for violation of 3019, as death extinguishes the criminal LIABILITY, not the crime [Henry Go
v. Sandiganbayan]
EXCEPTIONS TO IMPUTABILITY DOCTRINE
(1) Parricide – Even though there is conspiracy, the act of the wife in committing parricide is not imputable
to a stranger. Since relationship is personal to the wife, it can only be appreciated against her [Campanilla]
(2) Qualified Theft – The act of employee in committing theft qualified by abuse of confidence is not
imputable to a non-employee. The non-employee is liable for simple theft [People v. Puno]
Commission of Other Crime – Accused may or may not be held liable for crime not agreed upon committed by his
co-conspirator.
• Killing of a 3rd Person – A conspirator is liable for a crime, which they agreed to commit, and other crimes
which could be foreseen and are the natural and logical consequences of the conspiracy [People v. Ventura]
BUT – If the killing of a 3rd person is unexpected or unforeseeable, the conspirators, who had no
foreknowledge of such killing, are only liable for the crime they agreed to commit and not for the
unforeseeable killing of the 3rd person by their co-conspirator [People v. Caballero]
• Committing Homicide or Rape in Robbery by Band – Any member who is present at the commission
shall be liable as principal for any assaults committed, UNLESS it can be shown that he attempted to
prevent the same.
“Assaults” include sexual assault in rape and homicide. A member is not liable if he is not present when
the victim was killed or raped [People v. Canturia (1995)]
• Committing Homicide or Rape in Robbery – All are equally liable for the homicide, unless it can be shown
that they sought to prevent the killing/rape. If there is NO EVIDENCE that accused was UNAWARE of
commission, he could not have prevented it. Hence, only liable for robbery [Id.]
Multiple Conspiracies –
(1) Wheel/Circle Conspiracy – There is a single person or group (the “hub”) dealing individually with 2 or
more other persons or groups (the “spokes”). The rim that closes the spokes was the common goal i.e. the
intent to amass, accumulate and acquire ill-gotten wealth [GMA v. People (2016)]
(2) Chain Conspiracy – Successive communication and cooperation in the same way as legitimate business
operations between manufacturer and wholesaler i.e. distribution of drugs [Fernan v. People (2007)]
CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 23
KINDS OF CONSPIRACY
C. PENALTIES
(1) Express Conspiracy – Proven by direct evidence [Angeles v. CA (2001)]
1. Penalties that may be Imposed and Retroactivity of Penal Laws
(2) Implied Conspiracy – Proven by circumstantial evidence, and is proven through collective acts of accused
before, during, and after the commission of a felony. [People v. Agudez (2004)]
Article 21. Penalties that may be imposed. –
IMPLIED CONSPIRACY –
No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission.
Simultaneous Attacks – Simultaneity in attacking the victim is indicative of implied conspiracy. There can be no
implied conspiracy if the simultaneity was just a reflex response or spontaneous reaction. [Campanilla]
Article 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. –
Non-Arming – Accused had no guns and passively witnessed the shooting during a pre-wedding celebration without
intervening in the killing in any way or shielding the killer. Mere passive presence of the person at the scene of the Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual
crime does NOT make him a co-conspirator, as association alone does not make him a conspirator [People v. Vistido] criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws
a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.
COMMUNITY OF DESIGN – The accomplice (or principal by indispensable cooperation) knows of, and concurs with
the criminal design of the principal by direct participation. [People v. Maliao (2009)] SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF THE RPC
• GR – The Penalties of the RPC is not applicable to mala prohibita crimes or those under SPL.
Conspirators and Accomplice • EXC – When an SPL adopts the nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC, intention is to adopt the
provisions of the RPC for the imposition of its penalties.
CONSPIRATOR ACCOMPLICE o HENCE – The circumstances affecting liability will apply + graduation of penalties.
Acquire knowledge and concur with the design of o If NOT adopted, cannot use such circumstances
Agreed and decided to commit the crime. (conspiracy) conspirators after the latter reaches a decision.
(Community of Design) ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES (R.A. 9346)
The imposition of the Death Penalty is hereby PROHIBITED, hence – the following penalties shall be imposed:
Perform an act in furtherance of conspiracy such as (1) Reclusion Perpetua – If the law violated uses the nomenclature of the RPC.
Supplies material or moral aid in an efficacious way.
providing active participation or moral assistance (2) Life Imprisonment – If the law does not use the nomenclature of the RPC
Participation is previous/simultaneous to commission
Nature & Time of participation immaterial • NOTE – Persons convicted of an offense punished with RP, or whose sentence will be reduced to RP from
but is NOT indispensable to the commission.
death penalty shall not be eligible for parole under the ISL [Sec. 3]
• Concurrence after Conspirators Decided to Commit a Crime – Accomplices come to know about the
crime only after the principals have reached the decision, and only then do they agree to cooperate in its 2. Classification
execution. Accused knew that the chief actor intended to kill the victim, but did not participate in the same
and acted merely as a lookout [People v. De Vera (1999)] PRINCIPAL PENALTIES ACCESSORY PENALTIES
Capital
• Concurrence While Crime in Progress – If a person acquires knowledge of or concurs with the criminal Death
Punishment
design of the chief actor while the crime is in progress, there is NO CONSPIRACY. There is merely Perpetual or Temporary Absolute DQ
community of design and not conspiracy. [People v. Castro (2002)] Reclusion Perpetua
Reclusion Temporal Perpetual or Temporary Special DQ
Afflictive
• Non-Concurrence – Accused held the victim to insure immobility. When the chief actor stabbed the victim, Perpetual/Temporary Absolute DQ
Penalties
the accused were stunned, released their hold on to the victim, and retreated/desisted form joining the Perpetual/Temporary Special DQ Suspension form Public office, the right to vote and be
chief actor who pursued to attack the victim. There is neither conspiracy nor community [People v. Abina] Prison Mayor voted for, the profession or calling
Prison Correcional Civil Interdiction
Correctional Arresto Mayor
Penalties Suspension Indemnification
Destierro
Light Arresto Menor Forfeiture or Confiscation of instruments and
Penalties Public Censure proceeds of the offense

Penalties Payment of Costs

Fine
Common to
Bond to keep the peace
Above

COMPLEX PENALTY – Prescribed by law for a crime, which is composed of 3 distinct penalties, each of which shall
form a period (minimum, medium, maximum).

FINES – Classified Below:

XXXXXXXX (1) Afflictive – Exceeds 1,200,000
(2) Correctional – Does not exceed 1.2 M but not less than 40,000
(3) Light – Less than 40,000
CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 24
 3. Duration and Effects Immediate Release – If period of preventive imprisonment is equal to imposable maximum imprisonment, detention
prisoner shall be RELEAASED immediately without prejudice to the continuation of the case (includes GCTA). If
a. Duration of Penalties destierro, shall be released after 30 days of imprisonment. [Article 29, RPC]

NO ENTITLEMENT to immediate release if:

PENALTIES DURATION (1) Recidivist
Reclusion Perpetua 20 years, 1 day – 40 years (2) Habitual Delinquent
(3) Escapee
Reclusion Temporal 12 years, 1 day – 20 years (4) Person charged with heinous crimes
Prison Mayor 6 years, 1 day – 12 years Good Conduct Time Allowance – The following shall be entitled to GCTA:
Prision Correcional 6 months, 1 day – 6 years
(1) Detention prisoner qualified for credit for preventive imprisonment for his good conduct and behavior
Arresto Mayor 1 month, 1 day – 6 months (2) Final judgment prisoner in any institution, rehab, or detention center or other local jail for GC and B

Arresto Menor 1 day to 30 days Good Conduct Time Allowances are as follows:
(1) First 2 Years – 20 days for each month of good behavior
GR: The minimum, medium, maximum periods of each penalty is only 1/3 of the respective penalty (2) 3rd to 5th Year – 23 days for each month of good behavior
EXC: Arresto Mayor (Minimum) – 1 month, 1 day – 2 months (3) 6th to 10th Year – 25 days for each month of good behavior
(4) 11th year and onwards – 30 days for each month of good behavior
Indivisibility of Reclusion Perpetua – Although the law fixed the duration of RP, there was no clear legislative intent
to alter its classification as INDIVISIBLE, hence it remains as such [People v. Lucas, 1995] Effect of Appeal – An appeal by accused shall NOT DEPRIVE him of entitlement to the GCTA

Reclusion Perpetua
Prescribed by RPC or SPL
Duration of 20 + 1d – 40 years OR 30 years
if preventive imprisonment occurred
Carries accessory penalties
Life Imprisonment Time Allowance for Study, Teaching, and Mentoring (TASTM) – Reward for having earned post-graduate degree or
college degree, completion of vocational skill, HS diploma, etc. equal to 15 days deduction for every month of study
Only by SPL or mentoring services (to fellow prisoners).
Special Time Allowance for Loyalty (STAL) – If detention or convict escapes during calamity + surrenders within 48
No duration (duh)
hours from the time the President announces the passing away of such…
No accessory penalties
• Entitled to 1/5 special time allowance for loyalty

Article 28. Computation of penalties. – • IF NO SURRENDER, liable for Evasion of Sentence (Art. 158, RPC) → + 1/5 penalty of remaining, not
exceeding 6 months
If the offender shall be in prison, the term of the duration of the temporary penalties shall be computed from the
day on which the judgment of conviction shall have become final. • If DETENTION prisoner did not surrender, he is NOT liable for evasion of service because only convicts are
liable for Evasion of Service of Sentence.
If the offender be not in prison, the term of the duration of the penalty consisting of deprivation of liberty shall be
computed from the day that the offender is placed at the disposal of the judicial authorities for the enforcement of • If he STAYS, entitled to 2/5 STAL (Amended the old rule where they were not entitled to anything)
the penalty. The duration of the other penalties shall be computed only from the day on which the defendant
commences to serve his sentence. b. Effects of Penalties

Absolute Disqualification shall deprive accused for the following:

PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT – There is PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT when a person’s detention is: (1) Public Offices and Employment (including elective position)
(a) By Warrant of Arrest, Bench Warrant, or Warrantless Arrest, AND (2) Right to Vote or be Elected
(b) He was NOT able to post bale due to financial incapacity OR is non-bailable (3) Disqualification for offices or public employments or exercise of rights mentioned
(4) Loss of Rights to Retirement pay or other pension formerly held
Credit of Preventive Imprisonment – Credit either FULL or 4/5 of the term (if not disqualified)
• Full Credit – If he executed a Detainee’s Manifestation stating his willingness to abide by the same rules Special Disqualification shall deprive accused of the following:
imposed as a convicted prisoner + with counsel
• 4/5 Credit – If he executed a Detainee’s Waiver stating refusal to abide by the same disciplinary rules. (1) Deprivation of office, employment, profession, or calling affected AND
• No Credit – If accused is (2) DQ for holding similar offices or employments
o Recidivist – OR
o Previously convicted twice or more times of any crime (3) DQ of Right to Vote or be elected AND
o Reiterator, Quasi-Recidivist, and Habitual Delinquent (4) Not permitted to hold public office during the period
o Failed to voluntarily surrender upon summons for execution of sentence
Plebiscite NOT INCLUDED – The right to vote in a plebiscite is not one of popular election. Hence, despite the penalty
Credit for Reclusion Perpetua – Deducted to 30 years of special DQ, a convict can still exercise his right to vote in a plebiscite [Campanilla]

Credit for Destierro – Considered as a penalty involving deprivation of liberty, hence should be credited with the itme Suspension – Suspension from public office, profession, or calling, and the right of suffrage shall disqualify the
during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment [People v. Bastasa, 1979] offender from holding such office or exercising such right during the term of sentence.

CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 25

Civil Interdiction – Deprives offender of the following during service of sentence: 4. Application
(1) Parental Authority or Guardianship (person or property of any ward)
(2) Marital Authority a. Revised Penal Code Provisions
(3) Right to Manage Property and to dispose of such through any conveyance [Art. 34, RPC]

When Civil Interdiction Imposed: Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. –
(1) Death Penalty In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or
(2) Reclusion Perpetua aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.
(3) Reclusion Temporal
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the
application thereof:
Article 35. Bond –
1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied.
It shall be the duty of any person sentenced to give bond to keep the peace, to present two sufficient sureties who
shall undertake that such person will not commit the offense sought to be prevented, and that in case such offense 2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall
be committed they will pay the amount determined by the court in the judgment, or otherwise to deposit such amount be applied.
in the office of the clerk of the court to guarantee said undertaking.
3. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser
penalty shall be applied.
The court shall determine, according to its discretion, the period of duration of the bond.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the act, the court shall reasonably allow them to
Should the person sentenced fail to give the bond as required he shall be detained for a period which shall in no case offset one another in consideration of their number and importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with
exceed six months, is he shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall not exceed thirty days, the preceding rules, according to the result of such compensation.
if for a light felony.
Special Mitigating NOT APPLICABLE to Indivisible Penalties – The imposition of a SMC is found in Article 64. There
is no provision for such in Article 63 on Indivisible Penalties. Thus, RP cannot be lowered by one degree no matter
Article 36. Pardon; its effect. – how many mitigating circumstances or special ones are present [People v. De Los Santos, 1950]
A pardon shall not work the restoration of the right to hold public office, or the right of suffrage, unless such rights be Non-Eligibility for Parole – Persons convicted of RP, or those reduced to RP, are NOT eligible for Parole. In cases
expressly restored by the terms of the pardon. where DP is imposable but reduced to RP, the phrase without eligibility shall be used to qualify to emphasize that the
accused should have been sentenced to DP had it not been for RA 9346 [AM 15-08-02-SC, Aug. 4, 2015]
A pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the
sentence.
Article 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. –

REMEMBER – Mere pardon will not restore political rights, unless expressly stated [Risos-Vidal v. Lim]
Article 37. Cost; What are included. –
Costs shall include fees and indemnities in the course of the judicial proceedings, whether they be fixed or unalterable
amounts previously determined by law or regulations in force, or amounts not subject to schedule.
In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of three
different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the court shal l observe for
the application of the penalty the following rules, according to whether there are or are not mitigating or aggravating circumstances:
1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its medium period.
2. When only a mitigating circumstances is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its minimum period.

3. When an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its maximum period.
Article 38. Pecuniary liabilities; Order of payment. – 4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall reasonably offset those of one class against the other
according to their relative weight.
In case the property of the offender should not be sufficient for the payment of all his pecuniary liabilities, the same
shall be met in the following order: 5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall impose the penalty
next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable, according to the number and nature of such circumstances.
1. The reparation of the damage caused. 6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating circumstances, the courts shall not impose a greater penalty than that
prescribed by law, in its maximum period.
2. Indemnification of consequential damages.
7. Within the limits of each period, the court shall determine the extent of the penalty according to the number and nature of the
3. The fine. aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater and lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime.

4. The cost of the proceedings. Effect of Aggravating on Special Mitigating – If there are 3 mitigating circumstances and one aggravating, despite
the offset rule, the effect of the Special Mitigating is NOT APPLIED because what Article 64 requires is that there are
FORFEITURE AND CONFISCATION – no aggravating circumstances present at all. [Campanilla]

GR: Article 45, RPC – Every penalty carries with it the forefeiture of proceeds of the crime and its tools. Not Subject to Offset Rule – Only ORDINARY aggravating and mitigating circumstances are subject to the offset rule.

EXC: They’re the property of a 3rd person not liable for the offense, UNLESS they’re contraband. They shall only
be returned after rendition of the judgment, and an order of release before judgment is premature.
Sec. 20 of RA 9165 expressly prohibits the disposition, alienation, or transfer of property confiscated form
the accused during the pendency of the proceedings as they remain custodia legis [PDEA v. Brodett]
WHEN ARTICLE 64 IS INAPPLICABLE
(1) Reckless Imprudence – Court shall exercise its sound discretion without regard to the rules of Art. 64.
(2) Special Aggravating – Require application in its maximum regardless of mitigating circumstances.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 26
 b. Indeterminate Sentence Law c. Three-Fold Rule

Purpose of ISL – Determines up to when the convict must serve his sentence. Article 70. Successive service of sentence. –
• Minimum – Eligibility for parole, but is indeterminate because President may or may not grant it.
• Maximum – Release When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties
will so permit otherwise, the following rules shall be observed:
When NOT APPLICABLE – The ISL is NOT applicable in the following:
(1) The penalty the maximum of which is not more than 1 year. In the imposition of the penalties, the order of their respective severity shall be followed so that they may be executed
(2) Treason, conspiracy, proposal to commit treason, misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition, espionage, piracy successively or as nearly as may be possible, should a pardon have been granted as to the penalty or penalties first
(3) Habitual Delinquents – A recidivist is NOT excluded from ISL imposed, or should they have been served out.
(4) Escaped Confinement or evaded sentence (not in mental hospital)
(5) Violated conditional pardon terms For the purpose of applying the provisions of the next preceding paragraph the respective severity of the penalties
(6) Death penalty or life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua shall be determined in accordance with the following scale:
(7) Use of trafficked victim
(8) Non-prison sentence (i.e. Destierro) (Perlas v. People, 1989) 1. Death,
2. Reclusion perpetua,
Divisible Penalty under RPC – Shall sentence accused to indeterminate sentence the maximum of which shall be that 3. Reclusion temporal,
which could be properly imposed in view of the attending circumstances + minimum within the range of the penalty 4. Prision mayor,
next lower to that prescribed by the Code. [Sec. 1] 5. Prision correccional,
6. Arresto mayor,
• EX: Reclusion Temporal – The minimum shall be anywhere within the full range of prision mayor, while 7. Arresto menor,
the maximum shall be fixed after taking into consideration modifying circumstances within RT range. 8. Destierro,
o There are 3 mitigating and 1 aggravating. Hence, two mitigating left. 9. Perpetual absolute disqualification,
o No Special Mitigating since there is one aggravating, even if offset. 10 Temporal absolute disqualification.
o Minimum Penalty = anywhere in the full range of prision mayor 11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling, and
o Maximum Penalty = anywhere in the full range of reclusion temporal 12. Public censure.

• EX: Prision Mayor – Accused convicted of bigamy. There are 2 mitigating and 1 aggravating. Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding, the maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall not
o Offset Rule – 1 mitigating remains, which shall apply PM to its minimum period. be more than three-fold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No
o ISL Minimum = Full range of prision Correcional other penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed equals the same
o ISL Maximum = Anywhere within PM in its minimum period. maximum period.

• EX: Complex Penalty – Crime is Robbery + Quasi-recidivism (Special Aggravating). Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years.
o Penalty Prescribed = PM-Max to RT-Med (Complex Penalty)
o ISL Minimum = Anywhere within PC-Max to PM-Med, which is the penalty lower in degree In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of perpetual penalties (pena perpetua) shall be computed at thirty
o ISL Maximum = Anywhere within RT-Med. years.

ISL Application on Special Laws – If punished by SPL… (Sec. 1, Act. 4103)

• ISL Max = Not exceed max fixed by SPL
• ISL Min = Not less than minimum prescribed
• BUT – If the SPL adopts the technical nomenclature of RPC, the ISL-RPC rules APPLY
• Straight Penalty – Where the penalty is not more than 1 year, ISL will NOT apply.
MANDATORY CHARACTER OF APPLYING THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
Simultaneous Service – When the accused has to serve 2 or more penalties, he shall serve them concurrently if the
nature of such penalties will so permit. (i.e. AM and Fine, PC and PAD, or RP and CD)
Successive Service – When the culprit has to serve 2 or more penalties, and such penalties cannot be simultaneous,
he must serve the penalties successively:
(1) Where the penalties to be served are destierro and imprisonment
(2) Penalties are both imprisonment

GR: The application of the ISL is mandatory to BOTH the RPC and SPLs. The Court CANNOT sentence the accused to
suffer a straight penalty of 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal for homicide [Campanilla]
EXC: People v. Nang Kay (1951) – The RTC sentenced the accused to a penalty, whose range is 5 to 10 years, to a
straight penalty of 5 years. Fixing the penalty at the minimum limit without applying ISL is FAVORABLE to the
accused since he shall be automatically released upon service of such penalty.
When is Nang Kay Doctrine Inappcliable –
(1) RPC Conviction – Applying the ISL is MORE FAVORABLE because the minimum is lowered to one degree. IN
SPL, Nang Kay is more favorable because the minimum imposed cannot be lowered by the ISL.
THREE-FOLD RULE – In serving successive sentences, the period of imprisonment must neither be:
(1) Forty-Year Limitation Rule – Maximum period of imprisonment must not exceed 40 years
(2) Three-Fold Rule – Maximum period must not exceed 3x the length of the most severe penalty.
TFR Concerned with SERVICE, Not Imposition of Sentence – Article 70 of the RPC is to be taken into account not in
the imposition of the penalty but with the service of its sentence. Nowhere is anything mentioned about imposition.
Hence, the court cannot dismiss criminal cases on the basis that the penalties will exceed the rule. Must still render
judgment for each case and prescribe as many penalties. [Campanilla, 2013 Bar Exam]

(2) Lenient Penalty Not Deserving – ISL is inapplicable where there is no justification for lenity towards accused
since he did not voluntarily plead guilty. [Batistis v. People]

CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 27

 d. Subsidiary Imprisonment 5. Graduation of Penalties

Article 39. Subsidiary penalty. – DEGREE – Full extent of penalty prescribed by law and that of graduated penalty.

If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine mentioned in the paragraph 3 of the nest preceding article, PERIOD – 1/3 portion of a divisible penalty, which can be prescribed or imposable.
he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each eight pesos, subject to the following
rules: (rate prevailing) GRADUATING CIRCUMSTANCES NUMBER OF DEGREES

1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correccional or arresto and fine, he shall remain under confinement Stages of Frustrated Stage 1
until his fine referred to in the preceding paragraph is satisfied, but his subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed Execution Attempted Stage 2
one-third of the term of the sentence, and in no case shall it continue for more than one year, and no fraction
or part of a day shall be counted against the prisoner.
Accomplice 1
Nature of
2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six months, if Participation
Accessory 2
the culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a
light felony. Minority 1
Privileged
3. When the principal imposed is higher than prision correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed Mitigating Incomplete
upon the culprit. Circumstance Justification/Exemption 1 or 2
(except Accident)
4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed by confinement in a penal institution, but such penalty is
of fixed duration, the convict, during the period of time established in the preceding rules, shall continue to GRADUATED SCALE OF PENALTIES
suffer the same deprivations as those of which the principal penalty consists. (Article 71, RPC)
5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may have suffered by reason of his insolvency shall not relieve Death
him, from the fine in case his financial circumstances should improve.
Reclusion Perpetua

No Subsidiary Imprisonment shall be imposed for the non-payment of: Reclusion Temporal
(1) Reparation for Damage caused
(2) Indemnification of Consequential damages Prision Mayor
(3) Costs of proceedings [Ramos v. Gonong, 1976] Prision Correcional
Arresto Mayor
Not an Alternative Punishment – A convict shall suffer subsidiary imprisonment only when he has no property to
meet the fine. He cannot opt to serve subsidiary imprisonment instead of fine if he is solvent [People v. Dacuycuy] Destierro
Arresto Menor
Constitutional Bar Against Debt Inapplicable – The prohibition under the Constitution imposed on imprisonment
in lieu of payment of debt is NOT APPLICABLE, because a FINE is not in the nature of a DEBT (obligation to pay a sum Public Censure
of money arising from contract). Fine arises from penalty. Hence, Article 39 is CONSTITUTIONAL [Quemel v. CA] Fine

Meaning of Par. 3 – What is meant is the TOTAL PENALTY IMPOSED and not merely the principal. Hence, the principal
and additional penalties shall be considered in determining whether he has exceed prision correcional [Regalado] Article 60. Exception to the rules established in Articles 50 to 57. –

Subsidiary Destierro – If not executed in a penal confinement, but is of a fixed duration, he shall continue to suffer
the same deprivations as those of which the principal penalty consists in.
• If penalty is Destierro AND Fine, court may impose subsidiary destierro for non-payment of fine. Still
cannot exceed 1/3 of the term of sentence.
The provisions contained in Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this Code shall not be applicable to cases in which the law
expressly prescribes the penalty provided for a frustrated or attempted felony, or to be imposed upon accomplices or
accessories.
GR: Graduated Penalty is a SINGLE PENALTY which is immediately inferior to the penalty (I.e. RP to RT)

• If Public Censure and Fine. Court CANNOT impose subsidiary penalty since public censure has NO duration. EXC: Penalty in Period – If a penalty in period is prescribed, the graduated penalty must also be in period. It
Article 39(4) requires that there be a fixed duration, neither is Par. 2 applicable as it contemplates fine only. should be immediately inferior to the one prescribed. (single to single, double to double, triple to triple)

Penalty in Full and Period – The graduated penalty must be composed of 3 periods.

GRADUATION OF THE DEATH PENALTY (Campanilla)

Bon Ruling – Do not include Death in graduation. Start from RP
Sarcia Ruling - INCLUDE Death. Merely not imposed.
Gamboa Ruling – SC En Banc reverted to BON (The more liberal one)
Deliola Ruling – SC 3rd Division said that Sarcia is controlling (note that a division cannot reverse an en banc ruling)

CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 28

 6. Accessory Penalties
Section Three. - Penalties in which other accessory penalties are inherent
Article 40. Death; Its accessory penalties. - The death penalty, when it is not executed by reason of commutation
or pardon shall carry with it that of perpetual absolute disqualification and that of civil interdiction during thirty years
following the date sentence, unless such accessory penalties have been expressly remitted in the pardon.
Article 41. Reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal; Their accessory penalties. - The penalties of reclusion
perpetua and reclusion temporal shall carry with them that of civil interdiction for life or during the period of the
sentence as the case may be, and that of perpetual absolute disqualification which the offender shall suffer even
though pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon.
Article 42. Prision mayor; Its accessory penalties. - The penalty of prision mayor, shall carry with it that of
temporary absolute disqualification and that of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage which the
offender shall suffer although pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly
remitted in the pardon.
Article 43. Prision correccional; Its accessory penalties. - The penalty of prision correccional shall carry with it that
of suspension from public office, from the right to follow a profession or calling, and that of perpetual special
disqualification from the right of suffrage, if the duration of said imprisonment shall exceed eighteen months. The
offender shall suffer the disqualification provided in the article although pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless
the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon.
Article 44. Arresto; Its accessory penalties. - The penalty of arresto shall carry with it that of suspension of the right
too hold office and the right of suffrage during the term of the sentence.
Article 45. Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of the crime. - Every penalty imposed for
the commission of a felony shall carry with it the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and the instruments or tools
with which it was committed.
Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government, unless they be
property of a third person not liable for the offense, but those articles which are not subject of lawful commerce shall
be destroyed.
7. Execution and Service
WHEN SERVICE OF SENTENCE CAN BE SUSPENDED
(1) Insanity – Insanity occurred before sentence could be promulgated
(2) Probation – Offender is placed under probation
(3) Drug Dependency – Accused requires confinement due to drug-dependency (Use of DD)
(4) Child in Conflict – Offender is a child in conflict with the law entitled to automatic suspension of sentence
a. Revised Penal Code Provisions
Article 78. When and how a penalty is to be executed. –
No penalty shall be executed except by virtue of a final judgment.
A penalty shall not be executed in any other form than that prescribed by law, nor with any other circumstances or
incidents than those expressly authorized thereby.
In addition to the provisions of the law, the special regulations prescribed for the government of the institutions in
which the penalties are to be suffered shall be observed with regard to the character of the work to be performed, the
time of its performance, and other incidents connected therewith, the relations of the convicts among themselves and
other persons, the relief which they may receive, and their diet.
The regulations shall make provision for the separation of the sexes in different institutions, or at least into different
departments and also for the correction and reform of the convicts.
Article 79. Suspension of the execution and service of the penalties in case of insanity. –
When a convict shall become insane or an imbecile after final sentence has been pronounced, the execution of said
sentence shall be suspended only with regard to the personal penalty, the provisions of the second paragraph of
circumstance number 1 of Article 12 being observed in the corresponding cases.
If at any time the convict shall recover his reason, his sentence shall be executed, unless the penalty shall have
prescribed in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
The respective provisions of this section shall also be observed if the insanity or imbecility occurs while the convict is
serving his sentence.
Article 86. Reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor, prision correccional and arresto mayor. -
The penalties of reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor, prision correccional and arresto mayor, shall
be executed and served in the places and penal establishments provided by the Administrative Code in force or which
may be provided by law in the future.
Article 87. Destierro. - Any person sentenced to destierro shall not be permitted to enter the place or places
designated in the sentence, nor within the radius therein specified, which shall be not more than 250 and not less
than 25 kilometers from the place designated.
Article 88. Arresto menor. - The penalty of arresto menor shall be served in the municipal jail, or in the house of the
defendant himself under the surveillance of an officer of the law, when the court so provides in its decision, taking
into consideration the health of the offender and other reasons which may seem satisfactory to it.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 29
 b. Probation law Pending Preliminary Investigation – A pending PI against applicant for a different crime does NOT constitute
sufficient basis for conclusion that he is already guilty thereof and “undue risk” that he will commit another crime if
PROBATION – Disposition under which a defendant, after conviction and sentence, is released subject to conditions granted probation [Cabatingan v. Sandiganbayan]
imposed by the court and to the supervision of a probation officer. [Sec. 3, PD 968[
DISQUALIFIED OFFENDERS
PROBATION PAROLE PARDON
The benefits of the Probation Law shall be DENIED to the following PERSONS: [Campanilla]
Judicial grant Executive Executive (1) Non-Probational Penalty – Sentenced to serve imprisonment exceeding 6 years, unless first-time minor
offender for possession or use of dangerous drugs under RA 9165
Suspends sentence Suspends unserved portions Remission of penalty (2) National Security – Committed a Crime Against National Security (Public Order NOW probational)
Apply during perfecting appeal Eligible after minimum ind. Penalty Eligible after final judgment (3) Previous Conviction for penalty = More than 6 mos. + 1 day and/or fine of more than P1,000 (R.A. 10707)
(4) Probation Before – Previously on probation once
DQed if sentenced beyond 6 years DQed if Death, RP, LI No disqualifications (5) Already Serving – Those already serving sentence at the time the law became applicable
(6) Dangerous Drug Trafficking or Pushing – Sec. 24, RA 9165. This DQ does NOT extend to possessor/user
Accessory penalty SUSPENDED N/A Accessory NOT suspended
When Non-Probational Penalty – Suffers penalty of more than 6 years NOT QUALIFIED for probation.
GRANT OF PROBATION, MANNER, AND CONDITIONS • What is material is the penalty SENTENCED and not imposed
• Must look at the MAXIMUM PENALTY sentenced to. Hence, if 4 years – 6 years and 1 day, NO PROBATION.
When Applied For – Within the period of perfecting an appeal, court my suspend sentence and place him on probation
• While PENDING, Court CANNOT implement the judgment of conviction. Multiple Terms in One Decision – To determine if eligible for probation, multiple prison terms imposed even in ONE
• Upon RECEIPT of application, must suspend the execution of the sentence. decision in a consolidated case involving several offenses should NOT be added up. The terms are distinct from each
• If based on MODIFIED DECISION – Must be before decision becomes final – 15 days after judgment other and if none of the terms exceed 6 years, he is entitled to probation.

GR: An order granting / denying probation, or revoking or modifying its terms, shall NOT be appealable
EXC: Rule 65 Certiorari for GADALEJ
Non-Suspension of Civil Aspect of the Case – Grant of probation shall NOT suspend the payment of civil liability.
The conviction and sentence clause of probation affects only the criminal aspect of the case. He must continue to
satisfy the civil liability resulting form the crime [Budlong v. Palisok]
Mutually Exclusive Remedy – The filing for application for probation is a waiver of the right to appeal and vice versa.
• Waiving Appeal; Revocable – Though the application for probation equates finalizing the convicting, the
same may be REVOKED by withdrawing such application and filing an appeal as long is it is both within the
duration for perfecting an appeal [Yusi v. Morales]
• Waiving Probation; Irrevocable – Law provides that the accused must not have appealed his conviction
before he can avail of probation. HENCE, it should be availed of at the FIRST OPPORTUNITY and is NOT
revocable [Francisco v. CA,1995]
• BUT NOTE – Section 4, PD 968 – When a judgment of conviction imposing a non-probationable penalty is
appealed or reviewed, and is modified through imposition of a probational penalty, the defendant shall be
allowed to apply for probation based on the modified decision [Colinares v. People Doctrine]
• BUT – If Different Decisions on Same Occasion = Can be disqualified.
PERIOD OF PROBATION
Sentence Not Exceeding 1 year = Probation shall NOT exceed 2 years
Other cases = Probation shall NOT exceed 6 years.
Subsidiary Imprisonment = Not less than or more than twice the total # days of subsidiary imprisonment
ARREST OF PROBATIONER
P.D. 968, Section 15. Arrest of Probationer; Subsequent Disposition.
At any time during probation, the court may issue a warrant for the arrest of a probationer for violation of any of the conditions of
probation. The probationer, once arrested and detained, shall immediately be brought before the court for a hearing, which may be
informal and summary, of the violation charged. The defendant may be admitted to bail pending such hearing. In such a case, the
provisions regarding release on bail of persons charged with a crime shall be applicable to probationers arrested under this provision. If
the violation is established, the court may revoke or continue his probation and modify the conditions thereof. If revoked, the court shall
order the probationer to serve the sentence originally imposed. An order revoking the grant of probation or modifying the terms and
conditions thereof shall not be appealable.

Which Court Has Jurisdiction? – TERMINATION OF PROBATION

GR: Court which convicted and sentenced the accused
EXC: Original court that imposed non-probational penalty if application based on modified CA decision, OR in the
trial court to where it is raffled. P.D. 968, Section 16. Termination of Probation.

After the period of probation and upon consideration of the report and recommendation of the probation officer, the court may order
Motion for Reconsideration – Accused shall NOT lose the benefit of probation should he file an MR. If the MR is the final discharge of the probationer upon finding that he has fulfilled the terms and conditions of his probation and thereupon the case
denied, he gets a fresh 15 days to file a Notice of Appeal. is deemed terminated.

CRITERIA OF PLACING OFFENDER ON PROBATION The final discharge of the probationer shall operate to restore to him all civil rights lost or suspend as a result of his conviction and to
fully discharge his liability for any fine imposed as to the offense for which probation was granted.
Factors for Consideration in Granting Probation – The probationer and the probation officer shall each be furnished with a copy of such order.
Court must consider all information relative to the character, antecedents, environment, mental and physical
condition of the offender, and available institutional and community resources.
Expiration of Period – Does NOT alone terminate probation. There must first be issuance of final discharge based on
Probation shall be DENIED if the court finds that: the recommendation and report of the officer. Can still revoke if terms are violated before final judgment [Campanilla]
(1) Offender is in need of correctional treatment
(2) Undue risk of committing another crime Pecuniary Liabilities Subsist – Discharge of probation extinguishes the criminal liability involving FINE but NOT civil
(3) Probation would depreciate the seriousness of the offense liability concerning reparation for damages and indemnification for consequential damages. [Art. 113, RPC]

CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 30

 c. Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act No Disqualification – Court can no longer distinguish from capital or lesser offense. Suspension is applicable despite
the heinous nature of the crime. Even a recidivist minor is entitled to the same [People v. Sarcia]
CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH LAW – Child alleged as having committed offense under PHP laws.
5. PROBATION
• A child is CICWL as long as he was under 18 years of age at the time of the offense. Reaching majority age
will NOT deprive him of his right during the pendency of the case [People v. Salcedo] Application for Probation if Child – Can be filed ANYTIME even beyond the period of perfecting appeal.
• BUT – Exception = Reaching 21, he will no longer be entitled to the benefit of a suspended sentence [S.40]
• CHILD – Under the age of 18 years old [Sec. 4, RA 9344] Probation Under CDDA – CHILD can apply for probation for Possession or Use even if beyond 6 years imprisonment,
BUT he mist be a first time minor offender. If charge is SELLING drugs, cannot avail of probation.
RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF A CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW
6. AGRICULTURAL CAMP OR OTHER TRAINING FACILITIES
1. EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Can, after conviction, avail of serving sentence in an agricultural camp and other training facility instead of penal
15 Years Old and Below = EXEMPT confinement. Even if already 21 years old at the time of conviction [People v. Salcedo]

Above 12 – 15 years = Exempt BUT can be considered Neglected Child, and mandatorily placed in a youth care facility: 7. FULL CREDIT OF PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT

(a) Commits Serious Crimes – Parricide, murder, infanticide, rape, kidnapping and serious illegal detention A child shall be credited in the services of his sentence the FULL TIME SPENT in actual commitment and detention.
with homicide or rape, robbery with homicide or rape, destructive arson, carnapping where occupant is [Sec. 41, RA 9344]
killed or rapped, offenses involving Dangerous Drugs punishable by more than 12 years.

(b) Repetition of Offenses – and the child was previously already subjected to an intervention program

2. PRIVILEGED MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE –

If ABOVE 15 but BELOW 18…

(1) EXEMPTED – Without discernment

(2) PRIVILEGED MITIGATING – With discernment. Such circumstance shall be considered even if not proved
during the trial and that his birth certificate was belatedly presented on appeal.

Applies to Illegal Possession of Drugs even though it is mala prohibitum punishable by RP → RT because
RA 9165 expressly provides for such. [Sec. 98, RA 9165]

3. DIVERSION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

DIVERSION – Alternative, child appropriate process determining the responsibility and treatment o fa child in
conflict on the basis of his/her social, cultural, economic, psychological or education background
without resort to formal court proceedings.

• Diversion Program – Program that CICWTL is required to undergo after being found responsible for an
offense without resorting to formal court proceedings.

INTERVENTION – Series of activities designed to address issues that caused the child to commit an offense.

4. SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE OF CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW (Sec. 38, 9344)

Promulgation of Judgment – Once found GUILTY, must place him under suspended sentence instead of pronouncing
judgment of conviction. Court must still determine civil liability which may have resulted from the offense.

• IF EXEMPT or INNOCENT – Judgment of acquittal shall NOT be suspended. (Similar to Probation)

• What is being suspended is the pronouncement of sentence or promulgation of judgment. In PROBATION,

it is the service of sentence. In PAROLE, it is the unserved portion after serving the minimum.

Application NOT REQUIRED – Unlike in PROBATION, the suspension of sentence shall be automatic and without need
for an application for such. [Sec. 38, RA 9344]

Reaching Age of Majority – Suspension of Sentence still applied even if the CICWTL is 18 or more at the time of
pronouncement, UNTIL he reaches the age of 21 where he cannot avail of such suspension anymore.

CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 31

 PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES
D. EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Period of Prescription – Article 90, Revised Penal Code
Article 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. – Criminal liability is totally extinguished:
PENALTY PRESCRIPTION PERIOD
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is Death, Reclusion Perpetua,
extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. 20 years
Reclusion Temporal
2. By service of the sentence; Other Afflictive
Prision Mayor 15 years
Penalty
3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects;
Correctional
Prision Correcional 10 years
4. By absolute pardon; (except AM)

5. By prescription of the crime; Arresto Mayor 5 Years

Arresto Menor 2 Months

6. By prescription of the penalty;
Libel
7. By the marriage of offender & offended in Crimes Against Chastity or Rape, or forgiveness in marital rape Libel or other 1 year
similar Grave Oral Defamation
EXCLUSIVE MODES OF CRIMINAL EXTINCTION offenses
Grave Slander by Deed 6 months
Modes of Extinction EXCLUSIVE – Matters that transpired after consummation of the crime are NOT defenses unless Light Offenses Simple Oral Defamation 2 months
they are expressly mentioned by law as modes of extinguishing criminal liability.
Compound Penalty Highest penalty
Re-Election – Re-election to public office is NOT provided for in Article 89. The Doctrine of Administrative Condonation
has been ABANDONED as it is inconsistent with the concept of public office is a public trust and the corollary
requirement of accountability to the people. [Morales v. CA and Binay] Computation of Prescription of Offenses – Material Dates: [Article 91, RPC]

Novation – (1) Day of Discovery – Runs from the day on which crime is discovered by offended party, authorities/agents.
GR: Neither is novation a mode of extinguishing criminal liability. Not listed in Article 89 Discovery by a mere witness who is not the offended party IS NOT COUNTED. [Garcia v. CA]
EXC: When the novation involves an essential element of the crime.
(2) Filing of Complaint – Filing of complaint or information INTERRUPTS the running. Does NOT distinguish
• Can extinguish an old contract, which may be the basis of criminal liability. I.e. Estafa through between Office of the Prosecutor or Ombudsman, [Francisco v. CA]
Misappropriation – Contract of Trust is an ingredient of the crime. Novation may convert the contract of
trust into a creditor-debtor situation. (3) Termination or Unjust Stop – Runs again when proceedings terminated without conviction or acquittal,
or are unjustifiable stopped for any reason NOT imputable to him.
• Contractual Relationship – Novation can only be a defense where one of its elements is the existence of
(4) When Not in the PHP – Shall NOT run if offender is absent in the Philippines
a contractual relationship between the offender and the victim.
Rule if Last Day on Holiday – File on the day BEFORE the Holiday (Last Day) [Yapdiangco v. Hon. Buencamino]
• Novation Prior to Consummation – If novation happens BEFORE consummation, novation can prevent
criminal liability. If it happens after consummation, it can NEITHER prevent incipience of liability nor create
Constructive Notice Rule – In FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT involving Deed of Sale, registration with the
doubt as to the nature of the transaction. Once consummated, liability attaches immediately.
ROD operates as constructive notice of the prescription for such crime. [People v. Reyes, 1989]
Desistance – Desistance from pursuing a criminal case by the private complainant does NOT extinguish the crime, as
• This rule does NOT apply to Bigamy, for it does not involve real property.
it is NOT enumerated. It only has the effect of extinguishing the civil liability of offender [Bautista v. CA]
Continuing Crime – Commences to run from the time the crime ENDED.
Probation – NOW A MODE OF EXTINCTION. The final discharge of probationer shall operate to restore him all civil
rights lost or suspended as a result of his conviction and to totally extinguish his criminal liability as to the offense for
Lack of Jurisdiction – For purposes of determining whether or not the proceedings with the improper court interrupt
which probation was granted [Sec. 16, R.A. 10707]
the running of the prescriptive period, what is important is the allegation in the information. If the Information alleged
that the crime was committed within the MTC of Batangas, the filing of such are VALID until case dismissed for lack of
DEATH OF ACCUSED jurisdiction. Will be interrupted and tolled during the pendency of the proceedings before the MTC. [People v. Galano]

AFTER FINALITY BEFORE FINALITY PENDING APPEAL Prescription of Lesser Offense – Where accused is found to have committed a lesser offense, which is included in
the offense charged, he cannot be convicted of the lesser offense if it has already prescribed. [Francisco v. CA]
Criminal Liability Extinguished Extinguished Extinguished
Ex Delicto extinguished.
Civil Liability Not extinguished Extinguished
Other sources remain

CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 32

 PRESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL PENAL LAWS (Act. No. 3326) PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES

Period of Prescription – Unless otherwise provided in such acts, violations of SPL shall prescribe in the following Period of Prescription – Under Article 92 of the RPC, the penalties imposed by final sentence are as follows:

PENALTY PRESCRIPTION PERIOD PENALTY PRESCRIPTION PERIOD

Municipal Ordinance 2 months Death Penalty
20 years
Reclusion Perpetua
Not exceeding 1 month OR Fine (both) 1 year
Reclusion Temporal
1 month < x < 2 years 4 years 15 years
Prision Mayor
2 years ≤ x < 6 years 8 years
Prision Correcional 10 years
6 years or more 12 years
Arresto Mayor 5 years

Other Prescriptive Periods in Special Penal Laws Arresto Menor 1 year

(1) Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act & Anti-Plunder Law Commencement of Prescription – Runs from the date the culprit should evade service of sentence
a. Corruption – 20 years
b. Plunder – 20 years Interruption of Prescription – and is interrupted if:
c. Right of State to recover Property – Imprescriptible (1) the defendant should give himself up,
(2) be captured,
(2) VAWC Law (3) go to some foreign country with which the Gov’t has no extradition treaty
a. Physical, Psychological, Economic Violence (Control of Conduct) – 20 years (4) commit another crime before expiration of the period of prescription
b. Sexual and Other Psychological Violence – 10 years
Must Have SERVED Sentence – Evasion of Service of Sentence is committed only by those who have been convicted
(3) Anti-Trafficking in Persons by final judgment by escaping during the term of his sentence. The petitioner never served a single minute of his
a. Trafficking – 10 years sentence, and thus, prescription NEVER started to run in his favor. One who has not yet been committed cannot be
b. Trafficking in Large Scale/Syndicate, Minor – 20 years said to have escaped [Del Castillo v. Hon. Torrecampo, 2002]
c. Prescription runs from the day the trafficked victim is released from condition of bondage or
in case of a child form the day he reaches the age of majority PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME v. PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES

Commencement of the Running of the Period – From the day of the commission of the violation, and if not known PRESCRIPTION OF: CRIME PENALTY
at the time, from discovery thereof and institution of judicial proceeding for its investigation and punishment [Sec. 2]
Death 20 years 20 years
• Discovery AND Judicial Institution – The phrase “institution of judicial proceedings” is mere surplusage.
Reclusion Perpetua 20 years 20 years
Hence, the running starts only on DISCOVERY, because the institution of the proceedings is an interruption.
[People v. Duque, 1992] Reclusion Temporal 20 years 15 years

• Blameless Ignorance Doctrine – Courts will decline to apply the statute of limitations (i.e. running of Prision Mayor 15 years 15 years
prescription) where the State through a PIA or its agent, and a private complainant do not know, or have
Prision Correcional 10 years 10 years
no reasonable means of knowing the existence of a crime. Should not be blamed for failure to institute if
he is ignorant of such commission. Hence, prescription runs upon discovery [Disini v. Sandiganbayan] Arresto Mayor 5 years 5 years

• Crimes by Marcos’ Cronies – Violation of R.A. 3019 commences from the date of its discovery in 1992 Arresto Menor 2 months 1 year
after the committee made an exhaustive investigation.
PARDON BY OFFENDED PARTY
• Violation of BP 22 –
o GR – From the date of discovery of its commission Private Pardon as Bar to Criminal Prosecution – Civil Liability ex delicto EXTINGUISHED, but criminal liability
o EXC – If the crime is not yet actionable at the time of its commission, period of prescription will remains EXCEPT in the following:
commence to run form the time it becomes actionable. (i.e. expiry of 5-day notice) (1) Adultery
(2) Concubinage
Interruption of Running of Period – When proceedings are instituted, whether executive or judicial, and shall begin (3) Seduction
to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy. [Sec. 2, Act No. 3326] (4) Abduction
(5) Acts of Lasciviousness
• Proceeding for Ordinances – If the crime is punishable by ordinance, the proceeding is JUDICIAL. The
filing of complaint involving violation of ordinance for preliminary investigation will NOT interrupt the NOTE – The pardon in the above crimes does NOT extinguish criminal liability, but merely prohibits the prosecution
running of the 2-month prescription [Zaldiva v. Reyes Jr.] of the offender, or the institution of the criminal action.
• If the crime has already be instituted and proceedings are ongoing, the subsequent pardon will NOT
prohibit continuance of the prosecution, nor does it order dismissal.
• Only Marriage of the offender & offended + Pardon in Marital Rape shall EXTINGUISH the crime.
• Rape is now a Crime Against Person. Pardon will not extinguish liability.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 33
 PARDON BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Effect of Pardon – Relieves the person from the penal consequences of the crime but does not erase or blot out the
crime itself. Still a convicted criminal although he will not suffer imprisonment [Monsanto v. Factoran, 1989]

Limitation to the Pardoning Power – CANNOT be limited by legislative action, because only the Constitution can
limit it. Constitution prohibits pardon in the following instances:
(1) Impeachment Cases
(2) Cases that have not yet resulted in final conviction
(3) Lack of recommendation from COMELEC on election cases [Risos Vidal v. Lim]

Reinstatement and Backwages – Though will not serve sentence, accused is NOT ENTITLED to demand his lost
earnings during pendency of case and reinstatement to former position [Monsanto v. Factoran]

• May apply for re-appointment and can be reinstated upon such application [Sabello v. DEPED]
• EXCEPTION – Can be given such right to backwages where pardon is based on his innocence [Garcia v.COA]

AMNESTY

AMNESTY – Act of grace (by the President) & concurred in by the legislature which is extended to groups of persons
who committed a political offense and puts into oblivion the offense itself.

Obliteration of Crime – Looks backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the crime itself; overlooks and
obliterates the offense with which he is charged as if he never committed the same. There can be no basis for charging
one with Evasion of Sentence for Rebellion if he was given amnesty for such crime [MAGDALO v. COMELEC]

Effect on Recidivism – The effect of release from probation or pardon is to extinguish criminal liability, but not the
fact that the crime was committed. Hence, since the crime itself is not extinguished by probation or pardon, such
crime shall be considered for purposes of determining if the accused is a recidivist in committing a 2 nd crime which is
embraced in the same title [Henry Go and Patriarca Case]

CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 34

 E. CIVIL LIABILITY IN CRIMINAL CASES
Chapter One
PERSON CIVILLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES
Article 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. - Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
GR: Extinction of the criminal liability does NOT carry with it the eradication of civil liability ex delicto. This occurs:
(1) Acquittal is based on reasonable doubt, as only preponderance is required in civil cases
(2) Court declares that accused’s liability is only civil in nature
(3) Civil liability does not arise from the criminal act (other source of liability)
Criminal liability will give rise to civil liability ex delicto only if the same felonious act or omission results in
damage or injury to another and is the direct and proximate cause thereof [Bunag Jr. v. CA]
EXC: Civil Liability ex delicto is extinguished or inexistent in the following:
(1) Declaration in final judgment that the fact from which civil liability might arises did not exist
(2) Victimless Crimes, where by the very nature of the crime, no damages can be sustained [Campanilla]
CIVIL LIABILITY WHERE ACT IS JUSTIFIED OR OFFENDER IS EXEMPT
Article 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. - The exemption from criminal liability established in
subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 12 and in subdivision 4 of Article 11 of this Code does not include exemption
from civil liability, which shall be enforced subject to the following rules:
First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article 12, the civil liability for acts committed by an imbecile or
insane person, and by a person under nine years of age, or by one over nine but under fifteen years of
age, who has acted without discernment, shall devolve upon those having such person under their legal
authority or control, unless it appears that there was no fault or negligence on their part.
Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor under his authority, legal guardianship or control,
or if such person be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own property, excepting
property exempt from execution, in accordance with the civil law.
Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has been
prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have received.
The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, the proportionate amount for which each one shall be liable.
When the respective shares cannot be equitably determined, even approximately, or when the liability also attaches
to the Government, or to the majority of the inhabitants of the town, and, in all events, whenever the damages have
been caused with the consent of the authorities or their agents, indemnification shall be made in the manner
prescribed by special laws or regulations.
Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of Article 12, the persons using violence or causing the fears
shall be primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there be no such persons, those doing the act shall be liable,
saving always to the latter that part of their property exempt from execution.
1. INSANITY, IMBECILITY, AND MINORITY (Art. 101, RPC)
Recover from Guardian – Can recover from person who has legal control or authority over offender, unless it
appears that there was no fault or negligence on their party.
Remedy if No Guardian – Minor shall respond with their own property, excepting property exempt from execution
Effect of Exemption of the Child (or Non-Exemption) on the Liability of Guardian
(1) Child is EXEMPTED from Criminal Liability – The person who has legal authority or control over him shall
be principally liable under Article 101 for civil liability ex delicto (if not, child answers with own property)
(2) Child is NOT Exempted from Criminal Liability – Article 101 will NOT BE APPLICABLE.
a. Art. 101 applies when the child is exempt from criminal liability.
b. BUT – The parents shall be civilly liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, whether as a quasi-
delict or a crime. This liability is not principal or subsidiary, but vicarious. [Fuellas v. Cadano]
2. COMPELLED OFFENDER (Art. 101, RPC)
Circumstance Involved = Accused committed the crime under compulsion of irresistible force / fear
• Primarily Liable – Person using violence or causing fears
• Secondarily Liable – The criminally exempted offender
3. JUSTIFIED ACT
Non-Felonious, No Civil Liability – The non-criminal character of the act would make the actor exempt not only from
criminal but ALSO civil liability. A non-felonious act could not be a source of civil liability ex delicto.
• EXCEPTION – Avoidance of Greater Evil: Civil liability shall be borne by the persons who benefitted from
the act of avoidance. The source of such liability is not ex delicto but by law. [Lacanilao v. CA]
CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 35
 SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY (Art. 102)
Article 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments. - In
default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other persons or corporations shall be
civilly liable for crimes committed in their establishments, in all cases where a violation of municipal ordinances or
some general or special police regulation shall have been committed by them or their employees.
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses from
guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the value thereof, provided that such guests shall have notified in advance
the innkeeper himself, or the person representing him, of the deposit of such goods within the inn; and shall
furthermore have followed the directions which such innkeeper or his representative may have given them with
respect to the care and vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons unless committed by the innkeeper's employees.
Article 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. - The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding
article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies
committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties.
In default of persons criminally liable, it is the employer engaged in any kind of industry who shall be civilly liable
for felonies committed by their employees in the discharge of their duties [Int’l Flavors and Fragrances, 2001]
Defense of Good Father of Family in Employment in Training –
• Liability under 102 and 103 – NOT a defense.
• Liability under Art. 2176, 2180 – YES, it can be a defense.
1. INKEEPER’S SUBSIDIARY RESPONSIBILITY
Elements for Innkeeper Liability –
(1) Crime committed in their establishment
(2) Employee committed violation of ordinance or general/special police regulation
(3) Offender is insolvent
(4) Violation has direct causal relation with crime committed in their establishment
Elements for Subsidiary Liability for Restitution of Goods
(1) Robbery either:
a. with violence or intimidation committed by innkeeper employees
b. With force upon things by any person
(2) Within their houses for guests lodging therein
(3) Guests notified in advance of deposit of such goods within the inn
(4) Guests followed directions
(5) Offender is insolvent
2. EMPLOYER’S SUBSIDIARY RESPONSIBILITY
Elements for Employer, Teacher, Person and Corporation Liability
(1) Employer-employee relationship
(2) Engaged in any industry
(3) Their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees committed crime in discharge of duties
(4) Offender is insolvent.
Subsidiary Liability Deemed Written in Judgment – The provisions of the RPC on subsidiary liability are deemed
written into the judgments in cases to which they are applicable. The trial court need not expressly pronounce such in
the dispositive portion of the judgment. [Pangonorom v. People, 2005]
Immediate Enforcement of Subsidiary Liability – The liability of employer is incidental and dependent on the
pecuniary civil liability of the accused-employee. Since the civil liability of the latter is already FINAL and enforceable
by his flight, the former’ subsidiary liability is also immediately enforceable. [Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines v. People]
• Conviction of Employee REQUIRED – Before subsidiary liability is enforced, criminal liability of the
employee must first be declared by final judgment. [Id]
• “Industry” – Enterprise not conducted as means of livelihood or profit is not an industry. One who is a
private person with no business not liable for driver’s negligence [Steinmetz v. Valdez, 1941]
Chapter Two
WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES
Article 104. What is included in civil liability. - The civil liability established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code includes:
1. Restitution;
2. Reparation of the damage caused;
3. Indemnification for consequential damages.
Article 105. Restitution; How made. - The restitution of the thing itself must be made whenever possible, with allowance for any
deterioration, or diminution of value as determined by the court.
The thing itself shall be restored, even though it be found in the possession of a third person who has acquired it by lawful means, saving
to the latter his action against the proper person, who may be liable to him.
This provision is not applicable in cases in which the thing has been acquired by the third person in the manner and under the
requirements which, by law, bar an action for its recovery.
Article 106. Reparation; How made. - The court shall determine the amount of damage, taking into consideration the price of the thing,
whenever possible, and its special sentimental value to the injured party, and reparation shall be made accordingly.
Article 107. Indemnification; What is included. - Indemnification for consequential damages shall include not only those caused the
injured party, but also those suffered by his family or by a third person by reason of the crime.
Article 108. Obligation to make restoration, reparation for damages, or indemnification for consequential damages and actions
to demand the same; Upon whom it devolves. - The obligation to make restoration or reparation for damages and indemnification for
consequential damages devolves upon the heirs of the person liable.
The action to demand restoration, reparation, and indemnification likewise descends to the heirs of the person injured.
Article 109. Share of each person civilly liable. - If there are two or more persons civilly liable for a felony, the courts shall determine
the amount for which each must respond.
Article 110. Several and subsidiary liability of principals, accomplices and accessories of a felony; Preference in payment. -
Notwithstanding the provisions of the next preceding article, the principals, accomplices, and accessories, each within their respective
class, shall be liable severally (in solidum) among themselves for their quotas, and subsidiaries for those of the other persons liable.
The subsidiary liability shall be enforced, first against the property of the principals; next, against that of the accomplices, and, lastly,
against that of the accessories.
Whenever the liability in solidum or the subsidiary liability has been enforced, the person by whom payment has been made shall have a
right of action against the others for the amount of their respective shares.
Article 111. Obligation to make restitution in certain cases. - Any person who has participated gratuitously in the proceeds of a felony
shall be bound to make restitution in an amount equivalent to the extent of such participation.
RESTITUTION – Return to the owner the property stolen, malversed, misappropriated, etc. The return refers to the
very object of the crime, i.e. return of the stolen guitar. [People v. Mostasesa]
Third-Person’s Possession – Restitution must be made whenever possible, even if found with another person who
has acquired it by lawful means, saving to the latter his action against the proper person liable to him [Art. 105, RPC]
• Buyer in Good Faith – Cannot recover in the criminal case. Remedy is to file separate civil action against
the buyer of property. Buyer will then file a case against the criminal.
When Action for Recovery Barred – No restitution in case the thing is acquired where elements of barring recovery
are present, such as in the following cases:
(1) Good Faith Public Sale – Property was purchased in good faith at the public sale
(2) Torrens Title – Land covered by torrens title purchased in good faith
(3) Store, Fair, Markets – Property purchased in public stores, fairs, or markets.
REPARATION – Remedy if restitution is not possible. Payment of the money equivalent of thing stolen as damages
CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 36
INDEMNIFICIATION – Damages awarded in crimes against persons and honor xxxx

Scope of Indemnification – Indemnification includes not only those caused by the injured party but also those
suffered by his family or 3rd persons. Family is undoubtedly affected by the loss of their 2 children, hence must
indemnify them for the measure of the loss of such [Copiaco et al. v. Luzon Brokerage, 1938]

(1) Actual Damages – Liabile for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the acts
or omission complained of. Liable for funeral and burial expenses and medical expenses

(2) Moderate or Temperate Damages – When no evidence of burial and funeral expenses are presented

(3) Civil Indemnity – Civil indemnity ex delicto can be awarded without further proof than the fact of
commission of the felony itself, while actual damages require establishing such with a reasonable degree
of certainty [People v. Dianos]. i.e. Damages for Rape

(4) Moral Damage – Can be recovered in the following crimes:

a. Physical Injuries
b. Libel, Slander, other form of defamation [Heirs of Raymundo Castro v. Bustos]

Chapter Three
EXTINCTION AND SURVIVAL OF CIVIL LIABILITY

Article 112. Extinction of civil liability. - Civil liability established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code shall
be extinguished in the same manner as obligations, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Law.

Article 113. Obligation to satisfy civil liability. - Except in case of extinction of his civil liability as provided in the
next preceding article the offender shall continue to be obliged to satisfy the civil liability resulting from the crime
committed by him, notwithstanding the fact that he has served his sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty or
other rights, or has not been required to serve the same by reason of amnesty, pardon, commutation of sentence or
any other reason.

Modes of Extinction for Civil Liability

(1) Payment
(2) Loss of the thing due
(3) Remission of Debt
(4) Merger of Rights of Creditor and Debtor
(5) Compensation and Novation

“Any other reason” – Means reasons other than service of sentence, amnesty, pardon, and commutation, such as:
(1) Probation
(2) Marriage
(3) Prescription of Crime or Penalty
(4) Conditional Pardon
(5) Allowance for Good Conduct or Loyalty

NOTE – Amnesty (which obliterates the crime itself) still required by Art. 113 to pay civil liability (?)

CRIMINAL LAW BAR REVIEW – JGPS B2019 | Page 37