Criminal Law Book I Reviewer (Book of J.

Reyes)
DOCTRINE Art. 2. Cognizable by RTC in which the charge is first filed. ARTICLE 3 Art. 3 Mistake of fact CASE

US vs Ah Chong

Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan

Pv Oanis

1. That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be. (Ignorantia facti excusat); 2. That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful; 3. That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused. - Actus me invito factus non est meus actus (An act done by me against my will is not my act) Justified: Art. 11, par. 1. Ignorance/mistake of fact, if such ignorance/mistake of facts is sufficient to negative a particular intent which under the law is necessary ingredient of the offense charged, cancels the presumption of intent and works an acquittal, except in those cases where circumstances demand a conviction under the penal provisions touching criminal negligence. Tabuena was convicted because of the requisite in no. 3 is absent. Mistake of fact is absent. The defense of mistake of fact is untenable when the accused is charged with a culpable felony. In mistake of fact, what is involved is lack of intent on the part of the accused. In felonies committed through negligence, there is no intent to consider, as it is replaced by imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill. The accused shot his ex-girlfriend Juana but wounded Perfecta, but the latter did not die due to proper medical attendance Apply Art. 48: Penalty for complex crimes Apply Art. 49: Penalty when the crime committed is different from that intended

ARTICLE 4 Art. 4 par. 1 a. Aberratio Ictus b. Error in Personae c. Praeter Intentionem

P v Mabugat

Pv Oanis Pv Cagoco

Proximate Cause (NaCUPO)

Art. 4, par. 2 Impossible crime

Where the accused, w/o intent to kill, struck the victim w/ his fist on the back part of the head from behind, causing the victim to fall down w/ his head hitting the asphalt and died, he is liable for death, although he had no intention to kill. Apply Art. 13, par. 3: Praeter Intentionem That the offender did not intend to commit so grave a wrong However, there must be a notable disparity bet. The means employed and the resulting felony , if there is one, mitigating circumstance cannot be availed of. Pv Cagoco In the Cagoco case, there was no active force that intervened between compared to felonious act and the result. In the Rockwell case, there was an active force (the Pv Rockwell jumping of the horse upon the deceased after the accused struck the victim w/ his fist and knocked him down) US vs Valdez If a person against whom a criminal assault is directed reasonably believes himself to be in danger of death/great bodily harm and in order to escape jumps into the water, impelled by the instinct of self-preservation, the assailant is responsible for homicide in case of death resulting by drowning. Tetanus Poisoning: Urbano v IAC Since the tetanus toxic would affect the victim for no longer than 2 weeks, the fact that the victim died 2 months later shows that it is no longer brought about by the hacking of the accused. The tetanus was gathered by his working in the farm and that is already an intervening cause. Intod v CA Culprits with intent to kill, fired bullets at the victims house, but the latter was not there. They are guilty of IC IC would only apply when the wrongful act, w/c would have constituted a crime against person/property, could not and did not constitute another felony. Otherwise, if such act constituted any other felony although diff. from what intended, the liability should be for such felony and not for IC. Apply Art. 59: Penalty of arresto mayor or fine of P200-P500.

Catherine A Bercero-Montano

Bulacan State University-College of Law SY: 2013-2014

Criminal Law Book I Reviewer (Book of J. Reyes)

Pv Palanganan ARTICLE 6 Drawing/trying to draw pistol is not an overt act of homicide. Raising of Bolo as if to strike the offended party is not an overt act of homicide. not attempted If a blow w/ the bolo was struck and there was intent to kill, the striking would be an overt act of the crime of homicide. Pv Lamahang The crime committed was attempted trespass to dwelling, bec. The intention was obviously disclosed by opening the wall of the store. Indeterminate offense: is one where the purpose of the offender is not certain. Its nature to its objective is ambiguous. Consummated Pv Orita From the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim he actually (Rape) attains his purpose and, from that moment also all the essential elements of the offense have been accomplished. Nothing more is left to be done by the offender, because he has performed the last act necessary to produce the crime. Thus, the felony is consummated. Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant conviction. Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is no penetration of the female organ because not all acts of execution was performed. The offender merely commenced the commission of a felony directly by overt acts. Aristotel Unlawful taking is the element w/c produces the felony in its consummated Valenzuela vs stage. Once the offender therein obtained possession over the stolen items, the People effect of the felony has been produced as there has been deprivation of (Theft), property. The presumed inability of the offenders to freely dispose of the stolen 21 June 2007 property does not negate the fact that the owners have already been deprived of their right to possession upon the completion of the taking. ARTICLE 11: JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
Art. 6 NO overt acts,

In this case, the offender do not have the intent to kill, he merely fired his firearm. Crime committed: Illegal discharge of firearms It is not IC, because in IC, the offender MUST HAVE INTENT to do the offense

Pv Tabago US vs Simeon

Art. 11 Par. 1. Selfdefense

Pv Narvaez, 20 April 1983

Unlawful aggression was absent, but RS were present. There was an actual physical invasion of appellant's property which he had the right to resist, pursuant to Art. 429 of the CC (doctrine of self-help). However, that the third element of defense of property is present, i.e., lack of sufficient provocation on the part of appellant who was defending his property. As a matter of fact, there was no provocation at all on his part, since he was asleep at first and was only awakened by the noise produced by the victims and their laborers. Be that as it may, appellant's act in killing the deceased was not justifiable, since not all the elements for justification are present. He should therefore be held responsible for the death of his victims, but he could be credited with the special mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense, pursuant to paragraph 6, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code. Slap on the face Light push on the head w/ the hand Foot-kick greeting When there is agreement to fight That accused, not having accepted the challenge, acted in self-defense The accused claimed as having acted in defense of her honor and mistake of fact. She said that she believed that her honor was at stake. Touching the arm could not produce such danger as would really be imminent to the honor of the woman. The nature, character, location and extent of the wounds suffered by the deceased belie any supposition that it was the deceased who was the unlawful aggressor. It is not possible to rape the accused because the whole thing transpired in the church. The offended party placed his hand on the thigh of the woman who was then praying, the latter used her small fan knife and thrust it on the chest of the

NO unlawful aggression

Pv Roxas Pv Yuman Pv Sabio US vs Navarro

U present

Pv Del Pilar US vs Apego

NCLE of wound Means employed was excessive

Pv Constantino US vs Jaurigue

Catherine A Bercero-Montano

Bulacan State University-College of Law SY: 2013-2014

Criminal Law Book I Reviewer (Book of J. Reyes)

offended party. Incomplete self-defense Having sustained several wounds, the deceased ran away, but was followed by the accused and another fight took place, during w/c a mortal blow was delivered by the accused, slashing the cranium of the deceased. Provocation: NOT mitigating, because it must be immediately preceded the act Due to the condition of the river at the point where the deceased started to rock the boat, if it had capsized, the passengers would have run the risk of losing their lives. That the danger is on the point of happening. It is not required that the attack already begins, for it may be too late. The attacked made by the deceased and the killing of the deceased by defendant should succeed each other w/o appreciable interval time

When aggressor flees, UA no longer exists URS present Imminent danger

Pv Alconga

US vs Laurel Pv Cabungcal

W/o appreciable time Stand ground when in the right Mere threatening is not U

US vs Ferrer

So, where the accused is where he has the right to be, the law does not require him to retreat when his assailant is rapidly advancing upon him w/ a deadly weapon. US vs GuyWhen the accuse made her appearance, the deceased arose w/ a knife in her sayco hand and in a threatening manner asked the accused what had brought her there, such attitude, does not constitute U, w/c is the indispensable requisite. A mere threatening/intimidating attitude, not preceded by an outward and material aggression, is not unlawful aggression, because it is required that the act be offensive and positively strong, showing the wrongful intent of the aggressor to cause an injury. Test of Pv Padua Perfect equality between the weapon used by the one defending himself and reasonable of that of the aggressor is not required, because the person assaulted does not the mean used have sufficient tranquility of mind to think, to calculate and to choose which weapon to use. Battered Pv Genosa In order to be classified as a battered woman, the couple must go through the Woman battering cycle at least twice. Any woman may find herself in an abusive Syndrome relationship with a man once. If it occurs a second time, and she remains in the situation, she is defined as a battered woman. Art. 11, par. 2 US v Esmedia U may exist as either a matter of fact depends upon the honest belief of the one making the defense. Art. 11, Par. 5 Pv Catbagan Two requisites must concur before this defense can prosper: 1) the accused must Fulfillment of have acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or Duty or Lawful office; and 2) the injury caused or the offense committed should have been the Exercise of a necessary consequence of such lawful exercise. Right or Office The law does not clothe police officers with authority to arbitrarily judge the necessity to kill. It may be true that police officers sometimes find themselves in a dilemma when pressured by a situation where an immediate and decisive, but legal, action is needed. However, it must be stressed that the judgment and discretion of police officers in the performance of their duties must be exercised neither capriciously nor oppressively, but within reasonable limits. Pv Felipe The killing was done in the performance of a duty. The deceased was under the Delima obligation to surrender, and had no right, after evading service of his sentence, to commit assault/disobedience w/ a weapon in his hand, w/c compelled the policeman to resort to such an extreme means, w/c, although it proved to be fatal, was justified by the circumstances. ARTICLE 12: EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES Art. 12, par. 1 Insanity Pv Formigones It is necessary that there be a complete deprivation of intelligence while committing the act, that it, that the accused be deprived of reason; that he acts w/o the least discernment; or that there be a total deprivation of freedom of the will. The court has no power to permit the insane to leave the asylum w/o first obtaining the opinion of the Director of Health that he may be released w/o danger.

US vs Domen

Chin Ah Foo v Concepcion

Catherine A Bercero-Montano

Bulacan State University-College of Law SY: 2013-2014

Criminal Law Book I Reviewer (Book of J. Reyes)

Art. 12, par. 2 Minority, Privileged Mitigating Circumstance - Suspension of Sentence Pv Monticalvo, 30 Jan. 2013 At the time of the commission of the crime, appellant was only 17, a minor. Thus, entitled to the PMC of minority pursuant to Art. 68 (2) Sec. 38 of Ra 9344 warrants the suspension of sentence of a child in conflict w/ the law notwithstanding that he has reached the age of majority at the time of the judgment of conviction is pronounced. The promotion of the welfare of a child in conflict w/ the law should even extend to 1 who has exceeded the age limit of 21, what matters is that the offender committed the offense when he was still of tender age. 15 years below intervention program 15 above but below 18: (w/o discernment) intervention; (w/ discernment) diversion It is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that a minor who is over 15 but below 18 years of age has acted w/ discernment, in order not to entitle to the exempting circumstance. An accident is something that happens outside the sway of our will, and although it comes about through some act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences Baculi was not a member of the band w/c murdered some American schoolteachers, was in a plantation gathering bananas. He was seen by the leader of the band, striking him w/ the butts of their guns and compelled him to bury the bodies. He was not liable. The accused cannot be held criminally liable for rebellion, because they joined the rebels under the impulse of un uncontrollable fear of an equal/greater injury. Duress as a valid defense should be based on real, imminent, or reasonable fear for one s life/limb and should not be speculative, fanciful, or remote fear. Command of Hukbalahap killers, as cause of UF

Art. 12, par. 4 Accident Art. 12, par. 5 Irresistible Force Art. 12, par. 6 Uncontrollable Fear (UF) basis: Actus me
invito factus non est meus actus

US vs Caballeros

US vs Exaltacion Pv Borja Pv Regala

Absolutory causes are those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is no penalty imposed

Art. 6 Spontaneous desistance Art. 20 Accessories such as SEDLNARw/S; Except falling w/n Art. 19, par. 1 By profiting themselves/assisting the offenders to profit by the effects of the crime Art. 247, par. 1 & 2 Death/physical injuries inflicted under exceptional cases : Legally married person, who surprise his spouse during sexual intercourse Art. 280, par. 3 On trespass to dwelling for the purpose of preventing some serious harm to himself. Art. 332 No criminal but only civil liability from the commission of MaTS (Malicious mischief, Theft and Swindling) committed against SADRw/S; widowed spouse w/ respect to the property belong to deceased spouse provided that it has not passes into the possession of another; and BS & BiL/SiL if living together. Instigation & Entrapment In instigation, a public officer (PO)/private detective induces an innocent person to commit a crime & would arrest him upon/after the commission of the crime by the latter. It is an Absolutory cause. In entrapment, a person has planned, or is about to commit, a crime & ways & means are resorted to by a PO to trap and catch the criminal. Entrapment not a defense ARTICLE 13 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES Art. 13, par. 1 Incomplete Justifying/ Exempting Cir. Art. 13, par. 1 Under 18 or over 70 Art.1, par. 1 US v Jaurigue Art. 11, par. 4 greater E/I When 2 of the requisites are present (Note: U must be present) Privileged Mitigating Apply Art. 69 If any of the last 2 requisites is absent, only mitigating circumstance Penalty is more than 6 years imprisonment: The law enforcement office/Punong Barangay w/ the assistance of Local SWD officer/other member of the Local Councils for the Protection of Children (LCPC), shall conduct mediation, family conferencing and conciliation. In victimless crime penalty is more than 6 years imprisonment, the Local SWD officer shall meet w/ the child & his parents/guardians for the development of the appropriate division and rehabilitation program, in coordination w/ Barangay Council for the Protection of the Children (BCPC). Diversion maybe conducted at the Katarungang Pambarangay in all levels The accused, a policeman, boxed the deceased, a detention prisoner, inside the jail. The deceased collapsed on the floor. The former returned and poured the

Art. 13, par. 3 No intention to

Pv Ural

Catherine A Bercero-Montano

Bulacan State University-College of Law SY: 2013-2014

Criminal Law Book I Reviewer (Book of J. Reyes)

commit so grave a wrong contents of the bottle on the body of the deceased and ignited it. The intention, as an internal act, is judged not only by the proportion of the means employed by him to the evil produced by his act, by also by the fact that the blow was or was not aimed at a vital part of the body. The accused had no intent to kill, his design being only to maltreat him, such that he allowed the victim to secure medical treatment at the dispensary. The accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a wrong. The weapon used, the part of the body injured, the injury inflicted, and the manner it is inflicted may show that the accused intended the wrong committed. It addresses itself to the intention of the offender at the particular moment when he executes/commits the criminal act; not to his intention during the planning stage. In crimes against persons who do not die as a result of the assault, the absent of the intent to kill reduces the felony to mere physical injuries, but it does not constitute a mitigating circumstance. As part of their fun-making, the accused merely intended to set the deceased s clothes on fire. Burning the clothes of the victim would cause a very least some kind of physical injuries on the person. The accused is guilty of the death but he is entitled to the mitigating cir. of no intention to commit so grave a wrong. Not applicable to felonies by negligence. A lapse of time is allowed between the grave offense & the vindication. Pv Ruiz The question whether/not a certain personal offense is grave must be decided by the court, having in mind the social standing of the person, the place, & the time when the insult was made. Even if there is actually P/A on the part of the offender, there is no MC, when: 1. The act is committed in a spirit of lawlessness; or 2. The act is committed in a spirit of revenge. No P/A after 24 hours, several hours/half an hour. The defense must prove that the act w/c produced P/O took place at a time not far removed from the commission of the crime. For about 5 years, the accused and deceased lived illicitly, in the manner of husband & wife. The deceased separated from the accused & loved w/ another man. The accused killed the deceased. P/A cannot be considered Rationale: Loss of self-control must originate from legitimate feeling, & not those w/c arises from vicious, unworthy and immoral passions. The accused, as common-law-wife, lived w/ the deceased for 15 years, whose house she helped support. Could not but arouse that natural feeling of despair in the woman who saw her life broken & found herself abandoned by the very man whom she considered for so long a time as her husband and from whom she had made so many sacrifices. P/O appreciated The feeling of resentment resulting from rivalry in amorous relations w/ a woman is a powerful instigator of jealousy & prone to produce anger & obfuscation. P/A may lawfully arise from causes existing only in the honest belief of the offender. The belief entertained in good faith by the defendants that the deceased cast upon their mother a spell of witchcraft w/c was the cause of her serious illness, is so powerful a motive as to naturally produce P/O. There was no voluntary surrender if the warrant of arrest showed that the defendant was in fact arrested. But when a person, after committing the offense & having opportunity to escape, voluntarily waited for the agents of the authorities & voluntary gave himself up, he is entitled to the benefit of circumstance, even if he was placed under arrest. And when the accused helped in carrying his victim to the hospital where he was disarmed and arrested, it is tantamount to VS. When the warrant of arrest had not been served/not returned unserved because the accused cannot be located, the surrender is mitigating. The fact that the order of arrest had already been issued is no bar to the consideration of the circumstance because the law does not require that the

Pv Galacgac

Pv Pugay

Art. 13, par. 5 Vindication of Grave Offense Art. 13, par. 6 Passion/ Obfuscation

US vs Hicks (compare the case to Pv Engay)s Pv Engay

Pv Marasigan Pv Macalintal

Art. 13, par. 7 Voluntary Surrender (VS) & Confession of Guilt

Pv Conwi Pv Parana

Pv Babiera Pv Brana *enye to Pv Yeda

Catherine A Bercero-Montano

Bulacan State University-College of Law SY: 2013-2014

Criminal Law Book I Reviewer (Book of J. Reyes)

surrender be prior to the order of arrest. Where the accused merely surrendered the weapons, w/o surrendering his own person to the authorities, such act of the accused does not constitute VS. Plea of guilty is not mitigating in culpable felonies & in crimes punished by special laws. ARTICLE 14 AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES Pv Evina Art. 14, par. 1 Advantage Taken of Public Position Art. 14, par. 2 Contempt/ Insult to Public Authorities Pv Tevez If the AC is not alleged, they may still be considered in the award of damages. It is not AC when it is an integral element of, or inherent in, the offense. Inherent in: Art 19, par. 3, and crimes committed by PO in Art. 204-205. Pv Palo

Public authority sometimes called a person in authority, is a PO who is directly vested w/ jurisdiction, that is, a PO who has a power to govern & execute the laws. The councilor, the mayor, the governor, etc., are persons in authority. The barangay chairman & barangay captain are also persons in authority (PiA). An agent of PiA is any person who, by direct provision of law/by election/by appointment by competent authority, is charged w/ the maintenance of public order & the protection & security of life & property, such as barrio councilman, barrio policeman and barangay leader, and any person who comes to the aid of PiA. The circumstance of lack of respect due to age applies in cases where the victim is of tender age as well as of old age.

Art. 13, par. 3 Disregard of RAS or Dwelling of Offended Party (OP) DA / DS

Pv Nabaluna US vs Cuevengco Pv Puno

Disregard of old age (DA) not AC in robbery w/ homicide. DS refers to the female sex. When a person compels a woman to go to his house against her will, the crime of coercion w/ the AC of disrespect to sex is committed. DS -not AC in the absence of evidence that the accused deliberately intended to offend/insult the sex of the victim/showed manifest disrespect to his womanhood When the offender acted w/ P/O When there exists a relationship between the offended party & the offender (i.e. even when there is divorce decree < Pv Valencia > When the commission of being a woman is indispensable in the commission of the crime : PARaS (Parricide, Abduction, Rape, Seduction). DS is absorbed in treachery. But, It was held that the AC of DS and DA are not absorbed in treachery because treachery refers to the manner of the commission of the crime, while DS and DA pertain to the relationship of the victim. Even if the offender did not enter the dwelling, this AC applies : It is enough that the victim was attacked inside his house, although the assailant may have devised means to perpetuate the assault from w/o. Even if the killing took place outside the dwelling, is aggravating provided that the commission of the crime was begun in the dwelling. Dwelling is aggravating in abduction/illegal detention Where the victim was taken from her/his house & carried away to another place, dwelling is A. When both offender & offended party are occupants of the same house, dwelling is not A. When is committed by the use of force upon things, dwelling is not A because it is inherent. When committed w/ violence against/intimidation of persons, dwelling is A In the crime of trespass, dwelling is inherent.

Disregard of sex (DS) is not applicable

Pv Clementer Pv Lopez

Dwelling includes dependencies, the foot of the staircase & enclosure under the house

Pv Albar

US vs Lastimosa US vs Banila

Robbery (when A or not)

Catherine A Bercero-Montano

Bulacan State University-College of Law SY: 2013-2014

Criminal Law Book I Reviewer (Book of J. Reyes)

D in Adultery cases US vs Ibanez US vs Destrito Pv Ruzol Art. 14, par. 4 Abuse of Confidence Art. 14, par. Palace & Places of Commission of Offense Art. 14, par. 6 Nighttime/ Nocturnity Inherent When adultery is committed in the dwelling of the husband, even if it is also the dwelling of the unfaithful wife, it is A. D not A in adultery when paramour also lives there. Although nocturnity & abuse of superior strength are always included in the QC of treachery, D cannot be included therein. Malversation (Art. 217), Qualified Theft (Art. 310), Estafa by conversion/misappropriation (Art. 315), and Qualified Seduction (Art. 337) The place of the commission of the felony, if its is Malacanang palace/church, is A, regardless of whether State/official/religious functions are being held. The attacked by the accused was made in the adjoining room of the court room, not in the very place where the justice of the peace was engaged in the discharge of his duties, hence, not A. Although nocturnity should not be estimated as an AC, since the time for the commission of the crime was not deliberately chosen; yet, if it appears that the accused took advantage of the darkness for the more successful consummation of his plans, to prevent his being recognized, & that the crime might be perpetrated unmolested, the AC of nocturnity should be applied. Nighttime is not especially sought for, when the notion to commit the crime was conceived only shortly before its commission. Nighttime not A, when the crime was committed at night upon a mere casual encounter. But where the accused waited for the night before committing robbery w/ homicide, nighttime is especially sought, hence A. When the place of the crime is illuminated by light, nighttime is not A. This A should not be considered when the place where the crime was committed could be seen & the voice of the deceased could be heard from a nearby house. That the place is uninhabited is determined, not by the distance of the nearest house to the scene of the crime, but whether/not in the place of the commission of the offense there was a reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help The purely accidental circumstance that on the day in question another banca, namely, that of the witness, as also at sea, is not argument against the consideration of such AC. It was difficult for the victim to receive any help & it was easy for the assailants to escape punishment. The mere fact that there are more than 3 armed men at the scene of the crime does not prove the existence of a band, if only 1 of them committed the crime while the others were not aware of the commission of the crime. The definition of by a band says that the armed men shall have acted together in the commission of the offense. Stone is included in the term arms. Not applicable in crimes against chastity like rape. Abuse of superior strength & use of firearms, absorbed in AC of by a band. Inherent in brigandage. A in robbery w/ homicide Art. 14, par. 9 Recidivist Pv Jaranilla US vs Sotelo Art. 14, par. 12 By means of Inundation, Fire, etc. Art. 14, par. 13 Evident Premeditation (EP) US vs Burns Pv Bersabal Recidivism must be taken into account as an AC no matter how many years have intervened between the 1st & 2nd felonies. Pardon does not obliterate the fact that the accused was a recidivist; but amnesty extinguishes the penalty & its effects. In order to constitute murder, there should be an actual design to kill and that the use of fire should be purposely adopted as a means to that end. But if a house was set on fire after the killing of the victim, there would be 2 separate crimes of arson & murder/homicide. EP that the accused meditated & reflected on his intention between the time when the crime was conceived by him & the time it was actually perpetrated. EP was rejected because the accused planned to kill the deceased at 7 AM & the killing took place at 9 AM in the same morning. The accused did not have sufficient time to reflect during the 2 hours that preceded the killing.

US vs Punsalan

Pv Matbagon

Pv Pardo Pv Cayabyab Pv Barredo Pv Joson Art. 14, par. 6 Uninhabited Place (UP) Pv Laoto

Pv Damaso

Pv Rubia

Art. 14, par. 6 Band

Pv Manlolo Pv Corpus Absorbed Inherent

Pv Crisostomo

Catherine A Bercero-Montano

Bulacan State University-College of Law SY: 2013-2014

Criminal Law Book I Reviewer (Book of J. Reyes)

Pv Mendoza The offender must have an opportunity to coolly & serenely think & deliberate on the meaning & consequences of what he planned to do, an interval long enough for his conscience & better judgment to overcome his evil desire & scheme. EP is absorbed by reward/promise Inherent in robbery, but may be A in robbery w/ homicide if the EP included the killing of the victim. EP is not A in case of Aberratio Ictus It is true that in the case of Pv Guillen, it was held that when the person killed is different form the one intended to be killed, the QC of EP may not be considered as present; however, in the case of Pv Timbol, it was held that EP may be considered as present, even if a person other than the intended victim was killed, if it is shown that the conspirators were determined to kill not only the intended victim but also any one who may help him put a violent resistance. When there is direct inducement by insidious words/machinations, fraud is present; otherwise, the act of the accused done in order not to arouse the suspicion of the victim constitutes craft. When the defendant covered his face w/ handkerchief before committing the crime, the AC is present. But if in spite use of handkerchief to cover their faces, the culprits were recognized by the victim. Disguise was not considered A. Abuse of superior strength when a man attacks a woman w/ weapon. There is no ASS when 1 acted as principal & the other 2 as accomplices. There is ASS when weapon used is out of proportion to the defense available to the offended party. ASS is A in coercion & forcible abduction, when greatly in excess of that required to commit the offense; in illegal detention In the crime of parricide when the husband kills the wife. ASS is absorbed and inherent in treachery ASS absorbs band. When ASS is aggravating to other offenses Pv Ducusin Absorbed Pv Parana Aggravating in coercion and forcible abduction, when greatly in excess of that required to commit the offense. Aggravating in illegal detention Intoxicating the victim to weaken the defense. However, if the state of intoxication is such that the victim cannot put up any sort of defense treachery. MWD absorbed in treachery. Applies only to crimes against person. The treacherous character of the means employed in the aggression does not depend upon the result thereof but upon the means itself, in connection w/ the aggressor s purpose in employing it. Otherwise, there would be no attempted/frustrated murder qualified by treachery.

Absorbed Inherent EP not A Pv Mabugat Pv Timbol distinguish from Pv Guillen

Art. 14, par. 14 Craft, Fraud/ Disguised Pv Piring Pv Sonsona Art. 14, par. 15 Abuse of Superior Strength (ASS)/ (gravamen: taking advantage by the culprits of their collective strength/their physical might) Pv Guzman Pv Cortez Pv Padilla

Inherent Absorbed

Means to Weaken Defense (MWD Art. 14, par. 16 Treachery

Look at pv escote Pv Laggui Pv Cadag

Attacks showing intention to eliminate risk NO Treachery

The killing of a child is murder qualified by treachery, even if the manner of attack was not shown. If the decision to kill was sudden, there was no treachery, even if the position of the victim was vulnerable, because it was not deliberately sought by the accused, but was purely accidental Victim asleep. Victim half-awake/just awakened. Victim grappling/being held. Attack from behind but if only accidental but not deliberately sought, treachery is absent There is treachery when the offenders made a deliberate surprise/unexpected

Catherine A Bercero-Montano

Bulacan State University-College of Law SY: 2013-2014

Criminal Law Book I Reviewer (Book of J. Reyes)

attack on the victim (Pv Diaz). There is NO treachery when the victim was already defending himself when he was attacked by the accused (Pv Diva). Where the attack is preceded by a warning (Pv Luna). Where shooting is preceded by heated discussion (Pv Gonzales). When the accused gave the deceased a chance to prepare (Pv Visagar). Pv Tilos Defendant stabbed the deceased at the time when, on account of the shower, people were going out of the dance hall to seek for recover. Advantage was taken of relative confusion, so that the act & identity of the offender would not be detected, & so that his escape would be facilitated adequately establish treachery. It does not always follow that bec. the attack was sudden & unexpected it is tainted w/ treachery. Indeed it could have been done on impulse, as a reaction to an actual/imagined provocation offered by the victim. Calling attention of victim not necessarily a warning. The fact that the assailant called out, Fiscal before shooting the victim does not negate the presence of treachery. The assailant being a hired killer, he was to ensure that he was shooting the correct person. Killing unarmed victim whose hands are upraised is committed w/ treachery. Killing a woman asking for mercy is committed w/ treachery. Intent to kill is not necessary in murder w/ treachery. The accused is guilty of murder although he did not intend to kill the deceased. There is no incompatibility, moral/legal, between alevosia & the mitigating cir. of not having intended to cause so great an injury. Treachery may exist even if the attack is face to face, where it appears that the attack was not preceded by a dispute & the offended party was unable to prepare himself for his defense. When the aggression is continuous, treachery must be present in the beginning of the assault (Pv Canete (enye to). When the assault was not continuous, in that there was an interruption, it is sufficient that treachery was present at the moment the fatal blow was given (US v Baluyot). Treachery, whenever present in the commission of a crime should be taken into account no matter whether the victim of the treacherous attack was/was not the same person whom the accused intended to kill. When there is conspiracy, treachery is considered against all the offenders The mastermind should have knowledge of the employment of treachery if he was NOT present when the crime was committed. Treachery, EP & ASS are inherent in the offense of treason. ASS, aid of armed men, by a band, nighttime, nocturnity, craft, disregard of age & sex, poison & MWD are inherent in treachery Dwelling is NOT included in treachery. Treachery cannot co-exist w/ passion/obfuscation, bec. in the latter the offender losses his reason & self-control, while in the former the mode of attack must be consciously adopted. Ignominy is a cir. pertaining to the moral order, w/c adds disgrace & obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime. The fact that the accused sliced & took the flesh form the thigh, legs and shoulders of the victim after killing her by the use of a knife does not add ignominy to the natural effects of the act. When a man is killed in the presence of his wife Rape as ignominy in robbery w/ homicide. It should be considered in rape committed in a house after an entry through the window. It should be considered also in murder where the accused entered the room of the victim through the window.

Pv Sabanal

Pv Magdueno (enye to)

Pv Barbara Pv Dagundong Pv Cagoco

US v Cornejo

When the attack was continuous & not Pv Mabug-at

Pv Carandang Pv De Otero

Inherent

Pv Wong

Art. 14, par. 17 Ignominy NO ignominy

Pv Racaza Art. 14, par. 1 Unlawful Entry (UE)

Catherine A Bercero-Montano

Bulacan State University-College of Law SY: 2013-2014

Criminal Law Book I Reviewer (Book of J. Reyes)

It should be considered in robbery w/ violence against/intimidation of persons, bec. UE is not inherent in that particular kind of robbery. Dwelling & unlawful entry taken separately in murders committed in a dwelling. If the motor was used only in facilitating the escape, it should not be an AC.

Pv Barruga Art. 14, par. 20 Means of Motor Vehicle

If the culprit, before & after committing the crime, rode in a bicycle & escaped, there is NO AC, bec. the law specifically say of a motor vehicles Art. 14, par. 21 Pv Llamera For cruelty to be A, it is essential that the wrong done was intended to prolong Cruelty the suffering of the victim, causing him unnecessary moral & physical pain. NO cruelty When the series of acts causing unnecessary sufferings of victim took place in rapid succession. ARTICLE 15 ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE Art. 15 a. Relationship Pv Bersabal The relationship of stepfather/stepmother & stepson/stepdaughter is included by analogy as similar to that of ascendant & descendant. But the relationship bet. uncle & niece is not covered by any of the relationships. As a rule, relationship is mitigating in crimes against property by analogy to the provisions of Art. 332 ( TEM Theft, Estafa, Malicious mischief ). No criminal, but only civil liability. It is A when the offended party is a relative of a higher degree than the offender, or when the offender & the offended party are relatives of the same level, as killing a brother, a half-brother or adopted brother. Relationship is mitigating in trespass to dwelling. In crimes against chastity, relationship is always AC. US vs Ancheta While the relationship of brothers-in-law is AC when one commits a crime against the other, such relationship is MC when the accused killed his brother-in-law in view of the conduct pursed by the latter in contracting adulterous relations w/the wife of the accused. The deceased was suffering from an attack of insanity & the accuse, his brotherin-law, in his desire to place the deceased under control, struck him w/ a club, exceeding the limits of his discretion in the heat of the struggle MC, bec. the cause of the maltreatment was the desire to render service to a relative. Intoxication to be mitigating, the accused s state of intoxication must be proved. Once intoxication is established by satisfactory evidence, in the absence of proof to the contrary, it is presumed to be non-habitual/unintentional. The mere fact that the accused had been drinking intoxicating liquor about 7 months & that he had been drunk once/twice a month is not constituting habitual drunkenness. A habitual drunkard is one given to intoxication by excessive use of intoxicating drinks. The habit should be actual & confirmed, but it is not necessary that it be continuous/by daily occurrence. Non-habitual intoxication, lack of instruction & obfuscation are not to be taken separately Mere illiteracy is not sufficient to constitute a MC. There must be lack of intelligence. Ordinarily, low degree/lack of instruction is mitigating in all crimes. In crimes against property, chastity, and treason. Not mitigating in murder Exception: The accused were not so ignorant as to believe in witchcraft The fact that the accused was a lawyer was not considered AC in physical injuries. He did not take advantage of his high degree of education. In order to hold an accused guilty as co-principal by reason of conspiracy, it must be established that he performed an over act in furtherance of the conspiracy, either by (1) actively participating in the actual commission of the crime; (2) by lending moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the scene of the crime; or (3) by exerting moral ascendancy over the rest of the conspirators as to move them to executing the conspiracy. The existence of conspiracy does not require necessarily an agreement for an appreciable length of time prior to the execution of its purpose, since form the

US vs Ostrea

US vs Valerde

b. Intoxication

Pv Apduhan

Pv Amenan

Pv Baterna c. Degree of Instruction & Education of Offender

NOT MC Pv Laolao. Pv Sulit

ARTICLE 17 PRINCIPALS IN GENERAL Art. 17, par. 1 Principals by Direct Participation Pv Cortez

Pv Binasing

Catherine A Bercero-Montano

Bulacan State University-College of Law SY: 2013-2014

Criminal Law Book I Reviewer (Book of J. Reyes)

legal view point, conspiracy exists if, at the time of the commission of the offense, the accused had the same purpose & were united in its execution. Formal agreement/previous acquaintance among several persons not necessary in conspiracy. It is sufficient that at the time of the aggression, all the accused manifested by their acts a common intent/desire to attack so that the act of 1 accused becomes the act of all. In the absence of the previous plan/agreement to commit a crime the criminal responsibility arising from different acts directed against 1 & the same person is individual & not collective, & each of the participants is liable only for the acts committed by himself. A person in conspiracy w/ others, who had desisted before the crime was committed by the others, is not criminally liable (Timbol was acquitted). Conspiracy is presumed when the crime is committed by a band unless he who claims to be a non-conspirator proves that he attempted to prevent the assault, in the absence thereof, they are equally guilty of the assault. But where at the start of the encounter bet. The constabulary forcer & and insurgent band, the accused, who was w/ the band, fled from the scene of the fight & did not take part therein, he is not criminally liable. A conspirator is not liable for anothers crime w/c is not an object of the conspiracy or w/c is not a necessary & logical consequence thereof. All are liable for the crime of abduction, even if only 1 acted w/ lewd design, because the act of 1 is the act of all in conspiring to abduct the offended party. In multiple rape, each rapist is equally liable for the other rapes, because each of them cooperated in the commission of the rape perpetrated by the others. In cases of criminal negligence/crimes punishable by special law, allowing/failing to prevent an act to be performed by another, makes 1 a co-principal. 1 serving as guard pursuant to the conspiracy is a principal by direct participation Requisites: 1. That the inducement be made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime; and 2. That such inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the crime by the material executor. 2 ways of becoming a principal by induction: (1) by directly forcing; and (2) by directly inducing another to commit a crime. 2 ways of directly forcing another to commit a crime: (1) by using irresistible force; and (2) by causing uncontrollable fear. A thoughtless expression w/o intention to produce the result is not an inducement to commit a crime. In order that a person using a words of command may be held liable as principal by inducement, the ff. 5 requisites must be present: 1. That the 1 uttering the words of command must have the intention of procuring the commission of the crime; 2. That the 1 who made the command must have an ascendancy/influence over the person whoa acted; 3. That the words used must be direct, so efficacious, so powerful as to amount to physical/moral coercion; 4. The words of command must be uttered prior to the commission of the crime; 5. The material executor of the crime has no personal reason to commit the crime If the principal by direct participation has a personal reason to commit the crime, the supposed words of inducement cannot be the determining cause. If the crime committed is not contemplated in the order given, the inducement is not material & not the determining cause thereof. Possessor of recently stolen property is principal, unless he proves in satisfactory manner that he is but an accessory/accomplice. This can also be committed by mere negligence. C seized the hands of a 12-year-old girl, dragged her by force & violence, J consummate the prearranged rape, it was held that C cooperated in the perpetration of the crime w/o w/c its commission would not have been accomplished.

Pv Gupo

US vs Magcomot

Pv Timbol Pv Bazar

Pv De la Cerna Pv Loyola Pv Fernandez Pv Santos Pv Canumay Art. 17, par. 2 Principals by Induction

US vs Indanan

Pv Kiiche Omine Pv Lawas

Art. 17, par. 3 Principal by Indispensable Cooperation

Samson vs CA US vs Javier

Catherine A Bercero-Montano

Bulacan State University-College of Law SY: 2013-2014

Criminal Law Book I Reviewer (Book of J. Reyes)

The act of the principal by indispensable cooperation should be different from the act of the principal by direct participation. ARTICLE 18 ACCOMPLICES Pv Clemente Pv Ubina In case of doubt, the participation of the offender will be considered that of on accomplice rather than that of a principal. When the participation of an accused is not disclosed, he is only an accomplice. An accomplice does not have previous agreement/understanding/is not in conspiracy w/ the principal by direct participation. Distinction bet. accomplice & conspirator 1. They know & agree w/ the criminal design; 2. Conspirators, however, know the criminal intention bec. they themselves have decided upon such course of action. Accomplices come to know about it after the principals have reached the decision, & only then they agree to cooperate in its execution; 3. Conspirators decide that a crime should be committed; accomplices merely concur in it; 4. Conspirators are the authors of the crime; accomplices are merely instruments who perform acts not essential to the perpetration of the offense. In order that a person may be considered an accomplice, the ff. requisites must concur: 1. That there be community of design; that is knowing the criminal design of the principal by direct participation, he concurs w/ the latter in his purpose; 2. That he cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous/simultaneous acts, w/ the intention of supplying material or moral aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way; and 3. That there be a relation bet. the acts done by the principal & those attributed to the person charged as accomplice. An accomplice acquires knowledge of the criminal design of the principal: 1. When the principal informs or tells the accomplice of the formers criminal purpose; 2. When the accomplice saw the criminal acts of the principal. A person who assails a victim already fatally wounded by another is only regarded as accomplice. NO KNOWLEDGE of the criminal design of the principal NOT an accomplice The community of design need not be to commit the crime actually committed. It is sufficient if there was a common purpose to commit a particular crime & that the crime actually committed was a natural/probable consequence of the intended crime. When the owner of the gun knew that it would be used to kill a particular person, & the principal used it to kill another person, the owner of the gun is not an accomplice as to the killing of the other person. The person charged as an accomplice should not have inflicted a mortal wound. If he inflicted a mortal wound, he becomes a principal by direct participation. When the cooperation is by simultaneous act, the accomplice takes part while the crime is being committed by the principal by direct participation or immediately thereafter. Knowledge of the commission of the crime may be acquired subsequent to the acquisition of the stolen property. When a person knowingly acquired/received property taken by the brigands (Art. 307) the profiting of the effects makes the person a principal & not merely an accomplice. A person who merely received a property knowing it to be stolen is liable as an accessory. (The President Macapagal Arroyo and her Husband) TPMAH Treason, Parricide, Murder, Attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, and is known to be Habitually guilty of some other crime If the crime committed is not within the enumeration, the offender may still be liable in violation of PD 1829: Obstruction of Justice

Pv de Vera

Pv Lagro

Pv De la Cerna

Pv Aplegido

ARTICLE 19 ACCESSORIES US vs Montano

Pv Tanchoco

Catherine A Bercero-Montano

Bulacan State University-College of Law SY: 2013-2014

Criminal Law Book I Reviewer (Book of J. Reyes)

The accessory must have knowledge of the principal being habitually guilty of some other crime, bec. the law says or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime. Conviction of an accessory is possible notwithstanding that acquittal of the principal, if the crime was in fact committed, but the principal was not held liable, bec. of an exempting circumstances. Vino vs People Apprehension & conviction of the principal is not necessary for the accessory to be held criminally liable. As long as the commission of the offense can be duly established in evidence. PD 1979: Anti-Fencing Law Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or anything of value w/c has been the subject of robbery/thievery shal be prima facie evidence of fencing. ARTICLE 20 ACCESSORIES EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY The relationship bet. uncle & nephew/niece not included among the relatives stated in the exemption. The exemption is based on ties of blood & the preservation of the cleanliness of ones name, w/c compels 1 to conceal crimes committed by relatives so near as those mentioned in this article. ARTICLE 22 RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF PENAL LAWS EX POST FACTO LAW 1. makes a criminal an act done before the passage of the law & w/c was innocent when done, & punishes such an act; 2. aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed; 3. changed the punishment & inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed; 4. alters the legal rules of evidence, & authorizes conviction upon less/different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense; 5. assuming to regulate civil rights & remedies only, in effect imposes penalty/deprivation of a right for something w/c when done was lawful; and 6. deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to w/c he has become entitled, such as a protection of a former conviction/acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty. The principle that criminal statutes are retroactive so far as they favor the culprit does not apply to the latters civil liability, bec. the rights of offended persons/innocent 3rd parties are not w/n the gift of arbitrary disposal of the State. But the new law increasing the civil liability cannot be given retroactive effect. The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal action is to be determined by the law in force at the time of instituting the action, not at the time of the commission of the crime. A pardon by the offended party does not extinguish criminal action, except as provided in Art. 344, par. 2 of the RPC. Pardon under Art. 344 must be made before institution of criminal prosecution. The only act, the according to Art. 344, extinguishes the penal action after the institution of criminal action, is the marriage bet. the offender & the offended party. ARTICLE 28 COMPUTATION OF PENALTIES If the accused, who was in custody, appealed, his service of sentence should commence from the date of the promulgation of the decision of the appellate court, not from the date the judgment of the trial court was promulgated Baking vs Director The service of sentence of one in prison begins only on the day the judgment of Prisons becomes final. ARTICLE 29 PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT The accused undergoes preventive imprisonment when the offense charged is nonbailable, or even of bailable, he cannot furnish the require bail. Under PD 603, the youthful offender shall be credited in the service of his sentence w/ the full time he spent in actual confinement & detention Bond to keep the peace is different from bail bond w/c is posted for the provisional release of a person arrested for or accused of a crime. Ocampo vs CA Pv Romualdo US vs Insierto

ART. 30-35 EFFECT OF PENALTIES

Catherine A Bercero-Montano

Bulacan State University-College of Law SY: 2013-2014

Criminal Law Book I Reviewer (Book of J. Reyes)

ARTICLE 39 SUBSIDIARY PENALTY Subsidiary imprisonment applies only if the FINE cannot be met. Pv Fajardo Judgment of conviction must impose subsidiary imprisonment The convict who has property enough to meet the fine & not exempt from execution, cannot choose to serve the subsidiary penalty, instead of paying for the fine. ARTICLE 45 CONFISCATION & FORFEITURE The forfeiture of the proceeds/instruments of the crime cannot be ordered if the accused is acquitted, bec. no penalty is imposed. Confiscation can be ordered only if the property is submitted in evidence/placed at the disposal of the court. Articles w/c are forfeited, when the order of forfeiture is already final, cannot be returned even in case of acquittal. When the accused has appealed, confiscation & forfeiture not ordered by the trial court, may be imposed by the appellate.

US vs Filart
Comm. Of Customs vs Encarnacion

Pv Exconde

Catherine A Bercero-Montano

Bulacan State University-College of Law SY: 2013-2014