This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Vena V. Verga
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
I. History of the Revised Penal Law Codification Movement -- sought to have all laws codified or written in a single body of aw. Spanish Codigo Penal which, without expressly prohibiting certain acts, impose a penalty on their commission. Note: Non-payment of taxes is merely a civil liability/indemnity. The tax code as it exists today which carries punishments may be considered penal provisions. People vs. Moran Facts: The accused violated the election code and was sentenced by the lower court. He was asking for reconsideration and filed a special motion alleging that the crime complained of had prescribed under the provision of section 71 of Act 3030, enacted by the Legislature on March 9, 1922. Issue: W/N penal laws provide for not only penalty but also prescription. Decision: Yes. Decision: The court found the crime to have prescribed (in accordance with the new law) and set aside the decision. The Election law contained in the Administrative Code and Act 3030 which amended and modified the former, it is evident that the provision declaring that offenses resulting from the violations of said Act shall prescribe one year after their commission must have retroactive effect, the same being favorable to the accused. An exception- to give them retroactive effect when favorable to accused. The exception applies to a law dealing with prescription of crime: Art 22 applies to a law dealing with prescription of an offense which is intimately connected with that of the penalty, for the length of time for prescription depends upon the gravity of the offense. Penal laws not only provide for penalties but also prescriptions. III. Rationale of Penal Laws
The royal order dated December 17, 1886, directing the execution of the royal decree of September 4, 1884, wherein it was ordered that the Penal Code in force in the Peninsula, as amended in accordance with the recommendations of the code committee, be published and applied in the Philippine Islands, as well as the Provisional Law of Criminal Procedure which accompanied it. These two laws, having been published in the Official Gazette of Manila on March 13 and 14, 1887, became effective in July 14, 1876. (US. vs. Tamparong)
Codigo Penal ng Pilipinas – modified the Spanish Penal Code. US Period – they tried to translate the Penal code but certain areas were defectively translated Definition of Penal Law and Criminal Law
A. B. C. D. E. F.
Penal laws – laws which relates to penalties Criminal laws – laws which relates to crimes Felony -- A crime under the Revised Penal Code is referred to as a felony. Do not use this term in reference to a violation of special law. Offense -- A crimes punished under a special law is called as statutory offense. Misdemeanor --A minor infraction of the law, such as a violation of an ordinance, is referred to as a misdemeanor. Crime -- Whether the wrongdoing is punished under the Revised Penal Code or under a special law, the generic word crime can be used.
US vs. Sotto Facts: Vicente Sotto is the director, editor, publisher and printer of a weekly paper. On May 1915, he edited the paper with the intention of attacking them reputation of Lope K. Santos and two other principals of a labor group. He was found guilty of libel. Issue: W/N Sotto was guilty Decision: Yes. Penalties are used to deter people from doing the same crime. A deterrent effect upon others is one of the purposes of the infliction of a penalty for the violation of the criminal law (Exemplarity). People vs. Carillo and Raquenio
Lorenzo vs. Posadas Issue: W/N Art. 3606 of a tax law is a penal law thus can be applied retroactively in conformity with the provisions of Art. 22 of RPC. Decision: A statute is penal when it imposes punishment for an offense committed against the state. “Penal Statutes” are statutes, which command or prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their violation, and even those,
Page 1 of 100
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Facts: Carillo was sentenced with death penalty for the crimes of robbery, attempted rape and homicide. His accomplice was only charged for robbing Emma Abaya and Marcelino Lontok. Issue: W/N the penalty for Carillo was justified. Decision: The accused is a dangerous enemy of the society thus, imposition of the highest penalty if justified. Carillo has proved himself to be a dangerous enemy of society. The latter must protect itself from such enemy by taking his life in retribution for his offense and as an example and warning to others. In these days of rampant criminality it should have a salutary effect upon the criminally minded to know that the courts do not shirk their disagreeable duty to impose the death penalty in cases where the law so requires. People vs. Young Facts: Jimmy Young is a hired killer who committed a crime of murder under Art 248 of the RPC. He refused to plea guilty because according to him, his guilt is lighter than those who ordered the killing of Alfonso Liongto. He was sentenced with death penalty in accordance with Art 248 in relation to Art 64 of the RPC. However, RA 296, which was approved 17 June 1948, provides that for a penalty of death is imposed, all justices of the Supreme Court must first concur. Said law is procedural thus can be applied to cases pending at the time of its approval. Issue: W/N Young should be charged with the crime of murder. Decision: One of the justices dissented, thus death penalty was not imposed. The killing in question was attended by evident premeditation which qualified the crime as murder: (a) it was committed in consideration of a price reward or promise and (b) with treachery. This case also provides the notion of aggravating circumstances (acts that would provide for higher penalties – art 14) and mitigating circumstances (provides for lighter penalties – art 13). Death penalty was imposed to rationalize the concept of Exemplarity: making a person example to serve as a deterrent) People vs. Revilla Facts: The accused was charged for the crime of infidelity in the custody of the prisoners. Nicasio Junio, the prisoner, was only sentenced to suffer six days of arresto menor only, a penalty that may be served in the house of the offender because of the condition of his health. The municipality also could not feed him Nicasio for lack of appropriation, Revilla then believed that this act in permitting Nicasio to sleep in his own house was not grave in nature, being at most a mere relaxation of the rules prescribed for the care and custody of municipal prisoners. Revilla was charged under Art 223 for his actions.
Vena V. Verga
Issue: W/N the charge against Revilla is proportionate to the act he committed. Decision: No. His action then was due to a mistaken conception of his duty, hence it is obvious that the penalty imposed against him is notoriously excessive to the extent of being cruel for being out of proportion with the crime committed. The penalty was not proportionate to the evil to be curbed. Retribution, the penalty should be commensurate with the gravity of the offense. The penalty imposed upon the accused for infidelity in the custody of a prisoner sentenced to only six days of arresto menor being excessive, such fact should be brought to the attention of His Excellency, the President of the Philippines for him to decide whether or not it would be convenient to recommend to the national assembly the amendment of art 223 of RPC (conniving with or consenting to evasion) so as to make it more in consonance with the amplitude of the matters that a court must consider in meting out punishment to whoever may have the misfortune f infringing the precept regarding infidelity in the custody of prisoners or detained prisoners. People vs. Galano Facts: Galano was accused of falsification of one peso bill, which he used to purchase four eggs. He was found guilty and was sentenced to suffer intermediate penalty ranging from 10 years and 1 day to 12 years and 10 months. The Solicitor General believes that the punishment is too harsh. Issue: W/N the penalty if too harsh Decisions: The punishment is too harsh and it may not actually serve the purpose of the legislator. Imprisonment may change an individual but it can also expose the person to hardened criminal. Thus, punishments should be applied with care. A copy of the decision was sent to the president for the exercise of executive clemency. IV. Two theories in Criminal Law Classical Theory Basis of criminal liability is human free will and purpose of penalty is retribution “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” – Oculo pro oculo, dente pro dente.] Man is a moral creature with absolute free will to choose between good and evil, thereby placing more stress upon the effect or result of felonious act than upon the man. Endeavored to establish a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and penalty
1. 2. 3. 4.
Page 2 of 100
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
5. The purpose of penalty is retribution. The offender is made to suffer for the wrong he has done. There is scant regard to the human element.
Vena V. Verga
provisions of a municipal ordinance. The petitioner was criminally convicted by the trial court for not paying the surcharge. Issue: W/N the petitioner can be prosecuted criminally of her non-payment of the rental. Decision: No. The surcharge for non-payment if not a penalty under criminal law but only an amount added to the usual charge. It is more of an administrative penalty, which can be recovered only by civil action. VI. Common Law Crimes definition: body of principles, usages and rules of action which do not rest for their authority upon any express or positive declaration of the will of the legislature common law crimes are not recognized in the country the codification movement provided for all crimes to be codified, thus, a crime not punishable by law is not a crime at all. Power to define and punish crimes
Positivist theory 1. Man is occasionally subdued by a strange and morbid phenomenal which pushes him to do wrong in spite or contrary to his volition 2. Crime is a social and natural phenomenon, it cannot be created and checked by application of abstract principle of law and jurisprudence nor by imposition of penalties, fixed and determined a priori. 3. Rehabilitation by means of individual measures on case to case basis. Advocates personal and individual investigation, conducted by competent body of psychiatrist and social scientist.
A. B. C.
Crimes Definition 1. Felony 2. Offense 3. Infraction of Ordinance (a) When penalty imposed is not an exercise of sovereign power to define crimes and provide punishment.
People vs. Santiago Facts: Defendant was found guilty of killing a seven-year-old boy. He is now appealing the decision stating that Act 2886 of the Philippine Legislature, which provides that “all prosecution for offenses shall be in the name of the People of the Philippines” is unconstitutional for amending General Order No. 58 which has a character of a constitutional law. Issue: W/N Act 2886 is unconstitutional. Decision: The procedure in criminal matters is not incorporated in the constitution but is left in the hands of the legislature so that it falls within the real of public statutory law. The state has the authority, under its police power, to define and punish crimes and to lay down the rules of criminal procedure. States, as a part of their police power, have a large measure of discretion in creating and defining criminal offenses. People vs. Taylor Facts: The defendant, being the acting editor and proprietor, manager, printer and publisher of Manila Bulletin was accused of committing libel against a member of the Philippine bar. Issue: W/N the defendant is guilty of libel.
De Guzman vs. Subido Facts: de Guzman who is a civil service eligible for passing the civil service exam was disqualified from any appointment for having violated the Jaywalking laws and ordinance concerning cocheros, which according to the lower court constitutes a crime. Issue: W/N said acts constitute a crime Decision: No. A penalty imposed for breach of a municipal regulation does not necessarily constitute a criminal offense. A violation of a municipal ordinance to qualify as a crime must involve a least a certain degree of evil doing, immoral conduct, corruption, malice or want of principles reasonably related to the requirements of the public office. A crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of public laws. Ordinances are not public laws. Criminal acts, in its commission, have some immoral intention. Conde vs. Mamenta Facts: Petitioner refused to pay the new rates of the stall she was holding stating that the increased rate was excessive. The increase is based on the
Page 3 of 100
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Decision: In the Philippines, there exist no crimes called “common law crimes” No act constitutes a crime here unless it is made so by law. Libel is made a crime here by Act 277 of the US Philippine Commission. However, in order to prove that the defendant is Guilty of the crime, it must be proven that he is the ‘auditor, editor, or proprietor’ of the said newspaper. There was no proof of this because evidence shows that he is merely the manager. Petition was dismissed. People vs. Pomar Facts: The manager of La Flor granted a maternity leave to Macaria but refused to pay Php 80.00 to which the employee is entitled as her regular wage as stated in Sec. 13 of Act 3071. Issue: W/N Act 3071 us unlawful exercise of police power. Decision: The police power is the power vested in the legislature of the state to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances, either with penalties or without, which are not repugnant to the constitution as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and of the subjects of the state US vs. Pablo Facts: Andres Pablo, a policeman, reported that he saw Rodrigo and Malicsi in the jueteng arena and then testified on the contrary during the trial. He was charged with perjury and convicted under Act. 1697 which was said to have repealed articles 318 and 324 of the penal code. Issue: Can the defendant be punished? Decision: The right of prosecution and punishment for a crime is one of the attributes that by a natural law belongs to the sovereign power instinctively charged by the common will of the members of society to look after, guard and defend the interests of the community as well as rights of each individual. Imposing punishments should be the last resort: our laws do not merely provide for retribution but it also provides for laws that are in favor of the offender. US vs. Gustillo Facts: Gustillo was already convicted of a crime for illegal possession of firearms. However, another information was filed against him for the same crime but for a different ammunition which he already possessed at the same time and same place the first information was filed against him. Issue: W/N Gustillo may be prosecuted for the second time for the same violation.
Vena V. Verga
Decision: The prosecution violated the Philippines Bill and Act No. 89 which embody the principle that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense because this rule covers as nearly as possible every single criminal act born of a single criminal intent even though more than one crime is committed by said act. People vs. Chong Hong Facts: The defendants were convicted for violation of Ordinance No. 394, which prohibits the playing of jueteng. The court ordered for the dismissal of the case on the ground that said ordinance is null and void for it conflicts with Art 195 of the RPC, which provides for lesser penalties than the ordinance. Issue W/N Ordinance 394 conflicts with the law. Decision: It is admitted that jueteng is already prohibited and penalized in article 195 of the Revised Penal Code. But the fact that an act is already prohibited and penalized by a general law does not preclude the enactment of a municipal ordinance covering the same matter. The rule is well settled that the same act may constitute an offense against both the state and a political subdivision thereof and both jurisdictions may punish the act, without. infringing any constitutional principle. As a general rule, additional regulation to that of the state law does not constitute a conflict therewith. The fact that an ordinance enlarges upon the provisions of a statute by requiring more than the statute requires creates no conflict therewith, unless the statute limits the requirement for all cases to its own prescription. Both the ordinance and RPC prohibit and penalize the same act and the distinction in penalties is necessary because of the peculiar conditions of the locality. Ngo Yao Tit and Chia Eng Cheng vs. Sheriff of Manila Facts: Before the court is an application for the writ of habeas corpus. Petitioners were charged of visiting a house where opium was smoked. They now claimed that the court erred in their decision because it does not have jurisdiction over the case. Issue: W/N the court has jurisdiction to try the case. Decision: It is not a jurisdictional defect and one which deprives the trial court of its authority to try, convict, and pass sentence, that a criminal action is brought in the name of the city of Manila instead of the United States. That fact constitutes a mere defect or error curable at any stage of the action does not deprive the court of the power to pronounce a valid judgment and impose a valid sentence. Offenses committed in the Philippines are crimes against the people of the Philippines.
Page 4 of 100
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
1. (a) (b)
Vena V. Verga
Persons subject to Military Law (Art. 2 of the Commonwealth Act No. 408, articles of war) are not immune from suit but are covered by the articles of war. Officers, members of nurse corps and soldiers belonging to the regular forces of the Philippine Army All reservist from the date of theor call to active duty and while on such active duty All trainees undergoing military duty All persons lawfully called/drafted Cades. Flying cadets and probationary third lieutenants Retainers to the camp All persons under sentence adjudged by courts martial As provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application. Example: Bases agreements between US and Philippines and RP-US Visiting Forces Accord. RA No. 75 – law of preferential application in favor of diplomatic representatives. It extends the diplomatic privilege to the members of the household and domestic servants that were registered with the DFA The constitution is a law of preferential operation By virtue of principles of Pubic international law – these people possess immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the country of their sojourn and cannot be sued, arrested or punished by the law of that country: Absolute Exemptions (a) Sovereigns and other chiefs of state (b) Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident, and charges d’affaires, ambassadors extraordinary (Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and Protocol) Relative Exemptions (c) consuls and vice consuls: honorary consuls not exempted.
Characteristics of criminal law
GENERAL -- criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine territory (art 14, New Civil Code).
People vs. Galacgac Facts: Enrique Galacgac was a naturalized US citizen. He arrived in the Philippines to visit his wife and in his possession is a gun, which is gift to the said spouse. Upon reaching his in-law’s home, he and his wife had a fight, which caused his brother in law to beat him on the head. In retaliation, he fired indiscriminately wounding his wife’s brothers and sisters. He was accused of attempted parricide but retorted that the Philippines has no jurisdiction over him since he is an American Citizen. Issue: W/N Galagcac enjoys extra-territoriality rights Decision: No. No foreigner enjoys in this country extra-territorial right to be exempted from its laws and jurisdiction, with exception of heads of states and diplomatic representatives who, by virtue of customary law of nations, are not subject to the Philippine territorial jurisdiction. Note: As a general rule, the jurisdiction of the civil courts is not affected by the military character of the accused US vs. Sweet Facts: Sweet was an employee of the US Army in the Philippines. He assaulted a prisoner of war for which he was charged with the crime of physical injuries. Sweet interposed the defense that the fact that he was an employee of the US military authorities deprived the court if the jurisdiction to try and punish him. Issue: W/N Philippine courts have jurisdiction to try Sweet Decision: An assault committed by a military employee upon a prisoner of war is a violation of the general penal law, and as such it imposes criminal responsibility. Jurisdiction of the civil tribunals is unaffected by the military or other special character of the person brought before them for trial, unless controlled by express legislation to the contrary. Exemptions to the Principle of Generality 3. 2.
(c) (d) (e) (f) (g)
Note: a) b) Public International Law and treaties are deemed part of the law of the land. For a person to be immune, he/she must be able to invoke a provision of public international law/treaty; law of preferential application or customary international law.
Schneckenburger vs. Moran Facts: Petitioners is a honorary consul of Uruguay in manila charged with falsification of private documents. He objected on the jurisdiction of the Courts
Page 5 of 100
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
of First Instance on the ground that under the Philippine an US constitution, lower courts have no jurisdiction to try him Issue: W/N the lower courts have jurisdiction to try the consul. Decision: It is well settled that a consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of an ambassador or minister, but is subject to the laws and regulations of the country to which he is accredited. A consul is not exempt from criminal prosecution for violations of the laws of the country where he resides. Courts of First Instance were vested with original jurisdiction over all criminal cases in which a penalty of more than six months' imprisonment or a fine exceeding one hundred dollars might be imposed. Such jurisdiction included the trial of criminal actions brought against consuls. Time Inc. vs. Reyes Facts: Enrile and Villegas filed a suit against Time Inc for an article regarding corruption in Asia where the two were featured. RA 4363 provides that public officials should file their petitions in the place where they are rendering their service. Villegas filed his petition in Rizal and not in Manila. Issue: W/N the case will prosper and W/N corporations may be sued Decision: The rule is that where a statute creates a right and provides a remedy for its enforcement, the remedy is exclusive; and where it confers jurisdiction upon a particular court, that jurisdiction is likewise exclusive, unless otherwise provided. Hence, the venue provisions of Republic Act No. 4363 should be deemed mandatory for the party bringing the action, unless the question of venue should be waived by the defendant which was not the case here. A corporation is immune from suit but it may, by writ of prohibition, seek relief against the wrongful assumption of jurisdiction. And a foreign corporation seeking a writ of prohibition against further maintenance of a suit, on the ground of want of jurisdiction, is not bound by the ruling of the court in which the suit was brought. WHO vs. Aquino Facts: Respondent judge issued a search warrant for the search and seizure of the personal effects of the petitioner, an official of the WHO. Despite intervention of the Solicitor General and the DFA that Mr. Verstuyft is covered with diplomatic immunity, the judge refused to withdraw the search warrant. Issue: W/N the action of the judge is a violation of RA 75 and thus an abuse of discretion. Decision: Yes. It is a recognized principle of international law and under our system of separation of powers that diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question and courts should refuse to look beyond a determination by 1. 2. 3. 4.
Vena V. Verga
the executive branch of the government, and where the plea of diplomatic immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive branch of government as, in the case at bar, it is then the duty of the courts to accept the claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion by the principal law officer of the government, the Solicitor General in this case, or other officer acting under his direction. Hence, in adherence to the settled principle that courts may not so exercise their jurisdiction by seizure and detention of property, as to embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting foreign relations, it is accepted doctrine that "in such cases the judicial department of (this) government follows the action of the political branch and will not embarrass the latter by assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction."
PRINCIPLE OF TERRITORIALITY -- As a rule. Penal laws of the Philippines are enforceable only within its territory. If the power to define crimes is the power of the sovereign, it must be followed that such sovereign can only exercise such power within its jurisdiction/territory. Territory Atmosphere Interior Waters Maritime zone
Note: Limits of the territorial sea (by UNCLOS) is only 3 miles from the seashore. What is followed now is the 12-mile rule plus the 12-mile contiguous zone. But for purposes of criminal law, our jurisdiction only extends to the territorial sea. Classification of Vessels: 1. Foreign public vessels – war vessels/war ships (ex. Lawton Ship in US vs. Fowler). War vessels are considered to be an extension of the nationality of the owner of said vessel and cannot be subjected to the laws of the state (a) US vs. Fowler Facts: Theft was committed on board a transport while navigating the high seas. The accused were brought to trial and defendants contends that the Court of First Instance have no jurisdiction over the case because the crime was committed in a foreign public vessel and on high seas. Issue: W/N the court has jurisdiction to try the case. Decision: No. Courts of First Instance of the Philippines have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of crimes committed on the high seas on board of a transport or other vessel not registered or licensed in the Philippines. Warships are Foreign Public Vessels
Page 6 of 100
which makes it a Philippine ship or airship. (US vs. No. Bull) English Rule –The English only exercise their jurisdiction on issues that involve the internal management of vessel. unless their commission affects the peace and security of the territory or the safety of the state is endangered. (US vs. He was on board the steamship Errol. (b) Foreign Merchant Vessel In Transit Foreign Merchant Vessels Note: A Philippine vessel or aircraft must be understood as that which is registered in the Philippine Bureau of Customs. /vvverga Page 7 of 100 . 275 of the Philippine Commission. Vena V. Decision: When a foreign merchant vessel is not in transit because the Philippines is its terminal port. This is just a matter of comity. Importation is complete when the ship anchored in the Philippine port. does not bring about in this country those disastrous effects that our law contemplates on avoiding. which came from Hong Kong and was bound to Mexico via the ports of Manila. a foreign steamer. Bull contends that the Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over his offense. A US Army transport is considered a warship. who was the master of a vessel transporting cattle. such crimes are triable in that country where they were committed. Landing or using opium is an open violation of the Philippine laws. because he may be held guilty of illegal importation of opium. Bull) 5. because that fact alone does not constitute a breach of public order. carabao and other animals from Formosa to Manila. Such neglect was a violation of Act. (c) US vs. without being used in our territory. authorities found said substances. Bull Facts: H. which docked at the port of Cebu. French Rule – such crimes are not triable in the courts of that country. 2. Issue: W/N the courts have jurisdiction over a foreign vessel in transit. A charge of illegal importation was served against him. But our courts acquire jurisdiction when the tunes of opium are landed from the vessel on Philippine sol. The mere possession of opium on such a ship. Look Chaw Facts: The defendant was charged with unlawful possession and sale of opium. Ah Sing Facts: Defendant is a fireman of the steamship Shun Chang. which was of English nationality. Rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessels while in the territorial waters of another country 1.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) always reputed to be the territory of the country to which they belong an cannot be subjected to the laws of another state. Decision: When a vessel comes within 3 miles from the headland which embrace the entrance of Manila Bay. Decision: Mere possession of opium aboard a foreign merchant vessel in transit is not triable in the Philippines. Foreign merchant vessels – more or less subjected to the territorial laws. Note: In the Philippines. Jose). French courts therefore claim exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed on board French merchant vessels in foreign ports by one member of the crew against another. the laws of the Philippines shall apply. Exemptions to the territorial application of criminal law Article 2 of RPC provides that its provisions shall be forced outside of the jurisdiction of the Philippines against those who: 1) Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship. the vessel is within the territorial waters and thus.N Bull. otherwise. The defense moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the courts have no jurisdiction since the act does not constitute a crime. the person in possession of opium on board the vessel is liable. It is the registration of the vessel or aircraft in accordance with the laws of the Philippines. It is not necessary that the opium be discharged or taken from the ship (US vs. Foreign Merchant Vessels not in transit Note: The state is not obligated to give immunity on crimes done in foreign public vessels. failed to provide suitable means for securing animas while they are in transit. Defendant brought eight cans of opium and upon inspection. regardless of the fact that the same conditions existed when the ship sailed from the foreign port and while it was on the high seas. Issue: W/N the crime of illegal importation of opium in to the Philippines was proven. A continuing crime committed on board a Norwegian merchant vessel sailing to the Philippines is within the jurisdiction of the courts of the Philippine when the forbidden conditions existed during the time the ship was within the territorial waters. not the citizenship of its owner. Verga US vs. we observe the English rule (a) US vs. Issue: W/N the Philippines has jurisdiction over this case.
Ex post facto laws Rule: No ex post facto laws shall be enacted. It is logical for laws to look forward and not backward. This is true to civil law countries. Defendants contend that the provisions of the penal code dealing with piracy are no longer in force. while being a public officer or employee. No. to the economical interest of the country. An ex post facto law is one which: (1) makes criminal in act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done. but not to common law countries. The judge imposed a sentence with heavier penalty in accordance with a new law. The jurisdiction of piracy unlike all other crimes has no territorial limits. Verga 2) When the offender should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippines or obligations and securities by the Government. 4) When the offender. Note: Introducing fake currency in the Philippine is as dangerous as forging or counterfeiting of the same. when committed. treason. Issue: W/N the provisions of the penal code dealing with the crime of piracy are still in force. 3) When the offender should be liable for acts connected with the introduction to the Philippines of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number. It may be punished in the competent tribunal of any country where the offender may be found or into which lie may be carried. US vs. espionage. even in abroad. It is but a logical construction that wherever "Spain" is mentioned in the Penal Code. By virtue of the Treaty of Paris. Note: This case is an exception to the exception. correspondence with hostile country. which took effect two months after the trial. /vvverga Page 8 of 100 . Nullum crimen." Piracy is a crime not against any particular State but against all mankind. Note: Counterfeiting or forging Philippine coins or bank notes in a foreign country may be prosecuted before Philippine civil courts. Inasmuch as Act No. should commit an offense in the exercise of his functions. Note: crimes that may be committed. the word should be substituted by the expression. flight to enemy’s country. (2) aggravates a crime. or makes it greater than it was.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. it should be substituted by the words "United States" and wherever "Spaniards" are mentioned. inciting was and giving motives for reprisals.There is no crime when there is no law punishing the same. piracy and mutiny on the high seas. and punishes such in act. When the offender should commit any of the crimes against the national security and law of nations. Issue: W/N Act. At 366 of RPC provide that crimes are punished under the laws in force at the time of their commission. 1732 did not go into force until after the commission of the offense. He was sentenced to pay a fine and was also sentenced to imprisonment in case of insolvency with respect to the fine imposed. or other offense. nulla poena sine lege -. unless they are favorable to the person accused. 1732 which imposed both the fine and the imprisonment should be applied on this case. Spain ceded the Philippine Islands to the US. C. LOL-LO and SARAW Facts: The defendants were charged of the crime of piracy for pirating two Dutch boats as well as raping two of the women. subsidiary imprisonment can not be lawfully imposed. Note: This include. in the exercise of public functions are: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) 5) direct bribery indirect bribery frauds against the public treasury possession of prohibited interest malversation of public funds or property failure of accountable officer to render accounts illegal use of public funds or property failure to make delivery of public funds or property falsification by a public officer or employee committed with abuse of his official position. People vs. Penal statutes cannot be made retroactive with respect to a crime. PRINCIPLE OF IRRESTROSPECTIVITY OR PROSPECTIVITY – penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when it was not committed. Macasaet Facts: The defendant was proven guilty of selling native wine at retail without the license required by law. Decision: Yes. conspiracy and proposal to commit treason. Decision: No. "citizens of the United States and citizens of the Philippine Islands. violation of neutrality.
even if the same was not stated in the decision of CA. which concern civil matters. Exceptions to the prospective application of criminal laws (When penal law apply retroactively) 1. Decision: No. Verga People vs. the same should be made applicable to him. which inflicts punishment without trial. Its essence is the substitution of a legislative for a judicial determination of guilt. having already served for more than three years is entitled to be discharged under the provisions of Art. and so he filed a third party claim enjoining the sheriff to proceed with the sale.A. Considering that Art. After 3 years. 1700 or the Anti Subversion Act on the ground that is a bill of attainder. Appealed to the Court of Appeals. 22 of the RPC. Section 4 of the Anti-Subversion Act expressly states that the prohibition therein applies only to acts committed "After the approval of this Act. and (6) deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled. The prohibition against ex post facto laws applies only to criminal or penal matters. (a) Degree of Imposable Penalty is reduced People vs. Issue: W/N Subido be required to suffer subsidiary imprisonment. (4) alters the legal rules of evidence. Appellant said that he could not be required to serve the amount of fine and indemnity in the form of subsidiary imprisonment because said judgment did not expressly provide that. /vvverga Page 9 of 100 . Issue: W/N the petition is justified. or a proclamation of amnesty. are punished. to pay a fine of 500 pesos. The CA ordered the accused to pay a fine of 500 pesos and indemnity is reduced to 5. 22 of the penal code. In re: Kay Villegas Kami. Although section 18 penalizes a violation of any of the provision of RA 1632. 6132 saying that it is an ex post facto law. lighter penalty. in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful. to indemnify the offended party. in case of insolvency to pay his civil liability. Ferrer Facts: The defendants assail the constitutionality of RA No. and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense. Bill of Attainder as Ex Post Facto Law People vs. Issue: W/N the said law is an ex post facto law and thus unconstitutional. Applying Art. Accused-appellant is favored by the retroactive force of Art. Facts: The petitioners are assailing the constitutionality of Sec. interest of accused in the twostorey building. Sheriff then attached whatever rights. such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal.000 pesos with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. he can avail of the amended." Only those who "knowingly. It is so provided in Art. Decision: No. but the same was registered in the name of Agapito Subido. 5465 which exempts an accused person from subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency to pay his civil liability. as amended by R. willfully and by overt acts affiliate themselves with. Santos Facts: Petitioner was convicted for the crime of estafa and was sentenced to serve for 2 years and 11 months imprisonment to indemnify the offended party. as amended is favorable to the accused. Inc. as long as he is not a habitual delinquent.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) (3) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed. This was denied. The said law prohibits the petitioner’s nominee to be nominated in the constitutional convention since he represents a part. 39 as amended. Issue: W/N the law is unconstitutional Decision: A bill of attainder is a legislative act. Macasaet Escalante vs. The petitioner. 1957. Mayor Arsenio Lacson in the sum of 10. Decision: Yes. the penalty is imposed only for acts committed after the approval of the law and not those perpetuated prior thereto. Lower court states that he should suffer subsidiary imprisonment. 39 of the RPC. 39. Even if the accused is serving final judgment. The principle of the retroactivity of penal laws in so far as it is favorable to the defendant is sanctioned by the Revised Penal Code. he has not yet been released. Lower court issued a writ of injunction. (5) assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only. become or remain members of the Communist Party of the Philippines and/or its successors or of any subversive association" after June 20. not to laws. 8 (a) and 18 of RA No. he cannot also be required to serve his civil liability to the offended party in form of subsidiary imprisonment because this is no longer required by the aforesaid article.000 pesos only. Subido Facts: CFI of Manila found the accused guilty of libel and is hereby sentenced to 3 months of arresto mayor with accessory penalties of the law. When favorable to the accused Vena V. He is petitioning for habeas corpus.
and article 448 of the Penal Code then in force. applies to the case of the herein petitioner. prays the court to set him at liberty through the writ of habeas corpus. pleading that there is no sufficient legal ground for continuing his imprisonment any longer. Laceste vs. found guilty. Act No. Issue: W/N the new law can apply to the accused. Section 13 of the new act provides as follows: "All laws and parts of laws now in force. People vs. which was not affected by the marriage of his coaccused and the offended party. so far as the same may be in conflict herewith. the penalty. but as to such causes of action or pending actions existing laws shall remain in full force and effect. article 344. as it was in the Code that preceded it. A. Act No. no liability if felonious act is committed without free will Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith Limitations on the power of the lawmaking body to enact penal legislation No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted No person shall be held to answer for criminal offenses without due process of law – criminal laws must be of general application and must clearly define the acts and omissions punished as crimes. PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY: Nullum crimen." If it was not the intention of the Legislature to make the new Code retroactive. B. and hence. Verga Facts: The accused was charged with offense of injurias graves under articles of the RPC. 1773.There is no crime when there is no law punishing the same. A. That nothing herein contained shall operate as a repeal of existing laws in so far as they are applicable to pending actions or existing causes of action. nulla poena sine lege -. are hereby repealed: Provided. Valdez A. Principle of Pro Reo -. And the Legislature. all crimes must be so defined and penalized under the law (art. last paragraph. Decision: No. 22) (b) Accused Disregards Later law and invokes prior statute under which he was prosecuted. 3815. This is true to civil law countries. but not to common law countries. he had been prosecuted. X. committed prior to the date of effectiveness of this Code. has clearly intended to give retroactive effect to article 22. Magdalena de Ocampo. (c) Providing for Prescription of offenses D. But the petitioner herein continued serving his sentence. under section 366 of the New Penal Code. Basic Maxims in Criminal Law E. XI. B. has been sanctioned in the Revised Penal Code. IX. and sentenced to commitment for the crime of rape. and was accordingly relieved from the criminal prosecution by virtue of section 2." The general rule that penal laws shall be retroactive in so far as they favor the accused has no application where the later law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of action. Clemente Laceste. With Nicolas Lachica. it would have used the words "notwithstanding" or "in spite of". because section 366 provides: "Without prejudice to the provisions contained in article 22 of this Code. Issue: W/N Laceste should be freed. instead of "without prejudice." The principle of retroactivity of penal laws in so far as they favor the defendant. Santos Facts: The petitioner. F. Moran Exceptions to retroactivity of laws (a) Accused is a habitual criminal (Art. 21) PERSONAL – Penal laws does not allow anyone to assume another’s criminal liability PRINCIPLE OF CERTAINTY – every act made punishable by law must be so defined as to leave no penumbra of doubt or uncertainty as to its applicability to a given case. Other fundamental Assumptions of Penal Law Free-will or freedom to choose between right and wrong. shall be punished in accordance with the Code or Acts in force at the time of their commission.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Note: Removal of subsidiary imprisonment to pay civil liability (b) Prescribing Grounds for Mitigation or Extinction of Criminal Liability Vena V. felonies and misdemeanors. which provided that such a marriage extinguished penal liability. and that he should be discharged from prison. All penal laws have been declared retroactive by the Honorable Supreme Court. (c) Later Statute Precludes Application to Existing Actions or Pending Cases Tavera vs. Nicola Lachica married the victim.Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of two interpretations – one lenient to the /vvverga Page 10 of 100 . Decision: It is believed that the Revised Penal Code.
This maxim is not an absolute one because it is not applied to culpable felonies. Charge of rape based upon the sole testimony of the one who complains of rape should be regarded with utmost caution and that the person charged with the offense should not be convicted unless the complainant's testimony is impeccable and rings true throughout. which leads to acquittal. B. Actus non facit reum. Decision: No. The court agrees with the accused that where facts are susceptible of two interpretations. This kind of construction is very much open to police extortion thus must be avoided. accused pleaded not guilty. blunt or pointed weapon – but it failed to include the second element. During arraignment. Issue: W/N the evidences were enough to warrant a charge of guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Proof of guilt must convince beyond reasonable doubt. Where inculpatory facts are susceptible of two interpretations. The reason for this is the “tenderness of the law of the rights of individuals. carrying outside one’s residence of any bladed. 9. The purpose is not to enable the guilty person to escape punishment through technicality but to provide precise definition of forbidden acts. People vs. The informations merely contained the first element – that is. The rule is that reasonable doubt in criminal cases must be resolved in favor of the accused. or those that result from negligence. /vvverga Page 11 of 100 . There were two witnesses with contradicting testimonies. Abad Santos). This is true to a felony characterized by dolo. and the discretion of the court limited. the accused should be acquitted since evidence failed to fulfill the test of moral certainty to support a conviction. Verga XII. See: Principle of Pro-reo B. The accused maintained his innocence saying that tit was the victim who accidentally shot himself while they were battling for the gun. then we have to sustain the interpretation. but not a felony resulting from culpa. The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt calls for moral certainty of guilt -. the object is to establish a certain rule by conformity to which mankind would be safe. Purisima Facts: Twenty six petitions for review were filed by the People of the Philippines involving the information filed charging the respective accused with violation of PD No. No person should be brought within their terms who is not clearly within them nor should any act be pronounced criminal which is not made clearly so be a statute.a certainty that convinces and satisfies the reason and the conscience of those who are to act upon it. Construction of penal laws Liberal Construction In Favor of the Offender (a) Reason Note: Ambiguity – occurs when an act falls under more than one law or when the law is susceptible to more than one interpretation People vs. Where the law is clear and unambiguous. A. 9. The courts of first instances issued an order quashing the in formations filed alleging that the facts failed to state one essential element of the crime Issue: W/N the informations filed by the people were sufficient in form and substance to constitute an offence of ‘illegal possession of deadly weapon’ penalized under PD No.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) offender and one strict to the offender – that interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the offender will be adopted. Penal laws are strictly construed against the Government and liberally in favor of the accused (US vs. Penal statues must be construed strictly against the state and liberally in favor of the accused. This rule may be invoked only where the law is ambiguous and there is doubt as to its interpretation. Alzaga Facts: Roy Alzaga was found guilty by the RTC for the crime of murder. there is no room for the application of this rule (People vs. Ng Facts: The defendant was charged with the crime of forcible abduction with rape. Decision: No. which is the intention or motivation behind it. RTC convicted the defendant but he appealed contending that evidences were not enough to warrant a conviction. Penal laws should be construed strictly. one consistent and another inconsistent with the guilt of the accused. The case at bar falls short to the quantum of evidence required to sustain a conviction of rape thereby creating reasonable doubt as to appellant's guilt. There were also testimonies which were inconsistent to the guilt of the accused. People vs. Vena V.The act cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal. Issue: W/N the Alzaga should be charged beyond reasonable doubt. Decision: No. Gatchalian). nisi mens sit rea -.
Issue: W/N the accused should be held liable for the violation. If the law is ambiguous. the preamble may be used. The case of Ramirez turns on a different note. Issue: W/N the defendant incurred liability. He contends that he is ignorant of the law and that the prohibition is only against the actual use of identical banners and devices which were used during the Philippine insurrection. In cases like this. Issue: W/N there is ambiguity in the meaning of private conversation and private communication. When the language if a statute is susceptible of more than one construction. thus. /vvverga Page 12 of 100 . The phrase is ambiguous and the principle that "penal statutes must be construed strictly in favor of the accused. the latter construction should be adopted. Issue: W/N there is ambiguity in the phrase "device(s) or arrangement(s)" Decision: The use of a telephone extension for the purpose of overhearing a private conversation without authorization did not violate R.A. and other purposes. The contention is nonsense. the law is applied according to its express terms. Toribio Facts: Defendant was charged for violation of Art. Petitioner also alleged that private conversation. banner or device used during the insurrections in the Philippines. As a result of her actions. CA) Facts: This case involves an act of overhearing a conversation by use of an extension line. The act primarily seeks to protect large cattle from theft. 30. 1 of Act. No. and interpretation would be resorted to only where a literal interpretation would be either impossible or absurd or would lead to an injustice. Garcia for allegedly vexing and humiliating her. the court shall resort to the principle that the spirit of the law controls the letter. there are no slaughterhouses. The intention of the legislature and object aimed at are to control the literal interpretation of a particular language in a statute. entitled An Act to prohibit and penalize wire-tapping and other related violations of private communication. The phrase “ at the municipal slaughterhouse” may bet taken as limiting and restricting the words “killed for food” (b) Ramirez vs. The task of the court is to apply the law. Verga and the statute itself explicitly mentions the unauthorized "recording" of private communications with the use of tape-recorders” as among the acts punishable. because the applicable facts and circumstances pointing to a violation of R.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) (a) When the law is clear. When there is ambiguity. Decision: There is no ambiguity. not authorized by all the parties to any private communication to secretly record such communication by means of any gadget. Legislative intent is determined principally from the language of a statute. that construction should be adopted which will most tend to give effect to the manifest intent of the legislature. US vs. the prohibitions of Act 1147 does not apply. Intermediate Appellate Court (in contrast with Ramirez vs. branding and slaughtering of large cattle without a license. she presented a transcript of her conversation with the respondent. Will not also apply when strict construction will defeat the intent. Language capable of more than one meaning is to be taken in the sense. policy and purpose. In support of her allegations." Must be followed. and there is doubt as to the subject matter to which the law is to be applied. (d) Appellant contends that since in his town. which she and the respondent had. Court of Appeals Facts: Petitioner filed a case against private respondent. there is no room for interpretation. is not the same with private communication. Decision: Yes. Chico Facts: Defendant was charged for violating sec. Decision: Yes. 4200 suffer from no ambiguity. 4200 because a telephone extension device was neither among those devices enumerated in Section 1 of the law nor was it similar to those "device(s) or arrangement(s)" enumerated therein.A. 30 and 33 of the act prohibit and penalize the slaughtering or causing to be slaughtered for human consumption of large cattle at any place without the permit provided for in sec. Vena V. US vs. which will harmonize the intention and object. Sec. respondent filed a case against her for violation of Republic Act 4200. Gaanan vs. 1696 of the Philippine commission which prohibits the display of any flag. There are two constructions of these prohibitions: (c) The phrase ‘at the municipal slaughter house’ may be taken as limiting and restricting both the word ‘slaughtered’ and “killed for food” in section 30 and “killing for food” in section 33. The afore stated provision clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal for any person. which regulates the registration. the task of the court of to know the meaning and intention of the law. Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous. 30 and 33 of Act 1147.
is incorrect. Our society is a tolerant one and surely. Because it speaks of the buena conducta observada por el penado .not one under "prison preventiva. If the word rice includes the grain in its original state without the hull being taken away. Issue: W/N Corazon violated the Anti-Alias Law. Inasmuch as the Revised Penal Code was originally approved and enacted in Spanish. He is claiming for allowance for good conduct as provided for by Art 97 of the RPC. the Spanish text should prevail. the defendant submits that the doubt should always be resolved in favor of the accused. The accused was tried and convicted. rape or acts of lasciviousness. the Spanish text governs. Decision: The term "any prisoner" in the English text of Art. It may be hulled rice (arroz) or it may be rice seeds (palay). This came to the knowledge of the real spouse thus she filed a complaint against Corazon for using the name Reyes although she was not married to Emilio. The first complaint was made by the chief of police of Dumagete. In the construction or interpretation of the provisions of the RPC. Cultural environment by which the legislature is operating can also be a source of the meaning as well as the intention of the law. People vs. Issue: W/N the plea for double jeopardy should be granted. then "rice' is included under the term 'semilla alimenticia' or cereal seed. the lawmakers could not have meant to criminalize what Corazon had done especially because some of them probably had their own Corazons." The allowance for good conduct "for each month of good behavior" then unquestionably refers to good behavior of a prisoner while he is serving his term as a convict and not otherwise. which is controlling.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. People vs. Inasmuch as hulled rice (arroz) cannot be considered as seedling (semilla alimenticia). Intermediate Appellate Court Facts: Petitioner has been living with a married man for 20 years and the relationship ended with the death of the man. The victim then filed the same complaint. Therefore. Director of prisons Facts: Petitioner has been in detention for 18 years of preventive imprisonment for the crime of rebellion. Corazon filed for support for their son. abduction. Note: There are already amendments that use English terms. but by the chief of police. D. had no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or the subject matter of the action. This time. used in the Spanish text of article 303 of the Revised Penal Code. into which was translated the phrase "semilla alimenticia". The complaint merely alleges that the object stolen was seven sacks of rice. 97 regarding good conduct allowance is. In cases of doubt in the interpretation of the Revised Penal Code. and the defendant was never in jeopardy. in the Spanish text. because the complaint had not been filed by the offended party.” It will be observed that the Spanish equivalent of the word "filed" is not found in the Spanish text. Issue: W/N Art 97 of the RP is applicable to detention prisoners or prisoners who are just serving preventive imprisonment. Decision: The English word "cereal". as it was the Spanish text of the Revised Penal Code that was approved by the Legislature. Decision: It is in the light of our cultural environment that the law must be construed. but the judgment was set aside and the case dismissed on the ground that the court /vvverga Page 13 of 100 . Manaba Facts: Manaba was charged with rape. which remained in their original form. Mesias Facts: The defendant was accused of robbing seven sacks of rice and before arraignment. Under the circumstances. Manaba filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of jeopardy for the same offense. Legamia vs. shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party…. "el penado. But for those. Since the first complaint filed was not the complaint of the offended party. there is no need to go back to the Spanish text. For these amendments. the Spanish text is controlling. he contended that the term rice does not only mean hulled rice but also includes palay. Verga C.." who is a convict or a person already sentenced by final judgment. the offense with which the appellee is charged in the information does not fall under article 303 of the Revised Penal Code but under the second to the last paragraph of article 302 where the offense therein defined is penalized with arresto mayor in its maximum degree to prision correccional. Baking vs. After the death of husband Emilio. Issue: W/N the phrase "hulled rice" was within the meaning of "semilla alimenticia" as used in the Spanish text. it was not a valid complaint in accordance with the law. There is no doubt that Article 97 does not embrace detention prisoners within its reach. the Spanish text is controlling. the thing stolen was really hulled rice (arroz) but there is nothing in the complaint which shows that fact. Decision: The third paragraph of article 344 of the Revised Penal Code provides that: The offenses of seduction. The judgment of the court was therefore void for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
The accused is not relieved of liability from the requisite “deforme” even if the victim can lessen the deformity through artificial means. One who unlawfully wounds another is responsible for the consequences of his act. Repeals Decision: The repeal is absolute. the legal maxim cessante ratione legis. The conflict arose from the ambiguous term “any other members” which is necessary for the charge. The act of pre-reaping and pre-treshing without notice to the landlord. Balubar Facts: Balubar was found guilty of the crime of physical injuries by the lower court. a foot. as redesignated in Republic Act No. the law in force at the time of the commission of the offense shall be applied If the new law totally repeals the existing law so that the act. The victim lost four of his front teeth. Decision. While the case was pending appeal. 503. The prohibition against pre-threshing has no more raison d'etre because the lessee is obligated to pay a fixed rental as prescribed in section 34 of the Agricultural Land Reform Code. an arm. David vs. which was an offense under the Agricultural Tenancy. Decision: In this case. Issue: W/N EO 503 was repealed by Compilation of Civil Service Laws and Rules. Verga People vs. No. or custom or practice to the contrary. was superceded by the Compilation of Civil Service Laws and Rules under which his rating of 84% is considered a high degree of efficiency. is no longer punishable.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. the crime is obliterated." People vs. an Administrative Compilation. 2) 3) People vs. Decision: The Agricultural Land Reform Code superseded the Agricultural Tenancy Law (except as qualified in sections 4 and 35 of the Code). The Code instituted the leasehold system and abolished share tenancy subject to certain conditions indicated in section 4 thereof. The English text contained “loss on any other part of his body” while the Spanish text provided the loss of “any other member” resulting in “disfigurement”. a hand. Where the repeal is absolute and not a reenactment or repeal by implication. which prescribes a minimum efficiency of 85% for promotion. Such is the case at bar. He further contends that EO No. Dancel Facts: Petitioner is assailing the promotion of Angel Dancel to Chief of Tax Registration a position to which he claims to be lawfully entitled. the Code of Agrarian Reforms. It is significant that section 39 is not reproduced in the Agricultural Land Reform Code whose section 172 repeals "all laws or part of any law inconsistent with" its provisions. 1971. or a leg resulting to "Deforme" or "disfigured". the new law shall be applied. "Cualquier otro miembro" is more accurately translated "any other member". A. the offense ceases to be criminal. The defendant must be acquitted. has ceased to be an offense under the subsequent law. If the new law imposes a heavier penalty. Issue: W/N the accused is still liable for his actions. or the Code of Agrarian Reforms. Later cases seem to suggest that loss of teeth does not constitute disfigurement because it can easily be replaced. the law itself also ceases). Tamayo Facts: The accused was prosecuted for and convicted of a violation of an ordinance. Spanish text is given more weight. Thus. 6389 which took effect on September 10. meaning any other member than an eye. "laws are repealed only by subsequent ones and their violation or nonobservance shall not be excused by disuse. Issue: W/N the absolute repeal obliterated the criminal liability. which was penalized under the old law. Almuete Facts: The defendant supposedly violated Sec 39 of he Agricultural Tenancy Law which is premised on the existence of the rice share tenancy system. The Compilation of Civil Service Laws and Rules was prepared merely by the Bureau of Civil Service and could not possibly have repealed Executive Order No. the ordinance was repealed by eliminating the section under which the accused was being prosecuted. series of 1934 since under Article 7 of the Civil Code. 503. 1) Different effects of repeal of penal law If repeal makes the penalty lighter in the new law. /vvverga Page 14 of 100 . To prosecute it as an offense when the Code of Agrarian Reforms is already in force would be repugnant to the policy and spirit of that Code and would subvert the manifest legislative intent not to punish anymore pre-reaping sod pre-threshing without notice to the landholder. cessat ipsa lex (the reason for the law ceasing. except when the offender is a habitual delinquent or when the new law is made not applicable to pending action or existing causes of action. Issue: W/N Almuete violated a law. XIII. applies to the case at bar.
the former is thereby repealed. the repealing law will be the one to apply unless there is a saving clause in the repealing law that it shall not apply to pending causes of action. are repealed by Act No. Issue: W/N Art 256 is still in force. People vs. Buscayno vs. and (b) that even though the evidence did show that he had violated the provisions of the Penal Code providing a punishment for injurias graves. previous laws are held to be repealed by necessary implication. 257 of the Penal Code for attacking the virtue of the members of the Senate. so that if the repeal is more lenient to them. c. and the repealing law is more favorable to the accused. The appellant contends (a) that the evidence adduced during the trial did not show that he was guilty of the crime of injurias graves as defined under the Penal Code. Where the later statute clearly covers the old subject-matter of antecedent acts. Perfecto Facts: Gregorio Perfecto. If a criminal law deals with the same subject as a prior law and is inconsistent with and repugnant to the prior law. Where the latter or revising statute clearly covers the whole subject matter of antecedent acts. editor of La Nacion was found guilty of violating Art. Express or implied repeal – Express or implied repeal refers to the manner the repeal is done. shall defame. Those who are not habitual delinquents will benefit on the effect of that repeal. 277). Issue: W/N the penal code provisions were already repealed by the Libel Law. 2. and such statute or law is repealed by implication if the later statute is so repugnant to the earlier one that the two cannot stand together or if the whole subject of the earlier statute is covered by the latter one having the same object. It is the earlier that will give way to the later law because the later law expresses the recent legislative sentiment. PD No. for the reason that said provisions of the Penal Code had been repealed by the Libel Law (Act No. 1.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. such that the two laws cannot stand together. which define and punish grave insults. even if the repealing law is partial or relative. Military Commissions No. 6 and 25 Facts: The petitioners were accused of rebellion for having allegedly participated in public uprising to overthrow the government. the latter is held to be repealed by necessary implication. and it plainly appears to have been the purpose of the Legislature to give expression in it to the whole law on the subject. if the case is still pending in court. Defendant questions whether this article is still in force or whether the Libel law already repealed it. Decision: The Philippine Libel Law. 277. it shall be the one applied to him. (2) Decision: Provisions of the Penal Code. and which was clearly intended to prescribe the only rule applicable to the subject. Act No. So whether he is a habitual delinquent or not. They were accused of subversion under RA 1700 (Anti-Subversion Law). the crime still remains to be a crime. when those crimes are expressed publicly in writing. or insult. abuse or insult any minister of the Crown or other person shall be punished. People vs. If a case is already decided and the accused is already serving sentence by final judgment. Verga B. /vvverga Page 15 of 100 . An implied repeal will take place when there is a law on a particular subject matter and a subsequent law is passed also on the same subject matter but is inconsistent with the first law. it will be the repealing law that will henceforth apply to them. he could not be punished. Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code is not now in force because abrogated by the change from Spanish to American sovereignty over the Philippines and because inconsistent with democratic principles of government. Castro Facts: The defendant was charged with injuries graves for sending letter to a medical health officer which contained insults and accusations. (1) Consequences if repeal of penal law is partial or relative If a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law. has had the effect of repealing so much of article 256 of the Penal Code as related to written defamation. Effects (1) Pending Criminal Action is not dismissed C. Art 256 of the Penal Code provides that any person who by writing. 1. (a) (b) Repeal by implication is not favored There is implied repeal if there are irreconcilable inconsistencies. Defendant was acquitted. Sometime of 1976. abuse. like any other statute. may be repealed either expressly or by necessary implication. A penal law. and it plainly appears to have been the purpose of the Legislature to give expression in it to the whole law on the subject. 277-the Libel Law. 885 which repealed RA 1700 took effect. One of the petitioners contends that her criminal liability was extinguished by the repeal. one of the two laws must give way.
Decision: No. the provisions of the penal code is revived.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Issue: W/N in repealing RA 1700. is itself repealed. Express repeal takes place when a subsequent law contains a provision that such law repeals an earlier enactment. In crimes punished under special laws. the moral trait of the offender is not considered. (3) Effects of nullity of repealing laws Cruz vs. No. in repealing or superseding Republic Act No. As to moral trait of the offender In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code. Act. That saving or transitory clause is reenacted in section 14(i) of the National Security Code. Soliman Facts: Defendant was accused of perjury under Art 1697. which repeals a prior law. 885 extinguished the criminal liabilities of persons charged with violation of the older law. 1697. That decree. 2657 expressly repealed Act no. No. Distinction between crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code and crimes punished under special laws 1. This is why liability would only arise when there is dolo or culpa in the commission of the punishable act. Issue: W/N Act. The purpose of the party is the decisive factor in determining whether it is a subversive organization. 1700. No 3155 is constitutional. unless the crime is the result of culpa D. so the act or omission will no longer be penalized. XIV. An unconstitutional statute can have no effect to repeal former laws or parts of laws by implication. the subsequent repeal of the repealing law will revive the original law. 1697 impliedly repeals Art. 2. No. Therefore. it is not inconsistent with such former law. Act no. the moral trait of the offender is considered. The fact that Presidential Decree No. it is enough that the prohibited act was voluntarily done. 1700. the first law repealed shall not be revived unless expressly provided. (2) If the repeal is express. 1697 was expressly repealed by a Section in the administrative code. While he was serving his sentence. Vena V. but by implication. Respondent demurred that even id Act No. good faith or lack of criminal intent is a valid defense. Consequences if repeal of penal law is express or implied /vvverga Page 16 of 100 . which is the Revised Anti-Subversion Law. 319 of the penal code. Act. the petitioner would still be prohibited from importing because Act. As to use of good faith as defense In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code. Youngberg Facts: Petitioner attacked the constitutionality of Act No. So the act or omission which was punished as a crime under the original law will be revived and the same shall again be crimes although during the implied repeal they may not be punishable. the repeal of the repealing law will not revive the first law. 3052. Issue: W/N the criminal liability was extinguished because of the repeal. 3155 was declared unconstitutional. 3155 which prohibits the importation of cattle from foreign countries to the Philippines. Decision: Section 12 of the administrative code provides that a law. It is similar to article 366 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that felonies and misdemeanors committed prior to the effectivity of the Revised Penal Code shall be punished in accordance with the old Penal Code and the laws in force at the time of their commission. is not expressly. It is entirely unnecessary to pass upon the validity of the statute attacked because even if it were declared unconstitutional. thus. expressly provides in its Section 7 that "acts committed in violation" of the former law before the effectivity of the said decree "shall be prosecuted and punished in accordance with the provisions of the former Art" and that nothing in the said decree "shall prevent prosecution of cases pending for violation of" Republic Act No. (2) But penalty under second law will be applied if favorable to accused. is itself repealed. Accused contends that his criminal liability should be extinguished because of the repeal. the old rule continues in force where a law. since being void. Decision: Yes. 2. People vs. the petitioner would not be entitled to relief because of Act. which expressly repealed a prior law. No. PD No. No 3155 will be revived. 3052 which was repealed by Act. 885 does not mention the CPP does not mean that the party is no longer regarded as a subversive organization. Verga (1) If a penal law is impliedly repealed. which also defines and penalizes perjury.
Under special laws. Since the prosecution failed to prove that the accused acted with malice. 2. the degree of participation of the offenders is not considered. Test to determine if violation of special law is malum prohibitum or malum in se Analyze the violation: Is it wrong because there is a law prohibiting it or punishing it as such? If you remove the law. he was acquitted. but because with or without a law. They compelled the pilot to change destination. good faith is not a defense 3. it was held by he Supreme Court that disenfranchising a voter from casting his vote is not wrong because there is a provision of law declaring it as a crime. that the contract was advantageous to the municipality. arise. offenders are classified as principal. but before the same could be accomplished. there are attempted. Sunico. XV. She was also the highest bidder. but the trial court sustained its validity. unless the special law punishes an omission. A mayor awarded a concession to his daughter. On appeal. There is no principal or accomplice or accessory to consider. is not a defense. Therefore culpa is not a basis of liability. the degree of accomplishment of the crime is taken into account in punishing the offender. an election registrar was prosecuted for having failed to include in the voter’s register the name of a certain voter. As to degree of accomplishment of the crime In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. when there is more than one offender. He appeals alleging his defenses raised in the Sandiganbayan that he did not profit from the transaction. and that he did not act with intent to gain. What was the crime committed? Grave coercion. the election registrar raised as good faith as a defense. mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not taken into account in imposing the penalty. the act constituting the crime is a prohibited act. 4. thus. Crimes committed against the provisions of a special law are penalized only when the pernicious effects. the penalty is not imposed unless the act is consummated. The award was even endorsed by the municipal council as the most advantageous to the municipality. Rule. Judgment affirmed. The case goes to the Sandiganbayan and the mayor gets convicted for violation of Republic Act No. /vvverga Page 17 of 100 . The contention of the mayor that he did not profit anything from the transaction. Verga In crimes punished under special laws. In crimes punished under special laws. There is a provision in the election law which proscribes any person from preventing or disenfranchising a voter from casting his vote. As to mitigating and aggravating circumstances In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code. frustrated. In other words. mitigating and aggravating circumstances are taken into account in imposing the penalty since the moral trait of the offender is considered. unless the special law expressly penalize the mere attempt or frustration of the crime. 5. then malice must be proven. there are no attempted or frustrated stages. Article 2 Source of RPC A. In crimes punished under special laws. that the contract was advantageous to the municipality. Where malice is a factor. it is malum in se. When given a problem. the military was alerted. good faith is a defense. take note if the crime is a violation of the Revised Penal Code or a special law. accomplice and accessory. In the case of People v. In violation of special law. The losing bidder challenged the validity of the contract. will the act still be wrong? If the wording of the law punishing the crime uses the word “willfully”. Questions & Answers 1. that act is wrong. In crimes punished under special laws. and consummated stages in the commission of the crime. Three hijackers accosted the pilot of an airplane. which such law seeks to prevent. All who perpetrated the prohibited act are penalized to the same extent. the act gives rise to a crime only when it is consummated. thus. The trial court convicted him saying that good faith is not a defense in violation of special laws. As to degree of participation In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code. The crime involved is malum prohibitum. Consequently. and that he did not act with intent to gain. In trial. the degree of participation of each in the commission of the crime is taken into account in imposing the penalty. good faith is a defense. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). There is no such thing as attempted hijacking.
Otherwise. Any crime committed in interior waters comprising the Philippine archipelago shall be subject to our laws although committed on board a foreign merchant vessel.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) (1) Rafael del Pan’s Correctional Code of 1916 (2) Code of Maruecos (3) Original Draft of German Penal Code of 1913 Where offense punishable under RPC is also punished under military law Piracy is triable anywhere (see Lo-Lol and Saraw) Vena V. Intraterritorial application In the intraterritorial application of the Revised Penal Code. Under the old Rules of Criminal Procedure. the requirement that the vessel must be licensed and registered in accordance with Philippine laws has been deleted from Section 25. So whenever you use the word territory. which applies only to merchant vessels. there are two situations where the foreign country may not apply its criminal law even if a crime was committed on board a vessel within its territorial waters and these are: Question & Answer A vessel is not registered in the Philippines. do not limit this to land area only. A crime is committed outside Philippine territorial waters. except if the crime affects only the internal management of the vessel in which case it is subject to the penal law of the country where it is registered. However. these rules will not apply. unless the crime committed endangers the national security of a foreign country where the vessel is within jurisdiction in which case such foreign country will never lose jurisdiction over such vessel. The intention is to do away with that requirement so that as long as the /vvverga Page 18 of 100 . there is no occasion to apply the two rules. C. as long as such vessel is not within the territorial waters of a foreign country. If that vessel is in the high seas or open seas. So the three-mile limit on our shoreline has been modified by the rule. When the foreign country in whose territorial waters the crime was committed adopts the French Rule. interior waters and maritime zone. Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. for our courts to take cognizance of any crime committed on board a vessel during its voyage. the Archipelagic Rule shall be observed. the vessel must be registered in the Philippines in accordance with Philippine laws. When the crime is committed in a war vessel of a foreign country. paragraph c of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. The American or Anglo-Saxon Rule This rule strictly enforces the territoriality of criminal law. Verga (1) B. Will the Revised Penal Code apply? Yes. The law of the foreign country where a foreign vessel is within its jurisdiction is strictly applied. Article 2 makes it clear that it does not refer only to Philippine archipelago but it also includes the atmosphere. Both the rules apply only to a foreign merchant vessel if a crime was committed aboard that vessel while it was in the territorial waters of another country. because war vessels are part of the sovereignty of the country to whose naval force they belong. however. Extraterritorial application Extraterritorial application of the Revised Penal Code on crime committed on board Philippine ship or airship refers only to a situation where the Philippine ship or airship is not within the territorial waters or atmosphere of a foreign country. A vessel is considered a Philippine ship only when it is registered in accordance with Philippine laws. Extraterritorial – refers to the application of the Revised Penal Code outside the Philippine territory. except when the crime committed affects the national security or public order of such foreign country. Philippine laws shall govern. (2) SCOPE OF APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE The provision in Article 2 embraces two scopes of applications: (1) (2) Intraterritorial – refers to the application of the Revised Penal Code within the Philippine territory. Then the vessel entered our territory. As far as jurisdiction or application of the Revised Penal Code over crimes committed on maritime zones or interior waters. The French Rule The French Rule provides that the nationality of the vessel follows the flag which the vessel flies. Under international law. it is the foreign country’s criminal law that will apply. If it is not within the jurisdiction of any country.
they can be prosecuted. Verga A consul was to take a deposition in a hotel in Singapore. Question & Answer Vena V. There is. the revised provision added the phrase “in accordance with generally accepted principles of International Law”. More than this. therefore. When public officers or employees commit an offense in the exercise of their functions The most common subject of bar problems in Article 2 is paragraph 4: “While being public officers or employees. because Title I of Book 2 (crimes against national security) does not include rebellion. The Revised Penal Code shall not apply to any other crime committed in a foreign country which does not come under any of the exceptions and which is not a crime against national security. he was doing so as a public officer in the service of the Philippine government. what crime or crimes have been committed? Yes. the deponent approached the consul’s daughter and requested that certain parts of the deposition be changed in consideration for $10. Exception: The Revised Penal Code governs if the crime was committed within the Philippine Embassy or within the embassy grounds in a foreign country. because the bigamy was committed in a foreign country and the crime is not covered by paragraph 5 of Article 2. those having to do with the discharge of their duties in a foreign country. such that wherever the pirates may go. if the second marriage was celebrated within the Philippine embassy. Under the Rules of Court. he may be prosecuted here. if the Filipino. Paragraph 5 of Article 2. reference should be made to the provision of paragraph c of Section15 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. to be performed by the public officer in the Foreign Service of the Philippine government in a foreign country. the taking of the deposition is not the function of the consul. returns to the Philippines and cohabits here with his second wife. However. The daughter persuaded the consul and the latter agreed. since it is as if he contracted the marriage here in the Philippines. the crime would not have been prosecutable in our court.” This is a very important part of the exception. he commits the crime of concubinage for which he can be prosecuted. a vessel which is not registered in accordance with the laws of any country is considered a pirate vessel and piracy is a crime against humanity in general. The crime may be regarded as an act of piracy as long as it is done with “intent to gain”. This is because embassy grounds are considered an extension of sovereignty. our courts can take cognizance of the crime committed in such vessel. however.00.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) vessel is not registered under the laws of any country. after the second marriage.000. use the phrase “as defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code. With the revision. So the intention is clear to adopt generally accepted principles of international law in the matter of exercising jurisdiction over crimes committed in a vessel while in the course of its voyage. So if acts of rebellion were perpetrated by Filipinos who were in a foreign country. Normally. Prior to the revision. because Title I of Book 2 does not include rebellion. his function being the promotion of trade and commerce with another country. you cannot give territorial application to the Revised Penal Code. When he agreed to the falsification of the deposition. contracts another marriage abroad. In your answer. Illustration: A Philippine consulate official who is validly married here in the Philippines and who marries again in a foreign country cannot be prosecuted here for bigamy because this is a crime not connected with his official duties. a definite provision of the law making it the consul’s function to take depositions. However. which are. XVI. The functions contemplated are those. a consul can take depositions or letters rogatory. the crime committed is bigamy. [they] should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions:” As a general rule. Falsification. But the Filipino can not be prosecuted when he comes back to the Philippines. under the law. After the deposition. Under international law rule. Illustration: When a Filipino who is already married in the Philippines. Will the crime be subject to the Revised Penal Code? If so. Article 3: Felonies /vvverga Page 19 of 100 . the Revised Penal Code governs only when the crime committed pertains to the exercise of the public official’s functions. registration is not anymore a requirement and replaced with generally accepted principles of international law. Piracy is considered a crime against the law of nations.
Divino Facts: Divino was charged for the crime of lesiones graves for burning the feet Alfonsa believing in good faith that applying petroleum on her sores and ulcers would cure her wounds. MAY BE LIABLE FOR CULBABLE FELONY US vs. 2. WITHOUT EVIL INTENTION. not being regular practitioner. from such treatment. Nullum crimen. 3. Catangay was tasked to negotiate the distance. Verga Decision: No. is liable for any injuries resulting. act committed by means of dolo (b) Act is performed with deliberate intent. Acts may be omissions or commissions. Issue: W/N Romana’s act of omission is punishable. the failure to perform a positive duty which one is bound to do.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) HOW A FELONY MAY ARISE Punishable by the Revised Penal Code The term felony is limited only to violations of the Revised Penal Code. Crimes can also be punishable by special laws. Elements: 1. Mere passive presence at the scene of another’s crime. Classification of Felonies Intentional Felonies (a) Act or omission of offender is malicious. This is important because there are certain provisions in the Revised Penal Code where the term “felony” is used. only external acts are punished Omission is synonymous to inaction. B. Divino was held liable for culpable felony because the acts he committed were out of ignorance with the intent to bring about remedy instead of harm. 2. PERSON CAUSING INJURY. Decision: One who. Unfortunately. When the crime is punishable under a special law you do not refer to this as a felony. Issue: W/N Divino committed a crime considering he acted on good faith. undertakes to render medical assistance to another person. But as he was nearing the quarry. Definition: Felonies are acts and omissions punishable by the law. such act is not a crime. The case of Romana was appealed because there is no strong evidence that can prove that she was an accomplice of Martin. shall be punished under the maximum period of the penalty. /vvverga Page 20 of 100 . and the fact that he acted in good faith and according to the best of his ability does not relieve him from responsibility. On the night of the crime. he accidentally stumbled onan embankment and two shots were discharged. Silvestre and Atienza Facts: Martin and Romana were both convicted of the crime of arson by the Court of First Instance. one killing his companion. Vena V. before beginning to serve sentence or while serving the same. WHEN THERE IS NEITHER MALICE OR FAULT People vs. it is to be understood as referring to crimes under the Revised Penal Code . Catangay Facts: Catangay was found guilty of homicide through reckless negligence. So whenever you encounter the term felony. which reads: A person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment. Note that the word "felony" is used. Romana was acquitted. although his ignorance may be considered as a mitigating circumstance. Alfonsa became more injured and deformed after the treatment. mere silence and failure to give alarm. which means that the provision is not extended to crimes under special laws. act committed by means of culpa (a) Negligence – lack of foresight (b) Imprudence – lack of skill 1. Note: The phrase “punishable by law” is not only constrained to those acts that are punishable by the RPC. There must be a low requiring the performance of such act. Culpable Felonies – performed without malice. without evidence of agreement or conspiracy is not punishable. People vs. A. Note: Reckless Negligence means voluntary act without malice. nulla poena sine lege. A specific instance is found in Article 160 – Quasi-Recidivism. If there is no law that defines an act as a crime and provides for its penalty.
his action lacks the element essential for holding that it was performed with reckless negligence. When the statute plainly forbids an act to be done. as distinguished from a mere intent. and prudent. (b) Co Kong was in charge of the store. except through culpable abandon. Maleza is the municipal treasurer and he certified an account showing payments for the construction of the municipal building. the law implies conclusively the guilty intent. 2. willful intent. The embankment cannot also be anticipated. there exists another. would ever be exposed to all manner of danger and injury. then through fear of incurring punishment. In this case. or reckless negligence. and exercise due reflection in all his acts. Maleza and Adlaon). this is especially so as to statutory offenses. vs. without proof of guilty knowledge of the fact of adulteration or criminal intent in the making of the sale. no dolo is required (US. nothing is left to interpretation. is an essential ingredient in every criminal offense. it is his duty to be cautious. performed without malice. he should have exercised all the necessary diligence to avoid every undesirable accident. He is responsible for such results as anyone might foresee and for acts. Otherwise his own person. To his surprise. (People vs. which no one would have performed. Siy Cong Bien Facts: Defendants Benito Siy Cong Bieng and Co Kong were convicted of a violation of Section 7 of Act. Issue: W/N defendant Siy Cong Being should be held liable for the actions of his store manager. if not from instinct. He asked his two companions to watch over their prey while he looks for another. Adlaon signed that he received the money when in fact the money was never for the construction of municipal building but was to be given to Bastes who loaned a sum of money to the municipal president and treasurer. the eyes of a man is not luminous in the dark thus it would be impossible to mistake it to that of a deer. and another committed unconsciously and quite unintentionally. and the offense is not made to depend upon the positive. Rule: There is no need for the pattern analysis for acts that involve public policy (statutory law). The fact that the defendant offered to the mother of the deceased a carabao and a horse by way of indemnity indicates that the defendant admitted the commission of the crime although he performed that act without criminal intent and only through imprudence. thus. and that where there is the absence of such intent there is no offense. and it is done by some person. Go Chico) Act alone constitutes the offense US vs. US vs. Moreover. rights and property. proof of the fact of the sale of prohibited drugs and food products is sufficient to sustain a conviction of a violation of the statute. The discharge of a firearm that caused the. 1. Defendants maintained that falsification does not constitute the crime complained of. he seemed to have seen an eye of a deer and shot it. he knew he had two companions. The accused is guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence. Mala Prohibita and Mala in Se /vvverga Page 21 of 100 . though in a lesser Vena V. Verga degree and with an equal material result. Crimes punished under special laws. there was no intent because Catangay had a very good relationship with the victim. No. to violate the criminal law. There was no negligence either because opening the latch while approaching the quarry is very usual for hunters. which requires that the damage be inflicted without malice but through a voluntary act. When the language is plain and positive. although the resulting homicide was without malice. Issue: W/N reckless negligence is considered a crime. Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa). Benito Siy Cong Bieng appealed for: (a) He did not have any knowledge of the acts done by his agent which was the sale of adulterated coffee. Ramirez Facts: Pedro Ramirez went on hunting together with two other companions. It is a mistaken notion that positive. careful. He performed a voluntary act in discharging his gun. he shot one of his companions. but at the same time punishable. Decision: Yes. C.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Issue: W/N Catangay was guilty of reckless negligence Decision: No. 1655 of the Philippine Commission known as the Pure Food and Drugs Act. 3. although the offender was honestly mistaken as to the meaning of the law he violates. Issue: W/N there is reckless imprudence on this case. an intermediate act which the Penal Code qualifies as negligence. After walking for about 50 meters. REASON WHY CULPABLE FELONIES ARE PUNISHED People vs. Decision: Between an act performed voluntarily and intentionally. But nonetheless. victim's death having been purely accidental and wholly involuntary on the part of the accused. Decision: Under the Philippine Pure Food and Drugs Act. willful intent and purpose. Note: Reason for punishing acts of negligence: A man must use common sense. because he did not have the intention of killing the deceased. Maleza Facts: Maleza and Adlaon were charged with crimes of falsification of public documents by reason of reckless negligence. and those of his fellow beings.
The mere unlicensed possession of firearm. Having then acted in good faith in the performance of his duty. he should be exempted from the law prohibiting illegal possession of firearm. for the court can adopt a more liberal view. Issue: W/N the absence of criminal intent and good faith are valid defenses in crimes punishable by special laws. People vs. Decision: The accused was absolved. RPC Criminal Intent Good faith can be invoked as defense for violation of the RPC (Mala in Se) Timoner vs. and without even bothering themselves to legalize such possession. merely implemented the aforesaid recommendation of the Municipal Health Officer. Since the offense is malum prohibitum punished by special law. Grave coercion is committed when "a person who. Petitioner. Issue: W/N the lower court was correct in their decision. The petitioner was the mayor of a town and by the recommendation of the Municipal Health Officer. The spirit of the law regarding possession of firearms is to punish those who possess the same without knowledge of the authorities concerned. Issue: W/N the conviction of the court of appeals that the petitioner committed grave coercion is correct the complainants were public nuisance. Intent is not important. The petitioner then filed a complaint against the owners of the stalls saying that these stalls constituted public nuisance as well as nuisance per se. any doubt as to his claim should be resolved in his favor. and such possession was not unknown to an agent of the law who advised the former to keep it in the meantime. he was still sentence by the lower court. Intent Violates Minimum required for a person to incur criminal liability 4. 5. People Facts: The Court of Appeals found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Grave Coercion penalized under Art. The testimony of the witnesses were credible and accurate. In statutory offenses. Despite his plea that he already applied for the renewal of his license. prevent another from doing something not prohibited by law or compel to do something against his will. Verga Definition People vs. Ongsod was also found guilty of the crime of illegal possession of firearms. petitioner incurred no criminal liability. Intent to perpetuate the act is required. a fact corroborated by an office of the constabulary. Mallari Facts: Mallari was found guilty of illegal possession of firearms. either it be right or wrong. as mayor of the town. it is enough that the statue has been violated and that it is not necessary to inquire whether there was intent to violate it.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Mala in Se Acts that are wrong from their nature. shall by means of violence. Decision: The court is in agreement that the complainants were public nuisance for affecting a considerable number of persons in their neighborhood. It does not matter for the conviction of Ongsod that he is the owner or borrower of the gun because this fact has no bearing on his guilt. People vs. without authority of law. regardless of the intent of the holder is sufficient to sustain a conviction. 6. which expired some 3 months before he was arrested. He further stated that he has every intention of surrendering the gun. in addition. enough to call for a conviction. Where the accused had a pending application for permanent permit to possess a firearm. Ongsod contends that it was Orquijo who owned the gun and it was merely in his possession when the Philippine constabulary seized it." The third element being absent in the case at bar. Exceptions to the good faith rule in crimes of Mala Prohibita. Orquijo and Ongsod Facts: Orquijo and Ongsod were guilty of the crime of robbery. and good faith and absence of criminal intent are not valid defenses. However. Decision: No. Mapa Facts: The accused is a secret agent contending that being such. 286 of the Revised Penal Code. Special penal laws Intent to perpetuate a crime Vena V. Mala Prohibita Acts that are wrong merely because it is prohibited by a statute. The owners of the stalls charged the petitioner with the offense of grave coercion. Good Faith and absence of criminal intent are not valid defenses in crimes punished by special laws (Mala Prohibita) /vvverga Page 22 of 100 . he barricaded some establishments and stalls which protruded into the sidewalk of the Maharlika highway and who were not complying with certain health and sanitation requirement. Intent governs. petitioner cannot be held guilty of grave coercion.
three (3) elements are indispensable. intent is wanting in such felonies. In evaluating felonies committed by means of culpa. who commits an act prohibited by law. Issue: 1. Delito Deloso (dolo) Freedom Intelligence Intent (a) Delito culposa (culpa) Freedom Intelligence Negligence/Imprudence Decision: The two terms should not be confused. Construction and interpretation come only after it has been demonstrated that application is impossible or inadequate without them. but this Court has repeatedly held that motive is pertinent only when there is doubt as to the identity of the culprit. freedom of action. Proof of motive is not essential for conviction. The petitioner was in position that "discernment" connotes "intent". Decision: As secret agent is not included in the enumeration in Section 879 of the Revised Administrative Code of persons who are not prohibited in Section 878. 11 years old. For him to be criminally liable. The victim's parents appealed to the Ministry of Justice. W/N the term "discernment". a minor over nine years of age but below fifteen may be held liable for a quasi-offense under Article 365. hence. Hence a person may not intend to shoot another but may be aware of the consequences of his negligent act. Dionisio Ballonico and Fernando Dorico were all found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for murdering Gervacio Dapulag and was sentenced each with death penalty. Intent Defined distinguished from discernment Guevarra vs. he must discern the rightness or wrongness of the effects of his negligent act. namely. W/N an eleven (11) year old boy could be charged with the crime of homicide thru reckless imprudence. it is necessary that a minor above nine but below fifteen years of age be possessed with intelligence in committing a negligent act which results in a quasi-offense. It is clear that the terms "intent" and "discernment" convey two distinct thoughts. which may cause injury to the same person in negligently handling an air rifle. the former refers to the desired of one's act while the latter relates to the moral significance that person ascribes to the said act. The Solicitor General insists that discernment and intent are two different concepts. Dionisio said that he was merely a bystander and did not participate in the crime Issue: W/N motive is relevant to establish guilt Decision: It is true that no motive has been shown why he would kill Gervacio Dapulag. Dorico Facts: Romualdo Dorico. intelligence. However. Revised Administrative Code. While both are products of the mental processes within a person. This not a situation which falls under ‘who had done it’ since DIONISIO BALLONICO was positively identified by credible witnesses as one of the assailants of the victim. Appellant is not also exempted from the requirement of license. and negligence. 1. /vvverga Page 23 of 100 . (b) (1) (2) (c) Kinds of Intent general notion of intent – motive is not essential in establishing this notion of criminal intent specific notion of intent – there is no great difference between specific criminal intent ad motive." Distinguished from Motive WHEN MOTIVE IS RELEVANT People vs. There was no reason shown why the witnesses for the prosecution would foist a crime on DIONISIO BALLONICO if he did not really commit it. Fiscal exculpated petitioner due to his age and because the unfortunate occurrence appeared to be an accident. Discernment constitutes an exception to the exemption from criminal liability of a minor under fifteen years of age but over nine. from possessing any firearm. Pattern of analysis in determining criminal liability Was there criminal intent (dolo)? Or was the act done by means (imprudence/negligence)? Delito Deloso and Delito Culposa Elements of culpa E. 2.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Issue: W/N Mapa should be exempted from complying with the law. Hon. Verga D. Teodoro was hit by a pellet on his left collar bone which caused his death. 2. 4. They were target-shooting a bottle cap placed with an air rifle borrowed from a neighbor. Ignacio Almodovar Facts: Petitioner John Philip Guevarra. as used in Article 12(3) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) is synonymous with "intent. as amended by Republic Act No. Vena V. is his mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong. In the course of their game. was playing with his best friend. intelligence remains as an essential element. which ordered the Fiscal to file a case against petitioner for Homicide through reckless Imprudence. Indeed. The three were said to have killed the accused because he insisted on filing a criminal complaint against Romualdo for the killing of his nephew. Obviously. The first and fundamental duty of courts is to apply the law.
Maximo also contended that the trial court erred in saying that the motive of the killing was a land case because he has no interest therein since it was his father who was the plaintiff in the said case. Maximo and Cesaria Diva conspired to attack the victim. and upon meeting with his wife who tried to stop him. attack and kill Ananias. he was stopped by his wife and his mother. fact that was seen in the vicinity of the crime. The defendant states that when he fell asleep. an aid to the prosecution. It appears from the evidence that that the day before the commission of the crime. But motive is unessential to conviction in murder cases when there is no doubt as to the identity of the culprit or where the offender had admitted the deed. On the day the crime was committed. The fact that the defendants owned a stock of goods. Before the victim’s life expired. The accused had dry goods store in house no. bidden away and inaccessible to our observation. he was able to tell his wife who his attackers were. it is not a sufficient ground for him to ambush. and the failure of the prosecution to establish motive is completely inconsequential. he dreamed that Collantes was trying to stab him with a bolo while Abadilla held his feet. An extreme moral perversion may lead a man to commit a crime with a real motive but just for the sake of committing it. fire also broke out in House no. Issue: W/N the defendant is guilty of the crime of parricide. The defendant was not held liable for the crime. motive need not be established HOW MOTIVE IS PROVED. 26. Even if there is such motive. 30. proof of crime US vs. However. they found a hole. who invited him to come down and fight. Where. for we cannot probe into the depths of one's conscience where they may be found. MOTIVE ALONE IS NOT PROOF OF CRIME /vvverga Page 24 of 100 . as in this case. it was noted that the defendant was not feeling well. After some time. which was just across the passageway from House No. witnesses testified that the fire in House no. 26 broke out when the fire in House no. While the firefighters were trying to break into the storeroom. The appellants had been conducting their business at a loss for nearly 18 months. wounded her abdomen and attacked other. Since the prosecution was not able to establish the motive. On the day of the commission of the crime.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. he had no criminal intent. for having acted in a dream. Issue: W/N the motive is needed to convict the defendants. Decision: No. and when he was about to go down. Lack of motive may be an aid in showing the innocence of the accused People vs. Maximo claims that he should not be convicted of the crime. Note: Circumstantial Evidences defined: indirect evidence. set fire on house no. Decision: The accused were found guilty of the crime. he apparent lack of a motive for committing a criminal act does not necessarily mean that there are none. 26. The success of their crime meant that they would receive about twice the value of their stock of goods and thus converting a losing investment into a profitable one. and that their business operations over a period approximately eighteen months just prior to the fire had resulted in a considerable loss. WHEN MOTIVE IS IRRELEVANT When assailant is positively identified People vs. Taneo Facts: Potenciano Taneo was accused of parricide for killing his wife. the identity of the appellant as the author of the killing is not disputed as he admitted having killed the deceased. they heard something moving. The question of what motive is sufficient to impel one to commit a particular act is always relative and no fixed norm of conduct can be said to be decisive of every imaginable case. Diva Facts: Maximo Diva and his wife were accused of murdering Ananias Bano. 30. and wounding his father in law and two of their guests. Decision: No. he armed himself with a bolo and left the room. Their dispute was regarding boundaries of the adjoining lands they own. he went to bed and slept. Note: When assailant is positively identified. Issue: W/N the accused was guilty of arson. that it was insured for three times its value. Verga Disclosure of motive is an aid in completing the proof of the commission of the crime. by reason of which he got up. and as it seemed to him that his enemies were inviting him to come down. Maximo and Cesaria contended that it was Ananias who first attacked them and that Maximo merely defended himself. Go Foo Suy Facts: Fire broke out in house no. his motive in committing the act becomes irrelevant to his conviction and the failure of the State to establish his motive is of no moment. the accused had a fight with Enrique Collantes and Valentin Abadilla. 30 was about to be put out. 26. furnishes a powerful motive for the commission of the crime (circumstantial evidence). Or. Motive is not important to have a conviction. A person who suddenly hot up in his sleep left the room with a bolo in his hand. When they got inside. which supported the fact that someone. thus. but that simply they are not known to us.
the court found the testimony of Aguinaldo to be inherently improbable and full of contradictions in important details. Issue: W/N the accused should be charged with a crime of homicide through reckless imprudence. the crime committed by him cannot be that of homicide through reckless imprudence. where such intention exists. is not proof of the commission of a crime. the victim died after a few moments. Guillen GR No. 1950 Vena V. The act could not have been done deliberately. even though it may not have been the intention of the actor to cause an evil of such gravity as that produced”. the act should be qualified by the felony it has produced. 17933 March 23. (d) When crimes may be committed without criminal intent ALONE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT People vs. upon seeing the grenade. if it appears from the evidence that neither of the two persons could in any manner put up a defense against the attack. /vvverga Page 25 of 100 . He carried two hand grenades in Plaza Miranda and hurled it on the stage where the president was making a speech. The following night. or became aware of it. Where the principal and basic evidence upon which the prosecution rests its case fails. even when the victim of the attack was not the one whom the defendant intended to kill. Marcos Facts: Mariano Marcos. “in order that an act may be qualified as imprudence it is necessary that neither malice nor intention to cause injury should intervene. He is therefore liable for all the consequences of his wrongful act. Ramirez It must be noted that there could be no motive in this case because Ramirez and the victim were good friends. In throwing a hand grenade at the President with the intention of killing him. In the words of Viada. much less of the guilt of the defendants-appellants. though perhaps an important consideration. As a consequence. It is neither necessary nor profitable to examine the corroborative evidence presented by the prosecution. for in accordance with article 4 of the Revised Penal Code. Julio won over Mariano for the office of representative of Ilocos Norte. While the defeat of Marcos followed by such insulting parade. PROOF OF MOTIVE CONVICTION People vs.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) US vs. Julio was found dead. Divino OFFENSES PUNISHABLE AS MALA PROHIBITA (e) Intentional and Culpable Felonies Distinguished Decision: Yes. Nanquil struck Severino with his gun. Quirino Lizardo were accused for the murder of Julio Nalundasan. In criminal negligence. kicked it away from the platform. Julio’s men were said to have passed over Mariano’s house to humiliate the defeated candidate. is inconsistent with reckless imprudence. it being simply the incident of another act performed without malice. The primary witness of the prosecution was Lizardo’s bodyguard who said that he was there when the crime was committed and the motive was said to be the victory parade before Julio’s death. Issue: W/N the parade was a sufficient motive to warrant a sentence. he was determined to assassinate the president. because he did have the intention to do some evil unlawfully (maltreating the deceased). During the 1935 elections. According to the accused. FELONIES COMMITED BY MEANS OF CULPA See: US vs. Decision: Yes. L-1477 January 18. The Marcoses and Lizardo became the suspects. criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended to do. Issue: W/N Julio Guillen is guilty of the crime charge considering that it was the president which he intended to kill and not Simeon Varela. although it was not that of killing. and this intention. Verga Facts: Julio Guillen was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and multiple frustrated murder. Nanquil GR No. all evidence intended to support or corroborate it must likewise fail. General Castaneda. it injured Simeon Varela and four other men. The qualifying circumstance of treachery may properly be considered. the appellant acted with malice. During the victory parade. Mariano’s archrival. The accused having had no intention to commit so serious an evil as that which resulted. the injury caused to another should be unintentional. he was extremely disappointed in President Roxas for his alleged failure to redeem his promises made by him during the presidential election. By and large. 1922 Facts: Nanquil was investigating a certain Severino Ramiscal for the theft of Juan Rosas’s carabao. might have irritated the herein defendants. his son Ferdinand Marcos and brother in law. Decision: No. When the grenade exploded. thus it shall be discredited. During the investigation. People vs. Hence. the existence of a motive alone. Simeon died because of the injuries he sustained.
under the provisions of article 1 of the Penal Code. except in those cases where the circumstances demand a conviction under the penal provisions governing negligence. Everything he did was in good faith under the belief that he was acting judiciously and correctly. Good faith negates intent. The accused was prosecuted for malversation. under the law. there would have been no crime. he was awakened by some one trying to open the door. in permitting the sums deposited with him to be attached in the satisfaction of the judgment rendered by him. Issues: W/N the accused is guilty of frustrated murder. struck and fatally wounded the intruder. there is no crime. a person voluntarily committing an act incurs criminal liability even though the act be different from that which he intended to commit. the accused went to a house where Juana had gone to take part in some devotion. regardless of the circumstances outside him. if such ignorance or mistake of facts is sufficient to negate a particular intent which. it was not proven that the accused justice of peace used the money for personal use. he was being attacked. but the latter refused on account of the accused having frequently visited the house of a certain Carmen. there is good faith. It appeared that the sureties on the said bonds were insolvent and that the defendants did not present new bonds within the time fixed by the /vvverga Page 26 of 100 . a justice of peace. each one for damages resulting from a breach of contract. US vs. after the defendant had gone to bed. or become aware of it. Good faith is a defense and in this case. at most a pure mistake of judgment. Facts: The accused and Juana Buralo were sweethearts. there is no criminal liability. Decision: Yes. One day. (i) Criminal Intent Presumed from Commission of the crime Mistake of fact – while ignorance of the law excuses no one (ignorantia legis non excusat). the accused threatened that if Juana refuses to see him. Mabug-at in both.00 for each case. Thereafter. He rendered decisions in certain cases. a felony under Art. When they were about to go up their house." but homicide or murder as the case may be. and in cases where. provided that the ignorance or mistake of fact was not due to negligence or bad faith. ignorance or mistake of fact relieves tha accused from criminal liability (ignoratia facti excusat) MISTAKE OF FACT AS A DEFENSE People vs. Believing that he was being attacked. was charged of malversation of public funds. even when the victim of the attack was not the one whom the defendant intended to kill. Upon petition of the plaintiffs. an error of the mind operating upon a state of facts. Without intent. he will enter the house. Issue: W/N the accused was guilty of the said crime considering that his actions were not contrary to law. the defendants deposited Php 16. acts are voluntary (People vs. was not unlawful. and both were employed in the same place and usually slept in the same room. Would the facts been as he though them to be. he seized a kitchen knife. One night. The circumstances proved that in Ah Chong’s mind. Issue: W/N Ah Chong should be acquitted because of mistake of fact. As required by law. get the gild and kill anyone who would stop him. Ah Chong Facts: Defendant was a cook and the deceased was a house boy. When there is no intent. Mistake of fact indicates good faith. 217. from which the defendants appealed. Verga (f) (g) (h) People vs. The act committed. and called out twice.00 and a bond of Php 50. the accused fired a shot intended for Juana but which wounded Perfecta instead. there is no crime. Decision: That act of the accused. Note: It is a prima facie evidence in Malversation that such missing funds or property have been put to personal use or used for personal ends by such person. Although the mere act of firing at a person is not proof per se of intent to kill. yet when the surrounding circumstances of the act are such that they leave no room for doubt that the intention was to kill the person fired upon. the accused dismissed the appeals and ordered said sums attached and delivered to the plaintiffs in satisfaction of the judgment. In this case. The qualifying circumstance of treachery may properly be considered. Catolico GR No. so far as appears form the record. After the devotion. nisi mes sit rea). Good faith negates intent. Later on. Decision: Under such circumstances.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. the accused followed the girl and her niece on their way home. the crime is not simply "discharge of firearm. the accused invited Juana to take a walk with him. A crime is not committed if the mind if the person performing the act complained of be innocent (actus non facit reum. In other words. 6486 02 March 1911 Facts: The defendant. who turned out to be his roommate. Ramirez) Acts that are negligently executed are voluntary Intent is shown by overt acts accused as justice of peace. if it appears from the evidence that neither of the two persons could in any manner put up a defense against the attack. is a necessary ingredient of the offense charged it destroys the presumption of intent and works an acquittal.
Decision: No. It is not criminal negligence for a husband to rely upon his wife's statement of her age nor for the wife to rely upon that of her father. It appeared that he was previously prosecuted twice for perjury for answering ‘NO’ to the same question but he was acquitted on the first case and the second case was dismissed. 2. intention is immaterial. Good faith negates intent. They have no way of checking since the receipt copy signed by Coching when he received the ballots were not given to them. One cannot be convicted under Art. The Court is in disagreement with this notion. There is no crime of resistance when there is a mistake of fact (US vs. Issue: W/N the husband and the wife violated the said provision of the Penal code Decision: A minor who marries without parental consent in the false belief that she is of age is not criminally responsible. But according to them. Decision: No. according to the court. In mistake of fact. The case at bar is a case of ignorance of the fact. The act. People vs. 4. nor of ignorance of the law. 3. Conching and the others sincerely believed that booklets 4100 to 4120 were sample ballots because three ballots from the booklet were detached and two ballots were used to cover the openings of the boxes that was given to them before the election. Lack of intent to kill the deceased. and she did not ask them concerning her age. the act would have been lawful. The defendant was not liable for the crime because he had no intent to commit the crime. there is no crime. 1902 Note: 1. Thus. the husband relied on the statement of his wife that she is of age when they got married. In the same instance. People vs. because the intention was to kill another. it negates criminal intent. since the act is malum prohibitum – against a law/statute. it was held that in view of the factual background of the case. that so her parents gave her to understand ever since she was young. Issue: W/N Coching and the others are guilty of the crime charges. mistake of fact is not a defense. to the husband). 1 before a notary public that he was never accused of a violation of any law before any court or tribunal.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) GR No 424 January 27. which states that where there is no intent there is no crime. People vs. Coching Facts: Coching and several others were accused of falsification of public document and violation of the election code. an act that falls within the sphere of ethics if there is not a moral wrong. 1. Verga Facts: A minor married without parental consent. being an act mala prohibita has no bearing on the case because this is not a case of willful or conscious violation of a penal statue. Mistake of fact establishes good faith because have the facts been as she thought them to be. they did not include in the counting booklets 4100 to 4120. 12089-CR Facts: Formaran was accused of a crime of perjury for having sworn to a Civil Service Form No. because he relied on the opinion of the provincial fiscal that unjust vexation does not involve moral turpitude and he thought it was not necessary to mention it in Civil Service Form No. The women believed that she was born in 1879. Good faith is transferable (in this case. Penalosa /vvverga Page 27 of 100 . 475 when by reason of a mistake of facts there does not exist the intention to commit the crime. Formaran No. The lower court was in agreement that the defendants did not intend to perpetuate the act. No criminal intent. (People vs. In effect it suffices to remember the first article. the act of the defendant in answering “no” to the question can be considered only as an error of judgment and did not indicate an intention to commit the crime of perjury. does not relieve the accused from criminal responsibility (People vs. the defendant claimed that he answered “No” to the question whether he had been accused of a violation of any law. Fernando) Vena V. Gona). When he testified in his defense. When there is no intention. the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful. in violation of Art 475 of he old Penal Code which punished any minor who shall contract marriage without the consent of his or her parents. Note: Lack of intent to commit a crime may be inferred from the facts of the case. Note: There is no felony by dolo if there is no intent. In order to assert without fear of mistake that in our Code the substance of a crime does not exist if there is not a deed. Bautista) When the accused is negligent. Issue: W/N Formaran was unjustly prosecuted on the case at bar. when the truth and in fact he had been charged with the offense of unjust vexation in a criminal case before the Justice of the Peace Court. no crime. The defendants are in honest belief Good faith has many sources (a) Mistake of fact (b) Act is lawful The point is: when good faith is established.
Issue: W/N Crisanto should be liable for the death of the baby Decision: No. Article 4: Criminal Liability Facts: The accused was not satisfied with the slow raising of the anchor which caused him to abuse his men with offensive language. Ah Chong). The accepted rule is that an offender is always liable for the consequence of his criminal action even though the result be different from what he intended. they saw a person going up the stairs dressed in dark clothes and carrying a bolo. Infuriated. Under the circumstances. One of the crew remonstrated that they would be able to work better if the accused stops insulting them. 3186 Facts: Crisanto Salinas was charged for the death of Jaime Tibule. 1. there could have been no crime committed. was informed that three convicts had escaped. Jaime died after falling from his mother’s hold while the mother was freeing his father from Crisanto’s hold. and later in the evening sees a person with a bolo in hand approaching the house in the -attitude of going up the stairs. and the said agent of the law considering that the said stranger has not been recognized by any person in the household. de Fernando fired a shot in the air. While doing rounds in the barrio. Issue: W/N Bindoy should be charged for killing Emigdio Decision: The appellant should be acquitted since there is no evidence. and who enters a house to keep watch. under the circumstances. The residents of the barrio were alarmed of the news. the accused fired directly at the man who turned our to be the nephew of the house. (1) PEOPLE vs. The act being lawful. the injury was accidental and the defendant should be acquitted. Crisanto was holding the victim’s grandfather in order to prevent him from fighting with the defendant’s father. Oanis. (b) US vs. acted with reckless negligence in failing to exercise the ordinary diligence that. Defendants were acquitted. natural. SALINAS 62 O. have had to answer for his criminal act. After some time. a policeman. who might be escaped prisoners from a nearby penitentiary. PEOPLE vs. MISTAKE OF FACT NOT A DEFENSE See: People vs. But in view of the evidence. Oanis People vs. which makes said officer guilty of homicide through reckless negligence. The courts should judge the accused not by the facts as they later turned out to be but what they believed to be as facts at the time of the offense and the conditions obtaining them (US vs. he would. who does not answer the challenge of the officer of the law. BINDOY Facts: The accused was charged of the crime of homicide for wounding with his bolo Emigdio who was merely a spectator of the fight. to whom notice had been given of the presence of suspicious looking persons. Verga Committing a felony even if the consequences are unintended Elements: (a) Felony is committed A. before shooting him. which ensued between the defendant and a certain Pacas. The defendant was acquitted. Decision: Yes. did not answer thus. Upholding the maxim ignorantia facti excusat as established in People vs. and continues his advance notwithstanding that the latter had fired a shot into the air.G. and thinking him to be an evil-doer. he should have exercised by inquiring of the occupants of the house whether the stranger was known to them. logical consequence of felony committed When act is lawful XVII. Neither was there any indication that the accused was aware of the victim’s presence. VALDEZ Wrong done is direct. Vena V. He however. he was called by the daughter of a certain Delgado to inform him that three unknown persons were prowling around their house. de Fernando GR No 24978 27 March 1926 Facts: The accused. Had the defendant tried to wound his adversary and instead had bit the bystander. is not guilty of murder or homicide. as he seemed to have called somebody in the house. Accused called out to the person to identify himself. The person.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) that the series of unused ballots were not official but sample ballots. prowling around the vicinity. the accused moved towards the victim with big /vvverga Page 28 of 100 . it cannot be held that the accused was committing a crime and it cannot be said that the death of the child was a direct result of a crime. shoots and kills him. An agent of the law. As the unknown person continued to ascend the stairs and believing that he was one of the escaped convicts. Issue: W/N de Fernando was guilty of homicide through reckless negligence. of course. or was really what be thought him to be. which shows that Emigdio took part in the fight.
Due to overturning of the bus. the leaking of the gasoline was the natural consequence. death could reasonable be anticipated. died from the explosion of the bus of which he was a passenger. was convicted of a crime of homicide for the death of Andres Aribuabo. The victim was said to have died from shock. 181 Facts: The victim. The fact that other causes contribute to the death does not relieve the actor of responsibility. the gasoline leaked soaking the soil underneath thus. Blow was efficient cause of death Vena V. A person is responsible for the consequences of his criminal act even of the deceased have been shown to be suffering from a deceased heart (which was not shown). If a person against whom. 341 Facts: The appellant and victim were having an illicit relationship. Decision: Yes. Issue: W/N the defendant should be held liable for the death of the victim. Juan died of internal hemorrhage and contusion on the liver. it is a well settled that such is not the law. That the victim had a delicate condition and suffered from incipient tuberculosis does not affect criminal liability of the defendant who gave him a severe blow. (2) Blow was proximate cause of death PEOPLE vs. Thus. REYES 61 PHIL.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) knife threatening to stab him. ET AL. he should be responsible. husband of the petitioner. (i) How proximate cause is determined VDA. the vehicle zig-zagged into a canal. the assailant us responsible for homicide in case death results by drowning. who was in charged in making sure that the roasted pig will not be consumed before the end of the parade gave a blow to Juan Magsino who tried getting a piece of the pig. causing said bus to overturn. threw himself in water and never resurface. Issue: W/N Quianson should be held liable for the death of the victim Decision: One who inflicts an injury on another is deemed by law to be guilty of homicide if the injury contributes mediately or immediately to the death of the victim. Appellant’s assault being the proximate cause of the death. It was the defendant’s blow in the right hypocondrium. The victim. Issue: W/N the appellant should be acquitted considering the fact that the wound was only a slight one Decision: No. a criminal assault is directed reasonably believes himself to be in danger of death or great bodily harm. Issue: W/N the overturning of the bus was the proximate cause of the death. The crew’s death was a consequence of the defendant’s action. was the cause. The girl died from shock as a result of the wound inflicted by the defendant. As the wound. even of the weakened condition made the blow more fatal. The reason that when the vehicle turned. vs. which determined his death. QUIANSON 62 PHIL. Issue: W/N the defendant should be liable for his crew’s death Decision: Yes. 544 Facts: The defendant. a deranged person who constantly asked for food from the former. There is intention in the commission of the crime because when a person who stabs another with a lethal weapon. It was also natural that the rescuers would innocently approach the bus to extend aid. Before the explosion. The defendant took hold of a firebrand and applied it to the abdomen of the man who pestered him. Defendant contends that the victim would have survived if he did not remove the drainage placed to isolate the infection. Verga the efficient cause of the death remains the same. the burning of the bus was a natural cause and should be attributed to the negligence of the driver and the conductor. When the victim tried to end their affair. In this jurisdiction. The accused is presumed to have intended the natural consequences of the wrongful act. a d in order to escape jumps into water. when the rescuers came with torches came near the bus. it is evident that the act in question should be qualified as homicide. Decision: Yes. which bruised the liver and produced internal hemorrhage. Victim was treated in the hospital but died. There was no intent but this does not extinguish the crime. the appellant dragged the deceased towards the streets and stabbed her in the chest with the fan knife. PEOPLE vs. (1) PEOPLE vs. MEDINA 102 PHIL. impelled by the instincts of self-preservation. DE BATACLAN. (ii) Definition /vvverga Page 29 of 100 . which was the cause of the death. believing that he is going to be killed. the bus was set on fire. ILLUSTRE 54 PHIL. 162 Facts: The defendant. which the appellant inflicted upon the deceased.
the accused should be acquitted. which in natural and continuous sequence. it was proven that fever was prevalent among the children in the locality thus. (iii) When felony committed not proximate cause: (3) Intervening active force. Furthermore. Since the cause of the death was unknown. yet if a blow with the fist or foot accelerated death. the child was brought home sick by his father. but suggillations or "death spots" formed after the death. One day. defendant ordered said child to transfer. Embate was acquitted. Held: That the testimony of the physician was not conclusive and that the ecchymosis described by him might have been nothing. Decision: No. It is a rule that in criminal conviction. In case of death under suspicious circumstances. it is logical to assume that there may be other causes other than the hacking incident. unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. in the abdomen and in the back. there is reasonable doubt as to the true cause of the death. it is the duty of the physician performing the post mortem. Since there may be other efficient causes of the death. the result would not have occurred. the crime committed is rightly classified as homicide and the accused is responsible therefore. and even though the victim may have been previously affected by some internal malady. Appellant therefore should be acquitted. The doctor testified it was the blow which was the cause of the death. the proof that the accused caused the victim’s death must convince a rational mind beyond reasonable doubt. Issue: W/N the defendant should be held liable for the death of the child. The child fell but continued to work. It was found that Magno provoked the defendant. (c) When there is an intervening cause US vs. Decision: No. Issue: W/N the hacking incident can be considered a proximate cause of Marcelo’s death. PALALON The defendant was convicted of homicide largely on the testimony of a young physician who stated. and without which. Verga (iii) Cause of death not proved US vs. the victim continued working. that he examined the body of the deceased on the day after the commission of the crime and found ecchymosis on the body from which he concluded that hard blows had been inflicted on the deceased and that as a result thereof. Decision: When the fact is well established that the accused struck the victim twice with his fist. That same afternoon. which is distinct and absolutely foreign to felonious act of accused (i) Resulting injury is due to intentional act of victim (ii) Death attributable to fever prevalent in locality Vena V. It is possible that the victim may have been inflicted with a mild tetanus but since Javier died only two or three days from the onset. No autopsy of the body was made and the physician admitted that his conclusions were partly based upon the statements of the members of the family of the deceased. A fight ensued between the two when Urbano learned that Javier opened the floodgates thereby causing his palay to be flooded. there was a congestion of the right lung which was the principal cause of the death. EMBATE Facts: The child has been seriously ill for three weeks. Two days later. defendant struck him on the thighs with a slipper. 177 Facts: Appellant was found guilty of the crime of homicide for the death of a child whom he slapped after answering insolently. Even though a blow with the fist or a kick does not cause any external wound it may easily produce inflammation of the spleen and peritonitis and cause death. RODRIGUEZ Facts: The defendant was charged with having dealt with Manciano Magno with two blows which knocked the victim down. examination to exercise PEOPLE vs. Proximate cause it the case. Marcelo was only hit in the palm and while the wound was healing. in substance. wherefore the latter fell to the ground and had hardly risen and started to walk when he again fell down dead. (iv) Death attributable to tetanus URBANO vs. the defendant cannot be held liable for said death. The hacking incident could not have been the cause of the victim’s death since the tetanus appeared only on the 22nd day after the hacking incident. PALALON 49 PHIL. produces injury. the child died. The child did not obey thus.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) URBANO vs. After 22 days. Decision: No. as the child lain on a damp floor. One-half days later. /vvverga Page 30 of 100 . INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (4) Blow accelerated death PEOPLE vs. he died from tetanus. Issue: W/N the defendant should be held liable for the death of the child. It appears that the examination of the body was incomplete and the conclusion of the doctor have been much more than mere guesses. he who caused such acceleration is responsible for the death as the result of an injury willfully and unlawfully inflicted. the child died. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT 157 SCRA 1 Facts: Urbano was charged for the crime of homicide for the death of Marcelo Javier.
in no way could be considered as a relief from his criminal act. PEOPLE vs. that the finger. cannot lessen the assailant's responsibility. beyond the time that it should have taken. REYES. (iii) Causes inherent in victim: (1) Addiction to tuba drinking US vs. (1) Error in personae: mistake in identity of victim PEOPLE vs. although useless at present. /vvverga Page 31 of 100 . OANIS PEOPLE vs. but his attorney argues that in view of the fact that said defendant had no intention to kill the deceased and committed the crime by mistake. QUIANSON Where it does not appear that the victim. and since the defendant did commit the crime with treachery. (2) Victim did no know how to swim US vs. CAGOCO Keywords: Fell backwards Decision: Under the circumstances of this case the defendant is liable for the killing of the deceased because his death was the direct consequence of defendants felonious act of striking him on the head. (d) Even if unintended. or both. in view of the mortal wound which he inflicted upon the latter. That he made a mistake in killing one man instead of another. 242). could be restored to substantially its normal condition by a surgical operation. In the case of United States vs. MARASIGAN Where it appears from the evidence in the case that the appellant inflicted a wound upon the complaining witness which destroyed the use of one of the fingers of the left hand. SUPRA (ii) Nervousness or temperament of victim PEOPLE vs. because he is responsible for all the consequences of the personal injury which was produced by the act that he had willfully performed in violation of a prohibitive law. If the defendant had not committed the assault in a treacherous manner. but because of his nervous condition due to the wound inflicted by said assailant. VALDEZ. ILLUSTRE. cannot relieve him from criminal responsibility. ALMONTE When a person dies in consequence of an internal hemorrhage brought on by moving about against the doctor's orders. had acted voluntarily and with the knowledge that he was performing an act prejudicial to his health. SUPRA (iv) Neglect of victim or third person: US vs. the crime is homicide and not merely slight physical injuries. the victim was mentally deranged. on account of which it is admitted that his constitution and physical condition retarded the healing of his wounds. A person injured in an assault is not obliged to submit to a surgical operation to relieve the person who assaulted him from the results of his crime. Verga (1) Victim refused medical attendance or surgical operation PEOPLE vs. as the defense itself claims. Neither do we believe that the fact that he "And any such person who shall make a false or fraudulent return shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand pesos or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. he should have been found guilty of homicide through negligence under paragraph 1 of article 568 of the Penal Code and not of the graver crime of intentional homicide. not because of carelessness or a desire to increase the criminal liability of his assailant. MABUG-AT (3) Prater intentionem: injurious result is greater than that intended PEOPLE vs. SUPRA PEOPLE vs. and because his responsibility cannot be lessened on account of the bad state of health and the weakened constitution of the victim. a motion for a new trial will be denied when based upon the allegation that appellant would be able to prove. in removing the drainage from his wound. even that. The accused is then liable for all acts contrary to law and their natural and logical consequences.. the court said: "Even admitting that the defendant intended to injure Hilario Lauigan instead of Pedro Acierto. if opportunity were given. (1) Instances not constituting efficient intervening cause: (i) Weak or diseased physical condition of victim Vena V. Mendieta (34 Phil. although he did not intend to kill the deceased. as this should be attributed to his pathological condition and to his state of nervousness and restlessness on account of the physical pain caused by the peritonitis from which he was suffering. simply because the doctor was of opinion that the wound might have healed in seven days. according to the opinion of the physician who attended him. he is guilty of murder because of the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. This contention is contrary to earlier decisions of this court." (2) Aberratio ictus: mistake in the blow PEOPLE vs. he would nevertheless have been guilty of homicide. GONA There can be no doubt that the defendant killed Mapudul and that he is guilty of the crime charged. such act of the victim does not have the effect of altering the natural juridical consequences of the punishable act of the accused all the more because. BAYUTAS The fact that the victim was addicted to the habit of drinking tuba. when it is proved that he acted maliciously and willfully.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) the utmost care and not draw unwarranted conclusions from external appearances susceptible of different interpretations.
act performed is against property 2. And under Article 4. he cruelly asked "are you already dead?" Appellant's bid for acquittal in his sixth assignment of error. all circumstances which prevented the consummation of the offense will be treated as an accident independent of the actor's will which is an element of attempted and frustrated felonies. not knowing that she was already dead five minutes earlier. Acts of lasciviousness require a victim to be a woman only when it is committed under circumstances of seduction. 1. GARDON If a person against whom a criminal assault is directed reasonably believes himself to be in danger of death or great bodily harm and in order to escape jumps into the water. the assailant is responsible for homicide in case death results by drowning Appellant should likewise be chargeable with Homicide. if this was done against the will of the passenger. When we say inherent impossibility. but an act penalized by itself. but he found out that his passenger was not a woman but a man. Verga 2. Before. impelled by the instinct of self preservation. However. An impossible crime is true only if the act done by the offender constitutes a crime against person or property. If it is committed under the circumstances of rape. the houseboy would follow and peek into the keyhole. Ubi lex non distinguit nee nos distinguiere debemos. 2. Even if the victim is a man. That the act was done with evil intent 3. A was driving his car around Roxas Boulevard when a person hitched a ride. The factual situation in the case at bar presents a physical impossibility which rendered the intended crime impossible of accomplishment. this means that under any and all circumstances. It was also the habit of the houseboy that whenever she enters her room. Furthermore. where the acts of lasciviousness were committed under circumstances of rape. and gave him fist blows. Note. The crime is physical injuries or acts of lasciviousness. Is an impossible crime committed? Yes. however. when the houseboy could no longer resist the urge. IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES Requisites: 1. A started kissing his passenger. with the new rape law amending the Revised Penal Code and classifying rape as a crime against persons. The act performed should not constitute a violation f another provision of the RPC INTOD vs. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible or the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual 4. The essence of an impossible crime is the inherent impossibility of accomplishing the crime or the inherent impossibility of the means employed to bring about the crime. There are two ways of committing acts of lasciviousness. Accused was a houseboy in a house where only a spinster resides. A readily welcomed the fellow inside his car and he continued driving. even after the victim had disappeared beneath the surface of the sea. therefore. is there any crime committed at all? It cannot be an impossible crime. because the act would have been a crime against chastity. and so he pushed him out of the car. Is an impossible crime committed? If not. Because this person was exquisitely dressed. If the crime could have materialized under /vvverga Page 32 of 100 . The impossibility of accomplishing the criminal intent is not merely a defense. which makes a person criminally liable for an act "which would be an offense against persons or property. When he reached a motel." In that case. The act performed would have been constituted a crime against chastity. CA In our jurisdiction. the phrase "inherent impossibility" that is found in Article 4(2) of the Revised Penal Code makes no distinction between factual or physical impossibility and legal impossibility. Impossible crime Question & Answer 1. impossible crimes are recognized. such is sufficient to make the act an impossible crime. Cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused An impossible crime is an act which would be 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. Finally. placed himself on top of her and abused her. went inside the room of his master. II. The mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong cannot be appreciated in appellant's favor. deserves no consideration. that the crime might also fall under the Revised Administrative Code – desecrating the dead. there is employment of violence or intimidation or the victim is deprived of reason. PEOPLE vs. meaning to say. This is a crime that is not limited to a victim who is a woman. the victim may be a man or a woman.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. he climbed into the ceiling. the crime of acts of lasciviousness is committed. Under Article 336. the crime could not have materialized. The determined resolution to do the victim wrong was evident when. the act performed by the offender could not have been a crime against person or property. A suddenly swerved his car inside. it is now possible that an impossible crime was committed. will render useless the provision in Article 4. were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment x x x. It is customary for the spinster to sleep nude because her room was warm. To uphold the contention of respondent that the offense was Attempted Murder because the absence of Palangpangan was a supervening cause independent of the actor's will.
The wife consumed all the food prepared by her husband including the poison but nothing happened to the wife. Is there an impossible crime? No impossible crime is committed because the fact itself stated that what prevented the poison from taking effect is the physical condition of the woman. Do not confuse an impossible crime with the attempted or frustrated stage. The crime committed therefore is attempted robbery. an unloaded firearm will never fire. be careful about the question asked. he got an electric cord tied the one end to the door knob and plugged the other end to an electric outlet. A and B are enemies. Verga 5. but the safe was empty. Whenever you are confronted with a problem where the facts suggest that an impossible crime was committed. He will be prosecuted for the crime constituted so far by the act done by him. It is. A. When Scott opened the doorknob. But in a department store. then it would not be a case of impossible crime anymore. important to know what are the crimes under Title VIII. got the revolver of his father. what crime is possibly committed? This is not an impossible crime. There are other things that he could take. Although objectively. if the act done does not amount to some other crime under the Revised Penal Code. Was an impossible crime committed? No. So it implies that if the woman was not of such physical condition. /vvverga Page 33 of 100 . 3. Unknown to Charles. it would have fired. He went directly to the room where the safe or vault was being kept. There is an impossible crime. he would be electrocuted. against persons and those against property under Title X. It would be a case of physical injuries. A thought of killing his wife. Under any and all circumstances. an impossible crime would be constituted if a person who was thinking that it was a poison that he was putting into the food of the intended victim but actually it was vetsin or sugar or soda. he did not realize that the firearm was empty. impossible crime is true only when the crime committed would have been against person or against property. then you state the reason for the inherent impossibility. when Scott comes home to open the door knob. Vena V. Hence. he will not be liable for an impossible crime. no crime is committed. Everyday. but the revolver did not discharge because the bullets were old. she developed a physical condition that rendered her so strong and resistance to any kind of poisoning. it is not an impossible crime. Is an impossible crime committed? If not. Scott and Charles are roommate in a boarding house. A and B were lovers. and therefore. The idea was that. An impossible crime is true only to any of those crimes. when it was already closed. where there is plenty to steal. If really the facts constitute an impossible crime. but subjectively. not only the money inside the vault or safe. then you judge that question on the basis of the facts. He was just surprised to find out that there was an electric cord plugged to the outlet and the other hand to the door knob. If the question asked is “Is he liable for an impossible crime?”. What prevented the consummation of the crime was because of some cause independent of the will of the perpetrator. Because of the volume of the household chores that the wife had to attend to daily. this is a catching question. He prepared her breakfast every morning. the intended victim developed LBM and was hospitalized. If the question asked is: “Is an impossible crime committed?”. if the act done by the offender constitutes some other crimes under the Revised Penal Code. shot B. There was no bullet at all. when he started squeezing the trigger. But if let us say. If it were a case of poisoning . and every morning. B was willing to marry A except that A is already married. an attempted homicide. so the amount of poison applied to her breakfast has no effect to her. employing the same mean or the same act. it is not inherently impossible to realize the killing. Whether an impossible crime was committed or not? It is not an impossible crime. then you suggest than an impossible crime is committed. But if due to the quantity of vetsin or sugar or soda. the crime could not have been realized. he placed a little dose of arsenic poison into the breakfast of the wife. A entered a department store at about midnight. none of them discharged. Under Article 4. That is a cause other than the spontaneous desistance of the offender.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) a different set of facts. He succeeded in opening the safe. upon seeing B. he is a criminal. Charles resented this. The crime committed is frustrated parricide. It was purely accidental that the firearm did not discharge because the bullets were old. paragraph 2. That purpose of the law will also be served if he is prosecuted for some other crime constituted by his acts which are also punishable under the RPC. because under any and all circumstances. This could not be trespass to dwelling because there are other things that can be stolen. assuming that he did not lay his hands on any other article. Scott is working in an electronic shop where he received a daily dosage of electric shock. therefore. The reason is an offender is punished for an impossible crime just to teach him a lesson because of his criminal perversity. That is only true if there is nothing more to steal. Even though the facts constitute an impossible crime. The fact that the vault had turned out to be empty is not really inherently impossible to commit the crime of robbery. The means employed is not inherently impossible to bring about the consequence of his felonious act. it would be an attempted felony. 4. If they were new. the poison would have taken effect. nothing happened to him. 6. Scott leaves for work but before leaving he would lock the food cabinet where he kept his food. One day.
But whether we agree or not. believing she was there when in fact she was not. the concept of impossible crime has been modified by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Intod v. that is. incurred: 1. Eventually the culprits were prosecuted and convicted by the trial court for attempted murder. If he could be taught of the same lesson by charging him with some other crime constituted by his act. The attitude was so because Article 4 of the Code provides two situations where criminal liability shall be incurred. If you want to play safe. et al. Otherwise. depending on the “social danger and degree of criminality shown by the offender” (Article 59). Is A liable for an impossible crime? No. Otherwise. In this case. Modified concept of impossible crime: In a way. if such act constituted any other felony although different from what the offender intended. /vvverga Page 34 of 100 . Criminal liability – Criminal liability shall be By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act be different from that which he intended. the answer is yes. Some asked questions: Was it really the impossibility of accomplishing the killing that brought about its non-accomplishment? Was it not purely accidental that the Vena V. It so happened that the intended victim did not come home on the evening and so was not in her bedroom at that time. the prevailing attitude was that the provision of the Revised Penal Code on impossible crime would only apply when the wrongful act. thus. a redundancy and duplicity would be perpetrated. But to play safe. where a felony resulted. They are jealous of each other’s social status. In the Intod case. As a result. There is no logic in applying paragraph 2 of Article 4 to a situation governed by paragraph 1 of the same Article.. which would have constituted a crime against persons or property. this felonious act negates the idea of an impossible crime. we have to respect its ruling. the culprits set fire on the intended victim’s house. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property. the decision depreciated the seriousness of the act committed. Paragraph 2 refers to a situation where the wrongful act done did not constitute any felony. A and B are neighbors. could not and did not constitute another felony. considering the lawlessness by which the culprits carried out the intended crime.00. Paragraph 1 refers to a situation where the wrongful act done constituted a felony although it may be different from what he intended. not knowing that B died a few minutes ago of bangungot. petitioneraccused was sentenced to imprisonment of only six months of arresto mayor for the felonious act he committed with intent to kill: this despite the destruction done to the intended victim’s house. the same is penalized to repress criminal tendencies to curtail their frequency. Because criminal liability for impossible crime presupposes that no felony resulted from the wrongful act done. this idea of an impossible crime is a one of last resort. four culprits. you state there that although an impossible crime is constituted. went to the intended victim’s house and after having pinpointed the latter’s bedroom. A thought of killing B so A climbed the house of B through the window and stabbed B on the heart. an impossible crime is committed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment but the Supreme Court modified the same and held the petitioner liable only for the so-called impossible crime. regardless of whether the wrongful act was an impossible crime against persons or against property. thinking that the intended victim was already there as it was about 10:00 in the evening. but because the act would have given rise to a crime against persons or against property. In other words. Somehow. An impossible crime is a crime of last resort. unknown to the culprits. 2. because on the basis of the facts stated. Verga intended victim did not come home that evening and. she was not in her bedroom at the time it was shot and riddled with bullets? Suppose. Although the act done by A against B constitutes an impossible crime. all armed with firearms and with intent to kill. the Supreme Court has spoken. CA. just to teach the offender a lesson because of his criminal perversity. Because it is a principle in criminal law that the offender can only be prosecuted for an impossible crime if his acts do not constitute some other crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code. the wrongful acts of the culprits caused destruction to the house of the intended victim. to wit: Art 4.00 to P500. add another paragraph: However. and so some members of the bench and bar spoke out against the soundness of the ruling. the penalty is fixed at arresto mayor or a fine from P200. it is the principle of criminal law that the offender shall be punished for an impossible crime only when his act cannot be punished under some other provisions in the Revised Penal Code. all four fired at and riddled said room with bullets. If the question is “Is an impossible crime is committed?”. instead of using firearms. A shall be liable for qualified trespass to dwelling. yet it is a principle of criminal law that he will only be penalized for an impossible crime if he cannot be punished under some other provision of the Revised Penal Code. were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. the offender will not be prosecuted for an impossible crime but for _____ [state the crime]. then that will be the proper way. 215 SCRA 52. would the criminal liability be for an impossible crime? Until the Intod case.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) 7. the criminal liability should be for such other felony and not for an impossible crime.
Where the court finds the penalty prescribed for the crime too harsh considering the conditions surrounding the commission of he crime. then the crime is already in the frustrated stage. So the policemen went to A’s house and found A still unwrapping the arsenic poison. Article 5 covers two situations: (1) The court cannot convict the accused because the acts do not constitute a crime. and the court finds that there is no law applicable. Vena V. the acts so far performed may already be a crime or it may be just an ingredient of another crime. but the court is mandated to report to the Chief Executive that said act be made subject of penal legislation and why. But even certain crimes which are punished under the Revised Penal Code do not admit of these stages. if the offender has performed all the acts of execution which should produce the felony as a consequence but the felony was not realized. If the offender has not yet performed all the acts of execution – there is yet something to be performed – but he was not able to perform all the acts of execution due to some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) NO CRIME UNLESS THERE IS A LAW PUNISHING IT When a person is charged in court. In criminal law. The purpose of classifying penalties is to bring about a proportionate penalty and equitable punishment. For example. The proper judgment is acquittal. D asked him who was sick in the family. In the attempted stage. Overt act begins when the husband mixed the poison with the food his wife is going to take. the judge should impose the law. that act is already trespassing. On the way out. they parted ways. he went to the drugstore and bought arsenic poison. not to imagine what crime is intended. A met C who was willing to marry him. A confided to D that he bought the poison to poison his wife in order to marry C. the court will acquit the accused and the judge will give his opinion that the said act should be punished. So. So also. Is the charge correct? No. You could only hold him liable for attempted robbery when he has /vvverga Page 35 of 100 . A and B are husband and wife. under the article. These acts do not give rise to criminal liability. then you have an attempted felony. Before this. there is no attempted oral defamation or frustrated oral defamation. shall demand an amount bigger than or different from what the law authorizes him to collect. it is always in the consummated stage. Verga The difference between the attempted stage and the frustrated stage lies on whether the offender has performed all the acts of execution for the accomplishment of a felony. not the felony he has in his mind. But the act of entering is an ingredient of robbery with force upon things. if the act so far being done does not begin a felony. the law uses the word “demanding”. In the attempted stage. criminal liability correspondingly does not begin. there is such a thing as preparatory act. Formal crimes Formal crimes are crimes which are consummated in one instance. A thought of eliminating B and to poison her. you are not allowed to speculate. the definition uses the word “directly”. Under sub-paragraph a of Article 213 on Illegal exaction. The penalties are graduated according to their degree of severity. When a person starts entering the dwelling of another. but he is already married. The stages may not apply to all kinds of felonies. This is significant. in illegal exaction under Article 213 is a crime committed when a public officer who is authorized to collect taxes. The word "directly’" emphasizes the requirement that the attempted felony is that which is directly linked to the overt act performed by the offender. Police arrested him and charged him with attempted parricide. but apply the provisions of the law of the facts given. (2) Question & Answer STAGES IN THE COMMISSION OF FELONY The classification of stages of a felony in Article 6 are true only to crimes under the Revised Penal Code. The policemen asked A if he was planning to poison B and A said yes. You will notice that the felony begins when the offender performs an overt act. D went directly to the police and reported that A is going to kill his wife. he met D. and therefore. whether the taxpayer pays the amount being demanded or not. An overt act is that act which if allowed to continue in its natural course would definitely result into a felony. Mere demanding of an amount different from what the law authorizes him to collect will already consummate a crime. Literally. in oral defamation. After that. This does not apply to crimes punished under special laws. licenses or impose for the government. Payment of the amount being demanded is not essential to the consummation of the crime. There are felonies which do not admit of division. there is no attempted stage yet. The most that he could do is to recommend to the Chief Executive to grant executive clemency. In criminal law. Not any act will mark the beginning of a felony.
Other than that. which prevented the crime from being consummated. “Now you are dead. One evening. In so far the woman being carried is concerned. Namaja. so far as could be reasonably linked to the overt act done by him. the only conclusion that will come to your mind is that this fellow started to enter the store to steal something. Can a be accused of attempted rape? No. The crime committed is attempted homicide and not physical injuries. he entered the house of B through the window to abuse her. In deciding whether a felony is attempted or frustrated or consummated. He found out that the man entered his sala by cutting the screen on his window. and A went out of the window again. The desistance was with the second shot and would not affect the first shot because the first shot had already hit B. The removal of the panelling is just an attempt to trespass. He would not be there just to sleep there. Desistance is true only in the attempted stage of the felony. If the offender proceeded to abuse the woman. he could not be prosecuted for qualified trespass. he can be prosecuted for two crimes: (1) qualified trespass to dwelling. There was force applied in order to enter. and The nature of the crime itself. not an attempt to rob. illegal possession of picklocks and similar tools is a crime. You only hold him liable for an attempt. she may already be the victim of lascivious acts. Illustrations: A fired at B and B was hit on the shoulder. that there is no more felony committed. which is not intended for entrance. the attempted stage is only that overt act which is directly linked to the felony intended to be committed. already criminal offenses. Dwelling is taken as an aggravating circumstance so he will be prosecuted for attempted rape aggravated by dwelling. Thus. He. When A entered the house through the window. the Supreme Court held it is only attempted trespass because that is the crime that can be directly linked to his act of removing the wood panel. The elements of the crime. But in criminal law. In US v. There are some acts which are ingredients of a certain crime. To a layman. The second attempt has nothing to do with the first. But B's wound was not mortal. if the desistance was made when acts done by him already resulted to a felony. Namaja was prosecuted for attempted robbery. If under the definition of the felony. but there may be other felony constituting his act. The crime is not attempted abduction but acts of lasciviousness. since the act of removing the panel indicates only at most the intention to enter. In abduction. Vena V. but the latter screamed. A had always been looking at B and had wanted to possess her but their status were not the same. Even though there was desistance on the part of the offender. no amount of desistance will negate criminal liability. Do not go far and imagine what you should do. Verga The spontaneous desistance of the offender negates only the attempted stage but not necessarily all criminal liability. Desistance Desistance on the part of the offender negates criminal liability in the attempted stage. that offender will still be criminally liable for the felony brought about his act. Although. but which are. In law. The attempted felony is erased by desistance because the offender spontaneously desisted from pursuing the acts of execution. the act done is already in the frustrated stage. Question & Answer A awakened one morning with a man sleeping in his sofa. your desire may lead to acts of lasciviousness. however. so he lost interest and left. I will kill you. under Article 304 of the Revised Penal Code. He can only be prosecuted for trespass. He may be liable for a consummated felony constituted by his act of trespassing. found out that B was nude. not complex because one is not necessary means to commit the other. He was already able to detach two wood panels. The attempted stage was erased because the offender desisted after having commenced the commission of the felony. for what crime are you going to prosecute him? The act done by him of entering through an opening not intended for the purpose is only qualified trespass. /vvverga Page 36 of 100 . The act of entering alone is not yet indicative of robbery although that may be what he may have planned to commit. there are three criteria involved: (1) (2) (3) The manner of committing the crime. What A then did was to approach B. It does not mean.” But A took pity and kept the revolver and left. Qualified trespass because he did so by cutting through the screen. because there was an intention to kill. however. and told B.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) already completed all acts performed by him directly leading to robbery. In another instance. What is negated is only the attempted stage. Beside the man was a bag containing picklocks and similar tools. If you were to prosecute this fellow. the accused was arrested while he was detaching some of the wood panels of a store. A has a very seductive neighbor in the person of B. and (2) illegal possession of picklocks and similar tools. because there was desistance. it is always presumed to be against the will of the owner. after A saw B at her house and thought that B was already asleep. by themselves.
There are instances where an intended felony could already result from the acts of execution already done. There is no frustrated adultery. This is because the manner of consummating the crime does not admit of attempt or frustration. no frustrated stage. Bribery is the crime of the public officer who in consideration of an act having to do with his official duties would receive something. If you have bribery only. If the one to whom the demand was made pretended to give. When the giver delivers the money to the supposed receiver. It does not admit of the frustrated stage. No matter what the offender may do to accomplish a penetration. We can only say that the offender in rape has performed all the acts of execution when he has effected a penetration. there is no bribery. do not think that because the public officer already had the money in his possession. If you have a corruption only. has already performed all the acts of execution which could produce the destruction of the premises through the use of fire. He received the money to have evidence of corruption. therefore. arrested him. it is possible only in the attempted stage. The law called the crime of the giver as corruption of public official and the receiver as bribery. consummated. the crime is consummated. For this reason. the frustrated stage is already standing on the consummated stage except that the outcome did not result. This was the ruling in the case of People v. Only attempted or consummated. It does not require that the entire premises be burned to consummate arson.the giver and the receiver. but actually. This leaves out the frustrated stage because of the manner of committing the crime. That thinking does away with the concept of the crime that it requires two to commit. the crime is already frustrated bribery. Giving the idea that these are independent crimes. the corruption is already beyond the attempted stage. only corruption. no matter how slight.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. In arson. On the other hand. that means that the offender has not yet performed all the acts of execution. Slightest penetration or slightest connection. bribery is the crime of the receiver not the giver. But indirect bribery is always consummated. there is only an attempted adultery. there is consummated bribery or consummated corruption. Because of this reasoning by the Court of Appeals in People v. they cannot arise without the other. In rape. Garcia. the common concept of bribery is that it is the act of one who corrupts a public officer. if such link is absent. Because of that. Verga Manner of committing a crime For example. but there is no meeting of the minds. there is no meeting of the minds. but he had reported the matter to higher authorities. An example of this is the crime of rape. if only one side of the crime is present. the moment any particle of the premises intended to be burned is blackened. No penetration at all. If the public officer was arrested. you cannot have a consummated corruption without the corresponding consummated bribery. the crime of adultery. Actually. On the other hand. rape admits only of the attempted and consummated stages. The crime of the giver is corruption of public official.) The confusion arises from the fact that this crime requires two to commit -. This is because the supposed corruptor has no intention to corrupt. If it has not begun to burn. the corruptor turns down the demand. the frustrated stage of arson has been eased out. the frustrated stage overlaps the consummated stage. You will notice this from the nature of the crime requiring two participants. the offense is consummated. The manner of committing the crime requires the meeting of the minds between the giver and the receiver. This is because it requires the link of two participants. the crime is consummated. If that link is there. unless a part of the premises has begun to burn. the only act done by the giver is an attempt. Because of this. A corruptor gives money to a public officer for the latter not to prosecute him. it requires the connection of the offender and the offended party. there is no way of determining whether the offender has already performed all the acts or not. Can the crime of frustrated bribery be committed? No. It is not possible for him to perform all the acts of execution because in the first place. Without the resulting felony. he has already performed all the acts of execution. it cannot be said that the offender has performed all the acts of execution. if there is a meeting of the minds. There is no middle ground when the link is there and when the link is absent. It is in such felonies that the frustrated stage does not exist because without the felony being accomplished. Actually. The public officer received the money but just the same. and. when a public officer demands a consideration by official duty. it is only attempted bribery. that is already an indication that the premises have begun to burn. the Supreme Court followed the analysis that one cannot say that the offender in the crime of arson has already performed all the acts of execution which would /vvverga Page 37 of 100 . Orita. if there was no penetration yet. The essence of the crime is carnal knowledge. there is only an attempted stage. As far as the stage is concerned. Hence. in the crime of arson. In short. let us take the crime of bribery. the receiver has no intention of being corrupted. there is no way of stating that the offender has already performed all the acts of execution. The reasoning is that one cannot say that the offender. or accept any promise or present in consideration thereof. there could hardly be a frustrated stage. You will notice that under the Revised Penal Code. it is only possible in the attempted stage. (Incidentally. the money was marked and this was delivered to the public officer. Once there is penetration already. Do not think that because the corruptor has already delivered the money. the moment it begins to burn. Similarly. there are felonies where the offender can only be determined to have performed all the acts of execution when the resulting felony is already accomplished. when it takes two to commit the crime. There cannot be a consummated bribery without the corresponding consummated corruption. For instance. This is also true in the crime of arson.
it is already frustrated. somebody holds that arm. he ran away. On the other hand. The trouble is that. In US v. therefore. He lighted these. or the stages of execution of the felony. This is because consummated arson does not require that the whole of the premises be burned. This is because. There are also certain crimes that do not admit of the attempted or frustrated stage. no matter how small. the offender who put the torch over the house of the offended party. there would be attempted physical injuries. The attempted stage is said to be within the subjective phase of execution of a felony. Garcia. But in the case of People v. If the felony did not result. you could not punish the attempted or frustrated stage because you do not know what crime of physical injuries was committed. When the offender has already passed the subjective stage of the felony. but before he could throw the blow. The reason is because we can hardly determine whether the offender has performed all the acts of execution that would result in arson. There was not even a single burn of any instrument or agency of the crime. If the felony does not follow as a consequence. and as soon as the jute sacks began to burn. That act demonstrated that in his mind. the offended party was able to sidestep away from the blow. you cannot say that the offender believed that he had performed all the acts of execution. it is consummated. He reasoned out that the crime would be frustrated because the offender was able to perform all the acts of execution which would bring about the felony were it not for a cause independent of the will of the perpetrator. The analysis made by the Court of Appeals is still correct: that they could not demonstrate a situation where the offender has performed all the acts of execution to bring about the crime of arson and the situation where he has not yet performed all the acts of execution. The court held that what was committed was frustrated arson. in the jurisprudence recognizing the objective phase and the subjective phase. In that case. the crime has already passed the subjective phase and. as a consequence. the situation is different. Valdez. torch burned out. He explained that by going through the definition of an attempted and a frustrated felony under Article 6. arson is consummated. Valdez is still correct. Verga But the torch which was lighted could easily burn the roof of the nipa hut. there is no simple crime of physical injuries. The weight of the authority is that the crime of arson cannot be committed in the frustrated stage. so he ran away. in law. has begun to burn. If the felony follows as a consequence. frustrated or consummated. Actually. Supreme Court said the subjective phase has passed. Valdez is correct. the Vena V. frustrated. Valdez. less serious or slight. it is beyond the attempted stage. On the subjective phase. Garcia was handed down and the Court of Appeals ruled that there is no frustrated arson. unless a part of the premises has started to burn. That although the offender may not have done the act to bring about the felony as a consequence. he believed that he has performed all the acts of execution and that it is only a matter of time that the premises will burn. you do not know which article to apply. If he has reached that point where he can no longer control the ensuing consequence. it is either already frustrated or consummated. You will notice that under the Revised Penal Code. lighted the same. but also his belief. Questions & Answers /vvverga Page 38 of 100 . The explanation is academic. Here. the Supreme Court considered not only the acts of the offender. The reason for this is because the offender was not able to perform all the acts of execution to bring about physical injuries. in determining whether the felony is attempted. The occupants of the room put out the fire. The fact that the occupant of the other room came out and put out the fire is a cause independent of the will of the perpetrator. it is that point in time when the offender begins the commission of an overt act until that point where he loses control of the commission of the crime already. On the other hand. the analysis in the case of US v. unless and until a part of the premises had begun to burn. It is already on the consummated or frustrated stage depending on whether a felony resulted. like physical injuries. the crime of physical injuries is penalized on the basis of the gravity of the injuries. if he could have continued committing those acts but he himself did not proceed because he believed that he had done enough to consummate the crime. This case was much the way before the decision in the case of People v. where the offender. This being so. the house being a nipa hut. The moment the execution of the crime has already gone to that point where the felony should follow as a consequence. he also stated that the crime of physical injuries may be committed in the frustrated stage when the offender was able to throw the blow but somehow. it is no longer attempted. One of the known commentators in criminal law has advanced the view that the crime of physical injuries can be committed in the attempted as well as the frustrated stage. It is enough that any part of the premises. If you say physical injuries. if a person who was about to give a fist blow to another raises his arms. having already put kerosene on the jute sacks. the moment a particle or a molecule of the premises has blackened. the court does not only consider the definition under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code. The ruling in the case of US v. the offender had tried to burn the premises by gathering jute sacks laying these inside the room. But even then.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) produce the arson as a consequence. This was applied in the case of US v. he had no reason not to believe that the fire would spread. You have to categorize because there are specific articles that apply whether the physical injuries are serious.
the estafa can only be frustrated or attempted. the offender receives the property. this is where you have to decide whether what was transferred to the offender is juridical possession or physical possession only. You cannot classify the physical injuries. 2. It is not a matter of carrying away. On the other hand. Along this concept of deformity in law. do not talk of damage.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. the commentator’s opinion cannot stand because you cannot tell what particular physical injuries was attempted or frustrated unless the consequence is there. This is so true when he removed the wallet from the confines of the table. For the crime of estafa to be consummated. Verga 1. the recipient may be committing theft. This is so because the concept of theft under the Revised Penal Code differs from the concept of larceny under American common law. There is no real hard and fast rule. if what was transferred to him was only the physical or material possession of the object. It is consummated. so that there is damage already suffered by the offended party. three factors must concur: (1) (2) (3) The injury should bring about the ugliness. “Taking” in the concept of theft. When you are discussing estafa. If he has started lifting the wallet. After the surgery. In determining whether a felony is attempted. He can exercise his will over the wallet already. not even gain is important. frustrated or consummated? The crime committed here is serious physical injuries because of the deformity. this is only theft or none at all. such that he could exercise his own control on the thing. The ugliness would not disappear through natural healing process. What is necessary only is intent to gain. But in receiving the property. the plastic surgery applied to B is beside the point. Illustration: I placed a wallet on a table inside a room. the element of the felony and the nature of the felony itself. but took the same from the possession of the owner without the latter’s consent. So the fact that there was plastic surgery applied to B does not relieve the offender from the liability for the physical injuries inflicted. if it were a crime of theft. you disregard the healing duration of the wound or the medical treatment required by the wound. When there is deformity. The ugliness must be visible. That complete control simply means that the offender has already supplanted his will from the will of the possessor or owner of the personal property involved. The crime committed is serious physical injuries. If he is in the act of trying to take the wallet or place it under. Therefore. there can only be attempted or frustrated theft. the presumption of innocence would be sacrificed. he can drop this on the floor. damage or intent to cause damage is not an element of theft. But as long as the wallet remains on the table. attempted. he does not take it. If there is no damage. otherwise. Elements of the crime In the crime of estafa. I suddenly started searching him and I found the wallet inside his pocket. a deformity can be said to exist. the crime of larceny which is equivalent to our crime of theft here requires that the offender must be able to carry away or transport the thing being stolen. gets the wallet and puts it in his pocket. The injuries would have resulted in deformity were it not for timely plastic surgery. Without that carrying away. In law. The crime of theft is the one commonly given under Article 6. what is considered is not the artificial or the scientific treatment but the natural healing of the injury. A threw muriatic acid on the face of B. If there is no damage yet. Under American common law. you have to consider the manner of committing the felony. The crime of theft is already consummated because he already acquired complete control of my wallet. simply means exercising control over the thing. Criminal law cannot stand on any speculation or ambiguity. It can only be estafa if what was transferred to him is not only material or physical possession but juridical possession as well. That cannot be estafa. In order that in law. the element of damage is essential before the crime could be consummated. not estafa. What crime is committed? Is it attempted. In our concept of theft. In estafa. it is frustrated. frustrated or consummated. In the same manner that when you are discussing the crime of theft. A stranger comes inside the room. estafa cannot be considered as consummated. etc. then there is no problem. even if the offender succeeded in carting away the personal property involved. you do not know. If there is no result. there must be misappropriation already done. the offender need not move an inch from where he was. If the offender did not receive the personal property. the larceny cannot be consummated. B became more handsome. Is there an attempted slight physical injuries? thinking must be complete before a crime of theft shall be consummated. It is a matter of whether he has already acquired complete control of the personal property involved. If the personal property was received by the offender. That is why we made that distinction between theft and estafa. the theft is not yet consummated. The mere intent to derive some profit is enough but the /vvverga Page 39 of 100 . do not talk about intent to gain.
These were taken from a warehouse. what were taken were hospital linens. It will only affect the civil liability of the crime because he will no longer be required to pay the object. A entered the yard of B and opened the chicken coop where B keeps his fighting cocks. the moment he brought it out. it is frustrated and in the other. This is very decisive in the problem because in most problems given in the bar. If the wound is not mortal. The general rule is that there must be a fatal injury inflicted. Espiritu. the acts already done by him must produce or be capable of producing a felony as a consequence. In People v. homicide. Diño. the man who entered the room pretended to carry the table out of the room. The offender is criminally liable but he will not be civilly liable because the object was returned. Hospital linens were taken from boxes that were diffused or destroyed and brought out of the hospital. it is clear that his will completely governed or superseded the will of the owner to keep such cock inside the chicken coop. the crime is only frustrated. As long as they were not able to bring these boxes of rifle out of the compound. The emphasis. A man entered a room and found a chest on the table. in lieu of theft. Verga because in criminal law. From the moment they took it out of the boxes where the owner or the possessor had placed it. When the receptacle is locked or sealed. Is he criminally liable? Do not make a mistake by saying that there is a desistance. in both cases. Espiritu. and before he could leave the room. An exception to the general rule is the so-called subjective phase. Adio and People v. Illustration: A and B are neighbors. the offender. You do not have to go out of the compound to complete the taking or the control. It was held that what was committed was frustrated Theft. This is the confusion raised in the case of US v. and being consummated. as long as the object has not been brought out of that room. that the receptacle is locked or sealed has nothing to do with the stage of the commission of the crime. not the table. On the other hand. it cannot be said that the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would produce parricide. Diño. It was held that what was committed was consummated theft. the accused loaded boxes of rifle on their truck. When they were on their way out of the South Harbor. homicide or murder as a result. it is consummated? In the case of US v. it is the perimeter of the compound that is the container. It is only frustrated because as far as the table is concern. It turned out that he is not authorized at all and is interested only in the wallet. the offenders were not able to pass the checkpoint. If the thing is stolen from a compound or from a room. But if he does not take the valuables but lifts the entire chest. the accused were on their way out of the supply house when they were apprehended by military police who found them secreting some hospital linen. While taking the table out of the room. he was apprehended. As far as the boxes of rifle are concerned. Under the definition of the frustrated stage. and murder – in the definition of the frustrated stage. or from the perimeter of the compound. it was consummated. Espiritu. desistance is true only in the attempted stage. it is indispensable that the victim be mortally wounded. the fact that he changed his mind and returned the same will no longer affect his criminal liability. As long as he has not taken this table out of the four walls of this room. put them in his pocket and was arrested. the return of the owner’s property is not desistance anymore. the boxes of rifle were stocked file inside the compound of the South Harbor. to consider the offender as having performed all the acts of execution. He discovered that the fighting cocks were not physically fit for cockfighting so he returned it. Hence.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) If instead of the wallet. When the offender succeeded in bringing the cock out of the coop. and the offender broke the same. It refers only to whether it is theft or robbery with force upon things. which was erroneously laid in some commentaries. the taking is not complete. However. the crime is only attempted. If the offender has already acquired complete control of what he intended to take. You cannot talk of desistance anymore when it is already in the consummated stage. He took the valuables. the crime was already consummated. In US v. theft is consummated. He opened it found some valuables inside. The return of the thing cannot be desistance Vena V. The crime is consummated theft. In this case. Diño compared with People v. The will of the owner is to keep the fighting cock inside the chicken coop. after having taken the object out of the container changed his mind and returned it. and the wallet is there. the offender is criminally liable and the crime is consummated theft. I apprehended him. One evening. so they were not able to leave the compound. If the crime is one of theft. the control is complete. there is frustrated theft. the taking is not complete. The crime is not yet consummated. Nature of the crime itself In crimes involving the taking of human life – parricide. the crime is robbery with force upon things. But why is it that in one. they were checked at the checkpoint. The reason is that the wound inflicted is not capable of bringing about the desired felony of parricide. in the case of People v. is that. it is the confines of this room that is the container. murder or homicide as a consequence. The Supreme Court has decided cases which applied the subjective standard that when the offender himself believed that he had performed all the acts of /vvverga Page 40 of 100 . As far as the crime committed is concerned. because it is only then that death will follow.
However. otherwise. and does not attempt to charge them with the crime of conspiracy (a) But of pivotal importance perpetuators of crime in determining liability of PEOPLE vs. conspiracy is not a crime except when the law specifically provides for a penalty therefore as in treason. Decision: Under the common law. and decide to commit it. the existence of conspiracy assumes pivotal importance in the determination of liability of the perpetrators. The information in this case charges the defendants with the crime of estafa. PERALTA Facts: The accused were OXO members and were charged for multiple murder for killing three members/sympathizers of the Sigue-Sigue gang during a prison riot. which defines certain specific acts as conspiracies. even though no mortal wound was inflicted. Exception: As provided by Law 2. LIM BUANCO Facts: Defendants are being accused of estafa for defrauding El Banco EspanolFilipino. This is only true when the law expressly punishes the mere conspiracy. Issue: W/N the defendants should be charged with conspiracy or estafa. a combination of two or more persons to do an unlawful act by lawful means. Treason. Article 4 of the Penal code says that there is a conspiracy when two or more persons act together for the commission of a crime. rebellion. when in resolute execution of a common scheme. and coup d’etat are the only crimes where the conspiracy and proposal to commit to them are punishable. Verga certain acts as conspiracies and makes them punishable. conspiracy existed between the defendants for the withdrawal of funds from the bank regardless of whether Lim Baunco had funds in the bank to his credit or not. A. General Rule: conspiracies and proposals to commit a felony are not punishable Not indictable in the Philippines US vs. The Penal code defines /vvverga Page 41 of 100 . coordinated manner. a felony is committed by two or more malefactors. Proposals punished in the code (a) proposal to commit treason (Art 115) (b) Proposal to commit rebellion (Art 136) 4. or a lawful act by unlawful means. the fact that their acts complimented each other is indicative of the meeting of the minds. the sovereignty of the State is not outraged and the tranquility of the public remains undisturbed.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) execution. The mere conspiracy is the crime itself. the act is already in the frustrated stage. When several offenders act in a synchronized. However. An agreement to commit a crime is a reprehensible act from the viewpoint of morality. conspiracies punished by special laws (a) commonwealth act no 616 sec. the conspiracy does not bring about the commission of the crime because conspiracy is not an overt act but a mere preparatory act. The crime of conspiracy as known to the common law does not exist under the system embodied in the Spanish Penal Code. The participants acted in concert or simultaneously which is indicative of a meeting of the minds towards a common criminal goal or criminal objective. Lim Buanco had an account with the said bank and drew large sums of money therefrom by means of checks that were signed by him and endorsed by Reyes. conspiracies punished by RPC (a) conspiracy to commit treason (Art 115) (b) conspiracy to commit rebellion (Art 136) (c) conspiracy to commit sedition (Art 141) 3. 1. There is an implied agreement. Generally. to the prejudice of an individual or public is a distinct offense. The crime of conspiracy known to the common law is not an indictable offense in the Philippines. sedition. Vena V. rebellion and sedition. Sigue-sigue’s members are predominantly Tagalogs while OXO’s members came from Visayas and Mindanao: Issue: W/N there is conspiracy in this case Decision: A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. and provides that a conspiracy to commit a crime is punishable only in the cases in which the law specifically makes them so. Reyes manipulated the books as to make them show an apparent credit when in fact Lim Buanco was owing the bank a large sum of money. The prison riot was an offshoot of the long standing clashes between the warring groups. no overt act is necessary to bring about the criminal liability. and Conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability When conspiracy itself is a crime. but as long as the conspirators do not perform overt acts in furtherance of their malevolent design. CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMITE A FELONY Two ways for conspiracy to exist: (1) (2) There is an agreement. 5 (b) RA 1700 Two kinds of conspiracy: (1) (2) Conspiracy as a crime.
if proposal is accepted. Magcomot. the act of one is the act of all the others involved and each is to be held to the same degree of liability as the others. for 'concurrence of wills' or unity of action and purpose. A. According to People v. who previously had a confrontation with one the truck passengers. Pudpud : "A conspiracy 'exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. IV. ELEMENTS OF PROPOSAL A person has decided to commit a crime He proposes its commission to another 1. A. Decision: It is urged that the said offer was a mere proposal to commit a crime. If such be the case then. B. there is a conspiracy CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT A CRIME IS DISTINGUISHED CONSPIRACY AS A MEANS TO COMMIT TO CRIME FROM A. can not be said to have made a mere proposition. three men. as the offer of money is an overt act in a crime of this nature. /vvverga Page 42 of 100 .' The usual phraseology employed in many of the later cases is 'common and joint purpose and design. OGAPAY Facts: The defendants was said to have conspired to kill Ogapay. and offered and promised to give him the sum of 200 pesos if he would "lend his aid and support to the said protest. Thus the defendant." the accused. overt acts and does not perform all of the acts of execution which constitute the crime. Vena V. Moreover.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) II. GLORIA Facts: Gloria was an unsuccessful candidate for election as president of his town. Malilay and People v. VI. VII. Issue: W/N Cabiling is as guilty as his other companions for the murder of Guido. a 1909 decision. Verga A. That must be their intent. C. There is need in the language of Justice Mapa in the early leading case of United States v. B. having made an offer of money for the purpose of bribery. B. V. ELEMENTS OF CONSPIRACY Decision: There is no conspiracy in this case. What is required is assent to the perpetration of such a misdeed. RPC) Issue: W/N there is conspiracy in the case at bar. MERE CONSPIRACY AS CONSTITUTING COMMISSION OF CRIME Combinations in restrain of Trade (Art 186) Brigandage (Art 306) Certain violations of the dangerous drugs act MERE PROPOSAL AS OVERT ACT PUNISHED BY LAW: BRIBR NOT ACCEPTED (Art. and its refusal on the part of the official whom it was proposed to bribe alone prevented the consummation of the crime. the godson of one of the defendants. Upon filing a protest. A conflict arose between the victim and one of the defendants when the former accused the latter of land-grabbing lands owned by the former’s grandfather. In the case in question the proposal was in fact an "attempt" as defined in article 3 of said code. a member of said board. 212. he approached the treasurer of said treasurer of said province. US vs. LIABILITY OF CONSPIRATOR determination to commit felony taking part in every detail is not essential PEOPLE vs. B. Suddenly. the victim did not support the defendant during the elections. with several others had the victim killed. Defendant was charged with “attempt" to commit the crime of bribery” Issue: W/N the act is punishable by the RPC. and that under the provisions of article 4 such proposals can only be punished in cases where specific authority therefor is to be found in the Penal Code. III. and that there is nothing in said code which penalizes a proposal to commit the crime of bribery. 'The objective then on the part of the conspirators is to perform an act or omission punishable by law. Villarino) Agreement concerns commission of felony (US vs. The conditions attending its commission and the acts executed may be indicative of a common design to accomplish a criminal purpose and objective. Figueras) They decide to commit it. CABILING Facts: The victim was a driver of a truck that was to deliver a truckload of rice to Manila. came and attacked the persons inside the truck killing the victim. Guido died from traumatic injuries in the head. Their truck broke down while in the highway causing them to stop. it may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated. PEOPLE vs. Cabiling contends that he could not have killed Guido since he was not the one with the lead pipe.’ 'Thus a conspiracy need not be proved be direct evidence. Note: When conspiracy relates to crime actually committed. C. by reason of some cause or action other than his own voluntary desistance. wherein it is said that "there is an attempt when the guilty person makes a beginning in the commission of a crime by direct. Two or more persons come to an agreement (US vs. not a felony but only a means of incurring criminal liability.
It was said that Quinto and his companions. there is no evidence tending to show conspiracy. It is enough that from the individual acts of each accused. among whom could have been the culprits. Alonzo) Solidary indemnity for victim’s indemnity DEGREE OF PROOF REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH CONSPIRACY Same Degree of proof required to establish crime 1. Bolando contends that he did not know of Tolings plan till they were in the barrio. does not establish criminal liability. E. in the acts leading to the commission of the felony has not been established by the evidence for the prosecution. Conspirators need not all join in the agreement at the same time Collective criminal responsibility: Act of one. C. and although he did not directly participate in the robbery he gave moral encouragement to them with his presence and shared in the loot in the amount of Php . Considering that Bolando after knowing that thy were to rob someone still went with them to the Barrio. It is not essential that each conspirator shall take part in every act. the prosecution was not able to establish whether it was really the defendant who killed the victim. However. /vvverga Page 43 of 100 . or that one should know the exact part to be performed by the other conspirator in the execution of the conspiracy. The victim went to Francisco’s house. If it is proved that two or more persons aimed. Mere presence at crime scene does not establish conspiracy Positive and convincing Founded on facts and not mere conjectures. Toling an Bolando robbed a certain Francisco Lumpayao. does not appear that the appellants had a common design. for the prosecution need not establish that all the parties thereto agreed to every detail in the execution of the crime or that they were actually together at all stages of the conspiracy. TOLING Facts: The defendants were all found guilty for the crime of Robbery in Band with Homicide. inferences presumptions LIABILITY IN ABSENCE OF CONSPIRACY Individual liability A.50. Issue: W/N Quinto should be acquitted Decision: It is significant that in the instant case. were in fact connected and cooperative. in the company of others. IX. he should be criminally responsible as an accomplice for the crime of robbery. It is settled that where conspiracy is absent. PEOPLE vs. he went along with Toling because he was afraid to displease the latter and he only learned of their purpose on their way. which caused his untimely death. In the absence of conspiracy. Verga Decision: Yes. Conspiracy is not proven in this case because it Question & Answer Union A proposed acts of sedition to Union B. Upon seeing Isabelo. had a heated encounter with the victims in topside café.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. Francisco shouted for help. Toling shot Isabelo thereby killing him. B. will your answer be different? There is no crime committed. QUINTO Facts: The defendants were charged of murder for hitting and inflicting upon the vital parts of Patrolman Butawa’s body mortal gunshot wounds. D. But if Union B accepts the proposal. Mere companionship does not establish conspiracy 2. Conspiracy implies concert of design and not participation in every detail of execution. the criminal responsibility of several accused is individual. each of the accused is responsible only for the consequences of his own act. or A.50 share in the loot that was promised to him. conspiracy may be inferred although no actual meeting between them to conspire is proved. there will be conspiracy to commit sedition which is a crime under the Revised Penal Code. if any. as mere Presence of the accused at the scene of the crime. the nature and extent of appellant's participation. or cooperated in its perpetuation by an indispensable act. it may be reasonably deduced that they had a common plan to commit the felony. by their acts. it is necessary to prove who shot and killed the victim. According to Bolando. An accomplice is one who cooperates in the execution of the crime by previous or simultaneous acts. Upon seeing this. He only joined them because of the Php . at the accomplishment of some unlawful object. In the instant case. Every one of the conspirators who took active part in its execution is therefore responsible for all he acts of the others done in the furtherance of the common design. act of all (People vs. Is there a crime committed? Assuming Union B accepts the proposal. through apparently. Proposal to commit sedition is not a crime. VIII. Quinto’s guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt thus he was acquitted. PEOPLE vs. each doing a part so that their acts. provided that he has not taken direct part in the execution of the crime or forced or induced others to execute it. C. who were at that time already drunk. Issue: W/N Bolando is as guilty as the other defendants Decision: Conspiracy not having been established. indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiments.
But if anyone of them has committed the overt act of rebellion. We have to observe the distinction between the two because conspiracy as a crime. however. none of the co-conspirators would be liable. /vvverga Page 44 of 100 . the crime of all is no longer conspiracy to commit rebellion but rebellion itself. 200 SCRA 489. there was no proposal but a conspiracy. They have conspired to execute a crime but the crime involved here is murder and a conspiracy to commit murder is not a crime in itself but merely a basis for incurring criminal liability. so that when they reached the place. anyone who did not appear shall be presumed to have desisted. He hired B to kill A and offered him P50. without cooperation or at least. such a desistance would negate criminal liability. the police were caught in traffic causing their delay. If the conspiracy is only a basis of criminal liability. The goons got hold of her husband and started mauling him. The wife was prosecuted for parricide. This subsists even though the other co-conspirator does not know that one of them had already done the act of rebellion. unless a co-conspirator was absent from the scene of the crime or he showed up. He disclosed to B that A was being arraigned in the City Hall of Manila and told him to execute the plan on the following day. In this case. for as long as anyone shall desist before an overt act in furtherance of the crime was committed. Illustrations: A thought of having her husband killed because the latter was maltreating her. the word “person” here should not be understood to require a meeting of the coconspirator regarding the commission of the felony. A conspiracy of the second kind can be inferred or deduced even though they have not met as long as they acted in concert or simultaneously. there is already criminal liability arising from the conspiracy to commit the rebellion. the crime would no longer be the conspiracy but the overt act itself. Conspiracy is a matter of substance which must be alleged in the information. there is no crime yet. Do not think that participants are always known to each other. The wife took pity and shouted for them to stop but the goons continued. All will be liable for the consequences. In the evening of that same day. Pinto. not by conjectures or speculations. 186 SCRA 5980. the same may be deduced or inferred from the acts of several offenders in carrying out the commission of the crime. or approval of the act. Illustration: A. B. There must be an intentional participation in the crime with a view to further the common felonious objective. is not enough to constitute a conspiracy. unless there is an overt act. indicative of a meeting of the minds toward a common goal or objective. In Taer v. But when one of them commits any overt act. She hired some persons to kill him and pointed at her husband. regardless of the degree of injury inflicted by any one of them. must have a clear and convincing evidence of its existence. it was held that mere knowledge. This is just a preparatory act. all of them shall be held liable. Every crime must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. acquiescence to. In People v. and his desistance negates criminal liability. On the other hand. agreement to cooperate.00. C and D came to an agreement to commit rebellion. Unfortunately. The existence of a conspiracy may be reasonably inferred from the acts of the offenders when such acts disclose or show a common pursuit of the criminal objective. Verga Although conspiracy is defined as two or more person coming to an agreement regarding the commission of a felony and deciding to commit it. Illustration: Three persons plan to rob a bank.000. When the conspiracy is just a basis of incurring criminal liability. Laurio. Even if none of them has performed the act of rebellion. the law student changed his mind so he immediately went to the police and told them to dispatch police officers to prevent B from committing the crime. it was held that it must be established by positive and conclusive evidence. This legal consequence is not true if the conspiracy is not a crime. B had already killed A. the court will not consider the same. A conspiracy is possible even when participants are not known to each other. This was the ruling in People v. All that there is the agreement.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) When the conspiracy is only a basis of incurring criminal liability. if there has been a conspiracy to commit a crime in a particular place. For as long as none of the conspirators has committed an overt act. but he tried to prevent the commission of the crime As a general rule. if the co-conspirator or any of them would execute an overt act. The wife ran away. Vena V. When the conspiracy itself is a crime. otherwise. CA. So. But the Supreme Court said that there was desistance so she is not criminally liable. A law student resented the fact that his brother was killed by A. When several persons who do not know each other simultaneously attack the victim. Their agreement was to bring about the rebellion on a certain date. The exception to this is if such person who did not appear was the mastermind. 204 SCRA 9. there must be an overt act done before the co-conspirators become criminally liable. this cannot be inferred or deduced because there is no overt act. the act of one is the act of all.
the participants are punished as principals. under the influence of marijuana. and they attacked the victim simultaneously. they have equal criminal responsibility. That is why he was given only that penalty for an accomplice. The taxi driver brought the conspirators where the robbery would be committed. broke into a house because they learned that the occupants have gone on an excursion. Do not search for an agreement among the participants. In the crime of robbery with force upon things. The taxi driver agreed but said. His cooperation was not really indispensable. After the robbery was finished. /vvverga Page 45 of 100 . Composite crimes Composite crimes are crimes which. One day. Vena V. thus. When they fled. the crime could be carried out as well. it was held that the idea of a conspiracy is incompatible with the idea of a free for all. such co-conspirator should be punished as an accomplice only. In the case of People v. a victim was found dead. it requires two parties. B and C learned about this. conspiracy is bilateral. Without the principle of conspiracy. they all stood up to leave the house of the young lady feeling disappointed. In Siton v. This notion is no longer absolute. A got a colored TV. A stabbed D. Because of this. the conspirator will be liable for all the acts committed during the commission of the crime agreed upon. in the eyes of the law. like in a killing. acting out a common criminal intent. As a general rule. there is the rule on collective responsibility since it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the victim. he took the conspirators back to his taxi and brought them away. Nierra. Notwithstanding that there is conspiracy. There. The reason given is that penal laws always favor a milder form of responsibility upon an offender. B and C have been courting the same lady for several years. As pointed out earlier. hence. all these participants shall be considered as having acted in conspiracy and they will be held collectively responsible. There is no definite opponent or definite intent as when a basketball crowd beats a referee to death. Verga The common notion is that when there is conspiracy involved. If they acted simultaneously to bring about their common intention. the young lady agreed to marry D. “When a person has set foot to the path of wickedness and brings back his foot to the path of righteousness. the conspirators told the taxi driver that they are going to use his taxicab in going to the place of robbery. So it is no longer accurate to think that when there is a conspiracy. the penalty is based on the totality of the value of the personal property taken and not on the individual property taken by him. if a co-conspirator merely cooperated in the commission of the crime with insignificant or minimal acts. It was held that the taxi driver was liable only as an accomplice. all are principals. and the taxi driver was present during the planning. there is only one crime. Question & Answer There are several offenders who acted simultaneously. and C. nobody would be prosecuted. the Supreme Court ruled that even though there was conspiracy. it was held that conspiracy was present. A. one party makes a proposition to the other. and after committing the robbery I will return later”. they even visited the lady on intervening hours. “I will bring you there. For example. At most. robbery with physical injuries. such that even without his cooperation.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Proposal is true only up to the point where the party to whom the proposal was made has not yet accepted the proposal. B and C became hostile with one another. The robbers could have engaged another taxi. Before this stage. There is conspiracy when the offenders acted simultaneously pursuing a common criminal design. he saw D laughing menacingly. The Supreme Court has ruled that one who desisted is not criminally liable. On several occasions. all those acts done in pursuance of the crime agreed upon are acts which constitute a single crime. Once the proposal was accepted. Conspiracy is only in the preparatory stage. Eventually.” Where there are several persons who participated. in substance. do not consider the degree of participation of each conspirator because the act of one is the act of all. In case the crime committed is a composite crime. B saw a camera and took that. and C found a can of salmon and took that. In this case. there is only a preparatory stage. That means the penalty which shall be imposed upon him is one degree lower. For example. a co-conspirator may be held liable only as an accomplice. CA. so much so that it cannot be known what participation each one had. Who should be liable for the killing if who actually killed the victim is not known? There is collective responsibility here. what he only extended was his cooperation. A. the law shall reward him for doing so. C and B followed. At that instance. there was a planned robbery. Proposal is unilateral. This is because. They ransacked the house. a conspiracy arises. desistance is true only in the attempted stage. consist of more than one crime but in the eyes of the law. When A looked back at the young lady with D. Illustration: A. The taxi driver did not really stay during the commission of the robbery. And when conspiracy exists. the crimes of robbery with homicide. D invited the young lady and she accepted the invitation. B. conspiracy exists. robbery with rape. When A.
C inspected the pocket of the victim and found that the victim was wearing a ring – a diamond ring – and he took it. felonies are classified as attempted felony when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts. B and C are liable because that was agreed upon and theft was not an integral part of homicide. the owner was awakened. So C will be liable for homicide and theft. yet rape was part of robbery. it is well settled that any killing taking place while robbery is being committed shall be treated as a single indivisible offense. and C decided to commit robbery in the house of D. The rule would be different if the crime committed was not a composite crime. less grave or light? To determine whether these felonies can be complexed or not. Take note that when the Revised Penal Code the not the the /vvverga Page 46 of 100 . consummated felony when all the elements necessary for its execution are present. Therefore. B would stay in the first floor.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Illustrations: A. B and C agreed to kill D. A and B ran into different directions. the examiner was after classifications under Articles 3. A. Exception to the exception: In acts constituting a single indivisible offense. felonies are classified as grave felonies or those to which attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive. when there is conspiracy. but an indivisible felony under the Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. reckless imprudence. less grave felonies or those to which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period was correccional. Insofar as the crime of theft is concerned. frustrated felony when the offender commences the commission of a felony as a consequence but which would produce the felony as a consequence but which nevertheless do not produce the felony by reason of causes independent of the perpetrator. Unknown to B and C. Even if B and C did not know that rape was being committed and they agreed only and conspired to rob. They can only evade responsibility for any other crime outside of that agreed upon if it is proved that the particular conspirator had tried to prevent the commission of such other act. Do not write classification of felonies under Book 2 of the Revised Penal Code. these are felonies classified according to their gravity. This is because. B. and C would stay on the first floor. stages and the penalty attached to them. Illustration: A. B was to wait outside. A. As far as the homicide is concerned. In other words. and C stands guard outside. Verga This question was asked in the bar examination: How do you classify felonies or how are felonies classified? What the examiner had in mind was Articles 3. B and C killed D and after that. the rule is that the act of one is the act of all. intentional felonies or those committed with deliberate intent.. When they saw the opportunity. B and C will be liable for robbery with homicide. and to determine the prescription of the crime and the prescription of the penalty. A. and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. According to their gravity Under Article 9. A killed him. lack of foresight or lack of skill. While A was ransacking the second floor. and. all will be liable for such crime. A raped the girl upstairs. The crime committed is robbery with rape. The crimes committed are homicide and theft. Why is it necessary to determine whether the crime is grave. It was agreed that A would go the second floor. A. A would ransack the second floor. and light felonies or those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty is arresto menor. they are classified as. 6 and 9. As a general rule. Felonies are classified as follows: (1) According to the manner of their commission Under Article 3. even though the co-conspirator performed different acts bringing about the composite crime. which is not a complex crime. C will be the only one liable. B and C agreed to rob the house of D. The exception is if any of the co-conspirator would commit a crime not agreed upon. and culpable felonies or those resulting from negligence. (2) According to the stages of their execution Under Article 6. (3) CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES Vena V. This is a distinct crime so the rule will not apply because it was not the crime agreed upon. 6 and 9. All went to their designated areas in pursuit of the plan. Rape can not be separated from robbery. This principle applies only to the crime agreed upon. Pursuant to their agreement. This happens when the crime agreed upon and the crime committed by one of the co-conspirators are distinct crimes. All of them will be liable for robbery with rape. That was what the examiner had in mind because the question does not require candidate to classify but also to define.
it prescribes in ten years. 533. Martinada. it was held that the use of arms is an element of rebellion. Aggravating circumstances. if needed to avoid an injustice. It can absorb the crime of murder. apply Article 26. Verga would be caused to the private offended party. For example. the use of firearms is not an ingredient of the crime. A violation of a special law can never absorb a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code. After two months. So Presidential Decree No. the fine of P200. This classification of felony according to gravity is important with respect to the question of prescription of crimes. Article 100 states that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. Thias was the ruling in People v. it can be promulgated even if absent under the New Rules on Criminal Procedure. It is considered as correctional penalty and it prescribes in 10 years. The stages of the commission of felonies will also apply since suppletory application is now allowed.00 is considered a correctional penalty under Article 26. 7659. the state loses the right to prosecute unless the running period is suspended. if he would not be indemnified for the damages or injuries sustained by him. You will only apply the provisions of the Revised Penal Code as a supplement to the special law. The special law is silent as to the civil liability of one who violates the same. considering that the special law is silent on this point? Yes. Here is a person who violated the special law and he was prosecuted. Murder would be a qualifying circumstance in the crime of qualified cattle rustling. because Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code may be given suppletory application to prevent an injustice from being done to the offended party. In Article 10. it is already a special law. If the penalty is fine and exactly P200. 6425 does not expressly prohibit the suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code. But a crime in the Revised Penal Code can absorb a crime punishable by a special law if it is a necessary ingredient of the crime in the Revised Penal Code. If in the course of cattle rustling. means that mitigating and aggravating circumstances can now be considered in imposing penalties. But do not think that when a crime is punished outside of the Revised Penal Code. In the crime of sedition. and (2) illegal possession of firearms. May the court pronounce that he is civilly liable to the offended party. there is a reservation “provision of the Revised Penal Code may be applied suppletorily to special laws”. If no justice would result.00. Presidential Decree No. and Alternative circumstances. the crime of cattle-rustling is not a mala prohibitum but a modification of the crime theft of large cattle. There are two others which are found elsewhere in the provisions of the Revised Penal Code: /vvverga Page 47 of 100 . or simply correlate the violated special law. If the offender is apprehended at any time within ten years. For example. which adopted the scale of penalties in the Revised Penal Code. Circumstances affecting criminal liability There are five circumstances affecting criminal liability: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Justifying circumstances. That article shall be applied suppletory to avoid an injustice that Vena V. His violation caused damage or injury to a private party. observe the distinction. Exempting circumstances. SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE Article 10 is the consequence of the legal requirement that you have to distinguish those punished under special laws and those under the Revised Penal Code. If the penalty is exactly P200. The amendments of Presidential Decree No. do not give suppletorily application of the Revised Penal Code to that of special law. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) by Republic Act No. punishing cattle-rustling. In the case of light felonies.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) speaks of grave and less grave felonies. the definition makes a reference specifically to Article 25 of the Revised Penal Code. it is only considered a light felony under Article 9. is not a special law. a special law punishes a certain act as a crime. murder was committed. crimes prescribe in two months. If the crime is correctional. which prescribes in five years. In People v. Rodriguez. Hence. because violations of the Revised Penal Code are more serious than a violation of a special law. he can be made to suffer the fine.00. so a rebel cannot be further prosecuted for possession of firearms. two prosecutions can be had: (1) sedition. With regard to Article 10. If the offender escapes while in detention after he has been loose. the offender cannot be prosecuted for murder. If the fine is imposed as an alternative penalty or as a single penalty. except arresto mayor. Do not omit the phrase “In accordance with Article 25” because there is also a classification of penalties under Article 26 that was not applied. Mitigating circumstances. if there was already judgment that was passed.
the criminal plan or design exists in the mind of the law enforcer with whom the person instigated cooperated so it is said that the person instigated is acting only as a mere instrument or tool of the law enforcer in the performance of his duties. liability therefor is extinguished if death occurs before final judgment. Amnesty. then he should try it to find out whether it is loaded with dangerous drugs or not. The law enforcers told the undercover man that if he is offered a cigarette. or relatives by affinity within the same degrees with the exception of accessories who profited themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime. a legally married person who kills or inflicts physical injuries upon his or her spouse whom he surprised having sexual intercourse with his or her paramour or mistress in not criminally liable. On the other hand. the marriage of the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action. What is shifted is only the burden of evidence. ascendants. in cases of seduction. Under Article 247. and as to pecuniary penalties. and Marriage of the offended woman as provided in Article 344. Instigation is associated with criminal intent. Prescription of the penalty. ascendant. when the offender and the offended party are related as spouse. Do not consider culpa in connection with instigation. In justifying and exempting circumstances. Under Article 332. in entrapment. natural and adopted brothers and sisters. Vena V. but you do not call it as such in order not to confuse it with the circumstances under Article 12. legitimate. hence. before such property had passed on to the possession of third parties. Exempting circumstances may be invoked in culpable felonies. Absolutory cause The effect of this is to absolve the offender from criminal liability. Entrapment involves only ways and means which are laid down or resorted to facilitate the apprehension of the culprit. /vvverga Page 48 of 100 . Article 89 provides how criminal liability is extinguished: Death of the convict as to the personal penalties. It is confused with entrapment. Prescription of the crime. the crime is committed with dolo. Absolute pardon. The law enforcers cannot themselves penetrate the house because they do not belong to that circle so what they did was to convince a prominent member of society to visit such house to find out what is really happening inside and that so many cars were congregating there. descendant. there is no criminal liability but only civil liability. therefore. he is acting without criminal intent because without the instigation. brother and sister-in-law living together or where in case the widowed spouse and the property involved is that of the deceased spouse. Difference between instigation and entrapment In instigation. he in effect admits the commission of a crime but tries to avoid the liability thereof. But instigation absolves the offender from criminal liability because in instigation. Then. Justifying circumstances contemplate intentional acts and. If the crime is culpable.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) (1) (2) Absolutory cause. The burden is upon him to establish beyond reasonable doubt the required conditions to justify or exempt his acts from criminal liability. do not talk of instigation. there is no criminal liability. Absolutory cause has the effect of an exempting circumstance and they are predicated on lack of voluntariness like instigation. although not from civil liability. Entrapment does not exempt the offender or mitigate his criminal liability. This fellow went to the place and mingled there. and Extenuating circumstances. When an accused invokes them. in the case of theft. a criminal design is already in the mind of the person entrapped. Entrapment is not an absolutory cause. the offender simply acts as a tool of the law enforcers and. Service of the sentence. In instigation. It has the same effect as an exempting circumstance. are incompatible with dolo. Article 20 provides that the penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses. abduction. and rape. Under Article 344. Illustrations: An agent of the narcotics command had been tipped off that a certain house is being used as an opium den by prominent members of the society. not the burden of proof. he would not have done the criminal act which he did upon instigation of the law enforcers. Verga Under Article 219. discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence of the ward by their guardian is not penalized. acts of lasciviousness. descendants. It did not emanate from the mind of the law enforcer entrapping him. swindling and malicious mischief.
On the other hand. He was approached by a law enforcer and was asked if he wanted to deliver a package to a certain person. Unfortunately.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) The time came when he was offered a stick of cigarette and he tried it to see if the cigarette would affect him. the person entrapped should not know that the person trying to entrap him was a law enforcer. the raid was conducted and he was among those prosecuted for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. and if the circumstance is not among those enumerated in Article 12. Defense was that he would not give a cigarette if he was not asked. because he would not have come out for the marijuana leaves if the law enforcer had not instigated him. This is entrapment. nobody would offer him a cigarette because he is unknown. The offender is acting without criminal intent. Mistake of fact is not absolutory cause. It would be contrary to public policy to prosecute a citizen who only cooperated with the law enforcer. On his own. Is he criminally liable? Yes. If the instigator is not a law enforcer. because it is the law enforcer who planted that criminal mind in him to commit the crime. Even without bringing. the person involved is definitely acting without freedom and without sufficient intelligence. It is not even mitigating. the offender is already committing a crime. This is a case of entrapment and not instigation. The law enforcer asked him. there is criminal liability. In case of somnambulism or one who acts while sleeping. he believes that it is a civil duty to cooperate. A fellow wants to make money. The law enforcer ascertained if it is a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The law enforcer is only ascertaining if this fellow is selling marijuana leaves. it is necessary that had the facts been true as the accused believed them to be. This is a case of inducement. he pleaded to spare him a smoke so this fellow handed to him the cigarette he was smoking and found out that it was loaded with a dangerous drug. So the element of voluntariness which is necessary in dolo and culpa is not present. there is no criminal liability. The private citizen believes that he is a law enforcer and that is why when the law enforcer tells him. unaware of what he is doing. Selling is not necessary to commit the crime. He arrested the fellow. he is not committing a crime. the person instigated cannot be criminally liable. the offender was already committing a crime. He apprehended the fellow. Even without selling. because there is no mistake of fact anymore. If the person instigated does not know that the person is instigating him is a law enforcer or he knows him to be not a law enforcer. If element of voluntariness is absent. because he is asleep. If not. This is based on the rule that a person cannot be a criminal if his mind is not criminal. there is a crime committed by him: illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The officer who entrapped him only lays down ways and means to have evidence of the commission of the crime. Defense is instigation. The element which makes instigation an absolutory cause is the lack of criminal intent as an element of voluntariness. he would not be there. So in mistake of fact. Somnambulism is an absolutory cause. In entrapment. He is moving like a robot. The fact that he was appointed to another person to find out its contents. you cannot have a case of instigation. refer to the circumstance as an absolutory cause. In instigation. the person entrapped is actually committing a crime. When that fellow was delivering the package. Even if the law enforcer did not ask for a cigarette. Verga If the instigator is a law enforcer. although there is civil liability. this act is justified. Is he criminally liable? No. In other words. so this is entrapment. is to discover whether the crime is committed. When he saw somebody. Is he criminally liable? This is a case of instigation. the person entrapped is actually engaged in a violation of the law. The idea is incompatible with each other because in entrapment. entrapment is not an absolutory cause. He approached a person suspected to be a pusher and prevailed upon this person to sell him two kilos of dried marijuana leaves and this fellow gave him and delivered them. to whom the package was brought to found it to be marijuana. he was apprehended. In another instance. There is absence of criminal intent. mere possession is already a crime. It is a case of entrapment because the fellow is already committing the crime from the mere fact that he is possessing marijuana. a law enforcer pretended to be a buyer of marijuana. he is already possessing the marijuana. Vena V. but even without those ways and means. both will be criminally liable. A policeman suspected a fellow selling marijuana. If the law enforcer were able to enter the house and mingle there. who happens to be a law enforcer. not instigation. Instigation absolves the person instigated from criminal liability. the person. “Are you selling that? How much? Could you bring that to the other fellow there?” When he brought it there. Illustrations: /vvverga Page 49 of 100 . the private citizen only cooperates with the law enforcer to a point when the private citizen upon instigation of the law enforcer incriminates himself. only you do not call it mitigating because this is not found in Article 13. Extenuating circumstances The effect of this is to mitigate the criminal liability of the offender. Entrapment is not an absolutory cause because in entrapment. The means employed by the law enforcer did not make the accused commit a crime. He was only there upon instigation of the law enforcers. this is not a case of instigation. both will be criminally liable. The offender must believe he is performing a lawful act. The reason he is there is because he cooperated with the law enforcers. this has the same effect as mitigating circumstances. without which he would not have been a criminal. How can one sell marijuana if he is not in possession thereof.
Since there is a material lowering of the penalty or mitigating the penalty. killing him. when A saw B one afternoon. and because there is no crime. there is civil liability for the wrong done. however. Is B criminally liable? What crime was committed.” Self Defense In justifying circumstances. Because of their continuous quarrel over the boundaries of their adjoining properties. He is a mere tool or instrument of the crime. A kleptomaniac is one who cannot resist the temptation of stealing things which appeal to his desire. hence. the act of B in shooting A is not justified.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) (2) An unwed mother killed her child in order to conceal a dishonor. The equation is “life was taken to save life. B pulled out a revolver and shot A on the chest. (4) When you apply for justifying or exempting circumstances. If the unlawful aggressor was killed. As long as that arm of A was down holding the bolo. When he was about five feet away from B. is it necessary for her to seek the company of another man. what was said was that A was holding a bolo. Verga The act complained of is actually wrongful. it is legitimate and lawful in the eyes of the law. Abandonment by the husband does not justify the act of the woman. it is confession and avoidance and burden of proof shifts to the accused and he can no longer rely on weakness of prosecution’s evidence Justifying circumstances Since the justifying circumstances are in the nature of defensive acts. Since there is a crime committed but there is no criminal. It only extenuates or reduces criminal liability. at the time she was abandoned by her husband. the most important is self-defense. it is the element of unlawful aggression that is in issue. It cannot be characterized as an unlawful aggression because in criminal law. But because the actor acted without voluntariness. The concealment of honor by mother in the crime of infanticide is an extenuating circumstance but not in the case of parricide when the age of the victim is three days old and above. he approached the latter in a menacing manner with a bolo in his hand. Never confuse unlawful aggression with provocation. /vvverga Page 50 of 100 . When the effect of the circumstance is to lower the penalty there is an extenuating circumstance. an unlawful aggression is an attack or a threatened attack which produces an imminent danger to the life and limb of the one resorting to self-defense. Since the act complained of is actually wrongful. there must be always unlawful aggression. Mother killing her new born child to conceal her dishonor. depriving him of the consciousness of his act. there is no criminal. When this is given in the bar. penalty is lowered by two degrees. One who is a kleptomaniac and who would steal objects of his desire is criminally liable. However. That bolo does not produce any real or imminent danger unless a raises his arm with the bolo. if any? The act of A is nothing but a provocation. there is no criminal liability as well as civil liability. this is an extenuating circumstance. In justifying circumstances – (1) (2) (3) (4) The circumstance affects the act. but not insofar as the father of the child is concerned. In exempting circumstances – (1) The circumstances affect the actor. Distinctions between circumstances justifying circumstances and exempting (3) Vena V. The effect is to mitigate the criminal liability. there is absence of dolo or culpa. that of suffering from an illness which diminishes the exercise of his will power without. So this is an extenuating circumstance. Since there is no crime or criminal. The reasonableness of the means employed depends on the gravity of the aggression. But there is no criminal liability. in paragraphs 4 and 7 of Article 12. In the crime of adultery on the part of a married woman abandoned by her husband. there is no imminent danger to the life or limb of B. there is neither criminal nor civil liability. Since the act is considered lawful. In the facts of the problem given above. This is not exempting. Therefore. There is no criminal. But he would be given the benefit of a mitigating circumstance analogous to paragraph 9 of Article 13. but the actor acted without voluntariness. The act complained of is considered to have been done within the bounds of law. Illustration: A and B are long standing enemies. not the act. there is a crime. The concealment of dishonor is an extenuating circumstance insofar as the unwed mother or the maternal grandparents is concerned. there is no crime. Mere provocation is not enough. this can only be justified if it was done to save the life of the person defending or the person being defended. not the actor.
That is the focal point. it has the effect of lowering the penalty by one to two degrees. when she killed the supposed unlawful aggressor. It was held that the hacking was not justified. It will be defense of stranger. Defense of honor here is being equated with one of abuse of chastity of a woman. If that is not the situation. even if there was an unlawful aggression that has already begun. The accused claimed as having acted in defense of her honor and mistake of fact. depending on how the court will regard the absence or presence of conditions to justify the act. it will be his own life that will be lost.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. At the time the accused killed the supposed unlawful aggressor. her sister and brother-in-law went to see a movie and came home late that evening. this policeman who was shot at the thigh was already able to get hold of the revolver. /vvverga Page 51 of 100 . They grappled with the bolo. her life and limb were no longer in imminent danger. It was held that the whole matter is purely her imagination. But while there may be no justifying circumstance. the offended party placed his hand on the thigh of the woman who was then praying. it has the effect of reducing the imposable penalty to the minimum period. Actually. The policeman who was wounded on the thigh jumped on the arm of the fellow who shot him. In that position. the one who jumped out of the house was able to wrest the bolo away and started hacking the other woman. you cannot invoke self-defense. In US v. If ordinary. under the Revised Penal Code. Is he entitled to a justifying circumstance? Yes. Defense of property rights This can only be invoked if the life and limb of the person making the defense is also the subject of unlawful aggression. The other was wounded on his thigh. When the lights were turned on. it was held that the defense of self-defense is no available. resentment or some evil motive in killing the aggressor. There was already some sort of aggression but it was not enough to warrant the act resorted to by the accused in getting a small knife from her bag and thrusting it on the chest of the offended party. Verga Defense of rights is included in the circumstances of defense and so is defense of honor. there is no self-defense. and in the process. On the other hand. The accused was already asleep. On that point. the honor of a woman in respect of her defense is equated with her virginity. and that the person defending did not contribute to the unlawful aggression. Question & Answer The person being defended was a relative – a first cousin. But if it is privileged. Since the woman has children inside the house. In law. In People v. so she started hacking the other woman with it. she jumped out to prevent this other woman from pouring gasoline around the house. they wrestled for possession of the gun. This is only required in defense of strangers. Jaurigue. resentment or evil motive is not a requirement in defense of relative. he started emptying the revolver of the other policeman who was lying on the floor. She could not possibly be raped in that place. What justifies the killing of a supposed unlawful aggressor is that if the offender did not kill the aggressor. In US v. The policeman who shot the other guy fell on the floor. Therefore. This mitigating circumstance is either privileged or ordinary. Touching the arm could not produce such danger as would really be imminent to the honor of the woman. where there were so many people. it would still apply. In this case. Do not confuse unlawful aggression with provocation. But the fellow who killed the aggressor had some score to settle with the aggressor. Defense of stranger If the person being defended is already a second cousin. At that moment. Believing that her honor was at stake. while a woman was sleeping. she realized that she had stabbed her brother-in-law. One shot the other. He started feeling through the dark. The brother-in-law came up first while his wife was still in the staircase. Rodriguez. Life cannot be equal to property. The shooting was not justified. the condition that a person making the defense did not act out of revenge. she got a pair of scissors and stabbed the man. That will be the situation. he cannot invoke the justifying circumstance if the relative defended is already a stranger in the eyes of the law. The woman who was pouring gasoline had a bolo. Apparently. it was held that it was not possible to rape the accused because the whole thing transpired in the church. was her life in danger? If the answer is no. even though he acted out of some evil motive. if the relative defended is still within the coverage of defense of relative. Mateo. In the process. In this case. This is vital because if the person making the defense acted out or revenge. Illustration: Two policemen quarreled inside a police precinct. her availing of defense of honor is not tenable. She said that she believed that her own honor was at stake. he awakened the accused. you do not invoke defense of relative anymore. do not forget the incomplete self-defense. This is a mitigating circumstance under paragraph 1 of Article 13. a woman went into the house of another woman whom she suspected of having an affair with her husband. It is enough that there was unlawful aggression against the relative defended. She started pouring gasoline on the house of the woman.
you always have to specify the element of unlawful aggression. you need only to say this: If less than a majority of the requisites necessary to justify the act or exempt from criminal liability are present. defense of relative or defense of stranger because in these cases. Civil liability referred to in a state of necessity is based not on the act committed but on the benefit derived from the state of necessity. A owns the land for planting certain crops. the other requisites being absent. First. there would be no incomplete selfdefense. the presence of one shall be regarded as the majority. Third. the offender shall only be entitled to an ordinary mitigating circumstance. He swerved his car towards a house. This is what you call incomplete justification of fulfillment of duty or incomplete justification of exercise of a right. the offender shall be given the benefit of a privileged mitigating circumstance. defense of relative or defense of stranger. when you are given a problem on this premise. damage or injury caused. Verga The state of necessity must not have been created by the one invoking the justifying circumstances. if at all?” Make a separate answer with respect to self-defense. /vvverga Page 52 of 100 . It is wrong to treat this as an exception to the rule that in justifying circumstances. or defense of stranger. C used another land for a vegetable garden. the offender shall be given the benefit of a privileged mitigating circumstance. State of necessity Vena V. the offended party must be guilty of unlawful aggression. you have to qualify your answer. Dam was opened. to have incomplete self-defense. but the second is not because the offender acted with culpa. although he was not the actor. If a majority of the requisites needed to justify the act or exempt from criminal liability are present. B owns the land for raising certain goats. Or absent. the offender shall be given only the benefit of an ordinary mitigating circumstance. are present. How. Invariably. “how may incomplete justifying circumstance affect criminal liability of the offender. In general. there are only two conditions: (1) (2) The felony was committed while the offender was in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. on the principle that “no one should enrich himself at the expense of another”. the imposable penalty shall be reduced by one or two degrees depending upon how the court regards the importance of the requisites present. there can be no incomplete self-defense. if at all. the penalty would be reduced by one or two degrees. For example. There was heavy rain and floods. defense of relative or defense of stranger. but C is not civilly liable because he did not receive benefits. So the accused will not be civilly liable if he did not receive any benefit out of the state of necessity. He will not be civilly liable. Fulfillment of duty In the justifying circumstance of a person having acted out of fulfillment of a duty and the lawful exercise of a right or office. On the other hand. with respect to other circumstances. If C who drove all the goats is accused of malicious mischief. his defense would be that he acted out of a state of necessity. if only the element of unlawful aggression is present. destroying it and killing the occupant therein. C drove all the goats of B to the land of A. Civil liability is based on the benefit derived and not on the act. may incomplete self-defense affect the criminal liability of the offender? If the question specifically refers to incomplete self-defense. and the first condition is present. but not all. Second. the offender will be entitled to a privelege mitigating circumstance. the question should be. and The resulting felony is the unavoidable consequence of the due fulfillment of the duty or the lawful exercise of the right or office. If the question refers generally to justifying or exempting circumstances. it means that not all the requisites to justify the act are present or not the requisites to exempt from criminal liability are present. if aside from the element of unlawful aggression another requisite. Without this.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Incomplete self-defense or incomplete justifying circumstance or incomplete exempting circumstances When you say incomplete justifying circumstance. his vehicle skidded towards a ravine. When there are only two conditions to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability. persons who did not participate in the damage or injury would be pro tanto civilly liable if they derived benefit out of the state of necessity. The penalty shall be lowered by one or two degrees. B will answer only to the extent of the benefit derived by him. A cannot be justified because the state of necessity was brought about by his own felonious act. The goats rushed to the land of A to be saved. but the land of A was destroyed. The author of the act is C. otherwise. He cannot claim that it was fortuitous event. there is no criminal nor civil liability. In such a case. A drove his car beyond the speed limit so much so that when he reached the curve. Illustration: A and B are owners of adjoining lands. defense of relative. It was B who was benefited. In that case.
intelligence. Note that the commitment of the offender in a reformatory is just a consequence of the suspension of the sentence. Verga In exempting circumstances. while waiting for his wife to go home. The offender was not only defending himself but was acting in fulfillment of a duty. Illustration: A. If the person attacked runs after him. or freedom of action on the part of the offender is missing. or whether the accused acted in total deprivation of freedom of will. there is no commitment in a reformatory. the unlawful aggression ceased. lack of foresight or lack of skill. he will be given the benefit of an incomplete fulfillment of duty. a hoodlum. The intellectual deficiency is permanent. If the sentence is not suspended. It seems that the view of many is that when the offender is a youthful offender. or whether the accused acted with complete deprivation of intelligence in committing said crime. The commitment is in a penitentiary. You apply paragraph 5 on fulfillment of duty. since suspension of sentence requires certain conditions: /vvverga Page 53 of 100 . The justifying circumstance of self-defense cannot be invoked because the unlawful aggression had already ceased by the time A shot B. Hence. he drew his revolver and went after B. the following are the two tests for exemption on grounds of insanity: (1) (2) The test of cognition. the reason for the exemption lies on the involuntariness of the act – one or some of the ingredients of voluntariness such as criminal intent. However. Under common law countries. They found out later on that the man was not really Balagtas. Imbecile has an IQ of 7. to bring the criminal to the authorities. without going around the house. Under the amendment to Presidential Decree No. There was an order to kill Balagtas if he would resist. When they were there. emotional or spiritual insanity are exempting circumstances unlike in this jurisdiction because the Revised Administrative Code. Imbecility and insanity There is complete absence of intelligence. When A saw B. There was nothing that prevented them from looking around the house and looking at the face of the fellow who was sleeping. Presidential Decree No. let us say. 1179 requires that before a youthful offender may be given the benefit if a suspension of sentence. who mistook him for someone else. 603. The second requisite is absent because they acted with negligence. the accused Chief of Police and the constabulary soldier were sent out to arrest a certain Balagtas. there must be an application filed with the court which should pronounce sentence. or absence of negligence. he becomes the unlawful aggressor. was suddenly stabbed at the back by B. supposedly a notorious bandit. In People v. the Supreme Court granted them the benefit of incomplete justification of fulfillment of duty and the penalty was reduced by one or two degrees. But although he will be criminally liable. There is no lucid interval unlike in insanity. This was the ruling in People v. Self-defense cannot be invoked. They tried to invoke the justifying circumstance of having acted in fulfillment of a duty. there is absence of freedom of action or intelligence. imprudence. the most important issue is how the minority of the offender affected his criminal liability. B did not stop so A shot B who was hit at a vital part of the body. he must necessarily be confined in a reformatory. Schizoprenia (dementia praecox) can only be considered a mitigating circumstance because it does not completely deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts. the policeman was stabbed and despite the fact that the aggressor ran into a crowd of people. After firing a shot in the air. The policeman would be held criminally liable because he acted with imprudence in firing toward several people where the offender had run. A youthful offender can only be confined in a reformatory upon order of the court. he cannot be made criminally liable. a policeman.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) In People v. This is wrong. 1991. As long as he was not acting out of malice when he fired at the fleeing criminal. Is the act of A justified? Yes. decided on November 21. Exempting circumstances Vena V. in the eyes of the law. Oanis and Callanta. the policeman still fired indiscriminately. But if. as defined is limited to mental aberration of the mind. However. Minority In exempting circumstances. The accused arrived at the house of a dancer who was supposedly the girlfriend of Balagtas. The insanity that is exempting is limited only to mental aberration or disease of the mind and must completely impair the intelligence of the accused. There could not be any danger on their life and limb. they were held guilty of the crime of murder because the fellow was killed when he was sleeping and totally defenseless. Rafanan. When the unlawful aggressor started fleeing. B died. started firing at the man. they saw a certain person who resembled Balagtas in all his bodily appearance sleeping on a bamboo bed but facing the other direction. Dungo. The accused. this is true only if it was the person who stabbed was the one killed. In case it is a culpable felony. Do not confuse fulfillment of a duty with self-defense. and The test of volition.
This means that the offender must be performing a lawful act. the offender is exempt not only from criminal but also from civil liability. If the youthful offender has filed an application therefor. What is the liability of the driver? There is no civil liability under paragraph 4 of Article 12. the exemption is absolute. The offender should not have been given the benefit of a suspended sentence before. This type of offenders are absolutely exempt. There is no more bracket where the offender is a minor yet no longer entitled to a mitigating circumstance. If the sentence should not suspended. the penalty to be imposed is discretionary on the court. that he was doing it with due care but somehow. An offender below 18 is always entitled to a mitigating or exempting circumstance. the court will impose a penalty one degree lower. Here. tripped on a stone with one of his car tires. The reason is because if the sentence were to be suspended. (3) If at the time the judgment is to be promulgated he is already above 18. Although. while considering the condition of the traffic and the pedestrians at that time. correlate paragraph 4 of Article 12 with the second paragraph of Article 275. (4) If the offender is 15 years old and above but below 18. this should not be taken against him because in this age bracket. if the offender was exempt from criminal liability because the prosecution was not able to prove that the offender acted with discernment. If the prosecution would want to pin criminal liability on him. The burden is upon the prosecution to prove that the offender acted with discernment. It may be lowered by three or four degrees. This time it is fixed. the be will the (1) (2) (3) The crime committed should not be punishable by reclusion perpetua or death penalty. this is where the court may give him the benefit of a suspended sentence. How does the minority of the offender affect his criminal liability? (1) If the offender is within the bracket of nine years old exactly or less. Article 275 gives you the crime of abandoning the victim of one’s own accident. he is only civilly liable but he will be committed to the surveillance of his parents who will be required to report to the court periodically on the progress or development of the offender. (2) Damnum absque injuria Under Article 12. It is a crime. The stone flew hitting a pedestrian on the head. If the offender is proven to have acted with discernment. However. It is to be imposed one degree lower and in the proper periods subject to the rules in Article 64. Verga committed to a penitentiary. It is not for the minor to prove that he acted without discernment. If over nine but below 15. yet. It cannot be less than two degrees. paragraph 4. The pedestrian suffered profuse bleeding. where generally there is civil liability. /vvverga Page 54 of 100 . Note that the age of majority has been reduced to 18. The limitation that it should be lowered by at least two degrees is just a limitation on the power of the court to reduce the penalty. this is just an exempting circumstance. he would have to be When the offender is over nine but below 15. This means he is a first timer. Even if the offender nine years or below acted with discernment. he is not 18 years old or over yet. depending upon whether the court deems best for the interest of the offender. the accident referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 275 is in the concept of paragraph 4 of Article 12. there is no exemption anymore but he is also given the benefit of a suspended sentence under the conditions stated earlier and if at the time the sentence is promulgated. a distinction has to be made whether the offender acted with or without discernment. That means promulgation of sentence shall not be suspended. He must be below 18 years old because a youthful offender is one who is below 18. the court promulgate the sentence but the minor shall be entitled to reduction of the penalty by at least two degrees. The driver is not under obligation to defray the medical expenses. he cannot avail of a suspended sentence. but lowered by at least two degrees. Illustration: A person who is driving his car within the speed limit. Here. Suspension of sentence is not automatic. This paragraph embodies the Latin maxim “damnum absque injuria”. in paragraph 4 of Article 12. he is exempt from criminal liability but not from civil liability. injury resulted by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it. If the sentence is promulgated. he would be committed in a reformatory. although the minor may be qualified. All that the minor has to show is that he is within the age bracket. there is no civil liability as well as criminal liability.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. Since he cannot be committed to a reformatory anymore because he is not less than 18 years old. it has to prove that the crime was committed with discernment. He may be given the benefit of a suspended sentence under the conditions mentioned earlier and only if he would file an application therefor.
That means the penalty shall be reduced to the minimum period of the prescribed penalty. In a situation where the offender would otherwise be exempt. yet. whether to act or not. So also. except in paragraph 1. Notice that in the last paragraph of Article 365. If the offender has still freedom of choice. If the penalty is lowered by one or two degrees. It takes preference over all other circumstances. two or more of this ordinary mitigating circumstances shall have the effect of a privilege mitigating circumstances if there is no aggravating circumstance at all. you do not apply Article 275. When there is a lowering of penalties by degrees. penalty for parricide is reclusion perpetua to death. the infliction of the injury by mere accident does not give rise to a criminal or civil liability. Here. but the person who caused the injury is duty bound to attend to the person who was injured. he is entitled to a discretionary penalty of at least two degrees lower. Will he be given the benefit of Indeterminate Sentence Law? Then. the offender is still entitled to a mitigating circumstance of incomplete exemption under paragraph 1 of Article 13. will operate to reduce the penalty to the minimum period. Article 13 is meaningless without knowing the rules of imposing the penalties under Articles 63 and 64. it will be Article 365 on criminal negligence. If less than a majority of the requisites for exemption are present. You can easily detect whether the circumstance which mitigates the liability of the offender is privilege or not. in cases where the offender is below 18 years old. the penalty is qualified to a higher degree. That is precisely why this circumstance is considered privileged. if the penalty is reduced by degree. even if force was employed on him or even if he is suffering from uncontrollable fear. You have learned that the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply. the facts state. when the penalty imposed is death or life The offender must be totally deprived of freedom. The circumstances under Article 13 are generally ordinary mitigating. among other situations. the offender was negligent. these articles are very important. it is a privilege. such an offender if criminally liable is entitled to the lowering of penalty by one degree. when you are given indeterminate sentences. The offender shall be given the benefit of privelege mitigating circumstances. but the requisites for exemption are not all present. can never be offset by any (2) As to effect /vvverga Page 55 of 100 . under paragraph 4 of Article 12. it is in that abandonment that the crime arises which is punished under the second paragraph of Article 275. he is not exempt from criminal liability because he is still possessed with voluntariness. the offender shall be given only the benefit of ordinary mitigating circumstances.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) If at the very beginning. before you go into any circumstance. where it is privilege. the offender must act without voluntariness. Mitigating circumstances Distinctions between ordinary mitigating circumstances (1) mitigating circumstances and privileged As to the nature of the circumstances Ordinary mitigating circumstances can be offset by aggravating circumstances. when the crime committed is punishable by a divisible penalty. Compulsion of irresistible uncontrollable fear force and under the impulse of an Vena V. if not offset. Verga Ordinary mitigating circumstances. In other words. If he would abandon him. therefore. it is privilege. you give effect to it above all considerations. depending upon what the law provides. In exempting circumstances. provided the penalty is a divisible one. That means that the penalty prescribed of the crime committed shall be reduced by one or two degrees in accordance with Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code. in the case of the so-called hit and run drivers who have injured somebody and would abandon the victim of the accident. unless the mitigating circumstance is offset by an aggravating circumstance. When the circumstance which mitigates criminal liability is privileged. Question & Answer A 17 year old boy committed parricide. In bar problems. Privilege mitigating circumstances operate to reduce the penalty by one or two degrees. Privilege mitigating circumstance aggravating circumstance. paragraph 2. Article 69 would apply. Instead. Although the bulk of the circumstances in Article 13 are ordinary mitigating circumstances. But if over nine but under 15. do not compensate because that would be violating the rules. Correlate Article 13 with Articles 63 and 64. even if there is an aggravating circumstance. It cannot be offset by an aggravating circumstance. that is. paragraph 2. lower first the penalty to the proper degree. Apply the rule if majority of the requisites to exempt from criminal liability are present.
That circumstance is privileged. A boxed him. The commission of the felony must be immediate to the threat or provocation in order that this circumstance be mitigating. the person provoked retaliated on a younger brother or on an elder father. Illustration: The accused went to a barrio dance. and because he was small. Criminal laws are to be construed always in a manner liberal or lenient to the offender. The Indeterminate Sentence Law applies to this and so the offender will be given its benefit. this mitigating circumstance is no longer applicable. means that there must be a notable disproportion between the means employed by the offender compared to that of the resulting felony. since being 17 years old is a privilege mitigating circumstance. not the age of the offender at the time the sentence is to be imposed. but A cannot hit back at B because B is bigger. Sufficient provocation must come from the offended party. is reclusion temporal. therefore. B at that time was with his brother C. Privilege mitigating circumstance will apply over and above all other considerations. That privilege lowers the penalty by one degree. has stretched this criterion – it is not only a matter of time anymore. it is not mitigating because the one who gives the provocation is not the one against whom the crime was committed. so he was humiliated and embarrassed. Although the penalty prescribed for the crime committed is reclusion perpetua. not a culpable one. Question & Answer A was walking in front of the house of B. the felony was committed precisely because he was then and there provoked. paragraph 4. If there is sufficient break of time before the provocation or threat and the consequent commission of the crime. However. but if provocation did not come from the person offended. In other words. The common set-up given in a bar problem is that of provocation was given by somebody. there is sufficient provocation. The person provoked cannot retaliate against him. there is more reason to give him its benefit. Between giving the offender the benefit of the Indeterminate Sentence Law and withholding it away from him. When you arrive at the correct penalty. The imposable penalty. When the crime is the product of reckless imprudence or simple negligence. under paragraph 3. the age of the offender at the time the crime was committed is not considered. The accused tried to reason out but the bully slapped him several times in front of so many people. In applying this mitigating circumstance. whatever anger or diminished self control may have emerged from the offender had already vanished or disappeared. thus. he cannot fight the bully at that time /vvverga Page 56 of 100 . that is not the imposable penalty. this circumstance does not avail. In that gathering. You are only treating it as an ordinary mitigating circumstance. as well as the Court of Appeals. Article 13 will not apply. it is the age of the offender at the time the sentence is to be promulgated. therefore. He shall be given the benefit of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. he did not fight back.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) imprisonment. B approached A and boxed him. this is the product of intentional felony. that is the time when you find out whether the Indeterminate Sentence Law will apply or not. However. the law presupposes that during that interval. Verga Sufficient threat or provocation This is mitigating only if the crime was committed on the very person who made the threat or provocation. This circumstance does not apply when the crime results from criminal negligence or culpa. there was a ruling that if a period of one hour had lapsed between the provocation and the commission of the felony. The moment you do that. is yes. Praeter intentionem The common circumstance given in the bar of praeter intentionem. there was a bully and he told the accused that he is not allowed to go inside. The answer. the courts are generally considering that there must be no break between the provocation or threat and the commission of the felony. Reclusion temporal is already governed by the Indeterminate Sentence Law. you disregard the privileged character of minority. the age of the offender at the time of the commission of the crime shall be the basis. Although in fact. the offender is a 17-year old boy. some of whom were ladies who were being courted by the accused. Before. the penalty would go one degree lower and the penalty for parricide which now stands at reclusion perpetua will go down to reclusion temporal. So before you go in the Indeterminate Sentence Law. mitigating circumstances does not apply. Being a 17-year old boy. It is wrong for you to determine whether the Indeterminate Sentence Law will apply or not on the basis of reclusion perpetua because that is not the imposable penalty. If the resulting felony could be expected from the means employed. This is one of the three instances where the offender has performed a felony different from that which he intended. C told B that sometime in the past. therefore. Therefore. But then in the problem given. you have to apply that circumstance first. For purposes of lowering the penalty by one or two degrees. the recent rulings of the Supreme Court. Vena V. But for purposes of suspension of the sentence. There may actually be sufficient provocation which immediately preceded the act. Can A invoke sufficient provocation to mitigate criminal liability? No. so A boxed C.
it need not be the same person who committed the grave offense or who was offended by the wrong done by the offended party. if there is that time element and at the same time. sufficient provocation was one of mitigating circumstances considered by the Supreme Court in favor of accused. The Supreme Court gave him the benefit of this mitigating circumstance. Accused had no choice but to go home. he came home and surprised his common law wife having sexual intercourse with a friend. As long as the offender at the time he committed the felony was still under the influence of the outrage caused by the provocation or threat. Diokno. whether natural. a Chinaman eloped with a woman. it is enough that the offender committed the crime with the grave offense done to him. he cannot be given the benefit of paragraph 5 or 6. there is a material lapse of time stated in the problem and there is nothing stated in the problem that the effect of the threat or provocation had prolonged and affected the offender at the time he committed the crime. The word “immediate” here does not carry the same meaning as that under paragraph 4. then you can predicate any one of these circumstances on one fact and the other on another fact and so on. However. the vindication need not be done by the person upon whom the grave offense was committed. he was not able to sleep throughout the night. Actually. this time. As a rule. his spouse. the accused was given the benefit of the circumstances and the basis of considering passion or obfuscation in favor of the accused was the act of the common law wife in committing adultery right from the conjugal bed. Since they are predicated on different set of facts. although they arose from one and the same case. Article 13. If the case involves a series of facts. any man who discovers that infidelity was (2) In People v. You have to look at two criteria: (1) If from the element of time. despite the lapse of about 22 hours. 5 and 6 stands or arises from a set of facts. It is enough if what was imputed or what was done was wrong. Verga who made the threat or provocation. However. The trial court denied his claim because the relationship was a common law one. therefore.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) because the latter was much bigger and heavier. Only one of the three mitigating circumstances should be given in favor of the offender. or vice-versa. This is the reason why it is mitigating. adopted or legitimate and that is the proximate cause of the commission of the crime. When he saw the bully again. This is the correct interpretation of paragraph 4. Whether or not they are married. So. Hence. in one case. in vindication of a grave offense. The reason stated by the Supreme Court for allowing the accused to be benefited by this mitigating circumstance is that the effect of the humiliation and outrage emitted by the offended party as a provocation upon the accused was still present when he committed the crime and. it cannot be based on common law relationship because common law relationships are illicit. they may be appreciated together. then you use the criterion based on the time element. On review. the reason for paragraph 4 still applies. The passion must be legitimate. The word “immediate” here is an erroneous Spanish translation because the Spanish word is “proxima” and not “immediatementa. his ascendant or descendant or to his brother or sister. So. his age. The same is true with the circumstances under paragraphs 4 and 5. it almost three days before accused was able to locate the house where Chinaman brought the woman. then he will still get the benefit of this mitigating circumstance. However. This infuriated him. In considering whether the wrong is a grave one upon the person who committed the crime. was the the the Vena V. there is a ruling to the effect that if the offender is given the benefit of paragraph 4. here. In a case where the relationship between the accused and the woman he was living with was one of common law. consider whether passion or obfuscation is generated by common law relationship or by some other human consideration. Here. unlike in sufficient threat or provocation where the crime should be inflicted upon the very person /vvverga Page 57 of 100 . education and social status will be considered. The evidence for the accused showed that when he went home. The accused was still acting under a diminished self control because he was thinking of the humiliation he suffered in the hands of the offended party. facts are given indicating that at the time the offender committed the crime. and another mitigating circumstance arises from another set of facts. The outrage was so serious unless vindicated. Here. He killed the friend and he claimed passion or obfuscation. he is still suffering from outrage of the threat or provocation done to him. Vindication of a grave offense The word “offense” should not be taken as a crime. he is acting under a diminished self control. one of the mitigating circumstances under paragraphs 4.” Therefore. the prohibition against considering all these mitigating circumstances together and not as one applies only if they would be taken on the basis of the same set of facts. thinking of the humiliation and outrage done to him. he was armed with a knife and he stabbed the bully to death. Passion or obfuscation This stands on the premise or proposition that the offender is suffering from a diminished self control because of the passion or obfuscation.
On the scheduled wedding day. his act of surrendering under such circumstance indicates that he is willing to accept the consequences of the wrong he has done and also thereby saves the government the effort. it is not mitigating. People v. she stabbed the groom in the chest. If he kills them. Hence. this may be considered as mitigation of a grave offense to him or otherwise as a situation sufficient to create passion or obfuscation. Although this is the ruling. In a case where the offender is deaf and dumb. a receptionist in a beerhouse. under this circumstance. Whether or not a warrant of arrest had been issued against the offender is immaterial and irrelevant. She practically waited for him day and night. such man cannot claim passion as a mitigating circumstance. Physical defect The physical defect that a person may have must have a relation to the commission of the crime. then even if the law enforcers do not know exactly where he was hiding and he would come out. It was held that jealousy is an acknowledged basis of passion. However. Although he admitted his participation in the killing. a female classmate. if he comes out from hiding because he is seriously ill and he went to get medical treatment. some men whistled lustfully. there is a ruling that if after committing the crime. had evaded the law enforcers and the law enforcers do not know of his whereabouts. A. Illustrations: A is courting B. for which reason he raped her. When a man saw a woman bathing. the time and the expenses to be incurred in looking for him. vindication of a grave offense will be mitigating in favor of the offender. The common law wife learned that he was getting married to a classmate. voluntary surrender is not applicable. that requisite which in the first place. he tried to avoid responsibility by claiming self-defense which however he was not able to prove. the offender must have surprised his/her spouse actually committing sexual intercourse should be present. Where the offender went to the municipal building not to own responsibility for the killing. this is not voluntary surrender. the ruling was that voluntary surrender is mitigating. his act of doing so will be considered as indicative of repentance and he also saves the government the time and the expense of looking for him. the surrender is not spontaneous. such fact is not tantamount to voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance. If. She confessed and explained that any woman cannot tolerate what he did to her. decided December 14. if the law enforcers had already known where he is hiding and it is just a matter of time before he is flushed out of that place. It was held that passion and obfuscation were considered mitigating. A saw this and stabbed C. the offender had the opportunity to go into hiding. the surrender is not considered as indicative of remorse or repentance. Verga As a general rule. A man and a woman were living together for 15 years. Voluntary surrender The essence of voluntary surrender requires that the offender. If this act was done somewhere else and the accused kills the paramour or the spouse. Mindac. However. Even if the offender may have gone into hiding. The man left the village where they were living and never returned home. Surrender to be considered voluntary and thus mitigating. Therefore. the offender did not flee and he went with the responding law enforcers meekly. his arrest by policemen pursuing him being inevitable. In short. instantly killing him.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) committed on the very bed provided by him to the woman would naturally be subjected to obfuscation. almost naked. In this case. surprises his wife who was nude and lying with another man who was also nude. The criterion is whether or not the offender had gone into hiding or had the opportunity to go into hiding and the law enforcers do not know of his whereabouts. then Article 247 does not apply. personal property was entrusted to him and he misappropriated the same. because (1) he acknowledges his guilt (2) he wishes to save the government the trouble and expenses of searching and capturing him. must be spontaneous. the accused will be given the benefit of sufficient provocation if the intercourse was done in his dwelling. the offender did not flee and instead waited for the law enforcers to arrive and he surrendered the weapon he used in killing the victim. On the way out. when a married man upon coming home. Where the reason for the surrender of the accused was to insure his safety. he continues to elude arrest. This was held to be obfuscation. Article 247 does not apply. the fact that he did not flee is not voluntary surrender. The /vvverga Page 58 of 100 . If he would give up. 1992. The male classmate stabbed said men. after having committed the crime. Ingratitude was shown here. he gets the benefit of Article 247. However. C danced with B. Vena V. a male classmate is escorting B. When a married person surprised his better half in the act of sexual intercourse with another. still. If the surprising was done not in the actual act of sexual intercourse but before or after it. the offender would come out in the open and he gives himself up. The surrender here is only done out of convenience to save his own self. She gave him the best years of her life. demonstrating an intent to submit himself unconditionally to the person in authority or his agent in authority. if after committing the crime.
In the examination. If it is proved during trial. Qualifying circumstances to be appreciated as such must be specifically alleged in the complaint or information. they are susceptible of being offset by a mitigating circumstance. In Article 248. If this happens. in the crime of murder. with the same degree of proof required to establish the crime itself. Therefore it is included in the provision of law defining the crime. It will only do so if it has some relation to the crime committed. The circumstance is actually an ingredient of the crime. Distinctions between aggravating and qualifying circumstances: In aggravating circumstances – (1) (2) The circumstance circumstance. as long as it is proven during trial. you have to think about these as aggravating circumstances which are the ingredients of the crime. Being an ingredient of the crime. /vvverga Page 59 of 100 . The fact that he was deaf and dumb is not mitigating because that does not bear any relation to the crime committed. This circumstance must also have a bearing on the crime committed and must depend on how the crime was committed. Aggravating circumstances Kinds of aggravating circumstances: (1) (2) (3) (4) Generic or those that can generally apply to all crime. (2) (3) An aggravating circumstance is qualifying when it is an ingredient of the crime. however. In practice. If his lifestyle is one of having so many vices. The act of a thief in leading the authorities to the place where he disposed of the loot has been considered as analogous or equivalent to voluntary surrender. Inherent or those that must of necessity accompany the commission of the crime. It only affects the penalty to be imposed but the crime remains the same. Not any physical defect will affect the crime. It is not an ingredient of a crime. This is so because there is no qualifying circumstance that is not aggravating. Vena V. The so-called qualifying aggravating circumstances are simply referred to as qualifying circumstances. The crime committed was physical injuries.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) crime committed was estafa. he got a piece of wood and struck the fellow on the head. if you find qualifying circumstances. his subsequent stealing because of his poverty will not be considered mitigated by incomplete state of necessity. as a result of which he became poor. (3) In qualifying circumstance – (1) The circumstance affects the nature of the crime itself such that the offender shall be liable for a more serious crime. defense or communication with others are not restricted. The aggravating circumstances must be established with moral certainty. can be offset by an ordinary mitigating No need to allege this circumstance in the information. as long as his means of action. it cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance. the law specifically mentions thereunder several circumstances which are aggravating under Article 14. Analogous cases The act of the offender of leading the law enforcers to the place where he buried the instrument of the crime has been considered as equivalent to voluntary surrender. If it is not so included. this is not so where the offender became impoverished because of his own way of living his life. Qualifying or those that change the nature of the crime. The Supreme Court held that being a deaf and dumb is mitigating because the only way is to use his force because he cannot strike back. you understand that only one is qualifying. the so-called generic aggravating circumstances are referred to simply as aggravating circumstances. To say qualifying aggravating circumstance is redundant. If the offender is blind in one eye. Verga Most important of the classification of aggravating circumstances are the qualifying and the generic aggravating circumstances. All of these will qualify a killing from homicide to murder. If not alleged but proven during the trial. the court would consider the same in imposing the penalty. it will be considered only as generic aggravating circumstance. Stealing by a person who is driven to do so out of extreme poverty is considered as analogous to incomplete state of necessity. such circumstance is not mitigating. However. If a person is deaf and dumb and he has been slandered. he cannot talk so what he did was. Specific or those that apply only to a particular crime. it is not qualifying.
only one will qualify the crime. This is only true however. The mitigating circumstance referred to in the amendment as not affecting the imposition of the penalty in the maximum are only ordinary mitigating circumstances. they are only to be taken as generic. if that is not the circumstance alleged in the information. Aggravating circumstances will not be considered when it is the crime itself. but proven during the trial. In a case where the offender is a servant. if there is any ordinary mitigating circumstance in favor of the accused. 156 SCRA 790). the offended party is one of the members of the family. Illustration: A person induced another to kill somebody. When the aggravating circumstance refers to the material execution of the crime. Just the same. Abuse of confidence Do not confuse this with mere betrayal of trust. even if they are alleged in the information or complaint. Article 62 gives you the different rules regarding aggravating circumstances. it is only appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance. Privileged mitigating circumstances always lower the penalty accordingly. he is liable for the same crime committed. it will only aggravate the criminal liability of those who employed the same. The treachery was not proved. Illustrations: A mother left her young daughter with the accused because she had nobody to leave the child with while she had to go on an errand. If not alleged in the information. Do not hesitate to offset on the principle that a qualifying circumstance cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance because only one is necessary. it cannot be considered qualifying because a qualifying is an ingredient of the crime and it cannot be taken as such without having alleged in the information because it will violate the right of the accused to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him. (People v. If the crime charged is qualified trespass to dwelling. not against property like Robbery with homicide (People v. the fellow was hired to kill the parent of the one who hired him. professors. it cannot qualify the crime. During the trial. It is generic because it is not alleged in the information at all. reward or promise as a consideration for killing. Thus. reward or promise were alleged as aggravating. Taoan. However. such will be wiped out by these circumstances. This is aggravating only when the very offended party is the one who reposed the confidence. What is present is betrayal of trust and that is not aggravating. Three of these circumstances: treachery. let us say. colleges and universities. Disrespect due to rank. the treachery will qualify only the criminal liability of the actual executioner. but not for purposes of aggravating circumstances in paragraph 2. 182 SCRA 601). Vena V. Only one of these is qualifying. the crime was already murder. however. The accused abused the child. Article 14. The others will merely be considered as generic. What was committed is different from what was agreed upon. provided the mitigating circumstance is not a privileged mitigating circumstance. If any of these qualifying circumstances is not alleged in the information. evident premeditation and act was done in consideration of a price. Verga Taking advantage of public position Article 62 was also amended by the Republic Act No. although initially they are considered as qualifying. The fellow who induced him becomes a co-principal and therefore. The reason is because /vvverga Page 60 of 100 . as well as lawyers are persons in authority only for purposes of direct assault and simple resistance. The fellow who hired him will not be liable for the crime he had done because that was not the crime he was hired to commit. age. Ga. like treachery. As far as the killing is concerned. Let us say. Correlate Article 14 with Article 62. He killed a stranger and not the parent. That fellow killed the other guy and employed treachery.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) If let us say. abuse of confidence is no longer aggravating. If any one of the three circumstances was proven. It was held that the abuse of confidence is not aggravating. If the confidence is reposed by another. The legal import of this amendment is that the subject circumstance has been made a qualifying or special aggravating that shall not be offset or compensated by a mitigating circumstance. Even if any of the qualifying circumstances under Article 248 on murder was proven. if there are three of the qualifying circumstances alleged in the complaint or information. Therefore. If the other two are also proven. supervisors of public and duly recognized private schools. what was alleged in the information was treachery. the two other circumstances which are otherwise qualifying could be offset by the mitigating. the offended party is different from the fellow who reposed the confidence and abuse of confidence in this case is not aggravating. 7659. If there is any mitigating circumstance in favor of the offender. The servant poisoned the child. if the servant was still in the service of the family when he did the killing. Teachers. It was held that abuse of confidence is aggravating. the accused cannot be convicted of murder because the circumstance proven is not qualifying but merely generic. the accused was charged with murder. dwelling is no longer aggravating. sex Aggravating only in crimes against persons and honor. If he was driven by the master already out of the house for some time and he came back and poisoned the child. what was proven was the price.
All the appurtenances necessary for the peace and comfort. dwelling is not aggravating. privacy and comfort. A occupies the ground floor while B the upper floor. The crime of adultery was committed. It should also not be the dwelling of the offender. Dwelling need not be owned by the offended party. this aggravating circumstance. A person has more than one dwelling. The wife left the conjugal home and went to the house of her sister bringing her personal belongings with her. If the offender entered the house and the offended party jumped out of the house. For this reason. like what the salesmen do when they are assigned in the provinces and they rent rooms. dwelling is not aggravating. If the place used is on the second floor. comfort and privacy. Illustrations: A and B are living in one house. When he is only a visitor there. in order to be aggravating must be owned by the offended party is no longer absolute. dwelling will be aggravating. the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is not present. dwelling is already aggravating. If a young man brought a woman in a motel for a short time and there he was killed. Illustration: Husband and wife quarreled. If the offended party was assaulted while on the stairs. Verga places of their own. The sister accommodated the wife in the formers home. So. If the attack is made while B was on the stairs. the husband pulled out a knife and stabbed the wife which caused her death. Dwelling is not limited to the house proper. where the offended party seeks privacy. provided that he also stays there once in a while. Dwelling can be aggravating even if it is not owned by the offended party. even if the offender caught up with him already out of the house. Even a room in a hotel if rented as a dwelling. A room in a hotel or motel will be considered dwelling if it is used with a certain degree of permanence. Hence. However. The rule that dwelling. Whenever one is in his dwelling. was shot. rest. The stairs here would form part only of B's dwelling. In the provinces where the comfort rooms are usually far from the house proper. if the offended party while answering the call of nature is killed. Illustrations: A man was fixing something on the roof of his house when he was shot. rest. when an attack is made while A is on the stairs. rest and peace of mind in the abode of the offended party is considered a dwelling. The term “dwelling” includes all the dependencies necessary for a house or for rest or for comfort or a place of privacy. Dwelling Dwelling will only be aggravating if it is the dwelling of the offended party. The husband went to the house of the sister-in-law and tried to persuade the wife to come back to the conjugal home but the wife refused because she is more at peace in her sister's house than in the conjugal abode. then the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present. dwelling is not aggravating. It was held that dwelling was aggravating although it is not owned by the offended party because the offended party is considered as a member of the family who owns the dwelling and that dwelling is where she enjoyed privacy. considering that any dependency necessary for the enjoyment of a place of abode is considered a dwelling. Husband inflicted physical violence upon the wife. Dwelling was considered aggravating on the part of the paramour. if the paramour was also residing on the same dwelling. peace of mind and comfort. The paramour is not a resident of the same dwelling. then dwelling is aggravating because the comfort room is a necessary dependency of the house proper.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) that confidence has already been terminated when the offender was driven out of the house. Dwelling is aggravating. each one is his own dwelling. Dwelling is aggravating in this case because the house was provided by the man. Dwelling should not be understood in the concept of a domicile. if a man has so many wives and he gave them a /vvverga Page 61 of 100 . the law is presuming that he is not intending to commit a wrong so one who attacks him while in the tranquility of his home shows a degree of perversity in him. Hence. A man was killed in the house of his common law wife. is considered a dwelling. If the dwelling is both that of the offended party and the offender. It is enough that he used the place for his peace of mind. the same being necessary and an integral part of his house or dwelling. It was held that dwelling is aggravating. If he is killed there. Due to the wife's refusal to go back to the conjugal home and live with the husband. Vena V. Peace of mind and comfort. A person while in the room of his house. the stairs which are used to reach the second floor is considered a dwelling because the second floor cannot be enjoyed without the stairs. maintaining the room. Roof still part of the house. dwelling is not considered aggravating. provided that the offended party is considered a member of the family who owns the dwelling and equally enjoys peace of mind.
Evidence tending to prove that the offender took advantage of the place and purposely availed of it is to make it easier to commit the crime. Nighttime What if the crime started during the daytime and continued all the way to nighttime? This is not aggravating. no aggravating circumstance just by the fact of nighttime alone. there was a reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help. there is no aggravating circumstance here. a crime was committed near the lamp post. Dwelling is still aggravating even if the offender did not enter the house. when actually it should be 4 or more. not so far away. despite the fact that there were other persons not so far from the scene. Correlate this with Article 306 . Nocturnity is the period of time after sunset to sunrise. Even if there are four. the crime must begin and end during the nighttime.Brigandage. If the offended party was inside the house and the offender was outside and the latter shot the former inside the house while he was still outside. B and C also are on board on their respective bancas. All of them should be armed. Different forms of repetition or habituality of the offender /vvverga Page 62 of 100 . One-half of the house is used as a store and the other half is used for dwelling but there is only one entrance. a “home”. considering the fact that A and C before being able to give assistance still have to jump into the water and swim towards B and the time it would take them to do that. the chances of B receiving some help was very little. D showed up from underwater and stabbed B. If the dwelling portion is attacked. Uninhabited place Illustration: Vena V. band becomes aggravating. Crime began at day and ended at night. If the dwelling portion is attacked where even if the store is open. However. The crime is the band itself. in case the store is closed. As a rule. where brigandage is actually committed. hence. If not connected. 1992). the circumstance is aggravating. Band In band. However. Verga It is determined not by the distance of the nearest house to the scene of the crime but whether or not in the place of the commission of the offense . Is there an aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place here? Yes. although he is not the owner thereof as when victim was shot in the house of his parents. it is not a band. shall be necessary. Do not say three or more because it is four or more. Even if the crime was committed at night. It must be shown that the offender deliberately sought the cover of darkness and the offender purposely took advantage of nighttime to facilitate the commission of the offense. dwelling is aggravating since here.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) dwelling is still aggravating. Dwelling is aggravating where the place is. it is a public place and as such is not capable of being the subject of trespass. The way the law defines a band is somewhat confusing because it refers simply to more than 3. Suddenly. the store is not a public place as in the first case. even for a brief moment. One evening. The reason is because he could not have left his dwelling were it not for the fact that the attacker entered the house. dwelling is not aggravating because whenever a store is open for business. as well as crime began at night and ended at day is not aggravated by the circumstance of nighttime. but there was light. it is not considered part of the dwelling. The Supreme Court held that there is no aggravating circumstance of nighttime. Illustration: A is on board a banca. Even if there was darkness but the nighttime was only an incident of a chance meeting. but only three or less are armed. there should at least be four persons. Whenever you talk of band. De Los Reyes. A garage is part of the dwelling when connected with an interior passage to the house proper. Darkness is what makes this circumstance aggravating. from dusk to dawn. always have in mind four at least. decided October 22. there is another separate entrance to the portion used for dwelling. darkness was not present. Balcony is part of the dwelling because it is appurtenant to the house Dwelling is aggravating in robbery with homicide because the crime can be committed without necessarily transgressing the sanctity of the home (People v. The mere forming of a band even without the commission of a crime is already a crime so that band is not aggravating in brigandage because the band itself is the way to commit brigandage.
A committed robbery. Habitual delinquency is a special aggravating circumstance. The circumstance must be alleged in the information. Recidivism is imprescriptible. it is enough that they may be embraced under the same title of the Revised Penal Code. (b) less serious physical injuries. . the fifth and so on . even if it is absolute because only excuses the service of the penalty. No matter how long ago the offender was convicted. the fourth. The crimes are limited and specified to: (a) serious physical injuries. an additional penalty shall be imposed depending upon whether it is already the third conviction. (2) (4) (3) (5) Recidivism In recidivism. Repetition or reiteracion under Article 14 (10) – The offender has been previously punished for an offense which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty. If not offset. It is important that the conviction which came earlier must refer to the crime committed earlier than the subsequent conviction. Illustration: In 1980. no aggravating circumstance is present. he committed theft in 1983. Recidivism does not prescribe. There is no time limit between the first conviction and the subsequent conviction. Hence. hence it cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance. ordinarily. The circumstance need not be alleged in the information. (d) theft. Recidivism cannot be had if the crime committed is a violation of a special law. the emphasis is on the fact that the offender was previously convicted by final judgement of a felony and subsequently found guilty of another felony embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. . (3) Vena V. there was no other crime of which he was convicted so he cannot be regarded as a repeater. He was found guilty and was convicted of theft also in 1983. (c) robbery. Aside from the penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed. Quasi-recidivism under Article 160 – Any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment before beginning to serve such sentence or while serving such sentence shall be punished by the maximum period prescribed by law for the new felony. is found guilty of the any of said crimes a third time or oftener. . Habitual delinquency under Article 62 (5) – The offender within the period of 10 years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries. . it is taken into account as aggravating in imposing the penalty. (e) estafa or swindling and (f) falsification. it would only increase the penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed to its maximum period. The conviction became final because he did not appeal anymore and the trial for his earlier crime which was robbery ended in 1984 where he was also convicted. He also did not appeal this decision. but not the conviction. otherwise the court cannot acquire jurisdiction to impose additional penalty. In recidivism. Verga There is a time limit of not more than 10 years between every convictions computed from the first conviction or release from punishment thereof to conviction computed from the second conviction or release therefrom to the third conviction and so on . (5) In habitual delinquency – (1) (2) At least three convictions are required. The crimes are not specified. Is the accused a recidivist? The subsequent conviction must refer to a felony committed later in order to constitute recidivism. The law considers this aggravating when a person has been committing felonies embraced in the same title because the implication is that he is specializing on such kind of crime and the law wants to prevent any specialization. the crimes committed should be felonies. /vvverga Page 63 of 100 . The reason for this is as the time the first crime was committed.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) (1) Recidivism under Article 14 (9) – The offender at the time of his trial for one crime shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. robo. estafa or falsification. While the case was being tried. Pardon does not erase recidivism. (4) Distinctions between recidivism and habitual delinquency In recidivism – (1) (2) (3) (4) Two convictions are enough. hurto. if he is subsequently convicted of a crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. It is a generic aggravating circumstance which can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance. when a person commits a crime under different titles.
the information is defective. It must be the other way around. It need not be alleged in the information. Even if the accused is in fact a habitual delinquent but it is not alleged in the information. it does not have to be alleged in the information because even if not alleged. in a relatively recent ruling of the Supreme Court. Right now. As such. the court shall consider such aggravating circumstance because it is only generic. the pardon shall erase the conviction including recidivism because there is no more penalty so it shall be understood as referring to the conviction or the effects of the crime. the date when the accused was convicted or discharged. but if the defense does not object to the presentation of evidence during the trial and the same was proven. The trial for robbery ended in 1981. then the moment the habitual delinquent is on his fourth conviction already. you cannot avoid that he is a habitual delinquent and at the same time a recidivist because at least. The reason is recidivism is a generic aggravating circumstance only. if proven during trial. because the robbery which was committed earlier would be decided later. theft or estafa and the third is for falsification. being a special or specific aggravating circumstance must be alleged in the information. he is not a recidivist. If these are not alleged. While the same was being tried in 1978. Recidivism may be considered even though not alleged in the information because this is only a generic aggravating circumstance. the objection should be overruled. there was already a previous conviction. If the prosecution tried to prove recidivism and the defense objected. the offender committed robbery. he committed theft. In 1980. The reason why habitual delinquency cannot be appreciated unless alleged in the information is because recidivism has nothing to do with the crime committed. the prosecution when introducing evidence was objected to. It is necessary to allege recidivism in the information. May the judge in imposing the penalty for robbery consider the accused a recidivist considering that he was already convicted in 1980 for the crime of theft which is under the same title of the Revised Penal Code as that of robbery? No. although the law defines it as a circumstance where a person having been convicted by final judgement was previously convicted also by final judgement for a crime embraced in the same title in the Revised Penal Code. even though in imposing the penalty for the robbery. On the other hand. if proven during trial. it is necessary that the conviction must come in the order in which they are committed. he was convicted of theft and he did not appeal this decision. Generally. the dates when they were committed. the court which tried the case. this would seem to be covered but that is not so. the procedure you know that when the prosecutor alleges habitual delinquency. the court cannot admit the evidence presented to prove habitual delinquency over the objection of the accused. you have a situation where the offender is a habitual delinquent but not a recidivist because no two crimes fall under the same title of the Code. When the offender is a recidivist and at the same time a habitual delinquent. However. Question & Answer In 1975. the court has no jurisdiction to consider the offender a habitual delinquent. If it is not alleged in the information and in the course of the trial. This is because in 1975 when he committed the robbery. Habitual delinquency. the fourth time will have to fall under any of the three categories. If the offender had committed and was convicted of each of the crimes under each category so that no two crimes fall under the same title of the Revised Penal Code. the trial court can appreciate it. that is enough to confer jurisdiction upon the court to /vvverga Page 64 of 100 . Verga If the offender has already served his sentence and he was extended an absolute pardon. If the first conviction is for serious physical injuries or less serious physical injuries and the second conviction is for robbery. the court can appreciate the same. if that conviction is subsequent to the commission of the robbery. the present rule is that it can be appreciated even if not alleged in the information. recidivism is a generic aggravating circumstance. the prosecution tried to prove that the offender is a habitual delinquent over the objection of the accused. as long as there is an allegation there that the accused is a habitual delinquent. an added penalty will be imposed in accordance with Article 62. After determining the correct penalty for the last crime committed. the penalty for the crime for which he will be convicted will be increased to the maximum period unless offset by a mitigating circumstance. it must specify the crimes committed. Habitual delinquency refers to prior conviction and therefore this must be brought in the information before the court can acquire jurisdiction over this matter. Thus.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. Habitual delinquency We have to consider the crimes in it and take note of the titles of crimes in the Revised Penal Code. there was no crime committed yet. even if recidivism is not alleged in the information. it was held that even though the details of habitual delinquency was not set forth in the information. This is the correct view because recidivism is a generic aggravating circumstance. If you will interpret the definition of recidivism. In recidivism. Thus.
So. Is he a quasi-recidivist? Yes. This is so because if the penalty attached to the felony subsequently committed is not equal or higher than the penalty already served. the offender is already a repeater. then he becomes a repeater. in reiteracion. the law expects that since he has already tasted punishment. he committed a felony. Reiteracion This has nothing to do with the classification of the felonies. Reverse the situation. Assume that the offender was found guilty of illegal use of prohibited drugs. This is the philosophy on which the circumstance becomes aggravating. the law considers that somehow he has been reformed but if he. the offender is a repeater. the penalty attached to the crime subsequently committed should be higher or at least equal to the penalty that he has already served. reiteracion is not aggravating because the law considers that somehow. Is he a quasi-recidivist? No. he will more or less refrain from committing crimes again. he is deemed to have waived the required particulars and so the court can admit evidence of the habitual delinquency. you disregard whatever penalty for the subsequent crimes committed. That means he has not yet tasted the bitterness of life but if he had already served out the penalty. if he commits a felony carrying a lighter penalty. If he committed another lesser one. The emphasis here is on the crime committed before sentence or while serving sentence which should be a felony. While serving sentence in Muntinlupa. pay attention to the penalty attached to the crime which was committed for the second crime. In reiteracion.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) consider habitual delinquency. it is necessary that it be a felony. This cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance and the imposition of the penalty in the maximum period cannot be lowered by any ordinary mitigating circumstance. he committed a felony before beginning to serve sentence or while serving sentence. that means that the offender was never reformed by the fact that he already served the penalty imposed on him on the first conviction. the accused may file a motion for bill of particulars. Even in a criminal case. he was found smoking marijuana. he got involved in a quarrel and killed a fellow inmate. While he was serving sentence. Sentence was promulgated and he was under custody in Muntinlupa. In so far as the earlier crime is concerned. subsequently. You will only consider the penalty in reiteracion if there is already a second conviction. this fellow was corrected because instead of committing a serious crime. Quasi-recidivism Vena V. then he becomes a repeater because that means he has not yet reformed. reward or promise The Supreme Court rulings before indicate that this circumstance aggravates only the criminal liability of the person who committed the crime in /vvverga Page 65 of 100 . a violation of the Revised Penal Code. It should not be a violation of a special law. the penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed shall be lowered by 1 or 2 degrees. If the accused fails to file such. because the crime committed while serving sentence is not a felony. since there are already two of them subsequently. again commits another felony which carries a lighter penalty. Even if the penalty for the subsequent crimes committed are lighter than the ones already served. When there is a third conviction. Illustration: Offender had already been convicted by final judgement. When there is a privileged mitigating circumstance. because while serving sentence. That is why if the offender committed a subsequent felony which carries with it a penalty lighter than what he had served. If the offender had not yet served out his penalty. The offender must already be convicted by final judgement and therefore to have served the penalty already. In consideration of a price. the accused has the right to avail of the so-called bill of particulars. Illustration: The offender was convicted of homicide. Verga This is found in Article 160. If that is the situation. He becomes a quasi-recidivist because the crime committed was a felony. It is necessary in order that there be reiteracion that the offender has already served out the penalty. if there is only a second conviction. the offender has already tasted the bitterness of the punishment. but then it shall be imposed in the maximum period if the offender is a quasirecidivist. as the case may be. In the absence of the details set forth in the information. but even at this stage. repetition is not aggravating. he killed someone. While he was in Muntinlupa. However. He was prosecuted for illegal use of prohibited drugs and was convicted. he committed a lesser one. even though over and above the objection of the defense. The emphasis is on the nature of the crime committed while serving sentence or before serving sentence. However. That is why it is said that reiteracion is not always aggravating. The killing was committed before serving sentence but convicted by final judgement. Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance. forget about reiteracion. even if literally. he escaped from his guard and in the course of his escape.
C was burned and eventually died too. Hence. No such crime as arson with homicide. on Monday. acts indicative of his having clung to his determination to kill B. Afraid that A might kill him. A boxed B. the offender clung to his determination to kill the victim. A met B and killed him. the crime is arson. If the victim is already dead and the house is burned. I will kill you. it is homicide since it is noted that they were arguing. A and B had a quarrel. What condition is missing to bring about evident premeditation? Evidence to show that between Monday and Friday. Verga For evident premeditation to be aggravating. On Thursday. this is murder. Is there evident premeditation? None but there is treachery as the attack was sudden. /vvverga Page 66 of 100 . Illustrations: A and B fought. The crime committed is only murder. when there is a promise. Sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution. a principal by inducement while the person receiving the price. the crime is arson since he intended to burn the house only. It is either arson or murder." A bought firearms. However. Can there be evident premeditation when the killing is accidental? No. What is necessary to show and to bring about evident premeditation aside from showing that as some prior time. you burn down his house while the latter is inside. the crime is arson even if someone dies as a consequence. reward or promise but also the criminal liability of the one giving the offer. As far as the killing of C is concerned. the crime is homicide because there was no evident premeditation. the son of B was also in their house and who was peeping through the door and saw what A did. There is no such crime as murder with arson or arson with homicide. "This week shall not pass. or reward but not the criminal liability of the person who gave the price. "I will kill you this week. qualify. promise. the following conditions must concur: (1) (2) (3) The time when the accused determined to commit the crime. A killed B. the person making the offer is an inducer. One argument led to another until A struck B to death with a bolo. Evident premeditation shall not be considered when the crime refers to a different person other than the person premeditated against. their responsibilities are the same. the crime is attempted murder because there is evident premeditation. By means of inundation or fire Fire is not aggravating in the crime of arson. A and B fought on Monday but since A already suffered so many blows. Insofar as C is concerned. A told B. Law enforcers only use this to indicate that a killing occurred while arson was being committed. So. However. if the killing was accidental. reward or price offered or given as a consideration for the commission of the crime. A knew that B is coming home only on Friday so A decided to kill B on Friday evening when he comes home.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) consideration of the price. there is murder even if the house is burned in the process.” Evident premeditation Vena V. Whenever a killing is done with the use of fire. as when to kill someone. If the intent is to destroy property. Is there evident premeditation in both cases? None in both cases. A did not know that C. he told B. and subsequently killed the victim. Insofar as B is concerned. you could designate it as “death as a consequence of arson. On Friday. there must be a clear reflection on the part of the offender. An act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination. A then dragged B's body and poured gasoline on it and burned the house altogether. Illustration: A. he waited for B but killed C instead." On Friday. thought of killing B on Friday. he hid somewhere in the house. As far as the killing of B is concerned. that murder cannot be considered for C. too. However. there was no evident premeditation. A killed B. Is there evident premeditation? There is aberratio ictus. On Friday. reward or consideration. A told B that someday he will kill B. to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. It could not be murder. They are both principals and that is why the recent rulings of the Supreme Court are to the effect that this aggravating circumstance affects or aggravates not only the criminal liability of the receiver of the price. As a consequence. If the intent is to kill. At the most. reward or promise who would execute the crime is a principal by direct participation. In evident premeditation. Illustration: A and B were arguing about something. the offender has manifested the intention to kill the victim.
But there may be evident premeditation and there is treachery also when the attack was so sudden. Intoxication is the means deliberately employed by the offender to weaken the defense of the offended party. Do not consider both aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation against the offender. Lee. and that the offender took advantage of such superior strength in committing the crime. the very person/offended party premeditated against must be the one who is the victim of the crime.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) While it is true that evident premeditation may be absorbed in treachery because the means. size and strength. It is essential for this aggravating circumstance for the victim to be identified from the beginning. This is murder – a homicide which has been qualified into murder by evident premeditation which is a qualifying circumstance. Vena V. Treachery Treachery refers to the employment of means. robbery with force upon things where there is entry into the premises of the offended party. Evident premeditation was not absorbed in treachery because treachery refers to the manner of committing the crime. just to intoxicate the latter. He bought a firearm and practiced shooting and then sought B. A and B are enemies. employing means to weaken the defense. sharpened it and stabbed the first man he met on the street. Illustration: A person who has been courting a lady for several years now has been jilted. Craft Aggravating in a case where the offenders pretended to be bona fide passengers of a jeepney in order not to arouse suspicion. It is not necessary that the victim is identified. A did not dare fire at B for fear that he might hit a stranger but instead. What is the essence of treachery? /vvverga Page 67 of 100 . the circumstance may be treachery and not abuse of superior strength or means to weaken the defense. method and form in the commission of the crime which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. This is one aggravating circumstance where the offender who premeditated. They fought on Monday and parted ways. they were going to drink. Same where A planned to kill any member of the Iglesio ni Kristo. A saw a knife and used it to stab B with all suddenness. he stabbed B. 191 SCRA 12). The means. Premeditation must be clear. When A saw B in the restaurant with so many people. It is required that there be evidence showing meditation between the time when the offender determined to commit the crime and the time when the offender executed the act. but once inside the jeepney. A pretended to befriend B. Evident premeditation is part of the crime like kidnapping for ransom. decided on December 20. method and form of attack may be premeditated and would be resorted to by the offender. A decided to seek revenge. It is not enough that there is some premeditation. method or form employed my be an aggravating circumstance which like availing of total darkness in nighttime or availing of superior strength taken advantage of by the offender. If this was the very means employed. Verga There are some crimes which cannot be aggravated by evident premeditation because they require some planning before they can be committed. B accepted. 1991). B was having too much to drink. It is enough that the victim is determined so he or she belongs to a group or class who may be premeditated against. then bought a knife. Abuse of superior strength There must be evidence of notorious inequality of forces between the offender and the offended party in their age. A was just waiting for him to get intoxicated and after which. It is only treachery because the evident premeditation is the very conscious act of the offender to ensure the execution. A premeditated to kill any member of particular fraternity. The fact that the offender premeditated is not prima facie indicative of evident premeditation as the meeting or encounter between the offender and the offended party was only by chance or accident. One day. It was held that evident premeditation is not present. It must appear that the offender clung to his determination to commit the crime. A approached B and befriended him. and estafa through false pretenses where the offender employs insidious means which cannot happen accidentally. He. He then killed one. robbed the passengers and the driver (People v. In order for evident premeditation to be considered. Because of this. Illustration: A and B have been quarreling for some time. This is a circumstance that will qualify a killing from homicide to murder. he thought of killing somebody. Evident premeditation is always absorbed in treachery. A proposed that to celebrate their renewed friendship. Carpio. the law says evident. The mere fact that there were two persons who attacked the victim does not per se constitute abuse of superior strength (People v.
In the first situation. In plain language. even only a token one. 1991). the offended party was denied the chance to defend himself. the Supreme Court considered the crime as aggravated by ignominy. the nighttime is generic aggravating circumstance. But where children of tender years were killed. Instead some other aggravating circumstance may be present but not treachery anymore. Hence. method or form employed by the offender. the offender shoved the body inside a canal. A was wounded but not mortal so he managed to run away. raping a woman from behind is ignominous because this is not the usual intercourse. A positioned himself in the darkest part of the street where B passes on his way home. due to the means. the accused was prosecuted for robbery with homicide. B was not able to put up a defense and A was able to flee while B died. Verga stabbing may be sudden since A was not shown to have the intention of killing B. the offended party was not able to put up any defense. decided on July 6. they took advantage of superior strength but somehow. Ignominy refers to the moral effect of a crime and it pertains to the moral order. 1992. the offended party fought back. A thought of committing a crime at nighttime with the cover of darkness. decided on April 30. while the victim after having been killed by the offender. Toribio). In People v. /vvverga Page 68 of 100 . If because of the cover of darkness. ignominy is held aggravating. B was able to walk a few steps before he fell and died. However. The crime committed is murder but then the correct circumstance is not treachery but means employed to weaken the defense. The reason why treachery cannot be considered as present here is because the offended party was able to put up a defense and that negates treachery. the killing is murder even if the manner of attack was not shown (People v. Gahon. Cruelty pertains to physical suffering of the victim so the victim has to be alive. Treachery is out when the attack was merely incidental or accidental because in the definition of treachery. Illustration: A and B quarreled. However A had no chance to fight with B because A is much smaller than B. which is also a qualifying circumstance of murder under Article 248. if B despite intoxication was able to put up some fight against A but eventually. although Vena V. the offended party.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) The essence of treachery is that by virtue of the means. But in murder. it is something which offends the moral of the offended woman. this is also a qualifying circumstance. the crime is murder because there is already treachery. Treachery not appreciated where quarrel and heated discussion preceded a killing. because the victim would be put on guard (People v. whether or not the victim is dead or alive. So. method or form employed by the offender. So. Although the qualifying circumstance is abuse of superior strength and not treachery. Although one of the victims was barely six years old. In the example where A pretended to befriend B and invited him to celebrate their friendship. Distinction between ignominy and cruelty Ignominy shocks the moral conscience of man while cruelty is physical. the implication is that the offender had consciously and deliberately adopted the method. B died. the crime is still murder if the victim is killed. If the offended party was able to put up a defense. Example: A had a gunshot wound at the back of his head. The SC ruled this is only homicide because treachery must be proven. 191 SCRA 643). In a case where the crime committed is rape and the accused abused the victims from behind. In treachery. In a case of homicide. There must be evidenced on how the crime was committed. Lapan. means and form used or employed by him. It must be shown that the victim was totally defenseless. Suddenness of the attack does not by itself constitute treachery in the absence of evidence that the manner of the attack was consciously adopted by the offender to render the offended party defenseless (People v. What crime was committed? The crime is only homicide because the aggravating circumstance is only nocturnity and nocturnity is not a qualifying circumstance. then the attendant circumstance is no longer treachery but means employed to weaken the defense. One evening. the crime was homicide only. A thought of killing B but then he cannot just attack B because of the latter's size. In the same manner. if A and B casually met and there and then A stabbed B. if the offender avails of the services of men and in the commission of the crime. Gupo). there is no treachery anymore. A clear example is a married woman being raped before the eyes of her husband. Ilagan. A waited for B and stabbed B. Accused held liable only for the killings. B pulled a knife as well and stabbed A also. aggravated by dwelling and in disregard of age. It is not enough to show that the victim sustained treacherous wound. ignominy is adding insult to injury. Robbery was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. treachery cannot be considered present. the accused was convicted only for homicide. But although a quarrel preceded the killing where the victim was atop a coconut tree. treachery was considered as the victim was not in a position to defend himself (People v. being one year old and 12 years old. This is how animals do it.
confederating or mutually helping one another for purposes of gain in the commission of a crime. Will that fact be considered as an aggravating circumstance of cruelty? No. Intoxication. motorized means of transportation or motorized watercraft. Illustration: A and B are enemies.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) After having been killed. then refer to it as such. Degree of instruction. motor vehicle is not aggravating. conspiracy in the commission of the crime is alleged in the information. ignominy is aggravating. the allegation may be considered as procedurally sufficient to warrant receiving evidence on the matter during trial and consequently. Alternative circumstances Four alternative circumstances Use only the term alternative circumstance for as long as the particular circumstance is not involved in any case or problem. do not use alternative circumstance. 181 SCRA 315). For cruelty to exist as an aggravating circumstance. refer to it as aggravating or mitigating depending on whether the same is considered as such or the other. This circumstance is aggravating only when used in the commission of the offense. that there is an organized or syndicated group even when only two persons collaborated. there is cruelty only when there are evidence that the offender inflicted the stab wounds while enjoying or delighted to see the victim in pain. the body was thrown into pile of garbage. Where therefore. Unlawful entry Unlawful entry is inherent in the crime of robbery with force upon things but aggravating in the crime of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons. Otherwise. Aggravating when a motorized tricycle was used to commit the crime (1) (2) (3) (4) Relationship. The circumstance being special or qualifying. It is noteworthy. If motor vehicle is used only in the escape of the offender. that the crime is committed with the use of a motor vehicle. With this provision. there must be evidence showing that the accused inflicted the alleged cruel wounds slowly and gradually and that he is delighted seeing the victim suffer in pain. Cruelty and ignominy are circumstances brought about which are not necessary in the commission of the crime. there is no cruelty. A upon seeing B pulled out a knife and stabbed B 60 times. refer to it as aggravating. motor vehicle becomes aggravating if the bicycle is motorized. or mutually helped one another in the commission of a crime. The crime is murder if 60 wounds were inflicted gradually. Verga Organized or syndicated crime group In the same amendment to Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code. In the absence of evidence to this effect. which acts are inherent in a conspiracy. the court cannot validly consider the circumstances because it is not among those enumerated under Article 14 of the Code as aggravating. confederated. An organized or syndicated crime group means a group of two or more persons collaborating. the said special aggravating circumstance can be appreciated if proven. the circumstance of an organized or syndicated crime group having committed the crime has been added in the Code as a special aggravating circumstance. Vena V. it must be alleged in the information and proved during the trial. paragraphs were added which provide that the maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was committed by any person who belongs to an organized or syndicated crime group. and Education. even though proven during the trial. it must have been used to facilitate the commission of the crime. absence of this evidence means the crime committed is only homicide. There is a decision by the Court of Appeals that a motorized bicycle is a motor vehicle even if the offender used only the foot pedal because he does not know how to operate the motor so if a bicycle is used in the commission of the crime. If relationship is aggravating. To be aggravating. if not alleged in the information. however. /vvverga Page 69 of 100 . Cruelty is aggravating in rape where the offender tied the victim to a bed and burnt her face with a lighted cigarette while raping her laughing all the way (People v. Sixty stab wounds do not ipso facto make them aggravating circumstances of cruelty. If mitigating. Motor vehicle The Supreme Court considers strictly the use of the word “committed”. Lucas. The moment it is given in a problem. The Supreme Court held that it added shame to the natural effects of the crime.
Among such circumstances are: (1) (2) In the case of an accessory who is related to the principal within the relationship prescribed in Article 20. Degree of instruction and education These are two distinct circumstances. even if they are present. So the mere fact that the offender has taken one or more cases of beer of itself does not warrant a conclusion that intoxication is mitigating. the court will not consider it at all. the indication is that the offender gained strength out of the drinks he had taken. The idea is the offender. Also in Article 247. It is not the quantity of alcoholic drink. so that if the prosecution wants to deny the offender the benefit of this mitigation. That is wrong. There must be indication that because of the alcoholic intake of the offender. they decided to have some good time and ordered beer. In such a case. that if the circumstance is present. The intoxication in law requires that because of the quality of the alcoholic drink taken. One pulled out a knife and stabbed the other. One may not have any degree of instruction but is nevertheless educated. but if they do not influence the crime. he is suffering from diminished self control. Vena V. The moment it is shown to be habitual or intentional to the commission of the crime. So although the offender may have partaken of two cases of beer. In the crime of qualified seduction. The conduct of the offender. relationship is a qualifying and not only a generic aggravating circumstance. the offended woman must be a virgin and less than 18 yrs old. they should prove that it is habitual and that it is intentional. The Supreme Court did not give the mitigating circumstance because of the number of wounds inflicted upon the victim. even if the woman is 60 years old or more. Relationship may not be considered at all. then there is no diminished self control. Intoxication does not simply mean that the offender has partaken of so much alcoholic beverages. Do not think that because the article says that these circumstances are mitigating or aggravating. There are specific circumstances where relationship is exempting. Otherwise intoxication cannot legally be considered. regardless of whether the woman is of bad reputation. But the other circumstances. There is diminished voluntariness insofar as his intelligence or freedom of action is concerned. but after stabbing the victim he hailed a tricycle and even instructed the driver to the place where he is sleeping and the tricycle could not reach his house and so he has to alight and walk to his house. It is not the quantity of drink that will determine whether the offender can legally invoke intoxication. the offender had practically lost self control. aggravating. intoxication will not be considered mitigating. Exempting circumstance is the relationship. Degree of instruction also will not be considered if the crime is something which does not require an educated person to understand. if not mitigating. the Supreme Court said. requires that the offender has reached that degree of intoxication where he has no control of himself anymore. is automatically aggravating. a spouse does not incur criminal liability for a crime of less serious physical injuries or serious physical injuries if this was inflicted after having surprised the offended spouse or paramour or mistress committing actual sexual intercourse. regardless of the crime committed. Relationship Relationship is not simply mitigating or aggravating.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Except for the circumstance of intoxication. This is an absolutory cause. especially if it is not inherent in the commission of the crime. Intoxication to be considered mitigating. This is the rational why intoxication is mitigating. Verga This circumstance is ipso facto mitigating. Example: A has been living with (3) Sometimes. the court will have to take it as mitigating. because of the intoxication is already acting under diminished self control. malicious mischief and swindling or estafa. Those commonly given in Article 332 when the crime of theft. So if this reason is not present. relationship is qualifying. ascendant. When arraigned he invoked intoxication as a mitigating circumstance. there were two laborers who were the best of friends. the manner of committing the crime. the other circumstances in Article 15 may not be taken into account at all when the circumstance has no bearing on the crime committed. There were 11 stab wounds and this. or descendant or if the offender is a brother or sister or brother in law or sister in law of the offended party and they are living together. But if the offender is a brother of the offended woman or an ascendant of the offended woman. is incompatible with the idea that the offender is already suffering from diminished self control. the same will immediately aggravate. Since it was payday. It is only the circumstance of intoxication which if not mitigating. crime is qualified seduction. Illustration: In a case. So the court will not consider this as aggravating or mitigating simply because the circumstance has no relevance to the crime that was committed. his behavior after committing the crime must show the behavior of a man who has already lost control of himself. There is no criminal liability but only civil liability if the offender is related to the offended party as spouse. Intoxication /vvverga Page 70 of 100 . Rather it is the effect of the alcohol upon the offender which shall be the basis of the mitigating circumstance. On the contrary. When they drank two cases of beer they became more talkative until they engaged in an argument.
However. but in order for it to be appreciated. MERE TOUCHING OR GRASPING OF ARM. where he used his special knowledge as a lawyer. The /vvverga Page 71 of 100 . although she actually believed it to be the beginning of an attempt against her. Appellant is therefore guilty beyond reasonable doubt of only two (2) homicides. EVEN IF INTRUDER DID NOT REPLY WHEN ASKED WHO HE WAS PEOPLE vs. So he understands what is right and wrong. mitigated by the privileged extenuating circumstance of incomplete self-defense. The defendant’s act constitutes a justifying circumstance since: Aside from the right to life on which rests the legitimate defense of our person. Issue: W/N the defendant can plead complete self-defense. Verga third element is also present. It may happen also that the offender grew up in a family of professionals. only he is the black sheep because he did not want to go to school. The fact that he has knowledge of the law will not aggravate his liability. paragraph 1 of the RPC. as the injured person did not insist CASES FOR JUSTIFYING. When the appellant fired his shotgun from his window. Vena V. Issue: W/N the defendant is entitled on grounds of legitimate selfdefense. notwithstanding the woman's belief in the supposed attempt. couple coming from Nasugbu. NARVAEZ Keywords: fencing. defense of one’s person or rights is treated as a justifying circumstance under Article 11 . yet it cannot be said that he lacks education because he came from a family where brothers are all professionals. self-defense Issue: Can the defendant. the following requisite should be present: unlawful aggression. there was not sufficient provocation to justify her in using a deadly weapon. attacks the said person with a pocketknife. it is concluded that. that will aggravate his criminal liability. reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. and she. SELF-DEFENSE (PROPIA DEFENSA). In the same manner. and the right to honor which is not the least prized of our patrimony. his resistance was disproportionate to the attack. The Supreme Court held that although he did not receive schooling. All the requisites of exempting circumstance are present and should be taken into consideration. reasonableness of the resistance is also a requirement of the justifying circumstance of self-defense or defense of one's rights under paragraph I of Article 11. If a child or son or daughter would kill a parent. he was invoking lack of degree of education. we have the right to property acquired by us. after admitting having shot the deceased from the window of his house with a shotgun under the foregoing circumstances claim that he did so in defense of his person and his rights and therefore he should be exempted from criminal liability. (2) WHEN KILLING HELD UNJUSTIFIED. land dispute. husband stabbed at the vital organ by the sister with fan knife and TIN CANS. PEOPLE vs. LUAGUE Keyword: Woman about to be raped while her husband was at work. Victim. the offender may be a lawyer who committed rape. killing his two victims. Decision: Yes. But if he committed falsification. MITGATING AND AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES I. she was not warranted in making such a deadly assault. Revised Penal Code. If the offender did not go higher than Grade 3 and he was involved in a felony. jumping from the window fell on some stones. Decision: No. APEGO Keyword: Paranoid sister. believing that some person is attempting to abuse her asks who the intruder is and receives no reply.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) professionals for sometime. But it does not follow that he is bereft of education. because his knowledge has nothing to do with the commission of the crime. The fact that the offender did not have schooling and is illiterate does not mitigate his liability if the crime committed is one which he inherently understands as wrong such as parricide. and the nature of the wound shows that she was either standing up or sitting up at the time. PEOPLE vs. There is no question that there was aggression on the part of the victims: one of the deceased ordering while the other actually participating in the fencing. Decision: When a sleeping woman is awakened at night by some one touching her or grasping her arm. “gaddemit!”. (1) WHEN KILLING FOR HONOR HELD JUSTIFIED. (a) PICKING UP KNIFE OF RAPIST PREPARING TO LIE WITH ACCUSED AND STABBING HIM). He may just be a maid in the house with no degree of instruction but he may still be educated. illiteracy will not mitigate because the low degree of instruction has no bearing on the crime. WITHOUT INSISTENCE OR REPETITION WHICH COULD BE CONSIDERED AN ATTEMPT AGAINST HONOR.
/vvverga Page 72 of 100 . Issue: W/N there is a reasonable necessity for the means employed to repel the attack. Decision: When it is proven that the deceased had for some time maintained illicit relations with the accused. and at a time when they were both in bed. being accustomed to pass the night in her house. PEOPLE vs. there was no longer any danger to the life of the accused but the latter pursued him and inflicted many additional wounds. the deceased assaulted the defendant but the latter was able to resist the aggression. complete self-defense cannot be invoked. LUAGUE. there being then no more aggression to defend against. it cannot be believed that it was necessary for him to resort to violence. There was no reasonable cause for striking a blow in the center of the body where the vital parts are located. upon the ground that the accused in committing the homicide acted in self-defense. ALCONGA Keywords: Gambling. In the initial stage. A policeman in the performance of his duty must stand his ground and cannot take refuge in flight when attacked. the same having ceased from the moment the deceased took to his heels. KILLING OF PARAMOUR NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO ATTEMPT TO RAPE ACCUSED WHO MAINTAINED ILLICIT RELATION WITH VICTIM FOR SOME TIME PEOPLE vs. Thus. Decision: Yes. Decision: Yes. This principle has now given way in the US to Vena V. MOJICA Keywords: Constabulary versus Police. Guards. Accused did not provoke the assault. threatened by the constabulary. and therefore a statement alleging such violence is improbable and inadmissible as a basis for an exemption from liability. the circumstance of nocturnity cannot be considered because the nighttime was not purposely selected by the accused. striking with a “Japanese wood” and inflicting with a tuba knife causing the victim’s death. Defendant was a police Issue: W/N the defendant can maintain that he killed the victim in self-defense and that he is exempt from criminal liability. The law did not require the accused to retreat. there was present the circumstance of incomplete exemption from responsibility since the second requisite is missing. There were two stages in the fight. The resistance was not disappropriate to the assault thus the accused is exempted from criminal liability because he acted in legitimate defense of his person. Since one of the ingredients of self-defense is missing. Both men accused each other for starting the fight. in the commission of the crime. Under the circumstances. Verga “stand ground when in the right” rule.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) or repeat any act which could be considered as an attempt against her honor. Victim became so angry and threatened to inflict harm on the defendant. The crime having been committed by the owner of the house against the person who had by mutual consent frequented the house. There was no provocation on the defendant’s part. There was reasonable necessity for the means employed by X to repel the attack. An accused was no longer acting in self-defense when he pursued and killed a fleeing adversary. the force employed by the defendant was reasonably necessary and that he acted in legitimate self-defense. DOMEN Keyword: Fight over a carabao. SUPRA US vs. His duty requires him to overcome his opponent and the force he may exert therefore differs somewhat from that which ordinarily may be offered in self-defense. This doctrine make it the duty of a person assailed to retreat as far as he can before he is justified in meeting force with force. PEOPLE vs. defendant cheated the victim. Unlawful Aggression When present Attempt to rape a woman PEOPLE VS. Issue: W/N the defendant is entitled to acquittal for having killed the victim in the exercise of his right of self-defense. Issue: W/N the woman can plead self-defense considering that the man seems to be asleep when he was killed. The accused exceeded her right of self-defense since there was really no need of wounding the victim. POTESTAS Keywords: Woman kills her paramour who was not her live-in partner saying that the latter tried to rape her. When the deceased retreated. The ancient common law rule in homicide was denominated “retreat to the wall”. PEOPLE vs. The element of practicability made it impossible for him to determine during the heat of a sudden attack whether he would increase or diminish the risk to which exposed by standing his ground or stepping aside. though originally the unlawful aggressor. LAUREL Keywords: Stolen kiss. Decision: No. i.
BONOAN Keywords: barbershop. Issue: W/N the person who aided the old man by furnishing a weapon to the latter makes the former liable for homicide. Decision: Considering the preceding relations between the contending parties. to commit assault and disobedience with a weapon in the hand. is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. but sanity is presumed. the logical consequence of that declaration of exemption from responsibility is that the other. the burden of establishing that fact rests upon him. PEOPLE vs. and this presumption is confirmed by the evidence. HOW INSANITY IS PROVED /vvverga Page 73 of 100 . US vs. Decision: Yes. which although the policeman to resort to such an extreme means which. The deceased was under the obligation to surrender and had no right after evading service of his sentence. DELIMA Keywords: Escapee who was killed by a policeman while ordering the latter to surrender. VALCORZA vs. it is the offended party who was directly or indirectly affected and who would naturally be interested in demanding an explanation and therefore in seeking the interview. This would be a great detriment to public interest. then when a person who did nothing more than furnish a weapon to one whom he saw in peril and in great need of defending himself and repelling a serious assault. it is illogical and unjust to deny to said assistant the same exemption from responsibility and the exoneration granted the slayer on the grounds of self-defense. there would be halfhearted and dispirited efforts on their part to comply with such official duty. CABUNGCAL Keywords: ROCK THE BOAT! Issue: W/N the defendant is completely exempted from all criminal liability. the obligation of proving that affirmative allegation rests on the defense. when not satisfied with the explanation offered. Police only tried to hit the victim on the leg but unfortunately hit him on the back. the defense interposed being that the defendant was insane at the time he killed the deceased. with the result that thereafter. Decision: No. The victim then can invoke self-defense. Policeman committed no crime. The appellant having acted in defense of his wife and child and the other passengers in the boat in striking the deceased with an oar in order to make him desist from trying to upset the boat. In the Philippines. and when a defendant in a criminal case interposes the defense of mental incapacity. to be sure. To hold the accused guilty of homicide may have the effect of demoralizing police officers discharging official functions identical or similar to those in the performance of which petitioner was engaged at the time he fired at the deceased. If one who defends a third person under the conditions and with the requisites the penal law lays down for exempting him from responsibility should be acquitted of the charge in a case prosecuted against him. the burden. would be the aggressor. he is completely exempt from criminal liability. Issue: W/N the action of the defendant can be justified. as was held in the same judgment to be lawful and right. and the means employed having been reasonably necessary in this defense. while it was at the cost of the life of the deceased. was justified by the circumstance. Verga Issue: W/N it was the defendant who was the assailant.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. PEOPLE Keywords: Detention prisoner charged of stealing chickens. SUBINGSUBING Keywords: 78 year old man aided by another man to parry the blows of X who made unchaste proposals to the old man’s wife. was declared to be exempt from responsibility in repelling the attack of which he was the victim and in wounding his assailant therewith. Issue: W/N the policeman should be held liable Decision: No. The killing was done in the performance f a duty. insanity “I’ll kill you”. Where the one. The deceased did not head several warning shots. Decision: No. who used the weapon. PEOPLE vs. “I’ll pay you” Issue: W/N the prosecution have the burden of proving that the accused was sane at the time he committed the crime. Poultry area. PEOPLE VS. although it proved to be fatal. who furnished the legitimate weapon used in his defense should be also acquitted and declared exempt from any responsibility. In the case at bar. Decision: The act performed was committed in the performance of official duty and was more or less necessary to prevent the escaping prisoner from successfully eluding the officers of the law. so that when they meet it is to be presumed that such offended party.
Issue: W/N the municipal president can be found guilty of “illegal and arbitrary detention” of the accused for a period of three days. this court will not presume that. Issue: W/N the defendant can be acquitted with the argument that he should be exempted from criminal liability on account of insanity. suffice (People vs.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. in a particular case of defiance of local authority by the unlawful violation of a local ordinance even where the offense thus committed /vvverga Page 74 of 100 . Issue: W/N the defendant should be charged for reason of reckless negligence. Mind can only be known by outward acts. The case of U. insanity exist when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. KNIGHT Keyword: chauffer of US Army. if clear and convincing. after having arrested the complaining witness without a warrant. and one has not the exclusive right to precede another. US vs. unfortunate circumstances than prolonged the detention. the accused is deprived of reason. In the eyes of the law. he acts without the least discernment because there is a complete absence of the power to discern. or at least equal to that which he was required to commit and that it promised an evil of such gravity and imminence that it might be said. ELICANAL Keyword: Captain killed by shipmates. he cannot be held liable either civilly or criminally. Thereby. Verga In order to ascertain a person's mental condition at the time of the act. Direct testimony is not required nor are specific acts of derangement essential to establish insanity as a defense. that is. Under all the circumstances of this case. Whatever may have been the cause of an automobile accident. Bonoan). One person is not compelled to travel behind another on the highway. US vs. trivial crime committed by X to a municipal president. it reduces him to a mere instrument. or that there is a total deprivation of freedom of the will. Decision: No. VICENTILLO Keywords: illegal detention. mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability. S. Applying these principles. viz. circumstantial evidence. defense fails. Issue: W/N the defendant can invoke that he was acting under the impulse if an uncontrollable fear of a greater injury. it must appear that the threat which caused the fear was of an evil greater that. notwithstanding the fact that three days were expended in doing so. The defense in a criminal action that the defendant in committing the crime acted under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear produced by a threat of an equal or greater injury to himself can be held to be sustained. the defendant. that a person is criminally liable for a felony committed by him. Decision: No. or must produce such an effect upon the individual that in spite of all resistance. the motives and emotions of a person and come to determine whether his sets conform to the practice of people of sound mind. that the. In the absence of all evidence to the contrary. we read the thoughts. paragraph 1. that one of the causes which will overthrow this presumption of voluntariness and intelligence is insanity in which even the actor is exempt from criminal liability as provided for in Article 12. Impulse of uncontrollable fear of a greater injury should the defendant refuse. RENEGADO Keywords: Insane security guard. it is permissible to receive evidence of the condition of his mind a reasonable period both before and after that time. Child was run over while the defendant was trying to overtake. ordinary man would have succeeded to it. To prove insanity. of the Revised Penal Code. Before a force can be considered to be an irresistible one. vs. The onus probandi rest upon him who invokes insanity as an exempting circumstances and he must prove it by clear and positive evidence. For purposes of disposing of appellant's defense it becomes necessary to restate certain basic principles in criminal law. with freedom intelligence. Slave-driver teacher who asked the guard to type test questionnaires. Decision: No. the municipal president being held to have all the usual powers of a public officer for the making of arrests without warrant. brought him before a justice of the peace as soon as "practicable" thereafter. and malice because the moral and legal presumption is that freedom and intelligence constitute the normal condition of a person in the absence of evidence to the contrary. therefore. Fortaleza followed as to the authority of a municipal president to make an arrest without a warrant for an offense committed in his presence. that a felonious or criminal act (delito doloso) is presumed to have been done with deliberate intent. PEOPLE vs. Decision: Chief mate did not exercise influence over the accused. if it cannot be attributed to the misconduct or the negligence of the operator in the management of his machine. that is. as set forth in the opinion. US vs. The traveler may pass to the front when he has good and sufficient grounds to believe that he can do so in safety.
which states that insanity is "a manifestation in language or conduct. such as evidence of the alleged deranged person's general conduct and appearance. She has in her favor the fourth and seventh exempting circumstances. there has been no case that lays down a definite test or criterion for insanity. Decision: Infanticide and abandonment of a minor. inhibition. that he acts without the least discernment. at the very time of doing the act. Puno). irresistible impulse test. PEOPLE vs. However. or by impaired or disordered volition. under our jurisdiction. trivial and unimportant. Under the right and wrong test. by giving birth to a child in a thicket and later abandoning it. his acts and conduct inconsistent with his previous character and habits. his free agency being at the time destroyed. that is. to avoid the act in question. with no fault or intention on her part. A person acts under an irresistible impulse when. free act or omission. DAR employee killed. motives and emotions of a person. and the right and wrong test. Under foreign jurisdiction. We can apply as test or criterion the definition of insanity under Section 1039 of the Revised Administrative Code. it is necessary that there be a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. it is permissible to receive of his mental condition for a reasonable period both before and after the time of the act in question. Thus. Hiding a deadly weapon and embarking to evade arrest are conscious adoption of the pattern to kill. Under the delusion test. However. BANDIAN Keywords: infanticide. Direct testimony is not required nor the specific acts of derangement essential to establish insanity as a defense. abandonment Issue: W/N the mother can be held liable for infanticide and or abandonment of a minor. and through which we determine whether his acts conform to the practice of people of sound mind. to be punishable. that the accused be deprived of cognition. and his improvident bargains. which is the subject of inquiry. insanity may be shown by surrounding circumstances fairly throwing light on the subject. or by disordered function of the sensory or of the intellective faculties. under said circumstance. functional or organic. Insanity in law exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence. or must be conscious of his acts. Decision: One who suffers from insanity at the time of the commission of the offense charged cannot in a legal sense entertain a criminal intent and cannot be held criminally responsible for his acts. there are three major criteria in determining the existence of insanity. a person is insane when he suffers from such perverted condition of the mental and moral faculties as to render him incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong. An insane person has no full and clear understanding of the nature and consequence of his act. in order that he may be held liable. conscious and. the existence of which no rational person would believe. must be in the full enjoyment of his mental faculties. DISTINGUISH INSANITY FROM SANITY Vena V. In order that insanity may relieve a person from criminal responsibility. or a more or less permanently diseased or disordered condition of the mentality. The fact that the defendant remembered his acts proves that he was not insane or if insane. There no definite defined border between sanity and insanity. the person who commits them. Verga It is difficult to distinguish from insanity. in itself. PEOPLE vs. his irrational acts and beliefs. that there be complete absence or deprivation of the freedom of the will (People vs. Even in cases where said crimes are committed through mere imprudence. or at least it must be the result of a voluntary. not because of imprudence or any other cause than that she was overcome by severe dizziness and extreme debility. must be committed willfully or consciously. Evidence of insanity must have reference to the mental condition of the person whose sanity is in issue. So far. The law exempts from criminal liability any person who acts under the circumstances in which the appellant acted in this case. which is manifested in language or conduct. he has lost the power to choose between right and wrong. of disease or defect of the brain. it may not have been necessary or at least expedient to make an arrest and bring the offender forthwith before the proper judicial officer." Insanity as defined above is evinced by a deranged and perverted condition of the mental faculties. His unlawful act is the product of a mental disease or a mental defect.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) is. and characterized by perversion. The vagaries of the mind can only be known by outward acts: thereby we read the thoughts. an insane person believes in a state of things. DUNGO Keywords: confined in a mental hospital for insanity but found sane while perpetuating the crime. by reason of duress or mental disease. his insanity admitted of lucid intervals. baby killed by animal bites. HOW COURTS SHOULD CONSIDER BURDEN OF PROOF IN CASES INVOLVING PLEA OF INSANITY /vvverga Page 75 of 100 . Insane delusion is manifested by a false belief for which there is no reasonable basis and which would be incredible under the given circumstances to the same person if he is of compos mentis. Issue: W/N the defendant can be acquitted on the grounds of insanity. namely: delusion test.
Decision: Yes. Decision: No. whether that intelligence be diseased be healthy.e. Whoever.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Generally. with the qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosia). the Court has recognized at most a mitigating. Issue: W/N the defendant can be acquitted of the charge of rape on the ground that he was suffering from a mental disorder called schizophrenia at the time he committed the crime. between her aggressor and a third person. Lastly. unless his insanity and absence of will are proved. in the defense of insanity. tinig ng ibon”. it will be presumed that he was in normal condition. in that the woman Agustina Sola met a violent death. on the basis of his mental condition." and (b) the test of violation-"or that there be a total deprivation of freedom of the will. and at a time when she was listening to a conversation. at close. Otherwise stated. and as such must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. circumstance in accord with Article 13(9) of the Revised Penal Code. The quantum of evidence required to overthrow the presumption of sanity is proof beyond reasonable doubt. not an exempting. and it is improper to conclude that a person acted unconsciously. and forms were employed in the attack that directly and specially insured the consummation of the crime without such risk to the author thereof as might have been offered by the victim who." This is perhaps to be expected since person's volition naturally reaches out Vena V. However. and intelligently. Jealousy. and in order to accomplish his perverse intention with safety. Dungo)." examination of the case law has failed to turn up any case where this Court has exempted an accused on the sole ground that he was totally deprived of "freedom of the will. the law presumes all acts to be voluntary. and after usual and customary words had passed between her and her aggressor. All the foregoing circumstances conclusively prove that the accused. every doubt is resolved in favor of the accused. Seclusive who allege that he hears sounds. notwithstanding the fact that he was already provided with a clean and well-prepared weapon /vvverga Page 76 of 100 . Decision: The above-stated facts. Evident premeditation. HICKS Keyword: Afro-American soldier and Moro woman having an illicit affair. in criminal cases. Premeditation is. The woman found another man. Insanity must be clearly and satisfactorily proved in order to acquit an accused on the ground of insanity. while the injured woman was unarmed and unprepared. PEOPLE vs. which have been fully proven in the present case. Acts penalized by law are always refuted to be voluntary. namely: (a) the tests of cognition-"complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the [criminal] act. AGGARVATING AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES US vs.. Insanity is a defense in a confession and avoidance. she being suddenly and roughly attacked and unexpectedly fired upon with a 45-caliber revolver." The law presumes every man to be sane. defined and punished by article 403 of the Penal Code. RAFANAN Keywords: Schizophrenic person pleading not guilty for the crime of rape." But our case law shows common reliance on the test of cognition. The circumstance of premeditation can be appreciated but should only be considered as merely a generic one. manners. Without positive evidence that the defendant had previously lost his reason or was demented. deliberately and after due reflection had resolved to kill the woman who had left him for another man. Issue No 1: W/N murder was committed. constitute the crime of murder. where the accused failed to show complete impairment or loss of intelligence. The burden of proving the affirmative allegation of insanity rests on the defense. in order to relieve him from liability. a few moments prior to or during the perpetration of the crime. doubt as to the fact of insanity should be resolved in favor of sanity. From all of the foregoing it is logically inferred that means. in which she was concerned. however. the State should guard against sane murderer escaping punishment through a general plea of insanity. was doubtless unable to flee from the place where she was standing. knowingly. "Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the willpower of the offender without however depriving him of the consciousness of his Acts. A person accused of a crime has the burden of proving his affirmative allegation of insanity. (People vs. Verga only towards that which is presented as desirable by his intelligence." i. the starting premise is that the law presumes all persons to be of sound mind. without an accompanying "complete deprivation of intelligence. which he described as “parang ibon. Appellant has not successfully discharged the burden of overcoming the presumption that he committed the crime as charged freely. rather than on the test relating to "freedom of the will. Issue No. manifest and evident by reason of the open acts executed by the accused. The allegation of insanity or imbecility must be clearly proved. Accused confined in the mental hospital after the incident. and that it is improper to presume that acts were done unconsciously. The standard set out in Formigones were commonly adopted in subsequent case. Thus: In considering the plea of insanity as a defense in a prosecution for crime. 2: W/N Evident premeditation can be appreciated. or even escape or divert the weapon. invokes insanity as a defense has the burden of proving its existence. owing to the suddenness of the attack. therefore. In any case. if not point blank range.
Vena V. which she had a perfect right to do. in that defendant "acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion and obfuscation. Issue No. and his discovery of her in flagrante in the arms of another. his reason for killing her being merely that she had elected to leave him and with his full knowledge to go and live with another. "Considering that an unlawful aggression. 2: W/N a slight pushing of the head which hurt the woman can be considered a mitigating circumstance: Decision: No. “that woman”. greeting everyone courteously and conversed with his victim. we repeat. which.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) and carried other loaded cartridges besides those already in his revolver. 3: W/N she is entitled to a mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to cause grave injury. The commission of the offense of which defendant was convicted was marked with the extenuating circumstance defined in subsection 7 of article 9. This marked obstinacy of the accused in her aggression clearly reveals her intention to cause to its full extent the injury she has committed. in what appeared to be a proper manner. 1: W/N the woman committed a crime. and immoral passions. to repel which it is lawful to employ a means of defense which may be reasonably necessary. Decision: No. The only causes which mitigate the criminal responsibility for the loss of self-control are such as originate from legitimate feelings.the latter would perhaps have inflicted upon him other wounds had it not been for the timely arrival of policeman who calmed her bellicose attitude and placed her under arrest. according to her was the cause that led her to stab him. when the author of the same does not persist in his purpose or when he desists therefrom to the extent that the person attacked is no longer in peril." was not that the woman declined to have illicit relations with him. YUMAN Keyword: Man refused to go back to his live-in partner. not those which arise from vicious. Issue No. There is no occasion to speak her of the “reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it". Issue No 3: W/N the accused can invoke loss of reason and selfcontrol produced by jealousy. US vs. such act does not constitute the unlawful aggression mentioned by the Code. 4: W/N the defendant is entitled circumstance that she acted under obfuscation. upon discovering her in flagrante in carnal communication with a mutual acquaintance. A slight push of the head with the hand-which. doubtless in order to successfully accomplish his criminal design. especially the fact that the accused had been abandoned by the deceased after living together for three or four years. and which naturally produced "passion and obfuscation. but the sudden revelation that she was untrue to him. was not present in the instant case. This mitigating circumstance should be taken into consideration in favor of the accused. in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case. he entered the house. who had theretofore been his querida (concubine or lover). and. penknife Issue No. As said by the supreme court of Spain in the above cited decision. The stab-wound inflicted upon the deceased by the accused was not only mortal. Her act of mortally wounding her lover had not been precede by aggression on the part of the latter. behaving himself properly as he had planned to do beforehand." the evidence disclosing that in the heat of passion he killed the deceased. as a fundamental requisite of self-defense is not necessarily implied in any act of aggression against a particular person. In the case at bar the impulse upon which the defendant acted. a man kills his concubine upon discovering that she had carnal communication with another man. disappointment and anger engendered by the refusal of the woman to continue to live in illicit relations with him. but the victim thus wounded and running away was also pursued by the accused. knife in hand. Decision: Yes. Decision: Yes. In the former case the cause of the alleged "passion and obfuscation" of the aggressor was the convict's vexation. this was a "sufficient impulse" in the ordinary and natural course of things to produce the passion and obfuscation which the law declares to be one of the extenuating circumstances to be taken into consideration by the court. Verga PEOPLE vs. Issue No 2: W/N this case can be decided based on Hick’s case. 1: W/N the circumstances can be considered an extenuation of his criminal liability. to a mitigating Decision: Yes. unworthy. . nor is it necessary to inquire whether or not there was "sufficient provocation" on the part of the one invoking legitimate self-defense because both circumstances presuppose unlawful aggression. Issue No. Issue No. and the harsh treatment which the deceased gave the accused /vvverga Page 77 of 100 . Decision: No. disguising his intention and calming her by his apparent repose and tranquility. DELA CRUZ Keywords: Due to heat of passion. Decision: No.
not possessing it. Decision: No. Alicia's insulting refusal to renew her liaison with the accused. or any gratitude owed by one to the other that ought to be respected. any superior strength on the part of the accused. since. Issue No. PEOPLE vs. Issue No 5: W/N she entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to the authorities. and which would bear any relation. while Alicia was in the prime of her youth. Under the circumstance. 6: W/N she is entitled to a mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction. Possession of a balisong gives an aggressor a Vena V. BELLO Keyword: Old man. Issue No. hence the circumstance did not aggravate the crime. likewise. he could not take advantage of it. Even without benefit of wedlock. not established. Decision: Yes. Her loose conduct was forcibly driven home to the accused by a remark he heard on the very day of the crime that the accused was the husband "whose wife was being used by Maring for purposes of prostitution". Decision: Yes. deliberate intent to take advantage of superior strength. Issue no. The crime was committed at nighttime. treachery cannot be imputed Issue No. That he watched her movements daily manifested his jealous character. Verga formidable advantage over the unarmed victim. Woman refused to give support and was seeing another man. Decision: No. it would be an error to take into consideration this circumstance. Decision: No. or that he was penniless while she was able to earn a living and occasionally gave him money.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) on the afternoon of the day in question. The accused had been carrying a balisong with him for a long time as a precaution against drunkards. and. Neither is it shown that the accused took advantage of any such special confidence in order to carry out the crime. 5 glasses of tuba. The facts are not sufficient to draw a comparison of their relative strength. Issue No. both lived together as husband and wife. There is nothing to show that the assailant and his common-law wife reposed in one another any special confidence that could be abused. the place was bright and well lighted. 2: W/N there is evident premeditation. can be properly qualified as arising from immoral and unworthy passions. Decision: Evident premeditation was. 4: W/N nighttime maybe appreciated as aggravating circumstance. it is not clearly shown that there was "intención deliberada de prevalerse de la superioridad aprovecharse intencionadamente de la misma" i. either.1: W/N treachery can be appreciated in order to qualify the crime to murder. The defendant is a mere wage-earner and could not even sign her statement before the police and had to affix her thumb mark. therefore. Decision: While it cannot be denied that Alicia was stabbed at the back. kaingero.e. with the crime committed. The trial court itself found that the stab in the back was inflicted as the victim was running away. White slave trade. Issue No. We can not see how the accused's insistence that she live with him again. The evidence does not show. MACBUL /vvverga Page 78 of 100 . a monogamous liaison appears morally of a higher level than gainful promiscuity. 5: W/N the can be aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence and obvious ungratefulness. PEOPLE vs. and his rage at her rejection of the proposal. Issue No. a remark that so deeply wounded the appellant's feelings that he was driven to consume a large amount of wine (tuba) before visiting the deceased to plead with her to leave her work. induced his young bride to work as a public hostess. the wound was but a part and continuation of the aggression. None is inferable from the fact that the accused was much older than his victim. but he was old and baldado (invalid). but showed her determination to pursue a lucrative profession that permitted her to distribute her favors indiscriminately. but the accuse did no seek or take advantage of it to better accomplish his purpose. The four (4) stab wounds were inflicted indiscriminately. or connection. For this reason. 6: W/N the accused can claim a mitigating circumstance of having acted on provocation strong to cause passion and obfuscation. At any rate. Decision: No. a short time before the aggression. but there is no evidence that from this jealousy sprouted a plan to snuff out her life. without regard as to which portion of her body was the subject of attack. It will be recalled that the lower court found that the accused had previously reproved the deceased for allowing herself to be caressed by a stranger. 3: W/N the crime can be qualified by abuse of superior strength. but the physique of the aggressor ought also to be considered. and without any present plan or intent to use it against his commonlaw wife. was not motivated by any desire to lead a chaste life henceforth. In fact. True that he was armed with a balisong. and not infirm. taking into account the emotional excitement of the accused...
is not recognized by the RPC. There was no illegal detention and victim was killed and promptly buried. Issue: W/N the court erred in considering the defendant a habitual delinquent. PEOPLE vs. DY POL Keyword: falsification of public document. Issue No. Kidnapped. The four participated in the planning and execution of the crime and were at the scene in all its stages. In other words. recognizing the immanent principle that the right to life is more sacred than a mere property right. They cannot escape the consequence of any of their acts even if they deviated in some detail from what they originally thought of. which is that the crime committed by the accused has caused no irreparable material damage to the offended party. connivance and unity of purpose and intention among the accused were present throughout in the execution of this crime. That is not to encourage or even countenance theft but merely to dull somewhat the keen and pain-producing edges of the stark realities of life. Issue No 2: W/N treachery can be appreciated in qualifying the crime to murder. It may not be amiss to state that an accused is entitled to acquittal unless his guilt is shown by proof beyond reasonable doubt." Therefore. A person shall be deemed to be habitually delinquent. This court approves it. On the basis of the foregoing evidence. Decision: No. estafa. that last one. or falsificación. Decision: Yes. The mitigating circumstance so invoked. ONG Keyword: Debt. Decision: Yes. one previous conviction against him. Issue: W/N the accused is entitled to a mitigating circumstance of plea of guilt. cannot be taken into account because his second conviction took place fourteen years later. Section 1.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) section 10 and consideration. Victim even made a proposal of love to the wife of the accused in lieu the latter’s gambling debt. the time interval when the deceased was actually deprived of his liberty was short and the same was only incidental to the main objective of murdering him. Decision: Yes. treachery should be considered against all persons participating or cooperating in the perpetration of the crime. W/N extreme poverty can be appreciated as a mitigating PEOPLE vs. Verga be taken into Keywords: habitual delinquent. The necessary result is that the accused can he held liable only for the killing of the victim. he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener. Neither is it among those which may be considered as similar nature and analogous to those expressly recognized in accordance with Article 13 /vvverga Page 79 of 100 . hurto. if within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of robo. Revised Rules of Court). 2: W/N the accused can invoke the fact that no irreparable material damage was caused to the offended part in the commission of the crime. Undisputed facts show that the victim’s hands were tied and his mouth was gagged with a flannel cloth before he was stabbed twice with an icepick and buried in a shallow grave near a creek. Hence within the purview of habitual delinquents. Issue No. The plea of guilty spontaneously entered by the accused prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution constitutes mitigating circumstance. Thus. namely. therefore it cannot correctly Vena V. Decision: No. Mitigating circumstance of plea of guilt and extreme poverty. stealing two sacks of papers which belong to the Provincial Government of Sulu. Issue: W/N treachery can be appreciated as regards the two other accused who did not do the actual stabbing. appellant's first conviction. the accused can hardly be held liable for kidnapping as well. 2: circumstance. Conspiracy implies concert of design and not participation in every detail of execution. The evidence at hand hardly satisfied the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt as to the charge of kidnapping. (Rule 133. stabbed to death and buried. Issue: W/N the accused be held liable for the crimes of kidnapping and murder. These facts portray well that the tied hands of the victim rendered him defenseless and helpless thereby allowing the accused to commit the crime without risk at all to their person. Decision: Conspiracy. reduction of penalty due to mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty and lack of irreparable material damage. The crime was murder only. Treachery (alevosia) qualified the killing to murder. Decision: Yes.
Cruelty (ensañamiento). Since the kidnapping portion of the crime cannot be appreciated beyond reasonable doubt. cannot be considered here. Decision: Yes. The accused sought the solitude of the place in order to better attain their purpose without interference. The accused meditated and tenaciously persisted in the accomplishment of the crime and were not prompted merely by the impulse of the moment. It is essential too that the confidence be a means of facilitating the commission of the crime. Issue: W/N the aggravating circumstance that the accused forced or induced his nephew to murder the priest by hire or reward be appreciated. Issue: W/N the purposive selection of uninhabited place be appreciated. Issue No. The record does not show beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was forced or induced to commit this crime. Issue: W/N the plead of guilt can be used as a mitigating circumstance. It has been held that the use of a motor vehicle is aggravating in murder where the said vehicle was used in transporting the victim and the accused. Decision: No. /vvverga Page 80 of 100 . Issue No. it is necessary that there be a relation of trust and confidence between the accused and the one against whom the crime was committed. Issue: W/N the accused can be credited with any mitigating circumstance. the culprit taking advantage of the offended party's belief that the former would not abuse said confidence. and flee from the locale of the fearful crime. Decision: No. 13. Issue No. Revised Penal Code). and to secure themselves against detection and punishment. Decision: The accused Benjamin Ong is likewise is entitled to the mitigating circumstance that is analogous to passion and obfuscation (Art. This aggravating circumstance was correctly appreciated by the lower court regardless of whether or not the same was purposely and deliberately sought by the accused for it is clear that the darkness of the night facilitated the commission of the crime and was taken advantage of by them. The purposive selection of an uninhabited place is thus clear from the evidence. US vs. Even granting that the victim died because of asphyxiation when he was buried and not hemorrhage from stab wounds. Inasmuch as the treachery consisted in the fact that the victims' hands were tied at the time they were beaten. 3: W/N the aggravating circumstance of nighttime can be absorbed in treachery. Issue No. Verga Issue No. is an aggravating circumstance. the circumstance of nighttime is not absorbed in treachery. 7: W/N cruelty can be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. It was merely because the accused had some accounts to settle with him. For cruelty to exist. Decision: Yes. it appears that the victim's burial was not meant to make him suffer any longer but simply to conceal his body and the crime itself. The motor vehicle facilitated the stark happening. but can be perceived distinctly therefrom. It is true that he owed his uncle a sum of money and the latter could have used these obligations in order to force his nephew to commit the crime but it has not been shown beyond reasonable doubt that the uncle actually hired his nephew to kill the deceased since the nephew rejected the offer. bury him. since the treachery rests upon an independent factual basis. Indeed. 8: W/N there is evident premeditation. 6: W/N the use of motor vehicle be appreciated as aggravating circumstance. as it appears from the record. GAMAO Keywords: Priest killed in exchange of a sum of money. nephew refused the money but nonetheless carried on with the crime. The brief of the Acting Solicitor General agrees with that of the accused in denying the attendance of cruelty as an aggravating circumstance. the group intended merely to kill the victim. 10. Decision: Yes. The accused and the victim were together that night in the nightclub as well as in the car not because of said confidence. and that the accused made use of such relation to commit the crime. The accused showed signs of remorsefulness upon his arrest when he cooperated with the police authorities in the solution of the crime. Inducement by the uncle. causing him unnecessary physical or moral pain in the consummation of the criminal act. par. 5: W/N the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence can be appreciated. Decision: In order for this circumstance to obtain. Decision: The place was ideal not merely for burying the victim but also for killing him for it was a place where the possibility of the victim receiving some help from third persons was completely absent.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation (premeditacion conocida) attended the commission of the crime. it would appear that the plead of guilty to this information naturally would be most unfair to the accused since the penalty would be that of capital punishment. it must be shown that the accused enjoyed and delighted in making their victim suffer slowly and gradually. A special case therefore is present to which the rule that nighttime is absorbed in treachery does not apply. Decision: It is clear that appellants took advantage of nighttime in committing the felonies charged.
” ran toward the ice plant in search of a revolver and returned. arising from the defense which the priest might make. Accused is only entitled to a mitigating defense of intoxication. MCMANN Facts: McMann and on McKay (one the victims) were packers at Camp Vicars in Mindanao. Fitzgerald immediately arose. It can be deduced that both are intoxicated. and the fact that the accused was drunk at the time of the commission of the crime must then be considered as a mitigating circumstance. The nephew merely depends on his uncle for his subsistence while the latter was found to be a man of great influence. 2: W/N the aggravating circumstance of treachery be appreciated as well. FEATI. I. He had no opportunity to offer any resistance whatever.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. FITZGERALD Facts: The accused and the victim had a dispute in a distillery. Marsh died soon after. 2: Was the crime properly classified as murder? Decision: Yes. US vs. where it appears that the accused fired a loaded revolver at the deceased and killed him. and he is not entitled to the benefit of the mitigating circumstance established by the Penal Code. Issue No. Issue No. DE LA ROSA Keywords: demonstration. DEFINING HABITUAL DRUNKARD AS ONE GIVEN TO INTOXICATION BY EXCESSIVE USE OF INTOXICATING DRINKS U. 3: W/N extreme ignorance can be used as a mitigating circumstance. security guard threw a pillbox hitting one of the demonstrators in the head. Also. Decision: Yes. Issue No. The deceased received the fatal blow while he was in the dark space between the door and the stairs leading to the upper portion of the convent. There can be no question that the latter was directly induced by his uncle to kill the priest. After which. and saying “I will show you sons of b—s. the SC was compelled to give him the benefits of the mitigating circumstance of lack of discretion since it was shown the nephew was a poor ignorant fisherman and only depends on his uncle for subsistence. He selected his nephew to commit the crime and dominated all who were present. Owing to his extreme ignorance. Decision: No. Issue: W/N a mitigating circumstance can be considered. Issue No 3: W/N the accused be credited with aggravating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wong as that actually done. vs. The murderer taking advantage of the darkness was lying in wait for his victim. he saw Marsh and fired at him. ii) II. He hated the Roman Catholic Church and called a meeting in his house where the question of murdering the priest was discussed. The victim (Marsh) struck Fitzgerald. INTOXICATION WHEN MITIGATING. i) (a) NOT HABITUAL PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR OF NON-HABITUAL CHARACTER OF INTOXICATION A. No other mitigating circumstance can be appreciated in his favor for one who attacks another with a deadly weapon as a revolver must know that the most probable result of such an aggression is the death of the person attacked. Provocation on the part of Marsh cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance since there was no evidence how the quarrel arose. These facts clearly establish the qualifying circumstance of alevosia in so far as the accused is concerned. McMann and McKay went to the house of a Moro to get some /vvverga Page 81 of 100 . Verga Issue No. Decision: In the presence of proof to the contrary. PEOPLE vs. Issue No. Decision: Yes.S. it must be presumed that he intended the natural consequences of his act. The crime committed is murder with multiple attempted murder qualified by the use of explosive. The influence exercised by the uncle over his nephew was so great and powerful that the latter could not resist it. Nor can the fact that the homicide was immediately preceded by an affray between the deceased and the defendant may be considered as a mitigating circumstance. 1: W/N the act of the accused can be characterized as murder and multiple attempted murder Decision: Yes. which knocked the latter down. thereby employing means or methods in the execution of this crime which tended directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself. Decision: Yes. it will be presumed that intoxication is not habitual. He was unable to see by whom the blow was struck. 4: W/N the uncle should be considered as a principal by induction.
when more than one person participated in the commission of the crime. Issue No. Issue: W/N intoxication may be considered a mitigating circumstance. No. accomplice.” When a problem is encountered where there are several participants in the crime. descendant. The circumstance of his having made a voluntary plea of guilt before the court of evidence by the prosecution.” Also only classify offenders when more than one took part in the commission of the crime to determine the proper penalty to be imposed. banana Vena V. But intoxication in this case cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance since the defendant is a habitual drunkard. Cannibal. or accessory. Decision: No.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) matches with which to light their cigarettes however. 4: W/N Ignominy can be added to the natural effects of the act. do not use principal. If there is. The attendant circumstance qualifies the crime committed as murder. defendant cannot claim lack of intention. Decision: Yes. if only one person committed a crime. Uncle killed his niece to taste human flesh. Decision: Yes.” “culprits. The accused voluntarily admitted his guilt. McMann suddenly fired at McKay hitting the latter. Decision: No. So. The commission of the crime was attended by aggravating circumstance of disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of her sex. Use the “offenders. the first thing to find out is if there is a conspiracy. Habitual drunkard is defined as one who habituated to intemperance whenever the opportunity offered ACCUSED SEEN DRUNK TWELVE TIMES OR MORE PEOPLE vs. as a /vvverga Page 82 of 100 . McMann and McKay found themselves waiting in a room (not clear if they were waiting to be investigated. PERSONS WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE Under the Revised Penal Code. legitimate. It is probable that McMann was actually going to shoot the Moro but because he was drunk at that time. killed Mac Kay instead. Verga Issue No. Decision. 1: W/N it can be contended that three years after the commission of the crime. 2: W/N the accused used superior strength. it is not possible now to ascertain the mental condition of the defendant as of the time when he committed the crime of which he is charged. BALONDO Keywords: leaves.” or the “accused. Issue No. McMann then saw another Moro who was carving the head of a bolo. Issue No. Nothing in the record shows that before the deceased died. the law looks into their participation because in punishing offenders. Thereafter. but they were all together during that time). This classification is true only under the Revised Penal Code and is not used under special laws. The moro then reported McMann to the authorities. she was subjected to such indignities as would cause her shame or moral suffering. The facts and circumstances narrated by the accused in those different statements tally in important details. Mcmann also fired at him. The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration only when the offended party is the spouse. When the Moro tried to run. 6: W/N there are any mitigating circumstance that can be appreciated in favor of the accused. Only use the term “offender. the owners of the house would not allow them to enter. Since the accused was charged of having killed the deceased for more than three years ago. Clearly. Do not use the term principal when the crime committed is a violation of special law. Decision: It is unlikely that the shooting was accidental since he witnesses testified that they say McMann aiming the gun at Mac Kay’s head. the Moro. 5: W/N the fact that the victim was the niece of the accused aggravate the crime. natural or adopted brother or sister or relative by affinity in the same degree of the offended. Decision: Yes. that the court should have subjected the accused to some psychiatric test to determine his sanity. ascendant. because the penalties under the latter are never graduated. Issue No. The record constitutes sufficient justification for the conclusion that the accused was not insane at the time of the commission of the crime. The accused had made several statements which were reduced into writing and signed by him. the Revised Penal Code classifies them as: (1) (2) (3) principal. The court also held that the defendant was drunk at the time the crime was committed. Issue No. McMann snatched the bolo cutting the latter’s fingers. 3: W/N sex can be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance against the accused.
the crime would be committed just as well. It is not just a matter of cooperation. While in the course of a quarrel. a person shouted to A. the offender on top could hardly penetrate because the woman was strong enough to move or resist. In the second situation. the offender could not have caught up with the latter.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) general rule. But even the principal and the accomplice will not be liable if the felony committed is only light and the same is not consummated unless such felony is against persons or property. The act of the father in holding the legs of the victim merely facilitated the penetration but even without it the son would have penetrated. /vvverga Page 83 of 100 . But if the cooperation merely facilitated or hastened the consummation of the crime. Is that inducement? No. The accessory is not. Is the person who shouted criminally liable. this would make the cooperator merely an accomplice. if the participation of one is so insignificant. The liability of the fellow who stopped the friend from approaching is as an accomplice. There was a quarrel between two families. Principal by inducement Concept of the inducement – one strong enough that the person induced could hardly resist. Is the mother liable? No. In case of doubt. favor the lesser penalty or liability. one held the hands.” A killed the other fellow. the Code takes into consideration whether the felony committed is grave. threw her on the ground and placed himself on top of her while the father held both legs of the woman and spread them. It must be strong as irresistible force. even though the felony is only attempted or frustrated. all participants are criminally liable. Apply the doctrine of pro reo. In the first situation. So when they saw the opportunity the young man grabbed the woman. The accused are father and son. It is not that the crime would not be committed because if that is what you would imply it becomes an ingredient of the crime and that is not what the law contemplates. because the act of one is the act of all. “Kill him! Kill him. If they are not and the same is not consummated. where three men were accused. he only stopped to other fellow from stopping the mauling. However. the son was much bigger than the woman so considering the strength of the son and the victim. such offender will be regarded only as an accomplice. even the principal and the accomplice are not liable. “Shoot!”. the criminal liability of all will be the same. One of the sons of family A came out with a shotgun. The father told his son that the only way to convince the victim to marry him is to resort to rape. As to the liability of the participants in a felony. the facts indicate that if the fellow who held the legs of the victim and spread them did not do so. such that even without his cooperation. Another fellow came and blocked the way of the victim and because of this. but accessories are not liable for liable for light felonies. He shot and killed someone. C. In another case. one held the legs. Principal by accomplice indispensable cooperation distinguished from an Vena V. In the case of rape. The reason for this ruling is that the law favors a milder form of criminal liability if the act of the participant does not demonstrate a clear perversity. a friend of B tried to approach but D stopped C so that A was able to continuously maul B. or less grave. Verga The point is not just on participation but on the importance of participation in committing the crime. The son was a robust farm boy and the victim undernourished. If the crime could hardly be committed without such cooperation. it is more than if the crime could hardly be committed. This is tantamount to an irresistible force compelling the person induced to carry out the execution of the crime. the Supreme Court ruled that all participants are principals. Ill advised language is not enough unless he who made such remark or advice is a co-conspirator in the crime committed. But where the felony is only light only the principal and the accomplice are liable. Understandably he did not cooperate in the mauling. one was on top of the woman. then such cooperation would bring about a principal. Therefore it is only when the light felony is against person or property that criminal liability attaches to the principal or accomplice. penetration is possible even without the assistance of the father. When the felony is grave. The basis is the importance of the cooperation to the consummation of the crime. In a case where the offender was running after the victim with a knife. Those who held the legs and arms are principals by indispensable cooperation. less grave. The Supreme Court ruled that the father is liable only as an accomplice. His mother then shouted. A was mauling B. the one chasing the victim caught up and stabbed the latter at the back. then notwithstanding the existence of a conspiracy. It was held that the fellow who blocked the victim is a principal by indispensable cooperation because if he did not block the way of the victim. or light.
Mere possession of any article of value which has been the subject of robbery or theft brings about the presumption of “fencing”. Likewise. It is not the determining cause of the crime in the absence of proof that the words had great dominance and influence over the husband. Accessory as a fence The Revised Penal Code defines what manners of participation shall render an offender liable as an accessory. possesses. Considering that it was not so dark and the husband could have accomplished the deed without his wife’s help. natural or adopted or where the accessory is a relative by affinity within the same degree.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. “Birahin mo na. The family was not in good graces of the neighborhood. However. When the accessory is related to the principal as spouse. such participation of an accessory brings about criminal liability under Presidential Decree No. Verga effects or proceeds of the crime or assisted the offender to profit therefrom. not simply of an accessory under paragraph 2 of Article 19 of the Code. who was 18 yrs old. unless the accessory himself profited from the /vvverga Page 84 of 100 . It was held that there was no conspiracy. Father challenged everybody and when neighbors approached. and it was Ernesto who provided his allowance. than the latter. Questions & Answers 1. 35 years old. degree of inducement anymore. birahin mo na.” “I will not marry you if you do not kill B”(let us say he really loves the inducer). acquires and/or sell. keeps or in any manner deals with any article of value which he knows or should be known to him to be the proceeds of robbery or theft is considered a “fence” and incurs criminal liability for “fencing” under said decree. Considering that Ernesto had great moral ascendancy and influence over Oscar being much older. One who knowingly profits or assists the principal to profit by the effects of robbery or theft is not just an accessory to the crime. shoot him” cannot make the wife the principal by inducement. She assisted her husband in taking good aim. Madali. Ernesto is principal by inducement. 1612. Joint or simultaneous action per se is not indicia of conspiracy without showing of common design. the son was mauled. where the crime committed by the principal was robbery or theft. modified Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code. therefore. and considering further that doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused. he went home to get a rifle. he cannot be an accessory any further even though he performs acts pertaining to an accessory. In People v. So the accessory shall be liable for the same felony committed by the principal. with intent to gain. Any person who. May one who profited out of the proceeds of estafa or malversation be prosecuted under the Anti-Fencing Law? In People v. the liability of the wife is only that of an accomplice. Utterance was said in the excitement of the hour. When an offender has already involved himself as a principal or accomplice. Oscar has no rancor with the victim for him to kill the latter. The shouts of his wife “Here comes another. Examples of inducement: “I will give you a large amount of money.” Oscar stabbed the victim. but principally liable for fencing under Presidential Decree No. Agapinay. or descendant or as brother or sister whether legitimate. Presidential Decree No. Ernesto shouted to his younger brother Oscar. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law). the participation of one who conceals the effects of robbery or theft gives rise to criminal liability for “fencing”.” while the felonious aggression was taking place cannot be held liable as principal by inducement. Neither is the wife’s act of beaming the victim with a flashlight indispensable to the commission of the killing. In People v. not a command to be obeyed. They practically become co-conspirators. the one who uttered “Kill him. Anyone who participated before the consummation of the crime is either a principal or an accomplice. Balderrama. Accessories Two situations where accessories are not criminally liable: (1) (2) When the felony committed is a light felony. we will bury him. clothing as well as food and shelter. The penalty is higher than that of a mere accessory to the crime of robbery or theft. He cannot be an accessory. One must not have participated in the commission of the crime. Therefore you do not look into the One cannot be an accessory unless he knew of the commission of the crime. Among the enumeration is “by profiting themselves or by assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime”. 1612 has. 186 SCRA 812. but such assistance merely facilitated the felonious act of shooting. The accessory comes into the picture when the crime is already consummated. or as an ascendant. 188 SCRA 69.
and is not inconsistent with any provision of Republic Act No. or murder or parricide or attempt on the life of the Chief Executive. with respect to the second involvement of an accessory. The law requires that the principal must have committed the crime of treason. the same act is the basis of liability and you cannot punish a person twice for the same act as that would go against double jeopardy. murder or attempt on the life of the Chief Executive. paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. the liability of persons acquiring property subject of piracy or brigandage. said act constitutes the crime of abetting piracy or abetting brigandage as the case may be. However. Such officer becomes an accessory by the mere fact that he helped the principal to escape by harboring or concealing. in amending Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code. Article 20 does not include an auntie. Principal was being chased by soldiers. if the principal is acquitted of the charges. In both laws. or conceals such offender. unless the contrary is proven. Otherwise the effect would be that the accessory merely harbored or assisted in the escape of an innocent man. The corpus delicti is not the body of the person who is killed. take note that the law distinguishes between a public officer harboring. 7659. concealing or assisting the principal to escape and a private citizen or civilian harboring concealing or assisting the principal to escape. 2. In the case of a public officer. although the penalty is that for an accomplice. Acquiring the effects of piracy or brigandage It is relevant to consider in connection with the criminal liability of accessories under the Revised Penal Code. The act of knowingly acquiring or receiving property which is the effect or the proceeds of a crime generally brings about criminal liability of an accessory under Article 19. still an accessory to the crime of estafa. criminal liability will arise and if there is someone who destroys the corpus delicti to prevent discovery. When the soldiers left. The crime committed by the principal is determinative of the liability of the accessory who harbors. If principal committed robbery by snatching a wristwatch and gave it to his wife to sell. in case of a civilian. If the crime is embezzlement or estafa. is the wife criminally liable? Can she be prosecuted as an accessory and as a fence? The liability of the wife is based on her assisting the principal to profit and that act is punishable as fencing. Harboring or concealing an offender In the third form or manner of becoming an accessory. this is not the reason. She will no longer be liable as an accessory to the crime of robbery. parricide. Even if the crime committed by the principal is treason. 1612 and the Revised Penal Code. Verga When the crime is robbery or theft. the crime committed by the principal is immaterial. Is aunt criminally liable? No. If this is not the crime. not a fence.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) No. he becomes an accessory. parricide murder or attempt on the life of the Chief executive or the principal is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime. still stands as it has not been repealed nor modified. 532 provides that any person who knowingly and in any manner… acquires or receives property taken by such pirates or brigands or in any manner derives benefit therefrom… shall be considered as an accomplice of the principal offenders and be punished in accordance with the Rules prescribed by the Revised Penal Code. To this end. the aunt even gave money to her nephew to go to the province. the civilian does not become an accessory unless the principal is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime. as long as that killing is established beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand. Presidential Decree No. It shall be presumed that any person who does any of the acts provided in this Section has performed them knowingly. But if the crime was piracy of brigandage under Presidential Decree No. The reason is because one who is not a public officer and who assists an offender to escape or otherwise harbors. Although Republic Act No. There is only a fence when the crime is theft or robbery. Section 4 of the Decree which punishes said acts as a crime of abetting piracy or brigandage. Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 7659. 532. incorporated therein the crime of piracy in Philippine territorial waters and thus correspondingly superseding Presidential Decree No. If the /vvverga Page 85 of 100 . do not overlook the purpose which must be to prevent discovery of the crime. Illustration: Crime committed is kidnapping for ransom. conceals knowing that the crime is committed. making use of his public function and thus abusing the same. even if the corpse is not recovered. the accessory cannot be held criminally liable without the principal being found guilty of any such crime. the mere fact that he harbored concealed or assisted the principal to escape does not ipso facto make him an accessory. not just an accessory. Destroying the corpus delicti Vena V. to the piracy or brigandage. the crime committed by the principal must be either treason. 533 (Anti-piracy and AntiHighway Robbery Law of 1974). His aunt hid him in the ceiling of her house and aunt denied to soldiers that her nephew had ever gone there.
Even if the principal is convicted. What is Vena V. But if the evidence shows that the act done does not constitute a crime and the principal is acquitted. It is a malum prohibitum. This Decree penalizes under Section 1(c) thereof. prosecution and conviction. Conspiracy was not proven. material is that he used his public function in assisting escape. So in the problem. If the principal is acquitted. then the supposed accomplice and accessory should also be acquitted. murder. yet there is a special law which punishes the same act and it does not specify a particular crime. but under Presidential Decree No. the law does not distinguish between principal. All will be accused and whether a certain accused will be principal or accomplice or accessory will depend on what the evidence would show as to his involvement in the crime. That is as far as the Revised Penal Code is concerned. concealing. (2) /vvverga Page 86 of 100 . of “(c) Harboring or concealing. the act. The commitment of a minor to any of the institutions mentioned in art. but under this decree. 1829. or assists the escape of the principal. In other words. Verga However. the aunt is criminally liable but not as an accessory. If there is no crime.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) person is a public officer. the standard of the Revised Penal Code. the law requires that the principal be found guilty of any of the specified crimes: treason. Taer was held liable as an accessory in the crime of cattle rustling under Presidential Decree No. the accomplice and the accessory shall not be criminally liable also. although under paragraph 3 of Article 19 when it comes to a civilian. The theory of absorption must not confine itself to common crimes but also to offenses punished under special laws which are perpetrated in furtherance of the political offense. or facilitating the escape of any person he knows or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect. or knowledge of the crime. 19. or attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive. then said accused will be acquitted. 1829 is no longer an accessory. Amin. which penalizes obstruction of apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders. There is an earlier Supreme Court ruling that the accessory and accomplice must be charged together with the principal and that if the latter be acquitted. But not Presidential Decree No. concealed or assisted in the escape did not violate art. etc. 1829. the principal must first be found guilty of the crime charged. whether principal. aunt is not criminally liable because crime is kidnapping. So this means that before the civilian can be held liable as an accessory.” Here. Under Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. The subject acts may not bring about criminal liability under the Code. The paragraph uses the particular word “guilty”. and the offender need not be the principal – unlike paragraph 3. Such an offender if violating Presidential Decree No. has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest. Article 19 of the Code. 1829. accused received from his co-accused two stolen male carabaos. that means he is not guilty and therefore. effective January 16. In Taer v. 1829. the liability of the accused will depend on the quantum of evidence adduced by the prosecution against the particular accused. the civilian who harbored. punishes acts commonly referred to as “obstructions of justice”. Article 19. or facilitating the escape of the offender. So the criminal liability of an accomplice or accessory does not depend on the criminal liability of the principal but depends on the quantum of evidence. there is no specification of the crime to be committed by the offender for criminal liability to be incurred for harboring. accomplice.] In Enrile v. This special law does not require that there be prior conviction. accomplice and accessory. 1981. 533. And in filing an information against the person involved in the commission of the crime. parricide. if the evidence presented against a supposed accomplice or a supposed accessory does not meet the required proof beyond reasonable doubt. conceals. Under paragraph 3. it is required that all those involved in the commission of the crime must be included in the information that may be filed. Presidential Decree No. or accessory. Whether the accomplice and the accessory may be tried and convicted even before the principal is found guilty. But the prosecutor must initiate proceedings versus the principal. Although this ruling may be correct if the facts charged do not make the principal criminally liable at all. PENALTIES Measures of prevention not considered as penalty The following are the measures of prevention or safety which are not considered penalties under Article 24: (1) The arrest and temporary detention of accused persons as well as their detention by reason of insanity or imbecility or illness requiring their confinement in a hospital. parricide. inter alia. unless the acquittal is based on a defense which is personal only to the principal. 80 for the purposes specified therein. the nature of the crime is immaterial. a person charged with rebellion should not be separately charged under Presidential Decree No. CA. [Taer should have been liable for violation of the Anti-fencing law since cattle rustling is a form of theft or robbery of large cattle. either treason. except that he was not charged with fencing. then there is no criminal liability. no need for guilt. take note in the case of a civilian who harbors. the law specifies the crimes that should be committed. because there is no crime committed. Yet it is not always true that the accomplice and accessory cannot be criminally liable without the principal first being convicted. He is simply an offender without regard to the crime committed by the person assisted to escape.
liberty and property without due process of law. provides that the period during which he had undergone preventive detention will be deducted from the sentence. The convicted prisoner suffers more restraints and hardship than detention prisoners. but since he is not convicted yet. So. while he is under preventive imprisonment. but if he has been convicted for two or more crimes whether he is a recidivist or not. sentence must first be suspended under the following conditions: (1) (2) (3) Crime committed is not punishable by death or reclusion perpetua. Fines and other corrective measures which. Yet Article 29. In the amendment. the constitutional right of an accused to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. one can see that the detention of the offender may subject him only to the treatment applicable to a detention prisoner or to the treatment applicable to convicts. the law does not speak of credit. but by express provision of Article24 is not a penalty. the detention would violate the constitutional provision that no person shall be deprived of life. because he has been detained for a period already equal to if not greater than the maximum penalty that would be possibly be imposed on him if found guilty. then it means that while he is suffering from preventive imprisonment. if ultimately the accused is convicted and the penalty imposed involves Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code has been amended by a Batas Pambansa effective that tool effect on September 20. /vvverga Page 87 of 100 . yet the law considers this as part of the imprisonment and generally deductible from the sentence.15 years old and acted with discernment. 1980. he cannot be subjected to the treatment applicable to convicts unless he signs and agrees to be subjected to such disciplinary measures applicable to convicts. Repeal of Article 80 When may a minor be committed to a reformatory? If the minor is between 9 . the detention of a person accused of a crime while the case against him is being tried does not amount to a penalty. And also. in the exercise of their administrative disciplinary powers. Deprivation of rights and reparations which the civil laws may establish in penal form. Correlating Article 24 with Article 29 Although under Article 24.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. As such. Verga (3) (4) Suspension from the employment or public office during the trial or in order to institute proceedings. deprivation of liberty. he has practically served the sentence already. Detention prisoner has more freedom within the detention institution rather than those already convicted. When will this credit apply? If the penalty imposed consists of a deprivation of liberty. then he will only be subjected to the rules and regulations governing detention prisoners. he is suffering like a convict. preventive imprisonment of an accused who is not yet convicted. Not all who have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be given a credit Under Article 24. if the accused has actually undergone preventive imprisonment. that is why the credit is full. But if the offender did not sign an undertaking. or when he has been previously summoned but failed to surrender and so the court has to issue a warrant for his arrest. the same treatment exactly is applied there. Otherwise. unless he is one of those disqualified under the law. Under what circumstances may a detention prisoner be released. under the rules on bail in Rule 114 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. he will only be given 80% or 4/5 of the period of his preventive detention. then the next thing to determine is whether he signed an undertaking to abide by the same rules and regulations governing convicts. From this provision. The discharge of the offender from preventive imprisonment or detention is predicated on the fact that even if he would be found guilty of the crime charged. He must still be a minor at the time of promulgation of the sentence. This amendment is found in the Rules of Court. If he signed an undertaking to abide by the same rules and regulations governing convicts. Whether the person is entitled to credit is immaterial. superior officials may impose upon their subordinates. even though the proceedings against him are not yet terminated? (5) Why does the Revised Penal Code specify that such detention shall not be a penalty but merely a preventive measure? This article gives justification for detaining the accused. If the offender is not disqualified from the credit or deduction provided for in Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code. whatever credit he is entitled to shall be forfeited. He is availing of the benefit of suspension for the first time.
. such detention prisoner shall be discharged. Under the Revised Penal Code. However. shall be considered by the Chief Executive as unworthy of pardon. with more reason. Under Article 27.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) If the crime committed is punishable only by destierro. unless such person. This is found in Article 247. Understand the amendment made to Article 29. not less than 25 Kms. That is why the trial must go on. when the offender is required to put up a bond for good behavior but failed or refused to do so under Article 284. and whether the proceedings are terminated or not. which is the Three-Fold Rule. the most the offender may be held under preventive imprisonment is 30 days. It is a punishment whereby a convict is vanished to a certan place and is prohibited form entering or coming near that place designated in the sentence. which is the same as that of prision correcional and suspension. Marital authority. what is the use of continuing the proceedings? The proceedings will determine whether the accused is liable or not. The proper answer would be that reclusion perpetua has no duration because this is an indivisible penalty and indivisible penalties have no durations. such convict shall be sentenced to destierro so that he would not be able to carry out his threat. or guardianship either as to the person or property of any ward. by reason of his conduct or some other serious cause. the penalty prescribed for the concubine is destierro under Article 334. Questions & Answers If the offender has already been released. Destierro is a principal penalty. this is only by analogy. the penalty one degree lower is destierro. But if the convict himself would go further from which he is vanished by the court. The duration of 40 years is not a matter of provision of law. If he was criminally liable. he commits the crime of evasion of service of sentence under Article 157. but the offender is entitled privileged mitigating circumstance and lowering the prescribed penalty by one degree. the court cannot extend beyond 250 Kms. In the crime of grave threat or light threat. those sentenced to reclusion perpetua shall be pardoned after undergoing the penalty for 30 years. it shall be the one imposed. it follows that he is also civilly liable. If the convict should enter the prohibited places. This amendment has been incorporated under Rule 114 precisely to do away with arbitrary detention. (2) Destierro What is the duration of destierro? Vena V. There is no provision of the Revised Penal Code that one sentenced to reclusion perpetua cannot be held in jail for 40 years and neither is there a decision to this effect. and/or the paramour or mistress. to six year. Verga The duration of destierro is from six months and one day. If a convict who is to serve several sentences could only be made to serve 40 years. /vvverga Page 88 of 100 . destierro is the penalty imposed in the following situations: (1) When a legally married person who had surprised his or her spouse in the act of sexual intercourse with another and while in that act or immediately thereafter should kill or inflict serious physical injuries upon the other spouse. Duration of penalties Reclusion perpetua What is the duration of reclusion perpetua? Do not answer Article 27 to this question. Where the penalty prescribed by law is arresto mayor. Proper petition for habeas corpus must be filed to challenge the legality of the detention of the prisoner. the maximum period shall in no case exceed 40 years. Thus. offender during the time of his sentence: (1) (2) Civil interdiction shall deprive the The rights of parental authority. The civil liability must be determined. limit is upon the authority of the court in vanishing the convict. (3) (4) Civil Interdiction Civil interdiction is an accessory penalty. Under Article 70. one who is sentenced to a singly penalty of reclusion perpetua should not be held for more than 40 years. In the crime of concubinage. there is no evasion of sentence because the 240-Km.
The classification of principal and accessory is found in Article 25. So in the imposition of the sentence. As to the particular penalties that follow a particular principal penalty. a convict sentenced to civil interdiction suffers certain disqualification during the term of the sentence. Verga specify only the principal penalty but that is not the only penalty which the offender will suffer.perpetual absolute disqualification. If you were the judge. what is the duration? The duration is six years and one day to 12 years. 3. One of the disqualifications is that of making a conveyance of his property inter vivos. What do we refer to if it is perpetual or temporary disqualification? We refer to the duration of the disqualification. is the duration? If the penalty of suspension is imposed as an accessory. State the principal penalty and the corresponding accessory penalties. Vena V. Article 43. 4. (3) Questions & Answers 1. Prision correccional . he executed a deed of sale over his only parcel of land. what (4) Its duration shall be that of the principal penalty. and The right to dispose of such property by any act or any conveyance inter vivos. as provided in Article 34. Article 42. and perpetual special disqualification from the rights of suffrage if the duration of said imprisonment shall exceed 18 months. Article 44. (1) (2) Article 40. What do we refer to if it is special or absolute disqualification? (5) There are accessory penalties which are true to other principal penalties. The convict can convey his property. the court will /vvverga Page 89 of 100 .Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) (3) (4) The right to manage his property.suspension of the right to hold office and the right of suffrage during the term of the sentence. 2. We refer to the nature of the disqualification. This is an accessory penalty and. Penalties which the law considers as accessory to the prescribed penalty are automatically imposed even though they are not stated in the judgment. and perpetual absolute disqualification. do not just state the accessory penalties. In classifying the penalties as principal and accessory.suspension from public office. how would you resolve the move of the creditor to annul the sale? Civil interdiction is not an accessory penalty in prision mayor. Illustration: A has been convicted and is serving the penalty of prision mayor. While serving sentence.civil interdiction for life or during the period of the sentence as the case may be. and civil interdiction during 30 years following date of sentence. The accessory penalties follow the principal penalty imposed for the crime as a matter of course. Articles 40 to 45 of the Revised Penal Code shall govern. Penalties in which other accessory penalties are inherent: Can a convict execute a last will and testament? Yes. If the penalty of temporary disqualification is imposed as principal penalty.temporary absolute disqualification perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage. Death . what is meant by this is that those penalties classified as accessory penalties need not be stated in the sentence. Prision mayor . Perpetual or temporary special disqualification. If asked what are the accessory penalties. Primary classification of penalties Principal penalties and accessory penalties The penalties which are both principal and accessory penalties are the following: (1) (2) Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification. A creditor moved to annul the sale on the ground that the convict is not qualified to execute a deed of conveyance inter vivos. from the right to follow a profession or calling. Arresto . Reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal . Article 41. An example is the penalty of civil interdiction.
GR No. Bond for good behavior Bond for good behavior is prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the crimes of grave threats and light threats under Article 234. because the moment they deviate from this designation. if the penalty has no fixed duration. Divisible and indivisible penalties When we talk of period. there will be no corresponding accessory penalties that will go with them. the Supreme Court. As amended by Section 21 of Republic Act No. the same article now provides that the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be from 20 years to 40 years. there is no such thing as minimum. Otherwise. applied Article 65 of the Code in imposing the penalty for rape in People v. 7659. it is clear that the two bonds are not the same considering that the legal effect or the failure to put up the bond is not the same. Before the enactment of Republic Act No. when a penalty has a fixed duration. should be divided into three equal portions to form one period of each of the three portions. there is no period. Because of this. remember that when the penalty is indivisible. The capital punishment Reclusion perpetua as modified Vena V. 7659. Understand that you are not taking the examination in Theology. it is an indivisible penalty. in accordance with the provisions of Articles 65 and 76. unless by reason of his conduct or some other serious cause. Bond to keep the peace One of the principal penalties common to the others is bond to keep the peace. with each portion composing a period as follows: /vvverga Page 90 of 100 . Explain the issue on the basis of social utility of the penalty. after being given a problem. Thus. If. medium and maximum. it is implying that the penalty is divisible. The legal effect of a failure to post a bond to keep the peace is imprisonment either for six months or 30 days. The nature of the penalty as divisible or indivisible is decisive of the proper penalty to be imposed under the Revised Penal Code inasmuch as it determines whether the rules in Article 63 or the rules in Article 64 should be observed in fixing the penalty. the courts are not correct when they deviate from the technical designation of the principal penalty. There is no crime under the Revised Penal Code which carries this penalty. The legal effect of each is entirely different. depending on whether the felony committed is grave or less grave on one hand. Conrado Lucas. you were asked to state the period in which the penalty of reclusion perpetua is to be imposed. it sentenced the accused to life imprisonment. If bond to keep the peace is not the same as bond for good behavior. You cannot find this penalty in Article 25 because Article 25 only provides for bond to keep the peace. 108172-73. As we know. but instead of saying reclusion perpetua. Is it beneficial in deterring crimes or not? This should be the premise of your reasoning. May 25. So it was held that when the penalty should be reclusion perpetua. It divided the time included in the penalty of reclusion perpetua into three equal portions. Illustration: When the judge sentenced the accused to the penalty of reclusion perpetua. because when you talk of period. Thus.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Questions & Answers What accessory penalty is common to all principal penalties? Confiscation or forfeiture on the instruments or proceeds of the crime. it is error for the court to use the term “life imprisonment”. it is said to be divisible and. The legal effect of failure to post a bond for good behavior is not imprisonment but destierro under Article 284. are they one and the same bond that differ only in name? No. the medium. If it is indivisible. he is not deserving of pardon. Designation of penalty Since the principal penalties carry with them certain accessory penalties. the designation is wrong. Do not talk of period. which made amendments to the Revised Penal Code. Remember that no felony shall be punished by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission pursuant to Article 21. 1994. In other words. Questions & Answers 1. the courts are not at liberty to use any designation of the principal penalty. by its First Division. you are implying that the penalty is divisible because the period referred to is the minimum. The Revised Penal Code provides in Article 27 that the convict shall be pardoned after undergoing the penalty for thirty years. consistent with the rule mentioned. Verga You were asked to state whether you are in favor or against capital punishment. or it is light only on the other hand. and the maximum. the penalty of reclusion perpetua had no fixed duration. speculations arose as to whether it made reclusion perpetua a divisible penalty.
26 years. there was no clear legislative intent to alter its original classification as an indivisible penalty. because instead of beginning with 33 years. it was stated as 34 years. Verily. although. other provisions of the Revised Penal Code involving reclusion perpetua. the Court sentenced the accused to imprisonment of 34 years. it appears that the maximum period for the service of penalties shall not exceed forty (40) years. the First Division referred the motion to the Court en banc. four months and one day. To this end. 212 SCRA 402. however. such as Article 41 on the accessory penalties thereof and paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 61. Maximum . But even without this amendment. as set out in Article 25. in all the graduated scales of penalties in the Code. instead of the straight penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court. Verga under the Code and what should be the duration of the periods thereof. then it should have amended Article 63 and Article 76 of the Revised Penal Code. the death penalty may not be meted out on an offender who was below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime because Article 68 the lowers the imposable penalty upon such offenders by at least one degree than that prescribed for the crime. eight months and one day. Medium . if reclusion perpetua was classified as a divisible penalty. then Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code would lose its reason and basis for existence. To illustrate. if Congress had intended to reclassify reclusion perpetua as divisible penalty. 70 and 21. the Court concludes that although Section 17 of RA 7659 has fixed the duration of Reclusion Perpetua from twenty years (20) and one (1) to forty 40 years. pursuant to Article 70. four months and one day of reclusion perpetua. four months and one day. as well. to 40 years. There are. is only to serve as the basis for determining the convict’s eligibility for pardon or for the application of the three-fold rule in the service of penalties. to 33 years and four months. It shall then remain as an indivisible penalty.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. regardless of the attendant modifying circumstances. and because the issue is one of first impression and momentous importance. thereof. thus. the question arises: “What then may be the reason for the amendment fixing the duration of reclusion perpetua?” This question was answered in the same case of People v. it follows by necessary implication that the minimum of reclusion perpetua is twenty (20) years and one (1) day with a maximum duration thereafter to last for the rest of the convict’s natural life. then there would be no statutory rules for determining when either reclusion perpetua or death should be the imposable penalty. the case of an offender who is below 18 years old at the time of the commission of the offense. 6425 provides for the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death whenever the dangerous drugs involved are of any of the quantities stated herein. there would be no occasion for imposing reclusion perpetua as the penalty in drug cases. Article 81 has been amended and. Now then. Reyes. In a resolution promulgated on January 9. four months and one day. which have not been touched by a corresponding amendment. The appellee seasonably filed a motion for clarification to correct the duration of the sentence. If Article 63 of the Code were no longer applicable because reclusion perpetua is supposed to be a divisible penalty. to 26 years and eight months. Lucas by quoting pertinent portion of the decision in People v. The issue of whether the amendment of Article 27 made reclusion perpetua a divisible penalty was raised. Republic Act No. Innovations on the imposition of the death penalty Aside form restoring the death penalty for certain heinous crimes. Since. Considering the aggravating circumstance of relationship. 7659 made innovations on the provisions of the Revised Penal Code regarding the imposition of the death penalty: (1) Article 47 has been reworded to expressly include among the instances where the death penalty shall not be imposed. 1995. In fine. reclusion perpetua is the penalty immediately next higher to reclusion temporal. the Supreme Court en banc held that reclusion perpetua shall remain as an indivisible penalty. It would be legally absurd and violative of the scales of penalties in the Code to reckon the minimum of Reclusion Perpetua at thirty (30) years since there would thereby be a resultant lacuna whenever the penalty exceeds the maximum twenty (20) years of Reclusion Temporal but is less than thirty (30) years. Minimum . the first paragraph of Section 20 of the amended RA No. In the matter of executing the death penalty.20 years and one day. directs that the manner of putting the convict to (2) /vvverga Page 91 of 100 .34 years. the resolution states: After deliberating on the motion and re-examining the legislation history of RA 7659. thus: The imputed duration of thirty (30) years for reclusion perpetua. The latter is the law on what are considered divisible penalties Ultimately.
If the judgment is silent. The sentence will merely provide that in case of non-payment of the fine. so there is no subsidiary penalty that goes beyond one year. which is a single penalty. So even if subsidiary penalty is proper in a case. can he stay there and not pay fine? No. the convict cannot be made to undergo subsidiary penalty more than 1/3 of the duration of the principal penalty and in no case will it be more than 1 year . The court then issued an order for said convict to suffer subsidiary penalty. there shall be no subsidiary penalty for the non-payment of damages to the offended party. Otherwise. the convict shall be required to save subsidiary penalty. can he be made to pay? Yes. It must be that the convict is insolvent to pay the fine. the maximum duration of the subsidiary penalty is one year. The convict was detained. if any. has been deleted and instead. there is no subsidiary penalty.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) death by electrocution shall be changed to gas poisoning as soon as the facilities are provided. the most (2) /vvverga Page 92 of 100 . Subsidiary penalty Is subsidiary penalty an accessory penalty? No. and the sentence shall be carried out not later that one year after the finality of judgment. and When penalty is only a fine. for which reason he filed a petition for habeas corpus contending that his detention is illegal.get 1/3 of the principal penalty . such imprisonment should not be higher than six years or prision correccional. In People v. thereafter. The sheriff then tried to levy the property of the defendant after it has become final and executory. that convict cannot be required to suffer the accessory penalty.whichever is lower. It is not within the control of the convict to pay the fine or not and once the sentence becomes final and executory and a writ of If the subsidiary penalty prescribed for the non-payment of fine which goes with the principal penalty. he cannot suffer subsidiary penalty because the latter is not an accessory and so it must be expressly stated. Verga execution is issued to collect the fine. This particular legal point is a bar problem. that means it does not go with another principal penalty. or not to pay the fine and instead serve the subsidiary penalty. it was held that the convict cannot choose not to serve. If the court overlooked to provide for subsidiary penalty in the sentence and its attention was later called to that effect. so that even if the convict has no money or property to satisfy the fine. whether he likes it or not. the addition of subsidiary penalty will be null and void. Questions & Answers The penalty imposed by the judge is fine only. Article 39 deals with subsidiary penalty. Will the petition prosper? Yes. the judgment of the court must state this. (1) When is subsidiary penalty applied Therefore. if convict has property to levy upon. it tried to modify the sentence to include subsidiary penalty after period to appeal had already elapsed. but it was returned unsatisfied. it must be expressly stated in the sentence. If the fine is prescribed with the penalty of imprisonment or any deprivation of liberty. It will then be the prison authority who will compute this. Subido. is returned unsatisfied. That means that the writ of execution issued against the property of the convict. Therefore. for the full amount with deduction. If the convict does not want to pay fine and has so many friends and wants to prolong his stay in jail. if the judge failed to state in the sentence that the convict shall be required to suffer subsidiary penalty in case of insolvency to pay the fine. But this will only be true if the one year period is higher than 1/3 of the principal penalty. (3) The original provision of Article 83. he cannot suffer any subsidiary penalty. A subsidiary penalty is not an accessory penalty. This subsidiary penalty is one of important matter under the title of penalty. The judgment became final without statement as to subsidiary penalty. Vena V. There are two situations there: (1) (2) When there is a principal penalty of imprisonment or any other principal penalty and it carries with it a fine. If the subsidiary penalty is to be imposed for non payment of fine and the principal penalty imposed be fine only. The subsidiary penalty is not an accessory penalty that follows the principal penalty as a matter of course. but the sentence does not specify the period of subsidiary penalty because it will only be known if the convict cannot pay the fine. ii. limits such suspension to last while the woman was pregnant and within one year after delivery. This is tantamount to double jeopardy. the same shall answer for the fine. Since it is not an accessory penalty. A subsidiary penalty will only be served if the sheriff should return the execution for the fine on the property of the convict and he does not have the properties to satisfy the writ. After undergoing subsidiary penalty and the convict is already released from jail and his financial circumstances improve. anent the suspension of the execution of the death penalty for three years if the convict was a woman.
It will only be one year and six months. the Three-Fold Rule will apply. So. the penalty does not go beyond six years. Arresto Mayor is six months x 50 = 25 years. Arresto mayor + P200. since in the service of the sentence. Verga and a fine of P200. what penalty would you impose? May the convict be required to undergo subsidiary penalty in case he is insolvent to pay the fine? The Three-Fold Rule should not applied by the court. this being a divisible penalty. If the penalty is public censure and fine even if the public censure is a light penalty. If the principal penalty is destierro.00 x 50 = P10. suspension and destierro have the same duration as prision correccional. that will be the penalty to be imposed. after committing parricide.00. penalty to be imposed shall be one degree lower to be imposed in the proper period. Thus. Do not consider the totality of the imprisonment the convict is sentenced to but consider the totality or the duration of the imprisonment that the convict will be required to serve under the Three-Fold Rule. then. Suppose the convict cannot pay the fine. So the duration does not exceed six years. and a penalty with a fixed duration. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance. applying the Three. As far as the court is concerned. such shall be 1/3 of the period of suspension which in no case beyond one year. because it is an indivisible penalty. if the felony committed is grave or less grave. Since it is a penalty with a fixed duration under Article 39.000. the convict will be required to undergo subsidiary penalty and it will also be in the form of destierro. the convict shall be required to undergo subsidiary penalty. This being a restriction of liberty with a fixed duration under Article 39 for the nonpayment of fine that goes with the destierro. If the totality of the imprisonment under this rule does not exceed six years. he entered into the performance of public office even before he has complied with the required formalities. But the subsidiary penalty will be served not by imprisonment but by continued suspension. the non-payment of the fine will bring about subsidiary penalty. The collector appropriated the amount collected and so was charged with estafa. It was also established that he was intoxicated. for the non. This is because the imprisonment that will be served will not go beyond six years. This is a penalty where a public officer anticipates public duties. What penalty would you impose? Reclusion perpetua. otherwise. voluntarily surrendered and pleaded guilty of the crime charged upon arraignment. apply the Three-Fold Rule if the penalty is arresto mayor and a fine of P200. P200. He was convicted. may he be required to undergo subsidiary penalty? Yes. Illustration: A collector of NAWASA collected from 50 houses within a certain locality.” For the purposes of subsidiary penalty. I am not in the position to apply the Three-Fold Rule because the ThreeFold Rule is to be given effect when the convict is already serving sentence in the penitentiiary. In this case of 50 counts of estafa.00 multiplied by 50 counts and state further that “as a judge.payment of the fine of P10.00. This means one year and six months only. the penalty imposed was arresto mayor and a fine of P200.00 x 50. Do not apply this when there is one aggravating circumstance. I would impose a penalty of arresto mayor and a fine of P200. even if he has already served subsidiary penalty.00. Court offsets the aggravating circumstance against the mitigating circumstance and there still remains three mitigating circumstances.00 in each count. Illustration: A convict was sentenced to suspension and fine. It is the prison authority who will apply the Three-Fold Rule.Fold Rule.000. the convict cannot be required to pay the fine for subsidiary penalty for the non-payment of the fine because public censure is a penalty that has no fixed duration. when there is a subsidiary penalty. When he was collecting NAWASA bills. There are some who use the term subsidiary imprisonment. Under Article 27. the maximum duration of the subsidiary penalty is only 15 days. because the penalty of suspension has a fixed duration. Penalty imposed was arresto mayor Vena V. Hence. The term is wrong because the penalty is not only served by imprisonment. /vvverga Page 93 of 100 . Articles 63 and 64 If crime committed is parricide. It is clearly provided under Article 39 that if the means of the convict should improve.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) that the convict will be required to undergo subsidiary imprisonment is six months. he shall still be required to pay the fine and there is no deduction for that amount which the convict has already served by way of subsidiary penalty. Illustration: There are about four mitigating circumstances and one aggravating circumstance. the charges of all these consumers was a minimum of 10. If you were the judge. The accused. even if the totality of all the sentences without applying the Three-Fold Rule will go beyond six years. the convict shall be required to undergo subsidiary penalty if he could not pay the fine.00 multiplied by 3. and no aggravating circumstances were present. if the felony committed is slight. The subsidiary penalty follows the nature of the principal penalty. penalty is reclusion perpetua.
Verga No. there is a privileged mitigating circumstance or the felony committed is attempted or frustrated. Although the penalty is prescribed by the Revised Penal Code as a period. Cannot go below the minimum period when there is an aggravating circumstance. but in the minimum period. or prision correcional minimum to medium. the penalty one degree lower /vvverga Page 94 of 100 . On the other hand. since arresto menor is one to 30 days or one month. and two degrees lower is prision correccional. because if it is a light felony and punishable by fine. In such a case when there are aggravating circumstances. but destierro. This is so because the penalty prescribed by law for a given crime refers to the consummated stage. One degree lower. Article 66 When there are mitigating circumstance and aggravating circumstance and the penalty is only fine. if homicide is frustrated. under Article 71. Because you determine the imposable fine on the basis of the financial resources or means of the offender. (2) When the offender is an accomplice or accessory only Penalty is one degree lower in the case of an accomplice. the reference is Article 71. by way of destierro or disqualification. Penalty is two degrees lower in the case of an accessory. with respect to the range of each penalty. arresto mayor is higher than destierro. whether absolute or special. it will lower the penalty by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law depending on what the particular provision of the Revised Penal Code states. after offsetting. the penalty is reclusion temporal. the range of arresto menor follows arresto mayor.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Because of that. the penalties prescribed by the Revised Penal Code are only in periods. the judge lowered the penalty by one degree. But if the penalty would be lowered by degree. do not go down any degree lower. If it is attempted. When there is a privilege mitigating circumstance in favor of the offender. In the matter of lowering the penalty by degree. such penalty should be understood as a degree in itself and the following rules shall govern: (1) When the penalty prescribed by the Revised Code is made up of a period. the duration of destierro is the same as prision correccional which is six months and one day to six years.one degree or 2 degrees lower will also be punished as a whole. correct? Is the judge (3) Vena V. provided it is not a light felony against persons or property. So. penalty is one degree lower than that prescribed by law. penalty is two degrees lower than that prescribed by law. like prision correcional minimum. do not go one degree lower because it is not punishable unless it is a light felony against person or property where the imposable penalty will be lowered by one degree or two degrees. It is necessary to know the chronology under Article 71 by simply knowing the scale. In Article 27. in the scale of penalties graduated according to degrees. But be this as it is. (4) (5) Penalty commonly imposed by the Revised Penal Code may be by way of imprisonment or by way of fine or. Whenever the provision of the Revised Penal Code specifically lowers the penalty by one or two degrees than what is ordinarily prescribed for the crime committed. The penalty prescribed by law will be the penalty to be imposed. This is so because the penalty prescribed by law for a crime refers to the consummated stage. When the penalty prescribed for the crime committed is a divisible penalty and there are two or more ordinary mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances whatsoever. Take note that destierro comes after arresto mayor so the penalty one degree lower than arresto mayor is not arresto menor. Penalty prescribed to a crime is lowered by degrees in the following cases: (1) When the crime is only attempted or frustrated If it is frustrated. Go into the lowering of the penalty by one degree if the penalty is divisible. while arresto mayor is one month and one day to six months. no matter how many mitigating circumstances there are. apply Article 66. So do not apply the rule in paragraph 5 of Article 64 to a case where the penalty is divisible. Memorize the scale in Article 71. This is true if the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code is a whole divisible penalty -. But generally. if it is attempted or frustrated. the penalty next lower in degree shall be the one imposed. or there is an accomplice participating in homicide. In homicide under Article 249. when it is only ordinary mitigating circumstance and aggravating circumstance. to a limited extent. is prision mayor. like prision correccional medium. it is not a crime at all unless it is consummated.
but the felony is frustrated so that the penalty should be imposed one degree lower. This penalty made up of three periods. Instead. and the penalty two degrees lower is arresto mayor maximum. and one of them is wealthy while the other is a pauper. For the same crime. it is not only the mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances that the court shall take into consideration. Every degree will be composed of two periods. Article 75 – Fines With respect to the penalty of fine. the penalty one degree lower will be arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum. Hence. the penalty one degree lower is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor medium. each degree will be made up of only one period because the penalty prescribed is also made up only of one period. the financial capability of the offender to pay the fine. and their penalty consists of a fine only. you have to go down by three periods. To go another degree lower. the most severe of penalties imposed on him shall be multiplied by three and the period will be only term of the penalty to be served by him.00. This rule applies when the fine has to be lowered by degree. For instance.00. but primarily.00 shall be deducted therefrom. Article 63 governs when the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code is indivisible. the penalty would be reclusion temporal maximum – reclusion perpetua – death. it is discretionary upon the court to apply the fine taking into consideration the financial means of the offender to pay the same. However. the fine has to be lowered further. the penalty upon an accused who is poor may be less than the penalty upon an accused committing the same crime but who is wealthy . when there are two or more ordinary mitigating circumstance and there is no aggravating circumstance whatsoever. The Three-Fold Rule Under this rule. Article 64 governs when the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code is divisible. every time such penalty is lowered by one degree you have to go down also by two periods. Illustration: If the penalty prescribed is a fine ranging from P200. the court may impose a higher penalty upon the wealthy person and a lower fine for the pauper. When the penalty is indivisible. when the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code is divisible. In other words.00. Penalty for murder under the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal maximum to death. The penalty one degree lower is P375. When the penalty prescribed by the Code is made up of two periods of a given penalty. It takes a privileged mitigating circumstance to lower such penalty by degree.00 to P250. Article 66 In so far as ordinary mitigating or aggravating circumstance would affect the penalty which is in the form of a fine. such penalty shall be lowered by one degree only but imposed in the proper period. the rules are found in Articles 63 and 64. (3) When the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code is made up of three periods of different penalties. no matter how many ordinary mitigating circumstances there are. These rules refer to the lowering of penalty by one or two degrees. if the fine has to be lowered by degree either because the felony committed is only attempted or frustrated or because there is an accomplice or an accessory participation. Article 66 of the Revised Penal Code shall govern. As to how mitigating or aggravating circumstances may affect the penalty. it cannot go lower than P200. not the the the (2) This rule is intended for the benefit of the convict and so.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) is prision correccional minimum. These rules have nothing to do with mitigating or aggravating circumstances.00.00 to P500. the fine is lowered by Vena V. you will only apply this provided the sum total of all the penalties imposed would be greater than /vvverga Page 95 of 100 . In other words. the fine will be imposed at P200. every time you go down one degree lower. So. Illustration: The penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code is prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium. the prescribed penalty is never lowered by degree. and the penalty another degree lower will be arresto mayor minimum to medium.00. the penalty another degree lower is a fine ranging from P200. he will actually serve the penalties imposed by law. So. 1/4 of P500. in no case should penalty exceed 40 years. Under this article. Another degree lower will be arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional medium.00.00 shall again be deducted from P375.00 from P500. Verga deducting 1/4 of the maximum amount of the fine from such maximum without changing the minimum amount prescribed by law.00.00. Illustration: If the penalty prescribed for the crime is prision correccional medium to maximum. when a convict is to serve successive penalties. when there are two offenders who are co-conspirators to a crime. P125. If at all. leaving a difference of P375. On the other hand.00 and that would leave a difference of P250. This is done by deducting P125.
not in the imposition of the penalty. the Three-Fold rule does not govern. for purposes of imposing the penalty. even perpetual penalties are taken into account. The Three-Fold Rule can only be applied if the convict is to serve four or more sentences successively.6 years and 1 day to 12 years Indeterminate Sentence Law governs whether the crime is punishable under the Revised Penal Code or a special Law.000 years or more. Instances when it does not apply. A person was sentenced to three death sentences. at the same time. The maximum of the indeterminate sentence will be arrived at by taking into account the attendant mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances according to Article 64 of the Do not commit the mistake of applying the Three. So. the purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence Law in shortening the possible detention of the convict in jail is to save valuable human resources. In other words. Purpose is to preserve economic usefulness for these people for having committed a crime -. because it is proven to be more destructive than constructive to the offender. the court is not at liberty to apply the Three-Fold Rule. as amended Three things to know about the Indeterminate Sentence Law: (1) (2) (3) Its purpose. What is material is that convict shall serve more than three successive sentences. Never apply the Three-Fold rule when there are only three sentences. whether sentences are promulgated in one day or whether the sentences promulgated by different courts on different days. Verga serving sentence that the prison authorities should determine how long he should stay in jail. you take the most severe and multiply it by three. indivisible penalties are given equivalent of 30 years. It is not limited to violations of the Revised Penal Code. what penalty would you impose. If asked. and How it operates For purposes of the Three-Fold Rule. you can never arrive at a sum higher than the product of the most severe multiplied by three. then it does not apply. it will be given and equivalent duration of 30 years. if the valuable human resources were allowed prolonged confinement in jail.to reform them rather than to deteriorate them and. The Three-Fold rule does not apply to the penalty prescribed but to the penalty imposed as determined by the court. This rule will apply only if sentences are to be served successively. the court will impose a sentence that has a minimum and maximum. Although this rule is known as the Three-Fold rule. whatever the sum total of penalty for each crime committed. they would deteriorate. Significance: If ever granted pardon for 1 crime. For purposes of the Three-Fold rule. It applies only when the penalty served is imprisonment.1 month and 1 day to 6 months . It is only when the convict is /vvverga Page 96 of 100 . whether the Three-Fold Rule could be applied. the two remaining penalties must still be executed. The three-Fold rule will apply whether sentences are the product of one information in one court. if given a situation. even penalties without any fixed duration or indivisible penalties are taken into account. that Three-Fold rule is to be applied. So not only penalties with fixed duration. Illustration: A district engineer was sentenced by the court to a term of 914 years in prison. The chronology of the penalties as provided in Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code shall be followed. saving the government expenses of maintaining the convicts on a prolonged confinement in jail. 4013 (Indeterminate Sentence Law). Even if you add the penalties. you cannot actually apply this if the convict is to serve only three successive penalties. imprisonment. If the penalty is perpetual disqualification. If the crime is a violation of the Revised Penal Code.Fold Rule in this case. so that if he will have to suffer several perpetual disqualification. Illustration: Penalties imposed are – One prision correcional – minimum – 2 years and 4 months One arresto mayor One prision mayor . If not by Purpose The purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence law is to avoid prolonged imprisonment. if you were the judge. under the Three-Fold rule. If the sentences would be served simultaneously. Act No. The common mistake is.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) the product of the most severe penalty multiplied by three but in no case will the penalties to be served by the convict be more than 40 years. even if it would amount to 1. It is in the service of the penalty. the the the are the Vena V.
The minimum and the maximum referred to in the Indeterminate Sentence Law are not periods. If the mitigating circumstance is privileged. Crimes punished under special law carry only one penalty. consider the mitigating and aggravating circumstances according to the rules found in Article 64. This ruling. whenever the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable. the basis of the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code. Therefore. If there is aggravating circumstance. If there are two or more mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance. maximum or minimum period. it is enough that the name of the penalty is mentioned while the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applied. it was held that for purposes of applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. and within the range of the penalty arrived at as the maximum in the indeterminate sentence.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Revised Penal Code. Rule under Art 64 shall apply in determining the maximum but not in determining the minimum. the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code and not that which may be imposed by court. Verga If there are several mitigating and aggravating circumstances. the rule is. This means – (1) Penalties prescribed by the law for the crime committed shall be imposed in the medium period if no mitigating or aggravating circumstance. apply the rules. We are not referring to any period of the penalty as enumerated in Article 71. we refer to the maximum limit of the duration that the convict may be held in jail. In one Supreme Court ruling. as long as it will not be less than the minimum limit of the penalty under said law. as long as it will not exceed the limit of the penalty. there is no need to mention the number of years. To fix the minimum and the maximum of the sentence. So in the case of statutory offense. Within the range of one degree lower. do not say. So. If there is a privilege mitigating circumstance which has been taken in consideration in fixing the maximum of the indeterminate sentence. the law provides that the maximum shall be arrived at by considering the mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime according to the proper rules of the Revised Penal Code. the court can fix a penalty anywhere within the range of penalty prescribed by the special law. the court will take into account the penalty prescribed for the crime and go one degree lower. the court will fix the minimum for the indeterminate sentence. no mitigating. Just the same. when the crime is punished under a special law. No mitigating and aggravating circumstances are taken into account. courts are given discretion to fix a minimum (2) (3) /vvverga Page 97 of 100 . however. in applying the Indetermiante Sentence Law. (4) (5) Vena V. Courts are required to fix a minimum and a maximum of the sentence that they are to impose upon an offender when found guilty of the crime charged. the court will fix the maximum of the sentence. the minimum shall be based on the penalty as reduced by the privilege mitigating circumstance within the range of the penalty next lower in degree. penalty shall be imposed in the maximum. months and days. penalty shall be in the minimum. But penalty one degree lower shall be applied in the same manner that the maximum is also fixed based only on ordinary mitigating circumstances. no aggravating. This is so because such an interpretation runs contrary to the rule of pro reo. penalty under the Revised Penal Code is not the penalty to be imposed by court because the court must apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law. otherwise. For the purposes of the indeterminate Sentence Law. and go one degree lower than that. which provides that the penal laws should always be construed an applied in a manner liberal or lenient to the offender. and to set a maximum as the limit of that sentence. use the term minimum to refer to the duration of the sentence which the convict shall serve as a minimum. and when we say maximum. If the crime is punished by the Revised Penal Code. there are no degree or periods. Under the law. it is that penalty arrived at by the court after applying the mitigating and aggravating circumstances that should be the basis. In arriving at the minimum of the indeterminate sentence. If the crime is a violation of a special law. is obviously erroneous. in fixing the maximum of the indeterminate sentence. So. In determining the applicable penalty according to the Indeterminate Sentence Law. there is always a minimum and maximum of the sentence that the convict shall serve. crimes under special law do not consider mitigating or aggravating circumstance present in the commission of the crime. Moreover. for purposes of ISLAW. To fix the maximum. the court will impose the penalty within the range of the penalty prescribed by the special law. The attendant mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime are taken into consideration only when the maximum of the penalty is to be fixed. you cannot follow the law in so far as fixing the minimum of the indeterminate sentence is concerned. In the same manner. they shall offset against each other. courts are required in imposing the penalty upon the offender to fix a minimum that the convict should serve. penalty next lower in degree shall be the one imposed. the court may fix any penalty as the maximum without exceeding the penalty prescribed by special law for the crime committed. no mitigating and no aggravating circumstances will be taken into account. But in so far as the minimum is concerned. If there is mitigating circumstance. it may happen that the maximum of the indeterminate sentence is lower than its minimum. In fixing the minimum. This is true only if the mitigating circumstance taken into account is only an ordinary mitigating circumstance. Whatever remains.
those who are convicted of subversion or any crime against the public order are not qualified for probation. May a recidivist be given the benefit of Probation Law? As a general rule. he is no longer qualified for probation. the most important is probation. no. He should not wait up to the time when he interposes an appeal or the sentence has become final and executory. national security or subversion. The Indeterminate Sentence Law shall not apply to: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Persons convicted of offense punishable with death penalty or life imprisonment. 968 (Probation Law) Among the different grounds of partial extinction of criminal liability. Presidential Decree No. shall have escaped from confinement or evaded Those who have been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive and shall have violated the term thereto. 187 SCRA 278). Persons who sentence. Probation is a manner of disposing of an accused who have been convicted by a trial court by placing him under supervision of a probation officer. under such terms and conditions that the court may fix. as long as it will not be lower than the penalty prescribed. So even if he would be convicted subsequently of a crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code as that of the earlier conviction. the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal or less.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) anywhere within the range of the penalty prescribed by special law. sedition. without regard to the penalty. Persons convicted espionage. The idea is that probation has to be invoked at the earliest opportunity. Under the amendment to the Probation Law. and The offender involved. the moment he perfects an appeal from the judgment of conviction. Cempron. rebellion. Persons who are habitual delinquents. only those whose penalty does not exceed six years of imprisonment are those qualified for probation. So the benefit of probation must be invoked at the earliest instance after conviction. Verga may be availed of before the convict begins serving sentence by final judgment and provided that he did not appeal anymore from conviction. he cannot avail of probation anymore. the basis for determining whether the penalty disqualifies the offender from probation or not is the term of the individual imprisonment and not the totality of all the prison terms imposed in the decision. Vena V. if none of the individual penalties exceeds six years. Persons convicted of treason. Exception: If the earlier conviction refers to a crime the penalty of which does not exceed 30 days imprisonment or a fine of not more than P200. Among these crimes is Alarms and Scandals. For the offender to apply in such court. conspiracy or proposal to commit treason. of misprision of treason. This /vvverga Page 98 of 100 .00. Although the penalty prescribed for the felony committed is death or reclusion perpetua. if after considering the attendant circumstances. such convict is not disqualified of the benefit of probation. according to – (1) (2) (3) The time committed. the offender is not disqualified by such penalty from applying for probation. Without regard to the nature of the crime. the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies (People v. Book 2 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty imposed. the penalty of which is only arresto menor or a fine. Although a person may be eligible for probation. those convicted of a crime against public order regardless of the penalty are not qualified for probation. he is not disqualified from probation provided that the penalty of the current crime committed does not go beyond six years and the nature of the crime committed by him is not against public order. Persons convicted of piracy. An application for probation is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the trial court that renders the judgment. but not to those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of the approval of Indeterminate Sentence Law. So know the crimes under Title III. On the other hand. If the offender was convicted of several offenses which were tried jointly and one decision was rendered where multiple sentences imposed several prison terms as penalty. he should not appeal such judgment. Disqualification may be divided into three. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year. If the penalty is six years plus one day. So even if the prison term would sum up to more than six years.
no right to probation can be applied for. Discretionary conditions: The trial court which approved the application for probation may impose any condition which may be constructive to the correction of the offender. they cannot afford to put up a bail.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Once he appeals. the penalty will already be final and exeuctory. and Discretionary conditions. because of the prevalence of the crime. If the court denied the application for probation without the benefit of the hearing. (2) These conditions being mandatory. to prevent the commission of offenses. to provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender which might be less probable if he were to serve a prison sentence. those against public order and those with reference to subversion. Persons who have been granted of the benefit of probation cannot avail thereof for the second time. the denial is correctible by certiorari. Offenses which are not probationable are those against natural security. even though he may thereafter withdraw his appeal. sentence will only become final and executory after the lapse of the 15-day period. because the earliest opportunity for him to avail of probation came only after judgment by the appellate court. If the offender would appeal the conviction of the trial court and the appellate court reduced the penalty to say. So even if the offender may not be disqualified of probation. So it is not along the purpose of probation to grant the convict the benefit thereof. Probation shall be denied if the court finds: (1) (2) (3) That the offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be provided most effectively by his commitment to an institution. the court even if the crime is probationable may still deny the benefit of probation. that does not mean that they already start serving the sentence even after promulgation of the sentence. must report to the PO at least once a month during the period of probation unless sooner required by the PO. or Probation will depreciate the seriousness of the crime. then regardless of the penalty. but also the probationable penalty. that because a crime committed is not bailable or the crime committed. If the convict perfected an appeal. the probation is cancelled. if he would be released on probation. Generally. he will be disqualified from applying for Probation. That there is undue risk that during the period of probation the offender will commit another crime. the penalty which is not probationable is any penalty exceeding six years of imprisonment. upon promulgation of the sentence. although bailable. the courts are always required to conduct a hearing. he has partly started serving sentence and in that case. the moment any of these is violate. he forfeits his right to apply for probation. provided the same would not violate the constitutional rights of the offender and subject /vvverga Page 99 of 100 . Verga only where the convict starts serving sentence and provided he has not perfected an appeal. the courts do not grant an application for probation for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law. where as the applicant is not disqualified under the provision of the Probation Law. In such a case. Consider not only the probationable crime. the convict cannot avail of probation. the court may refuse or deny an application for probation. just the individual rehabilitation of the offender but also the best interest of the society and the community where the convict would be staying. Probation is intended to promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by providing him with individualized treatment. less than six years. that convict can still file an application for probation. Generally. As far as offenders who are under preventive imprisonment. unless the convict has waived expressly his right to appeal or otherwise. Whether a convict who is otherwise qualified for probation may be give the benefit of probation or not. regardless of the purpose of the appeal. yet the court believes that because of the crime committed it was not advisable to give probation because it would depreciate the effect of the crime. To allow him loose may bring about a lack of respect of the members of the community to the enforcement of penal law. and The convict. to decongest our jails. the order denying the application therefore is null and void. because it is an act of the court in excess of jurisdiction or without jurisdiction. naturally he goes back to detention. Mandatory conditions: (1) The convict must report to the Probation Officer (PO) designated in the court order approving his application for Probation within 72 hours from receipt of Notice of such order approving his application. as a probationer. The probation law imposes two kinds of conditions: (1) (2) Mandatory conditions. Probation is only available once and this may be availed Vena V. If it were the non-probationable crime. but only based on the report of the probation officer. iii. and to save the government much needed finance for maintaining convicts in jail Probation is only a privilege.
he was convicted. what was given was absolute pardon. Bayotas. then years later. the offender dies. By prescription of the crime. unless the language of the pardon absolutely relieve the offender of all the effects thereof. if he will be subsequently convicted for a felony embracing the same title as that crime. Considering that recidivism does not prescribe.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) to this two restrictions: (1) the conditions imposed should not be unduly restrictive of the probationer. his death extinguishes both his criminal and civil liabilities. Suppose. By absolute pardon. Amnesty erases not only the conviction but also the crime itself. Pardon. Total extinction of criminal liability Among the grounds for total extinction as well as those for partial extinction. liability therefore is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment By service of sentence. he shall still be a recidivist. then years later he rebelled again and convicted. Amnesty and pardon Death of the offender Vena V. a public official was charged before the Sandiganbayan for violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. 1994) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) The effects of amnesty as well as absolute pardon are not the same. he was nevertheless re- /vvverga Page 100 of 100 . Where the offender dies before final judgment. that pardon will not wipe out the effects of the crime. So while a case is on appeal. By amnesty which completely extinguished the penalty and all its effects. instead of amnesty. decided on September 2. There is an exception to this and that is when the pardon was granted when the convict had already served the sentence such that there is no more service of sentence to be executed then the pardon shall be understood as intended to erase the effects of the conviction. In one case. So if the convict has already served the sentence and in spite of that he was given a pardon that pardon will cover the effects of the crime and therefore. But if he was serving sentence when he was pardoned. Illustrations: Criminal liability is partially extinguished as follows: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) By conditional pardon. Parole. So that if an offender was convicted for rebellion and he qualified for amnesty. The Supreme Court ruled that the re-election to public office is not one of the grounds by which criminal liability is extinguished. because the pardon wipes out the effects of the crime. (People v. is he a recidivist? Yes. one of the defenses raised was that of condonation of the crime by his constituents. Pardon only excuses the convict from serving the sentence. This is only true to administrative cases but not criminal cases. that his constituents have pardoned him. the offended was again captured and charged for rebellion. no matter how long ago was the first conviction. Criminal liability is totally extinguished as follows: (1) By the death of the convict as to personal penalties. By the marriage of the offended women as in the crimes of rape. and so he was given an amnesty. allowances which the culprit may earn while he is serving sentence. Verga elected by the constituents. By prescription of the penalty. Because the amnesty granted to him erased not only the conviction but also the effects of the conviction itself. you cannot find among them the election to public office. seduction and acts of lasciviousness. although absolute does not erase the effects of conviction. During the ensuing election. By commutation of sentence. For good conduct. The offended party may file a separate civil action under the Civil Code if any other basis for recovery of civil liability exists as provided under Art 1157 Civil Code. and (2) such condition should not be incompatible with the freedom of conscience of the probationer EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY Always provide two classifications when answering this question. abduction. he cannot be considered a recidivist. is he a recidivist? No. the case on appeal will be dismissed. and as to pecuniary penalties. and Probation.
The rules on Criminal Procedure for purposes of prescription is that the filing of the complaint even at the public prosecutor’s office suspends the running of the prescriptive period. the prescription of the crime will be suspended only when the information is already filed with the trial court. Pedro was again prosecuted and convicted of the crime of theft. Prescription of crime and prescription of the penalty Prescription of the crime begins. hence. the owner of the land came to know of the falsified transaction only after 10 years. it may be given before final judgment or after it. Actually. the penalty will prescribe from the moment the convict evades the service of the sentence. because it does not require a final judgment. If the 60th day falls on a Sunday. From the moment the falsified document is registered in the Registry of Property. if legally. If given before this. Pedro was prosecuted and convicted of the crime of robbery and was sentenced to six years imprisonment or prision correccional. When criminal case is filed in the prosecutor’s office. but not the filing with the barangay. Although pardon restores his eligibility for appointment to that office.This does not mean alone that the crime was within public knowledge or committed in public. light felony prescribes in 60 days or two months. So the earlier rulings to the contrary are already abrogated by express provision of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. In Monsanto v. For instance. for purposes of prescription. the crime has indeed prescribed. it was held that absolute pardon does not ipso facto entitle the convict to reinstatement to the public office forfeited by reason of his conviction. Factoran. the prescription of the crime is suspended until the accused is convicted or the proceeding is terminated for a cause not attributable to the accused. The Supreme Court ruled that the crime has already prescribed. such accused can raise the question of prescription even for the first time on appeal. the pardoned convict must reapply for the new appointment . The prescription of the crime is interrupted or suspended – (1) When a complaint is filed in a proper barangay for conciliation or mediation as required by Chapter 7. the period for filing a complaint or information may not be extended at all. pardon shall relieve him of the effects of the crime. The prevailing rule now is. Ten years later. unless the crime was concealed. as a general rule on the day the crime was committed. but after conviction and during the appeal he learned that at the time the case was filed. a crime embraced in the same title. the earlier jurisprudence to the contrary had already been abrogated or overruled. So in the case where a deed of sale of a parcel of land which was falsified was recorded in the corresponding Registry of Property. Local Government Code. whether the conciliation or mediation is terminated for not. the filing of the complaint on the succeeding Monday is already fatal to the prosecution of the crime because the crime has already prescribed. “Commission of the crime is public” -. it is premature and hence void. On the other hand. the prescription thereof would only commence from the time the offended party or the government learns of the commission of the crime. So /vvverga Page 101 of 100 . the period will only commence to run when the convict has begun to serve the sentence. Pardon becomes valid only when there is a final judgment. Illustration: In the crime of falsification of a document that was registered in the proper registry of the government like the Registry of Property or the Registry of Deeds of the Civil registry. even though the last day such prescriptive period falls on a holiday or a Sunday. the crime has already prescribed. and the appellate court shall have no jurisdiction to continue. if he has served all six years of the first sentence. It is not the filing of the complaint. the falsification is deemed public from the time the falsified document was registered or recorded in such public office so even though. 170 SCRA 191. he shall not be considered a recidivist. not public. There is no such thing as a premature amnesty.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. the prescriptive period already commenced to run. in which case. Moreover. Jr. even though the offender may not have filed a motion to quash on this ground the trial court. prescription of the crime is not waivable. Verga When the crime carries with it moral turpitude. the State loses the right to prosecute the offender. After which the prescription will resume to run.. he was granted absolute pardon. but the suspension of the prescriptive period is good only for 60 days. the offender even if granted pardon shall still remain disqualified from those falling in cases where moral turpitude is a bar. so he brought the criminal action only then. the prescriptive period of the crime shall already run from the moment the falsified document was recorded in the public registry. this time he shall be a recidivist. After serving sentence for three years. (2) But where the crime is subject to Summary Procedure. but the filing of the information in the trial which will suspend the prescription of the crime. On the prescription of the penalty. When a crime prescribes. and therefore even if he commits theft again. and his name was included in the list of all those granted absolute pardon. the offended party may not really know of the falsification.
such convict shall be given credit of 1/5 of the original sentence from that allowance for his loyalty of coming back. USA and Switzerland. thus enabling the prisoner to escape.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) if an accused was convicted in the trial court. It is only true in the crimes of rape. he must be brought to Muntinlupa. abduction. the running of the prescriptive period will go on even if the offender leaves Philippine territory for that country. if the subject could leave the Philippines and go to a country with whom the Philippines has no extradition treaty. Australia. In the case of the prescription of the penalty. and Indemnification of consequential damages. Presently the Philippines has an extradition treaty with Taiwan. Article 158 refers only to those who leave and return. abduction. When the offender leaves for a country to which the Philippines has an extradition treaty. The marriage still subsists although the offended woman may refile the complaint. after the convict has evaded the service of penalty that will suspend such period. do not say that it is applicable for the crimes under Article 344. Indonesia. So if the offender goes to any of these countries. booked there. Do not think that the marriage is avoided or annulled. seduction and acts of lasciviousness. and the conviction becomes final and executory. in relation to Article 158. so that if the convict was never given parole. it is the commission of other crime. earthquake or similar catastrophe or during a mutiny in which he has not participated and he returned within 48 hours after the proclamation that the calamity had already passed. Canada. Those who did not leave the penitentiary under such circumstances do not get such allowance for loyalty. so that the initial crime of evasion of service of sentence does not suspend the prescription of penalty. although already his wife can still prosecute him again. The crime committed does not include the initial evasion of service of sentence that the convict must perform before the penalty shall begin to prescribe. For the penalty to prescribe. but not when such co-principal himself took direct part in the execution of the crime. Marriage In the case of marriage. not only criminal liability of the principal who marries the offended woman. the prescriptive period of the crime or penalty shall remain suspended whenever he is out of the country. Marriages in these cases may even compound the crime of adultery or concubinage. notwithstanding such marriage. This is the partial extinction referred to. the prescriptive period still continues to run. Do not say that it is applicable to private crimes because the term includes adultery and concubinage. Reparation of the damage caused. The Supreme Court ruled that marriage contemplated must be a real marriage and not one entered to and not just to evade punishment for the crime committed because the offender will be compounding the wrong he has committed. but also that of the accomplice and accessory. The offender who marries the offended woman must be sincere Vena V. CIVIL LIABILITY OF THE OFFENDER Civil liability of the offender falls under three categories: (1) (2) (3) Restitution and restoration. Co-principals who did not themselves directly participate in the execution of the crime but who only cooperated. if there are any. will also benefit from such marriage. otherwise. the offended woman. no matter how long such convict has been a fugitive from justice. Partial extinction of criminal liability Good conduct allowance This includes the allowance for loyalty under Article 98. no partial extinction. Marriage as a ground for extinguishing civil liability must have been contracted in good faith. the vehicle carrying him collided with another vehicle and overturned. on the way to the penitentiary. the penalty imposed by the trial court will never prescribe because he has not yet commenced the service of his sentence. placed inside the cell and thereafter he escapes. although the marriage remains a valid marriage. It is only in the crimes of rape. Whether it is prescription of crime or prescription of penalty. Restitution or restoration /vvverga Page 102 of 100 . A convict who escapes the place of confinement on the occasion of disorder resulting from a conflagration. prescriptive period of the penalty shall be suspended and shall not run in the meantime. seduction and acts of lasciviousness that the marriage by the offender with the offended woman shall extinguish civil liability. Parole This correspondingly extinguishes service of sentence up to the maximum of the indeterminate sentence. the moment the convict commits another crime while he is fugitive from justice. Verga in the marriage and therefore must actually perform the duties of a husband after the marriage. so this fellow was arrested to serve the sentence.
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Restitution or restoration presupposes that the offended party was divested of property, and such property must be returned. If the property is in the hands of a third party, the same shall nevertheless be taken away from him and restored to the offended party, even though such third party may be a holder for value and a buyer in good faith of the property, except when such third party buys the property from a public sale where the law protects the buyer. For example, if a third party bought a property in a public auction conducted by the sheriff levied on the property of a judgment creditor for an obligation, the buyer of the property at such execution sale is protected by law. The offended party cannot divest him thereof. So the offended party may only resort to reparation of the damage done from the offender. Some believed that this civil liability is true only in crimes against property, this is not correct. Regardless of the crime committed, if the property is illegally taken from the offended party during the commission of the crime, the court may direct the offender to restore or restitute such property to the offended party. It can only be done if the property is brought within the jurisdiction of that court. For example, in a case where the offender committed rape, during the rape, the offender got on of the earrings of the victim. When apprehended, the offender was prosecuted for rape and theft. When the offender was asked why he got on of the earrings of the victim, the offender disclosed that he took one of the earrings in order to have a souvenir of the sexual intercourse. Supreme Court ruled that the crime committed is not theft and rape but rape and unjust vexation for the taking of the earring. The latter crime is not a crime against property, this is a crime against personal security and liberty under Title IX of Book II of the RPC. And yet, the offender was required to restore or restitute the earring to the offended woman. Property will have to be restored to the offended party even this would require the taking of the property from a third person. Where personal property was divested from the offended party pursuant to the commission of the crime, the one who took the same or accepted the same would be doing so without the benefit of the just title. So even if the property may have been bought by the third person, the same may be taken from him and restored to the offended party without an obligation on the part of the offended party to pay him whatever he paid. The right to recover what he has paid will be against the offender who sold it to him. On the other hand, if the crime was theft or robbery, the one who received the personal property becomes a fence, he is not only required to restitute the personal property but he incurs criminal liability in violation of the Anti-Fencing Law. If the property cannot be restituted anymore, then the damage must be repaired, requiring the offender to pay the value thereof, as determined by the court. That value includes the sentimental value to the offended party, not only
Vena V. Verga
the replacement cost. In most cases, the sentimental value is higher than the replacement value. But if what would be restored is brand new, then there will be an allowance for depreciation, otherwise, the offended party is allowed to enrich himself at the expense of the offender. So there will be a corresponding depreciation and the offended party may even be required to pay something just to cover the difference of the value of what was restored to him. The obligation of the offender transcends to his heirs, even if the offender dies, provided he died after judgment became final, the heirs shall assume the burden of the civil liability, but this is only to the extent that they inherit property from the deceased, if they do not inherit, they cannot inherit the obligations. The right of the offended party transcends to heirs upon death. The heirs of the offended party step into the shoes of the latter to demand civil liability from the offender. Reparation of the damage caused In case of human life, reparation of the damage cause is basically P50,000.00 value of human life, exclusive of other forms of damages. This P50,000.00 may also increase whether such life was lost through intentional felony or criminal negligence, whether the result of dolo or culpa. Also in the crime of rape, the damages awarded to the offended woman is generally P30,000.00 for the damage to her honor. In earlier rulings, the amount varied, whether the offended woman is younger or a married woman. Supreme Court ruled that even if the offended woman does not adduce evidence or such damage, court can take judicial notice of the fact that if a woman was raped, she inevitably suffers damages. Under the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, a private prosecutor can recover all kinds of damages including attorney’s fee. The only limitation is that the amount and the nature of the damages should be specified. The present procedural law does not allow a blanket recovery of damages. Each kind of damages must be specified and the amount duly proven. Indemnification of consequential damages Indemnification of consequential damages refers to the loss of earnings, loss of profits. This does not refer only to consequential damages suffered by the offended party; this also includes consequential damages to third party who also suffer because of the commission of the crime. The offender carnapped a bridal car while the newly-weds were inside the church. Since the car was only rented, consequential damage not only to the newly-weds but also to the entity which rented the car to them.
Page 103 of 100
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Most importantly, refer to the persons who are civilly liable under Articles 102 and 103. This pertains to the owner, proprietor of hotels, inns, taverns and similar establishments, an obligation to answer civilly for the loss or property of their guests. Under Articloe 102, two conditions must be present before liability attaches to the inkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors: (1) The guest must have informed the management in advance of his having brought to the premises certain valuables aside from the usual personal belongings of the guest; and The guest must have followed the rules and regulations prescribed by the management of such inn, tavern, or similar establishment regarding the safekeeping of said valuables.
Vena V. Verga
When these requisites concur, the employer will be subsidiarily civilly liable for the full amount that his employee was adjudged civilly liable. It is already settled in jurisprudence that there is no need to file a civil action against the employer in order to enforce the subsidiary civil liability for the crime committed by his employee, it is enough that the writ of execution is returned unsatisfied. There is no denial of due process of law because the liability of the employer is subsidiary and not primary. He will only be liable if his employee does not have the property to pay his civil liability, since it is the law itself that provides that such subsidiary liability exists and ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Civil liability of the offender is extinguished in the same manner as civil obligation is extinguished but this is not absolutely true. Under civil law, a civil obligation is extinguished upon loss of the thing due when the thing involved is specific. This is not a ground applicable to extinction of civil liability in criminal case if the thing due is lost, the offender shall repair the damages caused. When there are several offenders, the court in the exercise of its discretion shall determine what shall be the share of each offender depending upon the degree of participation – as principal, accomplice or accessory. If within each class of offender, there are more of them, such as more than one principal or more than one accomplice or accessory, the liability in each class of offender shall be subsidiary. Anyone of the may be required to pay the civil liability pertaining to such offender without prejudice to recovery from those whose share have been paid by another. If all the principals are insolvent, the obligation shall devolve upon the accomplice(s) or accessory(s). But whoever pays shall have the right of covering the share of the obligation from those who did not pay but are civilly liable. To relate with Article 38, when there is an order or preference of pecuniary (monetary) liability, therefore, restitution is not included here. There is not subsidiary penalty for non-payment of civil liability. Subsidiary civil liability is imposed in the following: (1) In case of a felony committed under the compulsion of an irresistible force. The person who employed the irresistible force is subsidiarily liable; In case of a felony committed under an impulse of an equal or greater injury. The person who generated such an impulse is subsidiarily liable.
The Supreme Court ruled that even though the guest did not obey the rules and regulations prescribed by the management for safekeeping of the valuables, this does not absolve management from the subsidiary civil liability. Noncompliance with such rules and regulations but the guests will only be regarded as contributory negligence, but it won’t absolve the management from civil liability. Liability specially attaches when the management is found to have violated any law or ordinance, rule or regulation governing such establishment. Even if the crime is robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons or committed by the inkeeper’s employees, management will be liable, otherwise, not liable because there is duress from the offender, liable only for theft and force upon things. Under Article 103, the subsidiary liability of an employer or master for the crime committed by his employee or servant may attach only when the following requisites concur: (1) (2) (3) (4) The employer must be engaged in business or in trade or industry while the accused was his employee; At the time the crime was committed, the employee-employerr relationship must be existing between the two; The employee must have been found guilty of the crime charged and accordingly held civilly liable; The writ of execution for the satisfaction of the civil liability was returned unsatisfied because the accused-employee does not have enough property to pay the civil liability.
The owners of taverns, inns, motels, hotels, where the crime is committed within their establishment due to noncompliance with general police
Page 104 of 100
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
regulations, if the offender who is primarily liable cannot pay, the proprietor, or owner is subsidiarily liable. Felonies committed by employees, pupils, servants in the course of their employment, schooling or household chores. The employer, master, teacher is subsidiarily liable civilly, while the offender is primarily liable. In case the accomplice and the principal cannot pay, the liability of those subsidiarily liable is absolute. COMPLEX CRIME Philosophy behind plural crimes: The treatment of plural crimes as one is to be lenient to the offender, who, instead of being made to suffer distinct penalties for every resulting crime is made to suffer one penalty only, although it is the penalty for the most serious one and is in the maximum period. Purpose is in the pursuance of the rule of pro reo. If be complexing the crime, the penalty would turn out to be higher, do not complex anymore. Example: Murder and theft (killed with treachery, then stole the right). Penalty: If complex – Reclusion temporal maximum to death. If treated individually – Reclusion temporal to Reclusion Perpetua. Complex crime is not just a matter of penalty, but of substance under the Revised Penal Code. Plurality of crimes may be in the form of: (1) (2) (3) Compound crime; Complex crime; and Composite crime.
Vena V. Verga
robbery with rape, rape with homicide. These are crimes which in the eyes of the law are regarded only as a single indivisible offense. iv. Composite Crime/Special Complex Crime This is one which in substance is made up of more than one crime but which in the eyes of the law is only a single indivisible offense. This is also known as a special complex crime. Examples are robbery with homicide, robbery with rape, and rape with homicide. The compound crime and the complex crime are treated in Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. But in such article, a compound crime is also designated as a complex crime, but “complex crimes” are limited only to a situation where the resulting felonies are grave and/or less grave. Whereas in a compound crime, there is no limit as to the gravity of the resulting crimes as long as a single act brings about two or more crimes. Strictly speaking, compound crimes are not limited to grave or less grave felonies but covers all single act that results in two or more crimes. Illustration: A person threw a hand grenade and the people started scampering. When the hand grenade exploded, no on was seriously wounded all were mere wounded. It was held that this is a compound crime, although the resulting felonies are only slight. Illustration of a situation where the term “necessary” in complex crime should not be understood as indispensable: Abetting committed during the encounter between rebels and government troops such that the homicide committed cannot be complexed with rebellion. This is because they are indispensable part of rebellion. (Caveat: Ortega says rebellion can be complexed with common crimes in discussion on Rebellion) The complex crime lies actually in the first form under Article 148. The first form of the complex crime is actually a compound crime, is one where a single act constitutes two or more grave and/or less grave felonies. The basis in complexing or compounding the crime is the act. So that when an offender performed more than one act, although similar, if they result in separate crimes, there is no complex crime at all, instead, the offender shall be prosecuted for as many crimes as are committed under separate information. When the single act brings about two or more crimes, the offender is punished with only one penalty, although in the maximum period, because he acted only with single criminal impulse. The presumption is that, since there is only one
A compound crime is one where a single act produces two or more crimes. A complex crime strictly speaking is one where the offender has to commit an offense as a means for the commission of another offense. It is said that the offense is committed as a necessary means to commit the other offense. “Necessary” should not be understood as indispensable, otherwise, it shall be considered absorbed and not giving rise to a complex crime. A composite crime is one in which substance is made up of more than one crime, but which in the eyes of the law is only a single indivisible offense. This is also known as special complex crime. Examples are robbery with homicide,
Page 105 of 100
In People v. one of them protested. CONTINUED AND CONTINUING CRIMES In criminal law. The Supreme Court ruled that all accused should be punished under one information because they acted in conspiracy. so no one would run away. when there are several acts performed. when a series of acts are perpetrated in pursuance of a single criminal impulse. where the accused took five roosters from one and the same chicken coop. There are in fact cases decided by the Supreme Court where the offender has performed a series of acts but the acts appeared to be impelled by one and the same impulse. Conversely. however. It was held that there is only one crime committed – multiple robbery. because a complex crime of multiple homicide was committed by them. The Supreme Court ruled that the accused should be prosecuted only in one information. In another case. The nearest article is Article 48. although both terms are analogous. the ruling is that a complex crime is committed. However performing a series of acts but this is one and the same intent Supreme Court ruled that only one crime is committed under one information. the offender should be penalized only once. Hence. In criminal procedure for purposes of venue. The only reason is that the series of acts are impelled by a single criminal impulse. The term “continuing crimes” as sometimes used in lieu of the term “continued crimes”. it may happen that the offender is impelled only by a single criminal impulse in committing a series of acts that brought about more than one crime. they are not really used with the same import. it follows that there is only one criminal impulse and correctly. These soldiers feared that on the way. When the robbers entered the compound. the Supreme Court considered this as a complex crime when the act is the product of one single criminal impulse. There are cases where the Supreme Court held that the crime committed is complex even though the offender performed not a single act but a series of acts. it is regarded in law as one. The workers of said mill have their quarters within the compound. There is a complex crime not only when there is a single act but a series of /vvverga Page 106 of 100 . The act of one is the act of all. There were a series of acts. the roosters were owned by different persons. not because of Article 48 but because this is a continued crime. a band of robbers came across a compound where a sugar mill is located. While Article 48 speaks of a complex crime where a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave offenses. a separate penalty. the assumption is that each act is impelled by a distinct criminal impulse and for ever criminal impulse. So Lawas ordered the men to tie the Muslims by the hand connecting one with the other. the accused should be held for the complex crime of multiple homicide with multiple frustrated homicide. so the Hajji remonstrated and there was commotion. and the soldiers mechanically fired. This becomes a complex crime. The confusion lies in this. Some of the accused killed their victims in one place within the same penitentiary. “Continuing crime” is the term used in criminal procedure to denote that a certain crime may be prosecuted and tried not only before the court of the place where it was originally committed or began. they were moved by a single criminal intent. Vena V. only one penalty should be imposed. Eleven were killed and several others were wounded. The question of whether the constabulary soldiers should be prosecuted for the killing of each under a separate information has reached the Supreme Court. use the standard or condition that it refers not only to the singleness of the act which brought two or more grave and/less grave felonies. In People v. there is what is called a continued crime. Lawas ordered his men to fire. Verga In People v. A “continued crime” is one where the offender performs a series of acts violating one and the same penal provision committed at the same place and about the same time for the same criminal purpose. The definition in Article 48 is not honored because the accused did not perform a single act. Not because there were several quarters robbed. The Supreme Court has extended this class of complex crime to those cases when the offender performed not a single act but a series of acts as long as it is the product of a single criminal impulse. de Leon. Because there were several victims killed and some were mortally wounded. the accused constabulary soldiers were ordered to march with several muslims from one barrio to another place. even those cases when the act is not a single but a series of acts resulting to two or more grave and less grave felonies. the term “continuing crime” is used in criminal procedure when any of the material ingredients of the crime was committed in different places. some killed the others in another place within the same penitentiary. Such situation is also brought under the operation of Article 48. In this case it is not the singleness of the act but the singleness of the impulse that has been considered. When the hands of the Muslims were tied.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) act formed. The band of robbers ransacked the different quarters therein. but the decision in the Lawas case is correct. At the height of the commotion. considering that Criminal Law. it was held that there is only one crime of theft committed. regardless of a series of acts done. Garcia. You cannot find an article in the Revised Penal Code with respect to the continued crime or continuing crime. he did not want to be included among those who were tied becase he was a Hajji. if there is only one criminal impulse which brought about the commission of the crime. the accused were convicts who were members of a certain gang and they conspired to kill the other gang. but also before the court of the place where the crime was continued. However. Lawas. If confronted with a problem. this is referred to as a continuing crime. although. because the accused acted out of a single criminal impulse only. some of the Muslims may escape.
In People v. Pabasa. The offenders are to be convicted of one count of rape and separately charged of the other rapes. The abuse amounting to rape is complexed with forcible abduction because the abduction was already consummated when the victim was raped. But the multiple rapes should be considered only as one because they are in the nature of a continued crime. it is necessary to embody these crimes under one single information. They abducted the woman. Although in this case. although only the first part thereof (compound crime). each committed four crimes of rape. Bulaong. together with other grave or less grave felonies resulting therefrom and the Supreme Court held that all felonies resulting from criminal negligence should be made subject of one information only. The rapes committed were in the nature of a continued crime characterized by the same lewd design which is an essential element in the crime of forcible abduction. Bojas. a light felony may result from criminal negligence or imprudence. It is correct that when the offender acted in conspiracy. In criminal procedure. Note: This is a dangerous view because the abductors will commit as much rape as they can. Although under Article 48. there were four participants here. The second part of Article 48 does not apply. regardless of the number of rapes committed. the light felony shall be included in the same information charging the offender with grave and/or less grave felonies resulting from the negligence of reckless imprudence and this runs counter to the provision of Article 48. regardless of the number of rapes committed because all the rapes are but committed out of one and the same lewd design which impelled the offender to abduct the victim. Pabasa. the singleness of the act is not considered a single crime. Each intercourse brings with it the danger of bringing one stranger in the family of the husband. the Supreme Court adopted the dissenting opinion of Justice Aquino in People v. So whenever the Supreme Court concludes that the criminal should be punished only once. only one complex crime of rape would arise. one for the complex crime and one for the light felony. it would be tantamount to splitting the criminal negligence similar to splitting a cause of action which is prohibited in civil cases. Supreme Court considered this as complex. Apparently. Each of the four offenders was convicted of four rapes. Jose. Therefore. the Supreme Court followed the ruling in People v. instead the Supreme Court stated that an additional penalty should be imposed for the light felony. Vena V. One of the four rapes committed by one of them was complexed with the crime of abduction.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) acts. Article 48 also applies in cases when out of a single act of negligence or imprudence. if several offenders abducted the woman and abused her. the following cases have been treated as constituting one crime only: /vvverga Page 107 of 100 . In the eyes of the law. However. because they acted in conspiracy or under the same criminal impulse. In People v. the offenders did not only kill one person but killed different persons. It is necessary to consider them as complex crimes even if the essence of the crime does not fit the definition of Art 48. so it is clear that in killing of one victim or the killing of another victim. except when the crimes in one information constitute a complex crime or a special complex crime. The reason being that. In earlier rulings on abduction with rape. after which. This was only a dissenting opinion of Justice Aquino. referring to the complex crime proper because this applies or refers only to a deliberate commission of one offense to commit another offense. Duplicity of offenses. The other three rapes are distinct counts of rape. separate complaints/information. The three rapes are not necessary to commit the other rapes. this crime is considered as one and prosecuted under one information. two or more grave or less grave felonies resulted. Verga In People v. Although the killings did not result from one single act. It cannot separate the light felony because it appears that the culpa is crime itself and you cannot split the crime. the four took turns in abusing her. In adultery. Applying the concept of the “continued crime”. Jose that the four men who abducted and abused the offended women were held liable for one crime – one count or forcible abudction with rape and distinct charges for rape for the other rapes committed by them. So while the Supreme Court ruled that the light felony resulting from the same criminal negligence should be complexed with the other felonies because that would be a blatant violation of Article 48. because there is no other provision in the RPC. in order not to violate this rule. it must be called a complex crime. the Supreme Court through Justice Aquino ruled that there is only one count of forcible abduction with rape committed by the offenders who abducted the two women and abused them several times. there is only one information and prosecution only. there is multiple rape. there should only be one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. Otherwise. This would mean two penalties to be imposed. that there could be only one complex crimeof abduction with rape. after all. it is prohibited to charge more than one offense in an information. another act out of this is done simultaneously. In People v. yet by virtue of this ruling of the Supreme Court. It was held that each one of the four became liable not only for his own rape but also for those committed by the others. each intercourse constitutes one crime. that when several persons abducted a woman and abused her. a light felony should not be included in a complex crime. The forcible abduction must be complexed therewith.
amnesty. The concept of delito continuado has been applied to crimes under special laws since in Article 10. Upon filing in the court. 1955 and the other from January 1956 to July 1956 (People v. Decision: No. The theft of six roosters belonging to two different owners from the same coop and at the same period of time (People v. the oath. Prescription shall not run when offender is not in the Philippines. Subsequently. Here. (2) caused injury to one party only – /vvverga Page 108 of 100 . whether belonging to the same or different owners. ARTICLE 91 (PRESCRIPTION) Period of prescription shall run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party. The collections of legal fees were impelled by the same motive. The idea of amnesty wipes out the crime cannot not be carried to the extent of saying. that the criminal act never existed. Two Estafa cases. that is taking of several things. and all acts of collection were made under the same criminal impulse. unless the latter provides the contrary. MADLANGBAYAN Keyword: spy. The prosecution manifested that they would only file one information. Many courts have abandoned the separate larceny doctrine. decided on December 2. CIV. Said acts were committed on two different occasions. the Revised Penal Code shall be supplementary to special laws. The dismissal of the criminal action does not extinguish the civil responsibility.. Dichupa. under which there was distinct larceny as to the property of each victim. the case will be dismissed. The authorities. at the same time and place. 351). registration of public document Issue: W/N the act charged has already prescribed. Decision: No. Vena V. Sabbun. 13 Phil 306). Jaranillo). the accused was charged with performing a single act – that of approving the legalization of aliens not qualified under the law. Also abandoned is the doctrine that the government has the discretion to prosecute the accused for one offense or for as many distinct offenses as there are victims (Santiago v. constitutes one larceny only. one which was committed during the period from January 19 to December. (2) (3) In the theft cases. SANDIGANBAYAN Keyword: Torrens.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) (1) The theft of 13 cows belonging to two different persons committed by the accused at the same place and period of time (People v. 1936. 320). Tumlos. the Supreme Court declined to apply the concept in the following cases: (1) US vs. 67 Phil. and (3) they were done in the same day. PEOPLE vs. (2) (3) EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY • • • • • • Death of the convict as to the personal penalties before final judgment By service of the sentence By amnesty which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects BY prescription of the crime By prescription of the penalty By the marriage of the offended party (rape) On the other hand. The accused must first show compliance with the requirements for availing himself of the benefits like taking the required oath. Seventy-five estafa cases committed by the conversion by the agents of collections from the customers of the employer made on different dates. Several malversations committed in May. for the purpose of depriving a person of a legal civil right to which he was entitled. 66 Phil. The malversations and falsifications were not the result of one resolution to embezzle and falsify (People v. Dismissal of the case will not be without prejudice to the right of the widow to enforce the civil liability of the accused. 32 amended informations were filed. 1993). 324. June and July 1936 and falsifications to conceal said offenses committed in August and October. 10 SCAR 156). Verga the government. that of collecting fees for services rendered. or their agents and shall be interrupted by the filling of the complaint or information and shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted. The illegal charging of fees for service rendered by a lawyer every time he collects veteran’s benefits on behalf of a client who agreed that attorney’s fees shall be paid out of such benefits (People v. crime politically motivated Issue: W/N the civil aspect is extinguished too on account of amnesty. Issue: Should the case be dismissed and accused acquitted since the crime was politically motivated. The Supreme Court directed the prosecution to consolidate the cases into one offense because (1) they were in violation of the same law – Executive Order No. Justice Garchitorena. the trend is to follow the single larceny doctrine.
RUIZ Keyword: Defraud. the crimes charges already prescribed. jewels Issue: W/N the owner of the jewels direct four pawnshops to restore the jewels without indemnity on the party of the petitioner. All persons must take notice. Although caution should be observed in applying the rule of construction in civil cases. ARTICLE 100 Every person criminally liable for a felony in also civilly liable. Decision: Yes. PEOPLE vs. MONSANTO vs. once registered is a notice to the world. the prescriptive period would lapse on 1986 or 5 months before the filing of the complaint. The criminal offense of falsification of public document has already prescribed. Pardon implies guilt. the pardoning power cannot be restricted or controlled by the legislative action. in accordance with the judgment entered in the aforesaid cause for estafa. Every person criminally liable for a crime or misdemeanor is also civilly liable. Decision: Yes. Issue: Does Art. Absolute pardon dies not blot out the crime committed. filling in the register of deeds Issue: W/N the crime prescribed Decision: Yes. If granted after conviction. The criminal action has been extinguished by prescription. 91 cannot be construed in such manner as to admit application of the rule on construction. the employer can not be held liable. consequent upon condition. Issue: Can the employer be held liable. they may repatriate for the injury or indemnify the owner. Issue: W/N the jewels can be recovered. pawned instead of selling them. The employer was also no in the automobile when the accident happened and when it exercised due diligence in choosing a driver. The date of computing the period of prescription would be from the date of the filing of the application. CASTILLO Keyword: Chauffer. the employer cannot be civilly liable. REYES vs. victim died. falsification of public documents. Pardon if granted before conviction. The owner has an absolute right to the jewels from the possession of whoever holds them. victim cannot collect from the driver. The jewels were pawned without the knowledge of the owner thus must be restored by the pawnshop owners. the employer is not engaged in business or industry and merely uses automobile for private ends. The application of the rule on constructive notice in the construction of Article 92 of the RPC would most certainly be favorable to the accused since the prescriptive period of the crime shall have to be reckoned with earlier. The title. The very essence of pardon is forgiveness and remission of guilt. thus. MARQUEZ vs. registration being a constructive notice to the whole word. FINNICK Keyword: Estafa of jewels. Verga Keyword: 2 vehicles collided in intersection. Even if the ten year period commenced to run from the registration and issuance of the free patent title by the register of deed. The date of the violation of the law becomes the operative date for the commencement of the period of prescription. FULL and ABSOLUTE FREEDOM: Subject to the limitations imposed by the constitution.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Decision: Yes. The /vvverga Page 109 of 100 . STEIMETZ vs. Considering the lapse of more than 20 years. Decision: No. Issue: W/N the driver’s employer can be civilly liable. it prevents any penalties and disabilities. it removes penalties and disabilities and restores him to all his civil rights. it does no erase the crime and the conviction thereof. VALDEZ Vena V. This is the reason why the employee is not entitled to backpay when pardoned. If restitution is impossible. Decision: No. subordinate or employee commits a punishable criminal act while in the actual performance of his own ordinary duties and he was innocent thereby rendering incapable of satisfying by himself his own liability. The subsidiary liability of the master only takes place when the servant. FACTORAN Keywords: Estafa. Decision: No. from attaching. the court will not hesitate to do so if the factual and legal circumstance so warrant. REYES Keyword: prescription of crime. Where it admitted that the employer did not know that his chauffer was using the car that day and the he exercised due diligence in hiring the chauffer. VARELA vs. Among the civil responsibilities incurred by a person committing estafa is that of restoring the thing taken. MC the employer did not know his car was used.
the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action by prescription. the privateoffended party instituted together therewith the civil action. With reference to Castillo's criminal liability. Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible privation of right by prescription. before delivery. only when the civil liability arises from the criminal act as its only basis. however. His participation as an accessory cannot be admitted. Decision: Yes. The said principle does not apply in instant case wherein the civil liability springs neither solely nor originally from the crime itself but from a civil contract of purchase and sale. He is principal to the crime. Although stolen property is acquired in good faith by a third party. poses a problem. an action for recovery therefore may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1. 2. SC dismissed the criminal aspect Issue: Does death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguish his civil liability. PEOPLE vs. of course. Statutory construction is unnecessary. he can not lawfully withhold the possession thereof from the true owner and insist upon reimbursement. It should be stressed that the extinction of civil liability follows the extinction of Vena V. This separate civil action may be enforced either against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused. the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused. 3. Where the civil liability survives. altered the brands on the animals. 1. conformably with provisions of the Civil Code. Castillo. if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Such liability is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. provided. The case of People v. A number of stolen carabao were found in the possession of a person who kept them hidden for a time and. Finally. Verga the criminal liability under Article 89. ipso facto extinguishes the former. that death supervenes before final judgment. this issue was settled in the affirmative. The law is plain. as explained in Number 2 above. he must be presumed to be the author of the theft and not merely an accessory. Corollarily. the extinction of the latter by death. BAYOTAS Keyword: Rape. unless it be satisfactorily shown that the property was stolen by some other person. /vvverga Page 110 of 100 . where the civil liability does not exist independently of the criminal responsibility. in cases where -during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction. them is no question. a few days prior to their recovery. VILLALOBOS Keyword: Theft of carabao. Thus. depending an the source of obligation upon which the same is based as explained above. Said liability is extinguished. The civil liability. In such case. Decision: Yes. 4. Stated differently. Issue: W/N that person is mere accessory to the theft or principal. Another person aided in procuring registration certificate.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) US vs. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.