Criminal Law Book One Notes

CRIMINAL LAW BOOK ONE REVISED PENAL CODE
BOOK ONE
CRIMINAL LAW
REVISED PENAL CODE
ARTICLES 1-113
SANTIAGO NOTES Page 1
! of 272
!
TITLE SMALL
CHAPTER NUMBER
CHAPTER TITLE
!
Article Number
Provisions
CONDITION SINE-QUA NON
INTENT OF THIS ARTICLE/

PARAGRAPH/REQUISITE/
ELEMENT
SUBTITLE
content
BAR QUESTION
Content
JURISPRUDENCE
CASE TITLE
GR. NO.:
PONENTE:
TOPIC/S:
TRIGGER OF THE FACTS:
TRIGGER OF THE ISSUE/S:
TRIGGER OF THE RULING:
VERDICT:

! of 272
!
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
CASE DOCTRINE:
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
COURT DECISIONS:
FACTS
ISSUE
HELD
SYLLABI
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
CONCURRING
DISSENTING
SEPARATE OPINION
OBITER DICTUM

! of 272
!
CHAPTER NUMBER
Article Number
SUBTITLE ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
BAR QUESTION .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
JURISPRUDENCE
CASE TITLE ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
INTRODUCTION
CRIMINAL LAW ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................12
CRIMINAL LAW V. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ............................................................................................................................................................................12
STATE AUTHORITY TO PUNISH CRIME ................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
SOURCES OF PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL LAW (REYES).............................................................................................................................................................. 12
OTHER SOURCES TO PUNISH CRIME .................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS ...........................................................................................13
1985 RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, RULE 115 ............................................................................................................................................................. 16
CIVIL CODE, ARTICLE 2 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................17
PENOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17
AMERICAN RULE / ANGLO-SAXON RULE ............................................................................................................................................................................... 17
RELATION OF RPC TO SPECIAL LAWS: SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF RPC ..................................................................................................................18
CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS ..........................................................................................................................................................................................18
LEGAL/LATIN MAXIMS
NULLUM CRIMEN, NULLA POENA SINE LEGE ........................................................................................................................................................................18
ACTUS NON FACIT REUM, NISI MENS SIT REA......................................................................................................................................................................19
MENS REA ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................19
EL QUE ES CAUSA DE LA CAUSA ES CAUSA DEL MAL CAUSADO ......................................................................................................................................19
EQUIPOISE RULE ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
PROSPECTIVITY
CIVIL CODE RELATIONS ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................19
EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION ............................................................................................................................................................................................20
EFFECTS OF REPEAL/AMENDMENT OF PENAL LAW............................................................................................................................................................ 20
NULLUM CRIMEN NULLA POENA SINE LEGE .........................................................................................................................................................................21
STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS AGAINST STATE .............................................................................................................................................. 21
RULES OF CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS ......................................................................................................................................................................21
JURISPRUDENCE
PRELIMINARY TITLE
Article 1
SCHOOL OF THOUGHT .............................................................................................................................................................................................................23
Article 2
SCOPE OF APPLICATION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL LAW ........................................................................................................ 25
GENERALITY
1987 CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 11 .....................................................................................................................................................................25
CIVIL CODE, ARTICLE 14 ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................25
EXCEPTIONS .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................26
TREATY STIPULATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................................................................26
RULE ON JURISDICTION UNDER THE VFA............................................................................................................................................................................. 27
LAWS OF PREFERENTIAL APPLICATION ................................................................................................................................................................................ 27
PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW .....................................................................................................................................................................27
TERRITORIALITY
CONSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 28

! of 272
!
PAR. 1: CRIMES COMMITTED ABOARD PHILIPPINE SHIP OR AIRSHIP ...............................................................................................................................28
INTERNATIONAL THEORIES ON AERIAL JURISDICTION ......................................................................................................................................................29
PAR. 2: FORGING/COUNTERFEITING AND COINS OR CURRENCY NOTES IN THE PHILIPPINES .................................................................................... 30
CRIMINAL LAW BOOK TWO RELATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................. 30
PAR. 3: SHOULD INTRODUCE INTO THE COUNTRY THE ABOVEMENTIONED OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES. .........................................................31
PAR. 4: WHEN PUBLIC OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES COMMIT AN OFFENSE IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR FUNCTIONS...............................................31
PAR. 5: COMMIT ANY OF THE CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS .............................................................................38
EXPLANATION OF THE EXCEPTIONS .....................................................................................................................................................................................38
BAR QUESTION ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 39
JURISPRUDENCE
US VS. SWEET .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 39
LIANG VS. PEOPLE ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................42
US V. AH SING (1917)........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 43
MIQUIABAS V. PHILIPPINES-RYUKUS COMMAND (1948) ............................................................................................................................................................. 45
CHAPTER ONE
Article 3
ELEMENTS OF FELONIE ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................47
REASON FOR PUNISHING ACTS OF NEGLIGENCE OR IMPRUDENCE .............................................................................................................................. 47
WHAT IS “ACT” ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................47
WHAT IS “INTENT”...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 48
OMISSION................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 48
WHAT IS “FELONY” .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 48
PRESUMPTION OF CRIMINAL INTENT ................................................................................................................................................................................... 48
EXAMPLE OF FELONY BY PERFORMING AN ACT. ................................................................................................................................................................ 49
ONLY EXTERNAL ACT IS PUNISHED. .....................................................................................................................................................................................49
PUNISHABLE BY LAW ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................49
CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES ACCORDING TO THE MEANS BY WHICH THEY ARE COMMITTED. ..............................................................................49
INTENTIONAL (DOLO) VS CULPABLE (FAULT) ........................................................................................................................................................................50
INTENTIONAL FELONIES ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................50
REASON FOR PUNISHING ACTS OF NEGLIGENCE (CULPA). .............................................................................................................................................. 50
ART. 365. IMPRUDENCE AND NEGLIGENCE...........................................................................................................................................................................50
IN FELONIES COMMITTED BY MEANS OF DOLO OR WITH MALICE AND IN FELONIES COMMITTED BY MEANS OF FAULT OR CULPA, THE ACTS
OR OMISSIONS ARE VOLUNTARY. ..........................................................................................................................................................................................52
3 REASONS WHY THE ACT OR OMISSION IN FELONIES MUST BE VOLUNTARY. ..............................................................................................................52
REQUISITES OF DOLO OR MALICE .........................................................................................................................................................................................52
HONEST MISTAKE OF FACT ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 53
PRESUMPTION OF CRIMINAL INTENT .................................................................................................................................................................................... 53
MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA .........................................................................................................................................................................................53
DISTINCTION BETWEEN INTENT AND MOTIVE ......................................................................................................................................................................55
THERE IS NO FELONY BY DOLO IF THERE IS NO INTENT ...................................................................................................................................................55
MISTAKE OF FACT ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 55
REQUISITES OF MISTAKE OF FACT AS A DEFENSE.............................................................................................................................................................. 55
THE MISTAKE MUST BE WITHOUT FAULT OR CARELESSNESS ON THE PART OF THE ACCUSED. ...............................................................................56
LACK OF INTENT TO KILL THE DECEASED, BECAUSE HIS INTENTION WAS TO KILL ANOTHER, DOES NOT RELIEVE THE ACCUSED FROM
CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 56
IN MISTAKE OF FACT, THE INTENTION OF THE ACCUSED IN PERFORMING THE ACT SHOULD BE LAWFUL. ..............................................................56
EXAMPLES OF FELONY BY OMISSION: ................................................................................................................................................................................. 56
RPC, ART. 365 PAR 7 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 57
REQUISITES OF CULPA ............................................................................................................................................................................................................57
OMISSION RELATED LAWS UNDER BOOK TWO ....................................................................................................................................................................57
JURISPRUDENCE

! of 272
!
PEOPLE VS. OANIS ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................62
PEOPLE VS AH CHONG ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 66
PEOPLE V. TEMBLOR ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 69
PEOPLE V. TEMBLOR ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 71
CASE TITLE ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 72
CASE TITLE ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 73
CASE TITLE ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 74
CASE TITLE ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 76
CASE TITLE ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 77
CASE TITLE ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 78
CASE TITLE ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 80
CASE TITLE ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 81
CASE TITLE ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 83
CASE TITLE ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 84
CASE TITLE ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 85
Article 4
COMMITTING A FELONY ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................87
PROXIMATE CAUSE .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 87
ALTHOUGH THE WRONGFUL ACT DONE BE DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH HE INTENDED
DISTINCTION OF ABERRATIO ICTUS VS. ERROR IN PERSONAE ........................................................................................................................................88
REQUISITES OF ART. 4 PAR. 1 ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 89
FELONY COMMITTED IS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE RESULTING INJURY WHEN.......................................................................................... 89
WHEN DEATH IS PRESUMED TO BE THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED ................................................................... 89
PROXIMATE CAUSE V. IMMEDIATE CAUSE V. REMOTE CAUSE .......................................................................................................................................... 90
THE FOLLOWING ARE NOT EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE............................................................................................................................................ 90
EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE ...........................................................................................................................................................................................90
INSTANCES WHEN THERE IS PROXIMATE CAUSE AND WHEN THERE IS NONE ..............................................................................................................91
PAR. 2 OF ART. 4: IMPOSSIBLE CRIME.................................................................................................................................................................................... 91
PURPOSE OF PUNISHING IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES .................................................................................................................................................................. 91
REQUISITES (1-4) ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 91
WERE IT NOT FOR THE INHERENT IMPOSSIBILITY OF ITS ACCOMPLISHMENT OR ON ACCOUNT OF THE EMPLOYMENT OF
INADEQUATE OR INEFFECTUAL MEANS
“INHERENT IMPOSSIBILITY OF OF ITS ACCOMPLISHMENT”................................................................................................................................................ 92
“WOULD BE AN OFFENSE AGAINST PERSONS.” ...................................................................................................................................................................92
“WOULD BE AN OFFENSE AGAINST PROPERTY.”

“EMPLOYMENT OF INADEQUATE” MEANS
EMPLOYMENT OF "INEFFECTUAL MEANS.”
IN IMPOSSIBLE CRIME THE ACT PERFORMED SHOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF ANOTHER PROVISION OF THE CODE. ......................94
JURISPRUDENCE
INTOD VS. CA .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 95
GEMMA T. JACINTO VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES................................................................................................................................................................ 97
CASE TITLE ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 99
CASE TITLE ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 101
Article 5
TRIAL OF CRIMINAL CASE BASED ON PAR. 1 ......................................................................................................................................................................103
IN CASE OF EXCESSIVE PENALTY ........................................................................................................................................................................................103
THE PENALTIES ARE NOT EXCESSIVE WHEN INTENDED TO ENFORCE A PUBLIC POLICY. ........................................................................................ 104
WHEN STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISION OF THIS CODE

BAR QUESTION .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 105

! of 272
!
JURISPRUDENCE
CASE TITLE...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 111
Article 6
FORMAL CRIMES OR CRIMES OF EFFECT ...........................................................................................................................................................................114
STAGES OF EXECUTION......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 114
DEVELOPMENT OF ACTS ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 114
ATTEMPTED FELONY; REQUISITES ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 117
WHEN TO SAY OVERT ACTS WAS COMMENCED ................................................................................................................................................................117
WHAT IS AN OVERT ACT? ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 117
WHAT IS AN INDETERMINATE OFFENSE? ............................................................................................................................................................................119
SUBJECTIVE PHASE ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................120
DESISTANCE ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................120
DESISTANCE IS TRUE ONLY IN THE ATTEMPTED STAGE OF THE FELONY. ....................................................................................................................120
KINDS OF DESISTANCE ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................121
FRUSTRATED STAGE
OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 122
CRIMES WHICH DO NOT ADMIT OF FRUSTRATED STAGE .................................................................................................................................................122
MURDER/HOMICIDE/PARRICIDE/INFANTICIDE ....................................................................................................................................................................124
RULES ON CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS OR PROPERTY (MHPI)....................................................................................................................................... 124
FACTORS IN DETERMINING THE STAGE OF EXECUTION OF A FELONY ......................................................................................................................... 125
THE MANNER OF COMMITTING THE CRIME .......................................................................................................................................................................125
THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME ............................................................................................................................................................................................126
THE NATURE OF THE CRIME ITSELF ...................................................................................................................................................................................127
CONSUMMATED
JURISPRUDENCE
CASE TITLE ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 127
Article 7
WHAT ARE LIGHT FELONIES?................................................................................................................................................................................................ 130
"WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE COMMITTED AGAINST PERSONS OR PROPERTY.” ................................................................................................130
REASON FOR THE GENERAL RULE ......................................................................................................................................................................................130
REASON FOR EXCEPTION ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 130
EXAMPLES OF LIGHT FELONIES AGAINST PERSON .......................................................................................................................................................... 130
EXAMPLES OF LIGHT FELONIES AGAINST PROPERTY......................................................................................................................................................130
Article 8
RELATED LAWS ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 132
CONSPIRACY ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................134
REQUISITES OF CONSPIRACY .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 134
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 135
PROPOSAL TO COMMIT..........................................................................................................................................................................................................142
CONSPIRACY AS A FELONY, DISTINGUISHED FROM CONSPIRACY AS A MANNER OF INCURRING CRIMINAL LIABILITY .........................................143
REQUISITES OF PROPOSAL .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 143
THERE IS NO CRIMINAL PROPOSAL WHEN .........................................................................................................................................................................143
DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED CONSPIRACY.................................................................................................................................................................................. 144
BAR QUESTION .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 144
JURISPRUDENCE
CASE TITLE ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 150
CASE TITLE ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 152
CASE TITLE ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 154
CASE TITLE ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 156
CASE TITLE ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 158

! of 272
!
CASE TITLE ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 160
CASE TITLE ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 162
Article 9
GRAVE FELONIES ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 164
LESS GRAVE FELONIES .........................................................................................................................................................................................................164
LIGHT FELONIES ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 164
IMPORTANCE OF CLASSIFICATION .......................................................................................................................................................................................164
Article 10
GENERAL RULE....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 166
EXCEPTIONS ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................166
CRIMES DEFINED AND PENALIZED BY SPECIAL LAWS......................................................................................................................................................166
CHAPTER 2
Article 11
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 168
PAR. 1. REQ. 1. SELF-DEFENSE (CSQ)

RIGHTS INCLUDED IN SELF-DEFENSE................................................................................................................................................................................. 168
REQUISITE OF SELF-DEFENSE ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 169
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION ......................................................................................................................................................................................................169
AGGRESSION MUST BE UNLAWFUL .....................................................................................................................................................................................170
MEANING OF UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION .............................................................................................................................................................................. 172
WHEN THERE IS NO PERIL TO ONE'S LIFE, LIMB OR RIGHT, THERE IS NO UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION ...................................................................... 172
PERIL TO ONE’S LIMB .............................................................................................................................................................................................................172
PRESENCE OF ACTUAL PHYSICAL FORCE OR ACTUAL USE OF WEAPON ..................................................................................................................... 173
PAR. 1. REQ. 2. REASONABLE NECESSITY OF MEANS EMPLOYED TO PREVENT OR REPEL IT.

DOCTRINE OF RATIONAL EQUIVALENCE. ........................................................................................................................................................................... 173
TEST OF REASONABLENESS ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 174
RETALIATION IS NOT SELF-DEFENSE. ................................................................................................................................................................................. 176
RETALIATION VS. SELF-DEFENSE.........................................................................................................................................................................................177
PAR. 1. REQ. 3. LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION ON PART OF DEFENDER

LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION.................................................................................................................................................................................. 178
NO PROVOCATION AT ALL ......................................................................................................................................................................................................178
UNDER R.A 9262, KNOWN AS VAWC .....................................................................................................................................................................................179
“CYCLE OF VIOLENCE” ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................179
DEFENSE OF HONOR AND PROPERTY ................................................................................................................................................................................ 179
HOW TO DETERMINE THE SUFFICIENCY OF PROVOCATION ........................................................................................................................................... 180
ILLUSTRATION OF THE THREE REQUISITES OF SELF-DEFENSE .....................................................................................................................................180
PAR 2. REQ. 1 DEFENSE OF RELATIVES

ELEMENTS DEFENSE OF RELATIVES ...................................................................................................................................................................................182
EXAMPLE OF DEFENSE OF SPOUSE ....................................................................................................................................................................................183
PAR 3. DEFENSE OF STRANGERS

ELEMENTS OF DEFENSE OF STRANGERS ..........................................................................................................................................................................184
WHO ARE DEEMED STRANGER ............................................................................................................................................................................................184
EXAMPLE OF A DEFENSE OF A STRANGER.........................................................................................................................................................................185
PAR. 4. AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL

INJURY TO PERSON................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 185
STATE OF NECESSITY ............................................................................................................................................................................................................185
EXAMPLE OF DAMAGE TO PROPERTY ................................................................................................................................................................................ 186
THE EVIL WHICH BROUGHT ABOUT THE GREATER EVIL MUST NOT RESULT FROM A VIOLATION OF LAW BY THE ACTOR. ...................................186
THERE IS CIVIL LIABILITY UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH. .......................................................................................................................................................186

! of 272
!
PAR. 5. FULFILMENT OF A DUTY
BUT SHOOTING A THIEF WHO REFUSED TO BE ARRESTED IS NOT JUSTIFIED ............................................................................................................187
ILLEGAL PERFORMANCE OF DUTY. .....................................................................................................................................................................................187
DISTINGUISHED FROM SELF-DEFENSE AND FROM CONSEQUENCE OF FELONIOUS ACT. .........................................................................................187
DOCTRINE OF “SELF-HELP”................................................................................................................................................................................................... 188
PAR. 6. OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED FOR SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE

REQUISITES .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................189
EXAMPLE OF ABSENCE OF THE THIRD REQUISITE. ......................................................................................................................................................... 189
BAR QUESTION .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 190
JURISPRUDENCE
PEOPLE VS. GENOSA .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 194
Article 12
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE (FOR NON-IMPUTABILITY) ..................................................................................................................................................201
BURDEN OF PROOF................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 202
DISTINCTION BETWEEN JUSTIFYING AND EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE ...................................................................................................................... 202
PAR. 1. IMBECILITY OR INSANITY

2 TEST OF INSANITY ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 202
PRESUMPTION ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................203
OCCURENCE OF INSANITY AND ITS EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL LIABILITY.......................................................................................................................... 203
CIRCUMSTANCE OF ILLNESS ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 203
PAR. 2 AND 3. MINORITY

DEFINITION OF CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW ......................................................................................................................................................... 206
MINIMUM AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY ..................................................................................................................................................................207
WHAT IS THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE SYSTEM? ............................................................................................................................................ 207
DETERMINATION OF AGE (SEC. 7, RA 9344) .......................................................................................................................................................................207
IN THE ABSENCE OF THESE DOCUMENTS, AGE MAY BE BASED ON: ............................................................................................................................ 207
EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY ............................................................................................................................................................................. 208
AUTOMATIC SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE........................................................................................................................................................................... 208
DISCHARGE OF THE CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW. ................................................................................................................................................208
PAR. 4 ACCIDENT WITHOUT FAULT OR INTENTION OF CAUSING IT ................................................................................................................................209
REQUISITES .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................209
ILLUSTRATION .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................209
PAR. 5. ANY PERSON WHO ACT UNDER THE COMPULSION OF IRRESISTIBLE FORCE.
ELEMENTS ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................209
NO COMPULSION OF IRRESISTIBLE FORCE. .....................................................................................................................................................................210
PASSION OR OBFUSCATION CANNOT BE IRRESISTIBLE FORCE. ...................................................................................................................................210
NATURE OF FORCE REQUIRED. ..........................................................................................................................................................................................210
PAR. 6 UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR

ELEMENTS ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................210
INJURY IS LESS THAN THAT COMMITED ..............................................................................................................................................................................211
DISTINCTION BETWEEN PAR. 5 AND 6..................................................................................................................................................................................211
DURESS AS A VALID DEFENSE .............................................................................................................................................................................................211
PARAMETER OF UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR .........................................................................................................................................................................212
COMPULSION ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................212
REAL, IMMINENT OR REASONABLE FEAR ........................................................................................................................................................................... 212
IRRESISTIBLE VS. UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR ......................................................................................................................................................................212
PAR. 7. INSUPERABLE CAUSE

INSUPERABLE CAUSE ............................................................................................................................................................................................................213
ELEMENTS ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................213
ILLUSTRATIONS....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 213
DISTINCTION BETWEEN OF PARAGRAPH ........................................................................................................................................................................... 213
! of 272
!
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................214
DISTINGUISH ENTRAPMENT AND INSTIGATION ..................................................................................................................................................................214
BAR QUESTION .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 215
JURISPRUDENCE
CASE TITLE ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 218
Article 13
PAR. 1. INCOMPLETE JUSTIFICATION AND EXEMPTION
PAR. 2 OVER 15 UNDER 18 WITH DISCERNMENT OR OVER 70 YEARS OLD
PAR. 3 NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG (PRAETER INTENTIONEM)
RULE FOR THE APPLICATION OF THIS PARAGRAPH ........................................................................................................................................................227
PAR. 4 PROVOCATION OR THREAT

PROVOCATION ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................228
REQUISITES .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................228
SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 229
SUFFICIENCY DEPENDS UPON ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 230
PROVOCATION HELD NOT SUFFICIENT. ............................................................................................................................................................................. 231
THREAT..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 231
VAGUE THREATS NOT SUFFICIENT ......................................................................................................................................................................................231
PAR. 5 IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE

ELEMENTS ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................232
WHO MAY INVOKE THIS PARAGRAPH .................................................................................................................................................................................. 232
IMMEDIATE ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................232
GRAVE OFFENSE .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 232
PAR 6. PASSION OR OBFUSCATION

ELEMENTS ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................233
REQUISITES .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................233
PASSION OR OBFUSCATION NOT APPLICABLE WHEN ......................................................................................................................................................234
PASSION/OBFUSCATION V. IRRESISTIBLE FORCE ............................................................................................................................................................. 235
PASSION/OBFUSCATION V. PROVOCATION .........................................................................................................................................................................235
TIME APPLICABILITY ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 235
LAWFUL SENTIMENT............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 236
SPIRIT OF LAWLESSNESS ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 237
SPIRIT OF REVENGE ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................237
SPIRIT OF RESENTMENT .......................................................................................................................................................................................................237
OBFUSCATION ARISING FROM PASSION OF JEALOUSY ...................................................................................................................................................237
OBFUSCATION — WHEN RELATIONSHIP IS ILLEGITIMATE — NOT MITI- GATING. ......................................................................................................... 237
OFFENDER MUST ACT UNDER THE IMPULSE OF SPECIAL MOTIVES ..............................................................................................................................237
MAY PASSION OR OBFUSCATION LAWFULLY ARISE FROM CAUSES EXISTING ONLY IN THE HONEST BELIEF OF THE OFFENDER? ..................238
PROVOCATION AND OBFUSCATION ARISING FROM ONE AND THE SAME CAUSE SHOULD BE TREATED AS ONLY ONE MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCE. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 238
PASSION OR OBFUSCATION INCOMPATIBLE WITH TREACHERY. ....................................................................................................................................239
PASSION AND OBFUSCATION CANNOT CO-EXIST WITH EVIDENT PRE- MEDITATION. .................................................................................................239
PROVOCATION VIZ-A-VIZ VINDICATION ............................................................................................................................................................................... 239
PAR. 7 SURRENDER AND CONFESSION OF GUILT

TWO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES ARE PROVIDED IN THIS PARAGRAPH. .................................................................................................................240
REQUISITES OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER. ......................................................................................................................................................................240
REQUISITES OF VOLUNTARINESS .......................................................................................................................................................................................240
CASES OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER. ................................................................................................................................................................................ 240
CASES NOT CONSTITUTING VOLUNTARY SURRENDER ...................................................................................................................................................241
VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED HIMSELF ............................................................................................................................................................................. 243
PERSON IN AUTHORITY .........................................................................................................................................................................................................244

! of 272
!
AGENT OF A PERSON IN AUTHORITY ...................................................................................................................................................................................244
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER DOES NOT SIMPLY MEAN NON-FLIGHT ................................................................................................................................244
NATURE OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER................................................................................................................................................................................ 244
REQUISITES OF VOLUNTARY PLEA OF GUILTY...................................................................................................................................................................245
PAR. 8 PHYSICAL DEFECT OF OFFENDER

PAR. 9 ILLNESS OF THE OFFENDER
REQUISITES .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................246
WHEN THE OFFENDER COMPLETELY LOST THE EXERCISE OF WILL-POWER, IT MAY BE AN EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE. ............................... 246
DOES THIS CIRCUMSTANCE INCLUDE ILLNESS OF THE MIND? ......................................................................................................................................246
ILLNESS OF THE OFFENDER CONSIDERED MITIGATING. ................................................................................................................................................247
PAR. 10 SIMILAR ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCES

MUST BE OF SIMILAR NATURE AND ANALOGOUS TO THOSE MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPHS 1 TO 9 OF ART. 13 .....................................................248
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE NEITHER EXEMPTING NOR MITIGATING ........................................................................................................................ 248
SPECIFIC MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES ............................................................................................................................................................................ 248
BAR QUESTION .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 248
JURISPRUDENCE
CASE TITLE ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 252
CHAPTER 4
Article 14.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES .........................................................................................................................................................................................257
KINDS OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES .......................................................................................................................................................................257
GENERIC VS. QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES .......................................................................................................................................... 258
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES, NOT ALLEGED .............................................................................................................................................................. 258
CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT INCREASE THE PENALTY ........................................................................................................................................................258
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE PERSONAL TO THE OFFENDERS. ........................................................................................................ 259
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH DEPEND FOR THEIR APPLICATION UPON THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE OFFENDERS. ............................ 260
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES NOT PRESUMED. ......................................................................................................................................................... 261
PAR. 1 THAT ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN BY THE OFFENDER OF HIS PUBLIC POSITION

APPLICABLE ONLY WHEN THE OFFENDER IS A PUBLIC OFFICER ..................................................................................................................................261
USE OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 261
ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN BY THE OFFENDER OF HIS PUBLIC POSITION........................................................................................................................... 262
THIS AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE IS PRESENT WHEN A COUNCILOR COLLECTS FINES AND MISAPPROPRIATES THEM. .............................. 262
WHEN THE PUBLIC OFFICER DID NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE INFLUENCE OF HIS POSITION, THIS AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE IS NOT
PRESENT. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................262
PAR. 2 THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN CONTEMPT OF OR WITH INSULT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
REQUISITES OF THIS CIRCUMSTANCE: .............................................................................................................................................................................. 263
PUBLIC AUTHORITIES.............................................................................................................................................................................................................263
KNOWLEDGE THAT A PUBLIC AUTHORITY IS PRESENT IS ESSENTIAL. ......................................................................................................................... 264
PAR. 3 THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH INSULT OF RANK, AGE, OR SEX, OR THAT IT BE COMMITTED IN THE DWELLING OF
THE OFFENDED PARTY
ELEMENTS ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................265
APPROACH IF ALL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE PRESENT ......................................................................................................................................................... 265
APPLICABLE ONLY TO CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS OR HONOR .....................................................................................................................................265
THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF DISREGARD OF RANK, AGE OR SEX IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE FOLLOWING CASES .......................265
DWELLING ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................266
BAR QUESTION .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 266
JURISPRUDENCE
CASE TITLE ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 270

! of 272
!
INTRODUCTION
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
!
CRIMINAL LAW
is that branch of public substantive law which defines offenses and prescribes their penalties. It is also that branch of
municipal law, which defines crimes, treats of their nature and provides for their punishment.
CRIMINAL LAW V. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Substantive Remedial
Prospective in application Retrospective in application
Exception: If it is favorable to the accused.
Exception To The Exception:
(1) When the accused is a habitual delinquent. (Art. 22)
(2) Where the new law expressly made inapplicable to

pending actions or existing causes of actions. [Tavera v.
Valdez]
Statutory; it is passed by the Legislature. May be promulgated by the Legislature (e.g. jurisdiction of
courts) or the Judiciary (e.g. Rules of Court)
STATE AUTHORITY TO PUNISH CRIME

(STATUTORY BASIS) Declaration of Principles and State Policies. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of
life, liberty and property, and promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the
blessings of democracy.1
SOURCES OF PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL LAW (REYES)

1. The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) and its amendments
2. Special penal laws passed by the Philippine Commission, Philippine Assembly, Philippine Legislature, National
Assembly, the Congress of the Philippines, and the Batasang Pambansa.
3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law.
1 Art. II, Sec. 5 (1987 Constitution)

! of 272
!
OTHER SOURCES TO PUNISH CRIME

Art. II, Sec. 5 of 1987 Constitution Declaration of Principles and State Policies. The
maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life,
liberty and property, and the promotion of the general
welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of
the blessings of democracy.
Art. VI, Sec. 1 of 1987 Constitution Section 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the
Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate
and a House of Representatives, except to the extent
reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and
referendum.
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO

ENACT PENAL LAWS
Art. III, Sec. 1, 1987 Const. No person shall be deprived of
EQUAL PROTECTION life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall
any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Art. III, Sec. 14 (1), 1987 Const. No person shall be held to

DUE PROCESS answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.

! of 272
!
RULE 115. Rights of Accused 

 
Section 1. Rights of accused at the trial. — In all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following
rights: 
 
A. To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved
beyond reasonable doubt. 
B. To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him. 
C. To be present and defend in person and by counsel at
every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to
promulgation of the judgment. The accused may, however,
waive his presence at the trial pursuant to the stipulations
set forth in his bail, unless his presence is specifically
ordered by the court for purposes of identification. The
absence of the accused without justifiable cause at the trial
of which he had notice shall be considered a waiver of his
right to be present thereat. When an accused under custody
escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be
present on all subsequent trial dates until custody over him
is regained. Upon motion, the accused may be allowed to
RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED
defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to the
court that he can properly protect his right without the
assistance of counsel. 
D. To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to
cross-examination on matters covered by direct
examination. His silence shall not in any manner prejudice
him. 
E. To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness
against himself. 
F. To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him
at the trial. Either party may utilize as part of its evidence the
testimony of a witness who is deceased, out of or can not
with due diligence be found in the Philippines, unavailable or
otherwise unable to testify, given in another case or
proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same
parties and subject matter, the adverse party having the
opportunity to cross-examine him.
G. To have compulsory process issued to secure the
attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence in
his behalf. 
H. To have speedy, impartial and public trial.To appeal in all
cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law. (1a)

! of 272
!
Art III, Sec. 19, 1987 Const. Excessive fines shall not be
imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
NON-IMPOSITION OF CRUEL AND UNUSUAL inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for
PUNISHMENT OR EXCESSIVE FINES compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress
hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed
shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
Art III, Sec. 19, 1987 Const. Excessive fines shall not be
imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
NON-IMPOSITION OF CRUEL AND UNUSUAL inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for
PUNISHMENT OR EXCESSIVE FINES compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress
hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed
shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the This Act also imposes the punishment of reclusion perpetua
Philippines (RA 9346) for offenses under any act using the nomenclature of the
Repealed the law imposing lethal injection (R.A. 8177) RPC (Sec. 2 (a)) and the punishment of life imprisonment
and the law imposing the death penalty (R.A. 7659) for offenses under any act which does not use the
(Sec. 1) nomenclature of the RPC (Sec. 2(b))
Art. III, Sec. 22, 1987 Const. No ex post facto law or bill of
attainder shall be enacted.
BILL OF ATTAINDER
Bill of Attainder - a legislative act that inflicts punishment
without trial, its essence being the substitution of legislative
fiat for a judicial determination of guilt.
Ex Post Facto Law is one which:

(1) Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the
law and which was innocent when done, and punishes
such an act.
(2) Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was,
when committed;
(3) Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater
punishment than the law annexed to the crime when
committed;
EX POST FACTO LAW (4) Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes
conviction upon less or different testimony than the law
required at the time of the commission of the offense;
(5) Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in
effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for
something which when done was lawful; and
(6) Deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful
protection to which he has become entitled, such as the
protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a
proclamation of amnesty.
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS

! of 272
!
(a) Must not provide imprisonment for non-payment of debts or poll tax. [1987 Const. Art. III, Sec. 19 (1)]
(b) Must not restrict other constitutional freedoms, e.g. due process, religion, free speech, and assembly.
1985 RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, RULE 115
Section 1. Rights of accused at trial. – In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following
rights:  
 
(a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt.  
 
(b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.  
 
(c) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to
promulgation of the judgment. The accused may, however, waive his presence at the trial pursuant to the
stipulations set forth in his bail, unless his presence is specifically ordered by the court for purposes of
identification. The absence of the accused without justifiable cause at the trial of which he had notice shall be
considered a waiver of his right to be present thereat. When an accused under custody escapes, he shall be
deemed to have waived his right to be present on all subsequent trial dates until custody over him is regained.
Upon motion, the accused may be allowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to the court that
he can properly protect his rights without the assistance of counsel.  
 
(d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-examination on matters covered by direct
examination. His silence shall not in any manner prejudice him.  
 
(e) To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself.  
 
(f) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial. Either party may utilize as part of its
evidence the testimony of a witness who is deceased, out of or can not with due diligence be found in the
Philippines, unavailable, or otherwise unable to testify, given in another case or proceeding, judicial or
administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, the adverse party having the opportunity to cross-
examine him.  
 
(g) To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence in
his behalf.  
 
(h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial.  

! of 272
!
 
(i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law.
CIVIL CODE, ARTICLE 2

Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory,
subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations.
SEE Pesigan v. Angeles (1984)

SEE Tañada v. Tuvera (1985)
PENOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES
Prevention
This assumes that man has a tendency to commit crime and punishing offenders will prevent them from doing so again.
Suppression can only be made possible through penal jurisprudence.
Deterrence/Exemplarity
This assumes that man is endowed with free will and of his awareness of the sanctions against crimes and his fear of such.
Especially if there is:
1. Certainty - that all crimes will be punished.

2. Celerity - that punishment will come swiftly
3. Severity - that punishment is proportionate to his crime. 
 
It is also assumed that punishing the offender with cruel and conspicuous penalties will make an example of him to deter
others from doing the same in the future.
Self-Defense
This is probably a conclusion reached by the social contract theorists who hold that there is an unwritten contract between
men and their society where individuals agree to give up certain rights in exchange for the protection and benefits offered by
a community. If individuals violate this contract, then the society, through the State, has the right to enforce its laws and
protect its own existence.
Reformation
This assumes that punishment is capable of changing/rehabilitating individuals.
Retribution
This rests on the basic premise that justice must be done: the offender shall not go unpunished. This belongs to that which
maintains that punishment is inherent in the very nature of a crime and is thus its necessary consequence.
AMERICAN RULE / ANGLO-SAXON RULE

! of 272
!
This rule strictly enforces the territoriality of criminal law. The law of the foreign country where a foreign vessel is within its
jurisdiction is strictly applied, 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.
This is also known as “ENGLISH RULE” in relation with Art. 14 Lex Nationalii
RELATION OF RPC TO SPECIAL LAWS: SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF

RPC
General rule: RPC provisions supplement the provisions of special laws. [Art. 10, RPC]
Exceptions: 
(1) Where the special law provides otherwise2 
(2) When the provisions of the Code are impossible of application, either by express provision or by necessary
implication, as in those instances where the provisions in question are peculiar to the Code3
In the absence of contrary provision in B.P. Blg. 22, the general provisions of the RPC which, by their nature, are necessarily
applicable, may be applied suppletorily4
CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS 
Strict construction against the State and liberally in favor of the accused
 
Pro Reo Doctrine – Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of two interpretations - one
lenient to the offender and one strict to the offender, that interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the offender will be
adopted.
Basis: The fundamental rule that all doubts shall be construed in favor of the accused and presumption of innocence of the
accused.
LEGAL/LATIN MAXIMS
NULLUM CRIMEN, NULLA POENA SINE LEGE5

• This is true to civil law countries, but not to common law countries
• No matter how wrongful, evil or bad the act is, if there is no law defining the act, the same is not considered a crime.
• Common law crimes are wrongful acts which the community/society condemns as contemptible, even though there is no
law declaring the act criminal.
• Not any law punishing an act or omission may be valid as a criminal law. If the law punishing an act is ambiguous, it is null
and void.
2 [Art.10, RPC]
3 [Regalado, Criminal Law Prospectus]
4 [Ladonga v. People (2005)]
5 There is no crime when there is no law punishing the same.

! of 272
!
ACTUS NON FACIT REUM, NISI MENS SIT REA6

• This is true to a felony characterized by dolo, but not a felony resulting from culpa.
• This maxim is not an absolute one because it is not applied to culpable felonies, or those that result from negligence.
MENS REA
in layman’s terms: “bulls-eye” of a crime. Synonymous with criminal or deliberate intent, but that is not correct. It still depends
on the elements of the crime. You can only detect the mens rea of a crime by knowing the particular crime committed.
Without reference to a particular crime, this term is meaningless.
Ex. In theft, mens rea is taking the property with intent to gain.
In falsification, mens rea, is the effect of the forgery with intent to pervert7 the truth
EL QUE ES CAUSA DE LA CAUSA ES CAUSA DEL MAL CAUSADO8

(1) This is the rationale in par. 1 of Art. 4 which enunciates the doctrine of proximate cause.
(2) He who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences which may naturally and logically result
therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not.
EQUIPOISE RULE
When the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are equally balanced, the scale should be tilted in favor of the
accused in obedience to the constitutional presumption of innocence.9
Yung evidence na nakuha ay kapantay o kasing bigat lamang ng depensa ng kalaban, so meaning kapag pantay lang magaapply yung in
case of doubt na favorable to the accused.
PROSPECTIVITY
General rule: Acts or omissions will only be subject to a penal law if they are committed AFTER a penal law has taken effect.
RPC, Art.21. Penalties that may be imposed.- No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its
commission.
RPC, Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. – Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect in so far as they favor the person
guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the
time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.
CIVIL CODE RELATIONS
6 The act cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal.
7 corrupt
8 “He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.”
9 [Ursua v. CA (1996); Corpuz v. People (1991)]

! of 272
!
Article 4. Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided. (3)10
Conversely, acts or omissions which have been committed before the effectivity of a penal law could not be penalized by
such penal law.
Exception: Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect, insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony.11
EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION

(1) The new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing cause of actions; or
(2) The offender is a habitual criminal.12
EFFECTS OF REPEAL/AMENDMENT OF PENAL LAW

General Rule: Ex post facto law is prohibited. Ex post facto law is one that is specifically made to retroact to cover acts
before it became effective to the prejudice of the accused; or to make a certain crime graver or prescribe a heavier penalty
for it.
The law does not have any retroactive effect EXCEPT if it favors the offender unless he is a habitual delinquent or the law
otherwise provides.
This is consistent with the general principle that criminal laws, being a limitation on the rights of the people, should be
construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused.
(1) If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in the new law,
(1) The new law shall be applied,
(2) 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.
(2) If the new law imposes a heavier penalty

Law in force at the time of the commission of the offense shall be applied.
(3) If the new law totally repeals the existing law so that the act which was penalized under the old law is no longer
punishable,
(a) The crime is obliterated.  
(b) Pending cases are dismissed.  
(c) Unserved penalties imposed are remitted.  
(4) Rule of prospectivity also applies to judicial decisions, administrative rulings and circulars13
10 Art. 4 of NCC
11 [Art. 22, RPC]
12 [Art. 22, RPC]
13 [Art. 8, Civil Code]

! of 272
!
Rationale for the prospectivity rule: the punishability of an act must be reasonably known for the guidance of society14 .
NULLUM CRIMEN NULLA POENA SINE LEGE

There is no crime when there is no Law, There must be no crime or punishment except in accordance with fixed,
predetermined law
Art. 3. Definitions. — Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).  
Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).  
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there is fault when the wrongful act results from
imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.  
 
Art. 21. Penalties that may be imposed. — No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior
to its commission.
There is no crime when where is no law punishing it.
The phrase “punished by law” should be understood to mean “punished by the Revised Penal Code”, and not by special law.
See Bernardo v. People (1983)

See People v. Pimentel (1998)
STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS AGAINST STATE
Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.  
 
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy
the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him,
to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to
secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial
may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure
to appear is unjustifiable.
RULES OF CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS

1. Criminal statutes are liberally construed in favor of the offender. This means that no person shall be brought within
their terms of the law who is not clearly within them, nor should any act be pronounced criminal which is not clearly
made so by statute.
2. The original text in which a penal law is approved will govern in case of a conflict with an official translation. Hence,
the RPC, which was approved in Spanish text, is controlling over its English translation.
14 [Peo v. Jabinal]

! of 272
!
3. Interpretation by analogy has no place in criminal matters.
- reasoning by analogy is applied only when similarities are limited and it is admitted that significant differences also
exist.
JURISPRUDENCE

! of 272
!
GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING THE DATE OF

ENFORCEMENT AND APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS CODE, AND REGARDING THE OFFENSES, THE
PERSONS LIABLE AND THE PENALTIES
PRELIMINARY TITLE
DATE OF EFFECTIVENESS AND APPLICATION

OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE
!
Article 1
Time when Act takes effect. — This Code shall take effect on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-
two.
SCHOOL OF THOUGHT
Utilitarian Theory
Primary purpose: Protection of society from actual or potential wrongdoers.
ClassicalTheory
(1) Primary purpose: Retribution.

(2) Basis of criminal liability: Human free will.
(3) Endeavored to establish a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and penalty; there is scant regard to human
element.
Positivist Theory
(1) Primary purpose: Reformation; prevention/correction.

(2) Basis of criminal liability: The sum of the social, natural and economic phenomena to which the actor is exposed.
Eclectic / Mixed
(1) Combines both positivist and classical thinking.

! of 272
!
(2) Our code is considered eclectic; which the offender is taken into consideration, intoxication of the offender is taken into
consideration 15
(3) Crimes that are economic and social by nature should be dealt within a positivist manner; thus, the law is more
compassionate.
(4) Heinous crimes should be dealt with in a classical manner; thus, capital punishment.
Note: The Revised Penal Code today follows the mixed or eclectic philosophy.
The RPC consists of two books: Book One consists of 1) basic principles affecting criminal liability and 2) the provisions on
penalties including criminal and civil liability; Book Two defines felonies with the corresponding penalties
15 intoxication of the offender in order is considered a mitigating circumstance unless it is habitual or intentional

! of 272
!
Article 2
Application of its provisions. — Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application, the
provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its
interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:  
 
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship  
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities
issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands; 
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and securities
mentioned in the presiding number; 
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or  
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book
Two of this Code.
SCOPE OF APPLICATION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF PHILIPPINE

CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal law has three (3) characteristics: (PGT)
1. General (FOR PEOPLE)
2. Territorial (WHERE THE PENAL LAW IS BINDING, SPEAKS TO THE TERITORY)
3. Prospective (ALL LAWS MUST BE APPLIED FROM PRESENT TO FUTURE)
GENERALITY
General rule: The penal law of the country is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine territory, subject to the
principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations.16
It refers to the people who live in the Philippines.
NOTE: The Philippines is a sovereign state with the obligation and the right of every government to uphold its laws and maintain order within
its domain, and with the general jurisdiction to punish persons for offenses committed within its territory right to be exempted from its laws
and jurisdiction, with the exception of states and diplomatic representative
1987 CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 11

A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years
imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable
in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof.
CIVIL CODE, ARTICLE 14
16 [Art. 14, NCC]

! of 272
!
Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all those who live or sojourn in the Philippine
territory, subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations.
General Rule: The jurisdiction of the civil courts is not affected by the military character of the accused.
Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with general court-martial over soldiers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines even
in times of war, provided that in the place of the commission of the crime no hostilities are in progress and civil courts are
functioning.
When the military court takes cognizance of the case involving a person subject to military law, the Articles of War apply,
not the RPC or other penal laws.
The prosecution of an accused before a court-martial is a bar to another prosecution of the accused for the same offense.
Offenders accused of war crimes are triable by military commission. A military commission has jurisdiction even if actual
hostilities have ceased as long as a technical state of war continues.
EXCEPTIONS
Art. 2, RPC. “Except as provided in the treaties or laws of preferential application xxx”.
Art. 14, NCC17 . “xxx subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations.”
TREATY STIPULATIONS
Examples:
EXAMPLE 1: Bases Agreement entered into by the Philippines and the US on Mar. 14, 1947 and expired on Sept. 16, 1991.
EXAMPLE 2: Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) is an agreement between the Philippine and US Government regarding the
treatment of US Armed Forces visiting the Philippines. It was signed on Feb. 10, 1998.  
Art. V, VFA, which defines criminal jurisdiction over United States military and civilian personnel temporarily in the Philippines
in connection with activities approved by the Philippine Government.
The US and Philippines agreed that:
(a) US shall have the right to exercise within the Philippines all criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by the
military law of the US over US personnel in RP;
(b) US authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over US personnel with respect to offenses, including offenses relating to
the security of the US punishable under the law of the US, but not under the laws of RP;
(c) US military authorities shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over US personnel subject to the military law of
the US in relation to:
(a) Offenses solely against the property or security of the US or offenses solely against the property or person of US
personnel; and
(b) Offenses arising out of any act or omission done in performance of official duty 18
17 lex nationalii
18 [Reyes, The RPC]

! of 272
!
RULE ON JURISDICTION UNDER THE VFA
(a) If the crime is punishable under Philippine laws but not under US laws then Philippines has exclusive jurisdiction.
(b) If the crime is punishable under US laws but not under Philippine laws then US has exclusive jurisdiction.
(c) If the crime is punishable under the US and Philippine laws then there is concurrent jurisdiction but the Philippines has
the right to primary jurisdiction.
(d) If the crime is committed by a US personnel against the security and property of the US alone then US has exclusive
jurisdiction.
SEE “US vs. Sweet” below : it states the application of ordinary jurisdiction of the RTC as consideration for the rules thereof.
LAWS OF PREFERENTIAL APPLICATION

Examples: 
(a) Members of Congress are not liable for libel or slander for any speech in Congress or in any committee thereof19
(b) Any ambassador or public minister of any foreign State, authorized and received as such by the President, or any
domestic or domestic servant of any such ambassador or minister are exempt from arrest and imprisonment and whose
properties are exempt from distraint, seizure and attachment20
R.A. No. 75 penalizes acts which would impair the proper observance by the Republic and inhabitants of the Philippines of
the immunities, rights, and privileges of duly accredited foreign diplomatic representatives in the Philippines.
Warship Rule – A warship of another country, even though docked in the Philippines, is considered an extension of the
territory of its respective country. This also applies to embassies.
PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

The following persons are exempt from the provisions of the RPC: 
(1) Sovereigns and other heads of state

(2) Ambassadors,
(3) ministers,
(4) plenipotentiary,
(5) minister resident
(6) and charges d’ affaires.
(7) (Article 31, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations)
Note: Consuls and consular officers are NOT exempt from local prosecution21
(a) Public vessels of a friendly foreign power are not subject to local jurisdiction.
(b) Generality has NO reference to territoriality.
19 (Sec. 11, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
20 (R.A. No. 75)
21 [See Article 41, Vienna Convention on Consular Relations]

! of 272
!
TERRITORIALITY
CONSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS
ARTICLE I. NATIONAL TERRITORY
1. The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago,
2. with all the islands and waters embraced therein,
3. and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction,
4. consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains,
5. including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas.
6. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago,
7. regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines 22
 
The RPC has therefore territorial and extraterritorial application. The maritime zone extends to three miles from the outermost
coastline. Beyond that is the “high seas” which is outside the territorial waters of the Philippines.
Art. 2, RPC embraces two scopes of applications:
(1) Intraterritorial – refers to the application of the RPC within the Philippine territory (land, air and water).
(2) Extraterritorial – refers to the application of the Revised Penal Code outside the Philippine territory.  
General rule: Penal laws of the country have force and effect only within its territory. 
(a) It cannot penalize crimes committed outside its territory.

(b) The national territory comprises the Philippine Archipelago… 23.
(c) The territory of the country is not limited to the land where its sovereignty resides but includes also its maritime and
interior waters as well as its atmosphere.[Art. 2, RPC]
Terrestrial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over land.
jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over maritime and

Fluvial
interior waters.
jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over the

Aerial
atmosphere
Exception: Extraterritorial Crimes, which are punishable even if committed outside the Philippine territory [Art. 2, RPC]
PAR. 1: CRIMES COMMITTED ABOARD PHILIPPINE SHIP OR AIRSHIP

The RPC is applied to Philippine vessels if the crime is committed while the ship is treading:
(a) Philippine waters (intraterritorial), or

(b) The high seas i.e. waters NOT under the jurisdiction of any State (extraterritorial)
22 1987 Constitution, Art. 1
23 [Art. I, 1987 Constitution]

! of 272
!
Two rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard merchant vessels while in the territorial waters of another country
(i.e. a foreign vessel treading Philippine waters OR Philippine vessels treading foreign waters):
French Rule English Rule (WE OBSERVE THIS RULE)
It is the flag or nationality of the vessel which determines the location or situs of the crime determines jurisdiction
jurisdiction UNLESS the crime violates the peace and order UNLESS the crime merely relates to internal management
of the host country. of the vessel.
The Philippines adheres to the ENGLISH RULE. However, these rules are NOT applicable if the vessel is on the
high seas when the crime was committed. In these cases, the laws of the nationality of the ship will always apply.
When the crime is committed in a war vessel of a foreign country, the nationality of the vessel will always determine
jurisdiction because war vessels are part of the sovereignty of the country to whose naval force they belong.
Note: The country of registry determines the nationality of the vessel, NOT ITS OWNERSHIP. A Filipino-owned vessel
registered in China must fly the Chinese flag.
Disorders which disturb only the peace of the ship or those on board are to be dealt with exclusively by the sovereignty of
the home of the ship, but those which disturb the public peace may be suppressed, and, if need be, the offenders punished
by the proper authorities of the local jurisdiction.
Smoking opium aboard a foreign vessel in Philippine waters constitutes a breach of public order because it causes such
drug to produce its pernicious effects within our territory.
Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over offenses committed on board foreign warships in territorial waters. Warships are
always reputed to be the territory of the country to which they belong and cannot be subjected to the laws of another state.
SEE US v. Ah Sing (1917)

SEE Miquiabas v. Philippines-Ryukus command (1948)
INTERNATIONAL THEORIES ON AERIAL JURISDICTION

(1) Free Zone Theory
The atmosphere over the country is free and not subject to the jurisdiction of the subjacent state, except for the protection of
its national security and public order.
(2) Relative Theory

The subjacent state exercises jurisdiction over the atmosphere only to the extent that it can effectively exercise control
thereof.
(3) Absolute Theory

The subjacent state has complete jurisdiction over the atmosphere above it subject only to the innocent passage by aircraft
of a foreign country.
Under this theory, if the crime is committed in an aircraft, no matter how high, as long as it can be established that it is within
the Philippine atmosphere, Philippine criminal law24 will govern.
24 (See Anti- Hijacking Law)

! of 272
!
Note: The Philippines adopts the Absolute Theory.
PAR. 2: FORGING/COUNTERFEITING AND COINS OR CURRENCY

NOTES IN THE PHILIPPINES
Forgery is committed abroad, and it refers only to Philippine coin, currency note, obligations and securities.
CRIMINAL LAW BOOK TWO RELATIONS
Art. 163. Making and importing and uttering false coins. — Any person who makes, imports, or utters, false
coins, in connivance with counterfeiters, or importers, shall suffer:  
 
1. Prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not to exceed P10,000 pesos, if the counterfeited
coin be silver coin of the Philippines or coin of the Central Bank of the Philippines of ten centavo denomination or
above.  
2. Prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine of not to exceed P2,000 pesos, if the
counterfeited coins be any of the minor coinage of the Philippines or of the Central Bank of the Philippines below
ten-centavo denomination.  
3. Prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P1,000 pesos, if the counterfeited coin be
currency of a foreign country. (As amended by R.A. No. 4202, approved June 19, 1965).
Art. 166. Forging treasury or bank notes on other documents payable to bearer; importing, and uttering
such false or forged notes and documents. — The forging or falsification of treasury or bank notes or certificates
or other obligations and securities payable to bearer and the importation and uttering in connivance with forgers or
importers of such false or forged obligations or notes, shall be punished as follows:  
 
1. By reclusion temporal in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P10,000 pesos, if the document which has
been falsified, counterfeited, or altered, is an obligations or security of the United States or of the Philippines
Islands.  
 
The word "obligation or security of the United States or of the Philippine Islands" shall be held to mean all bonds,
certificates of indebtedness, national bank notes, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for
money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States or of the Philippine Islands, and other
representatives of value, of whatever denomination, which have been or may be issued under any act of the
Congress of the United States or of the Philippine Legislature.  
 
2. By prision mayor in its maximum period and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos, if the falsified or altered

! of 272
!
document is a circulating note issued by any banking association duly authorized by law to issue the same.  
3. By prision mayor in its medium period and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos, if the falsified or counterfeited
document was issued by a foreign government.  
 
4. By prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P2,000 pesos, when the forged or altered
document is a circulating note or bill issued by a foreign bank duly authorized therefor.
PAR. 3: SHOULD INTRODUCE INTO THE COUNTRY THE

ABOVEMENTIONED OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES.
The reason for this provision is that the introduction of forged or counterfeited obligations and securities into the Philippines is
as dangerous as the forging or counterfeiting of the same, to the economic interest of the country.
PAR. 4: WHEN PUBLIC OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES COMMIT AN

OFFENSE IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR FUNCTIONS.
Crime committed pertains to the exercise of the public official’s functions:
The crimes which may be committed are:
CRIMES HINT

! of 272
!
Art. 210. Direct bribery. — Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act
constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of this official duties, in
consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer,
personally or through the mediation of another, shall suffer the penalty of prision
mayor in its medium and maximum periods and a fine [of not less than the value of
the gift and] not less than three times the value of the gift in addition to the penalty
corresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed.
If the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the execution of an act
which does not constitute a crime, and the officer executed said act, he shall suffer
the same penalty provided in the preceding paragraph; and if said act shall not
have been accomplished, the officer shall suffer the penalties of prision
Direct bribery (A.210) correccional, in its medium period and a fine of not less than twice the value of
such gift.
If the object for which the gift was received or promised was to make the public
officer refrain from doing something which it was his official duty to do, he shall
suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine [of not
less than the value of the gift and] not less than three times the value of such gift.
In addition to the penalties provided in the preceding paragraphs, the culprit shall
suffer the penalty of special temporary disqualification.
The provisions contained in the preceding paragraphs shall be made applicable to
assessors, arbitrators, appraisal and claim commissioners, experts or any other
persons performing public duties. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 872,
June 10, 1985).
Art. 211–A. Qualified Bribery. – if any public officer is entrusted with law
enforcement and he refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has
committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death in consideration
of any offer, promise, gift or present, he shall suffer the penalty for the offense
Qualified Bribery (A. 211-A)
which was not prosecuted.
If it is the public officer who asks or demands such gift or present, he shall suffer
the penalty of death. (As added by Section 4, RA No. 7659.)
Art. 211. Indirect bribery. — The penalties of prision correccional in its medium
and maximum periods, and public censure shall be imposed upon any public
Indirect bribery(A.211)
officer who shall accept gifts offered to him by reason of his office. (As amended
by Batas Pambansa Blg. 872, June 10, 1985).
Art. 212. Corruption of public officials. — The same penalties imposed upon the
officer corrupted, except those of disqualification and suspension, shall be
Corruption (A.212)
imposed upon any person who shall have made the offers or promises or given the
gifts or presents as described in the preceding articles.

! of 272
!
Art. 213. Frauds against the public treasury and similar offenses. — The
penalty of prision correccional in its medium period to prision mayor in its minimum
period, or a fine ranging from 200 to 10,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon
any public officer who:
1. In his official capacity, in dealing with any person with regard to furnishing
supplies, the making of contracts, or the adjustment or settlement of accounts
relating to public property or funds, shall enter into an agreement with any
interested party or speculator or make use of any other scheme, to defraud the
Government;
Frauds against the public treasury

2. Being entrusted with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts,
(A.213)
shall be guilty or any of the following acts or omissions:  
(a) Demanding, directly, or indirectly, the payment of sums different from or

larger than those authorized by law.
(b) Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for any sum of
money collected by him officially.
(c) Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way of payment or
otherwise things or objects of a nature different from that provided by law.
When the culprit is an officer or employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue
or the Bureau of Customs, the provisions of the Administrative Code shall be
applied.

! of 272
!
Art. 213. Frauds against the public treasury and similar offenses. — The
penalty of prision correccional in its medium period to prision mayor in its minimum
period, or a fine ranging from 200 to 10,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon
any public officer who:
1. In his official capacity, in dealing with any person with regard to furnishing
supplies, the making of contracts, or the adjustment or settlement of accounts
relating to public property or funds, shall enter into an agreement with any
interested party or speculator or make use of any other scheme, to defraud the
Government;
Possession of prohibited interest

2. Being entrusted with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts,
(A.216)
shall be guilty or any of the following acts or omissions:  
(a) Demanding, directly, or indirectly, the payment of sums different from or

larger than those authorized by law.
(b) Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for any sum of
money collected by him officially.
(c) Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way of payment or
otherwise things or objects of a nature different from that provided by law.
When the culprit is an officer or employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue
or the Bureau of Customs, the provisions of the Administrative Code shall be
applied.

! of 272
!
Art. 217. Malversation of public funds or property; Presumption of

malversation. — Any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is
accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same or shall take
or misappropriate or shall consent, through abandonment or negligence, shall
permit any other person to take such public funds, or property, wholly or partially,
or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds
or property, shall suffer:
1. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the
amount involved in the misappropriation or malversation does not exceed two
hundred pesos.
2. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount
involved is more than two hundred pesos but does not exceed six thousand pesos.
Malversation of public funds or 3. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its
property (A. 217) minimum period, if the amount involved is more than six thousand pesos but is
less than twelve thousand pesos.
4. The penalty of reclusion temporal, in its medium and maximum periods, if the
amount involved is more than twelve thousand pesos but is less than twenty-two
thousand pesos. If the amount exceeds the latter, the penalty shall be reclusion
temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua.
In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer the penalty of
perpetual special disqualification and a fine equal to the amount of the funds
malversed or equal to the total value of the property embezzled.
The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property
with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be
prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal
use. (As amended by RA 1060).

! of 272
!
Art. 217. Malversation of public funds or property; Presumption of

malversation. — Any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is
accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same or shall take
or misappropriate or shall consent, through abandonment or negligence, shall
permit any other person to take such public funds, or property, wholly or partially,
or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds
or property, shall suffer:
1. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the
amount involved in the misappropriation or malversation does not exceed two
hundred pesos.
2. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount
involved is more than two hundred pesos but does not exceed six thousand pesos.
3. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its
Failure to render accounts (A.218)
minimum period, if the amount involved is more than six thousand pesos but is
less than twelve thousand pesos.
4. The penalty of reclusion temporal, in its medium and maximum periods, if the
amount involved is more than twelve thousand pesos but is less than twenty-two
thousand pesos. If the amount exceeds the latter, the penalty shall be reclusion
temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua.
In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer the penalty of
perpetual special disqualification and a fine equal to the amount of the funds
malversed or equal to the total value of the property embezzled.
The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property
with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be
prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal
use. (As amended by RA 1060).
Art. 220. Illegal use of public funds or property. — Any public officer who shall
apply any public fund or property under his administration to any public use other
than for which such fund or property were appropriated by law or ordinance shall
suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging
from one-half to the total of the sum misapplied, if by reason of such
Illegal use of public funds or
misapplication, any damages or embarrassment shall have resulted to the public
property (A.220)
service. In either case, the offender shall also suffer the penalty of temporary
special disqualification.
If no damage or embarrassment to the public service has resulted, the penalty

shall be a fine from 5 to 50 per cent of the sum misapplied.

! of 272
!
Art. 221. Failure to make delivery of public funds or property. — Any public
officer under obligation to make payment from Government funds in his
possession, who shall fail to make such payment, shall be punished by arresto
mayor and a fine from 5 to 25 per cent of the sum which he failed to pay.
Failure to make delivery of public

This provision shall apply to any public officer who, being ordered by competent
funds or property (A.221)
authority to deliver any property in his custody or under his administration, shall
refuse to make such delivery.
The fine shall be graduated in such case by the value of the thing, provided that it
shall not less than 50 pesos.
Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic

minister. — The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos
shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking
advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the
following acts:
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding

when they did not in fact so participate;
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements

other than those in fact made by them;
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;

Falsification by a public officer or
employee committed with abuse
5. Altering true dates;
of his official position
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its

meaning;
7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an

original document when no such original exists, or including in such a copy a
statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original; or
8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a

protocol, registry, or official book.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical minister who shall
commit any of the offenses enumerated in the preceding paragraphs of this article,
with respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may
affect the civil status of persons.

! of 272
!
The functions contemplated are those, which are, under the law: 
(a) to be performed by the public officer; 
(b) in the foreign service of the Phil. government; 
(c) in a foreign country.
PAR. 5: COMMIT ANY OF THE CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY

AND THE LAW OF NATIONS25
Crimes against national security:
1. Treason (A.114)
2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (A.115)
3. Misprision of treason (A.116)
4. Espionage (A.117)
Crimes against the law of nations:
1. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals (A.118)

2. Violation of neutrality (A.119)
3. Correspondence with hostile country (A.120)
4. Flight to enemy’s country (A.121)
5. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters (A.122)  
Note: Crimes against public order (e.g., rebellion, coup d’etat, sedition) committed abroad is under the jurisdiction of the host
country.
Terrorism is now classified as a crime against national security and the law of nations.26
EXPLANATION OF THE EXCEPTIONS

1. The Philippine ship or airship must be duly registered under the Philippine laws with the Philippine Bureau of Customs.
Such vessel when beyond the 3-mile limit is considered and extension of Philippine national territory. BUT if said Philippine
vessel or aircraft is within the territory of a foreign country when the crime is committed, the laws of that country will apply as
a rule.
The Philippine court has no jurisdiction over the crime of theft committed on the high seas on board a vessel not registered or
licensed in the Philippines.
2. Any person who makes false or counterfeit coins or forges treasury or bank notes or other obligations and securities in a
foreign country may be prosecuted before our civil courts for violation of Art. 163 or Art. 166 of the RPC.
3. The reason for the exceptions in paragraph (b) and (c) is to maintain and preserve the financial credit and stability of the
state.
25 (Title One, Book 2, RPC)
26 (See R.A. 9372, Human Security Act of 2007)

! of 272
!
4. The offense committed by a public officer abroad, like a consular official, must refer to the discharge of his functions i.e.
bribery, malversation or falsification.
5. The reason for the exception regarding crimes against national security and the law of nations is to safeguard the
existence of the state. Piracy is triable anywhere. Piracy and mutiny are crimes against the law of nations while treason and
espionage are crimes against national security.
BAR QUESTION
General Principles; Territoriality (1994)

Abe, married to Liza, contracted another marriage with Connie in Singapore. Thereafter, Abe and Connie returned to the
Philippines and lived as husband and wife in the hometown of Abe in Calamba, Laguna.
1) Can Abe be prosecuted for bigamy?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) No, Abe may not be prosecuted for bigamy since the bigamous marriage was contracted or solemnized in Singapore,
hence such violation is not one of those where the Revised Penal Code, under Art. 2 thereof, may be applied extraterritorially.
The general rule on territoriality of criminal law governs the situation.
General Principles; Territoriality; Jurisdiction over Vessel (2000)

After drinking one (1) case of San Miguel beer and taking two plates of "pulutan", Binoy, a Filipino seaman, stabbed to death
Sio My, a Singaporean seaman, aboard M/V "Princess of the Pacific", an overseas vessel which was sailing in the South
China Sea. The vessel, although Panamanian registered, is owned by Lucio Sy, a rich Filipino businessman. When M/V
"Princess of the Pacific" reached a Philippine Port at Cebu City, the Captain of the vessel turned over the assailant Binoy to
the Philippine authorities. An information for homicide was filed against Binoy in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. He
moved to quash the information for lack of jurisdiction. If you were the Judge, will you grant the motion? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the Motion to Quash the Information should be granted. The Philippine court has no jurisdiction over the crime
committed since it was committed on the high seas or outside of Philippine territory and on board a vessel not registered or
licensed in the Philippines (US vs. Fowler, 1 Phil 614)
It is the registration of the vessel in accordance with the laws of the Philippines, not the citizenship of her owner, which
makes it a Philippine ship. The vessel being registered in Panama, the laws of Panama govern while it is in the high seas.
JURISPRUDENCE
US VS. SWEET
GR. NO.: 448, September 20, 1901 ( 1 Phil. 18 (1901))
PONENTE: LADD, J

! of 272
!
TOPIC/S: GENERALIY | Jurisdiction of the offense committed by the military authorities
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
TRIGGER OF THE FACTS: defense that the fact that he was an employee of the US military authorities deprived
the court of the jurisdiction to try and punish him. He is now contending that the courts
are without jurisdiction because he was “acting in the line of duty.”
1. WON this case is within the jurisdiction of the CFI.

2. WON an assault committed by a soldier or military employee upon a prisoner of war
is not an offense under the penal code?
3. Assuming that it is an offence under the penal code, whether or not the military
character sustained by the person charged with the offence at the time of its
commission exempts him from the ordinary jurisdiction of the civil tribunals?
1. Yes, The defendant and his acts are within the jurisdiction of the CFI because he
failed to prove that he was indeed acting in the line of duty.
2. Yes. Though assault by military officer against a POW is not in the RPC, physical
assault charges may be pressed under the RPC.
VERDICT: The order of the court below is affirmed with costs to the appellant.
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
CASE DOCTRINE:
The case is open to the application of the general principle that the jurisdiction of the
CIRCUMTANCES: 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.
ACTING IN THE LINE OF DUTY

FIRST, that an assault committed by a soldier or military employee upon a prisoner of
war is not an offense under the Penal Code; and
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
SECOND, that if it is an offense under the Code, nevertheless the military character
sustained by the person charged with the offense at the time of its commission exempts
him from the ordinary jurisdiction of the civil tribunals.
COURT DECISIONS:
FACTS
Phillip K. Sweet was an employee of the United States military authorities in the Philippine Islands and was alleged to have
been committed an offense for a prisoners of war under the Penal Code for arresto mayor and a fine of from 325 to 3,250
pesetas.
Petitioner contends that an assault committed by a soldier or military personnel to a prisoner of war was not an offense under
the Penal Code and that nevertheless even it is, the commission of the said act exempt him from the ordinary jurisdiction of
the civil tribunal.

! of 272
!
ISSUE
1. WON this case is within the jurisdiction of the CFI.
2. WON an assault committed by a soldier or military employee upon a prisoner of war is not an offense under the penal
code?
3. Assuming that it is an offence under the penal code, whether or not the military character sustained by the person
charged with the offence at the time of its commission exempts him from the ordinary jurisdiction of the civil tribunals?
HELD
1. Yes. By Act No. 136 of the US-Phil Commission, the CFIs are given original jurisdiction in all criminal cases in which a
penalty more than 6 months imprisonment or a fine greater than $100 may be imposed. Furthermore, CFIs have
jurisdiction to try offenders charged with violation of the Penal Code within their territorial limits, regardless of the military
character of the accused. The defendant and his acts are within the jurisdiction of the CFI because he failed to prove that
he was indeed acting in the line of duty.
2. Yes. Though assault by military officer against a POW is not in the RPC, physical assault charges may be pressed under
the RPC.
3. No. The application of the general principle that the jurisdiction of the civil tribunals is unaffected 27 by the military or other
special character brought before them for trial (R.A. No. 7055)28. Appellant claims that the act was service but this cannot
affect the right of the Civil Court to takes jurisdiction of the case.”
SYLLABI
CRIMINAL LAW; JURISDICTION.·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.
ID.; ID.·Courts of First Instance have jurisdiction to try offenders charged with violation of the Penal Code within their
territorial limits, regardless of the military character of the accused.
ID.; ID.·The fact that the alleged offense was committed in the execution of orders of a military superior is a matter of defense
and does not affect the jurisdiction of the court.
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
CONCURRING
27 unchanged, unaltered
!28 AN ACT STRENGTHENING CIVILIAN SUPREMACY OVER THE MILITARY RETURNING TO THE CIVIL COURTS THE JURISDICTION OVER CERTAIN OFFENSES INVOLVING
MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, OTHER PERSONS SUBJECT TO MILITARY LAW, AND THE MEMBERS OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE,
REPEALING FOR THE PURPOSE CERTAIN PRESIDENTIAL DECREES
Section 1. Members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and other persons subject to military law, including members of the citizens Armed Forces Geographical Units, who
commit crimes or offenses penalized under the Revised Penal Code other special penal laws, or local government ordinances regardless of whether or not civilians are co-
accused, victims, or offended parties which may be natural or juridical persons, shall be tried by the proper civil court except when the offense, as determined before
arraignment by the civil court, is service-connected, in which case the offense shall be tried by court-martial: provided, that the President of the Philippines may, in the interest
of justice, order or direct at any time before arraignment that any such crimes or offenses be tried by the proper civil courts.
As used in this Section, service-connected crimes or offenses shall be limited to those defined in Articles 54 to 70, Articles 72 to 92, and Articles 95 to 97 of Commonwealth Act
No. 408, as amended.
In imposing the penalty for such crimes or offenses, the court-martial may take into consideration the penalty prescribed thereforee in the Revised Penal Code, other special
laws, or local government ordinances.

! of 272
!
Judgment: Judgment thereby affirmed “An offense charged against a military officer in consequence of an act done in
obedience to an order is clearly shown on the face, where such offense is against the military law, is not within the jurisdiction
of the courts of the Civil Government.” ––Per Cooper, J., concurring
LIANG VS. PEOPLE

GR. NO.: 125865, January 28, 2000
PONENTE: Ynares-santiago, J
TOPIC/S: GENERALITY | Application of Art. 2 Par. 4 (Bound within public authority)
VERDICT:
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
CASE DOCTRINE:
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
COURT DECISIONS:
FACTS
1. Jeffrey Liang is an economist working with the Asian Development Bank and was charged before the Metropolitan Trial
Court of Mandaluyong City with two counts of grave oral defamation.
2. The MeTC judge received an “office of protocol” from the Department of Foreign Affairs stating that petitioner is covered
by immunity from legal process under Section 45 of the Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine Government
regarding the Headquarters of the ADB in the country.
3. Petitioner arguing that he is covered by immunity under the Agreement and that no preliminary investigation was held
before the criminal cases was filed in court.
ISSUE
1. Whether a preliminary investigation should be given?
2. Whether the petitioner is covered by immunity under the agreement?
HELD

! of 272
!
Slandering a person could not possibly be covered by the immunity agreement because our laws do not allow the
commission of a crime, such as defamation, in the name of official duty. The imputation of theft is ultra vires and cannot be
part of official functions. It is well-settled principle of law that a public official may be liable in his personal private capacity for
whatever damage he may have caused by his act done with malice or in bad faith or beyond the scope of his authority or
jurisdiction. It appears that even the government’s chief legal counsel, the Solicitor General, does not support the stand taken
by petitioner and that of the DFA.
In the contention that there was no preliminary investigation conducted, suffice it to say that preliminary investigation is not a
matter of right in cases cognizable by the MeTC such as the one at bar. Being purely a statutory right, preliminary
investigation may be invoked only when specifically granted by law. The rule on the criminal procedure is clear that no
preliminary investigation is required in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the MeTC. Besides the absence of preliminary
investigation does not affect the court’s jurisdiction nor does it impair the validity of the information or otherwise render it
defective.
SYLLABI
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
CONCURRING
DISSENTING
SEPARATE OPINION
OBITER DICTUM
US V. AH SING (1917)
GR. NO.:
PONENTE:
TOPIC/S:

! of 272
!
Defendant is a subject of China who bought eight cans of opium in Saigon and
brought them on board the steamship Shun Chang during the trip to Cebu. When the
TRIGGER OF THE FACTS: steamer anchored in the port of Cebu, the authorities in making the search found the
8 cans of opium. Defendant admitted being the owner but did not confess as to his
purpose in buying the opium.

Bringing opium in local territory even if it is merely for personal use and does not
leave the foreign merchant vessel anchored in Philippine waters is subject to local
TRIGGER OF THE RULING: laws particularly under Sec. 4 Act. No. 2381 a.k.a. Opium Law. Under the said law,
importation includes merely bringing the drug from a foreign country to Philippine
port even if not landed.
VERDICT:
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
CASE DOCTRINE:
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
COURT DECISIONS:
FACTS
ISSUE
HELD
SYLLABI
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
CONCURRING

! of 272
!
DISSENTING
SEPARATE OPINION
OBITER DICTUM
MIQUIABAS V. PHILIPPINES-RYUKUS
COMMAND (1948)
GR. NO.:
PONENTE:
TOPIC/S:
Petitioner is a Filipino citizen and a civilian employee of the US army. He has been
charged with disposing in the Port of Manila area things belonging to the US army.
TRIGGER OF THE FACTS: He is under the custody of Commanding General, Philippines-Ryukus command and
an appointed General Court Martial found him guilty and sentenced him to 15 years
imprisonment.

Gen. Court-Martial has no jurisdiction because the Port of Manila is not a base under
the Bases Agreement entered into by the Philippines and the US. The Port area is
TRIGGER OF THE RULING: merely a temporary quarters. Also, a civilian employee cannot be considered a
member of the US Army as stated in the agreement. Lastly, no waiver of jurisdiction
can be made either by the prosecuting attorney or by the Secretary of Justice.
VERDICT:
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
CASE DOCTRINE:
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
COURT DECISIONS:
FACTS
! of 272
!
ISSUE
HELD
SYLLABI
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
CONCURRING
DISSENTING
SEPARATE OPINION
OBITER DICTUM

! of 272
!
TITLE ONE
CHAPTER ONE
FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH

AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY
!
Article 3
Definitions. — Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).  
Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit29 (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).  
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there is fault when the wrongful act results
from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
ELEMENTS OF FELONIE
1. There must be an act or omission
2. Act and omission must be punishable by RPC
3. Act is performed by means of Dolo (Deceit) or Culpa (Fault)
Kind of CULPA (FAULT) - UNINTENTIONAL (Without malice)
Indicates deficiency of action, failure to take the necessary precaution to avoid injury to
IMPRUDENCE
person or damage to property. Usually involves lack of skill.
indicates a deficiency of perception(Discernment or awareness). If a person fails to pay

proper attention and to use due diligence in foreseeing the injury or damage impending to
NEGLIGENCE
be caused, there is negligence. Negligence usually involves lack of foresight. Imprudence
usually involves lack of skill.
LACK OF SKILL
LACK OF FORSIGHT
REASON FOR PUNISHING ACTS OF NEGLIGENCE OR IMPRUDENCE

A man must use his common sense and exercise due reflection in all his acts; it is his duty to be cautious, careful and
prudent.
WHAT IS “ACT”
29 INTENTIONAL

! of 272
!
Any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external world. But the act must be one which is defined by the
Revised Penal Code as constituting a felony.
WHAT IS “INTENT”
is the use of a particular means to effect the desired result. It is an act with malice. A purely mental process thus the need to
determine it by means used. This intent is demonstrated by the overt acts of person.
for instance, the use of a lethal weapon would show the criminal intent to kill although death did not result.
Yung intent pinapakita na nya yung intention nya na gawin yung act which is contrary to law, willful at yung material na ginamit nya ang mag-
justify ng criminal intent kahit di pa napo-produce yung result. on the given example, ang intensyon mo ay manaksak, in order to execute
yung pananaksak, yung ipangsasaksak mo yung means to execute ng act. mananaksak = kutsiyo or everything na pwedeng gamiting
pangsaksak.
Para mas majustify yung intent mo (for example, intent to kill) dapat by overt act. dapat gawin mo yung pagpatay mo. dahil kahit may kampit
na to show your intent to kill kundi mo isasaksak sa gusto mong patayin di pwedeng gamitin yung intent magiging presumption nalang sya.
OMISSION
It is an inaction or the failure to perform a positive duty required by law
WHAT IS “FELONY”
it refers exclusively to acts or omissions punished under the RPC
A felony requires criminal intent. hence, when intent is absent as the mind is not criminal, no crime is committed. This
doctrine applies in DOLO (papasok na sya sa exempting dahil kulang yung 3 element, freedon, intent and intelligence)
GENERAL SPECIFIC
Have the elements comprising either dolo or culpa felonies under BOOK II of the code have their own specific
elements which are alleged in the information
AS TO FOCUS: Under Art. 3 appertain to the actor AS TO FOCUS: the elements of specific felonies relate to
the act or act constituting the felony (ACT OF THE ACTOR)
PRESUMPTION OF CRIMINAL INTENT

As a general rule, criminal intent is presumed from the voluntary commission of an unlawful act.
Thus, when the victim dies, intent to kill is conclusively presumed from the act of killing. But where the victim survives, intent
to kill becomes a specific criminal intent which cannot be presumed but must be proved.
In other words when the act is equivocal, it could result to variant crimes such as physical injuries vis-a-vis attempted/
frustrated homicide; acts of lasciviousness vs. attempted rape; unjust vexation vs. slander by deed, etc. in these cases,
specific criminal intent cannot be presumed but must be established.

! of 272
!
GENERAL INTENT SPECIFIC INTENT
general intent exists kapag nakapagcommit ng crime kasi nga para magqualify na kung anong klasrng crime nacommit like
there's a presumption of criminal intent o may intention ka na gawin pagnadeds nga presumed na na there's intent to kill pero kung
talaga yung crime buhay para magqualify into attempted stage you have to prove na
meron ngang intent otherwise magfall siya sa ibang crime.
General basta nakacommit ng crime or naproduce mo yung result.
conclusive yung act mo. Ang kailangan ma-prove yung intent dahil kung walang intent
pwede syang pumasok na physical injury and etc.
Like sa acts of lasciviousness at attempted rape kung walang intent

na makipagsex di magqualify sa rape.
As to INTENTION
An intention to do a wrong An intention to commit a definite act
As to Presumption
Presumed to exist from the mere doing of a wrongful act Existence of the intent is not presumed because it is an
ingredient or element of a crime
A to the burden of proof
The burden of proving the absence of intent is upon the The burden of proving the existence of the intent is upon the
accused prosecution; as such intent is an element of the crime
EXAMPLE OF FELONY BY PERFORMING AN ACT.

A took the watch of B with intent to gain and without the consent of the latter. The act of taking the watch of B, with intent to
gain, constitutes the crime of theft.
ONLY EXTERNAL ACT IS PUNISHED.

The act must be external, because internal acts are beyond the sphere of penal law. Hence, a criminal thought or a mere
intention, no matter how immoral or improper it may be, will never constitute a felony.
Thus, even if A entertains the idea of killing B, as long as he does not commence the commission of the crime directly by
overt act, A is not criminally liable.
PUNISHABLE BY LAW
The phrase "punished by law" should be understood to mean "punished by the Revised Penal Code" and not by a special
law.
That is to say, the term "felony" means acts and omissions punished in the Revised Penal Code, to distinguish it from the
words "crime" and "offense" which are applied to infractions of the law punished by special statutes.
CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES ACCORDING TO THE MEANS BY

WHICH THEY ARE COMMITTED.
! of 272
!
Art. 3 classifies felonies, according to the means by which they are committed, into (1) intentional felonies, and (2) culpable
felonies.
Thus, the second paragraph of Art. 3 states that felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means
of fault (culpa).
INTENTIONAL (DOLO) VS CULPABLE (FAULT)

DOLO (INTENTIONAL) CULPA (FAULT)
Intentional the offender acts with malice whereas in culpable, the offender acts without malice
A criminal act is presumed to be voluntary. Fact prevails over assumption, and in the absence of indubitable explanation, the
act must be declared voluntary and punishable30
INTENTIONAL FELONIES
the act or omission of the offender is malicious.
REASON FOR PUNISHING ACTS OF NEGLIGENCE (CULPA).

A man must use common sense, and exercise due reflection in all his acts; it is his duty to be cautious, careful and
prudent, if not from instinct, then through fear of incurring punishment. He is responsible for such results as anyone might
foresee and for his acts which no one would have performed except through culpable abandon. Otherwise, his own person,
rights and property, and those of his fellow beings, would ever be exposed to all manner of danger and injury.31
ART. 365. IMPRUDENCE AND NEGLIGENCE
QUASI-OFFENSES  
Sole Chapter  
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE  
 
Art. 365. Imprudence and negligence. — Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had
it been intentional, would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period
to prision correccional in its medium period; if it would have constituted a less grave felony, the penalty of arresto
mayor in its minimum and medium periods shall be imposed; if it would have constituted a light felony, the penalty
of arresto menor in its maximum period shall be imposed.  
Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit an act which would otherwise constitute a
grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods; if it would have
30 (People vs. Macalisang, 22 SCRA 699)
31 (U.S. vs. Maleza, 14 Phil. 468, 470)

! of 272
!
constituted a less serious felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed.  
When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have only resulted in damage to the property of another,
the offender shall be punished by a fine ranging from an amount equal to the value of said damages to three times
such value, but which shall in no case be less than twenty-five pesos.
 
A fine not exceeding two hundred pesos and censure shall be imposed upon any person who, by simple
imprudence or negligence, shall cause some wrong which, if done maliciously, would have constituted a light felony.  
 
In the imposition of these penalties, the court shall exercise their sound discretion, without regard to the rules
prescribed in Article sixty-four.  
 
The provisions contained in this article shall not be applicable:  
1. When the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or lower than those provided in the first two paragraphs of
this article, in which case the court shall impose the penalty next lower in degree than that which should be
imposed in the period which they may deem proper to apply.  
 
2. When, by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the Automobile Law, to death of a person shall be
caused, in which case the defendant shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. 
 
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice, doing or falling to do an act from which material
damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing of failing to
perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition
and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.  
Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in which the damage impending to
be caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly manifest.  
 
The penalty next higher in degree to those provided for in this article shall be imposed upon the offender who fails
to lend on the spot to the injured parties such help as may be in this hand to give. (As amended by R.A. 1790, approved June 21,
1957).

! of 272
!
IN FELONIES COMMITTED BY MEANS OF DOLO OR WITH MALICE AND

IN FELONIES COMMITTED BY MEANS OF FAULT OR CULPA, THE ACTS
OR OMISSIONS ARE VOLUNTARY.
This omission does not mean that an involuntary act may constitute a felony. As in the old Penal Code, the act or omission
must be voluntary and punishable by law to constitute a felony.
(Kailangan expressly provide by law na punishable yung bagay na hindi mo ginawa na dapat ginawa mo, meaning pina-punish yung
voluntary na hindi mo gawin ang isang bagay na dapat ginawa mo na expressly provide ng batas na kapag hindi mo to ginawa sa ganitong
sirkumstansya, pwede kang ipunish by law. kaya dapat stated sa batas since omission act to. para syang mala prohibitum, m`1`` 1 1 a y
batas na nagsasabing mali ito dahil may batas na nagsasabing mali ito.)
3 REASONS WHY THE ACT OR OMISSION IN FELONIES MUST BE

VOLUNTARY.
1. RPC is based on the Classical Theory which basis of criminal liability is human free will.
2. Acts or omissions punished by law are always deemed voluntary, since man is a rational being. One must prove that his
case falls under Art. 12 to show that his act or omission is not voluntary.
3. In felonies by dolo, the act is performed with deliberate intent which must necessarily be voluntary; and in felonies by
culpa, the imprudence consists in voluntarily, without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material injury
results.
thus, the act performed or the omission incurred by the offender is voluntary, but the intent or malice in intentional felonies
(Culpa or fault) is replaced by imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill in culpable felonies.
REQUISITES OF DOLO OR MALICE

1. He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting to do an act;
2. He must have INTELLIGENCE while doing the act or omitting to do the act;
3. He must have INTENT while doing the act or omitting to do the act. 
 
Freedom. When a person acts without freedom, he is no longer a human being but a tool; his liability is as much as that
of the knife that wounds, or of the torch that sets fire, or of the key that opens a door, or of the ladder that is placed
against the wall of a house in committing robbery. 
 
Thus, a person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force is exempt from criminal liability 32 
 
So also, a person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury is exempt from
criminal liability 33 
 
Intelligence. Without this power, necessary to determine the morality of human acts, no crime can exist. Thus, the
imbecile or the insane, and the infant under nine years of age as, well as the minor over nine but less than fifteen years
old and acting without discernment, have no criminal liability, because they act without intelligence 34 
 
32 (Art. 12, par. 5)
33 (Art. 12, par. 6)
34 (Art. 12, pars. 1, 2 and 3)

! of 272
!
Intent. Intent to commit the act with malice, being purely a mental process, is presumed and the presumption arises from
the proof of the commission of an unlawful act.  
 
All the three requisites of voluntariness in intentional felony must be present, because "a voluntary act is a free,
intelligent, and intentional act.” 35
HONEST MISTAKE OF FACT

It is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person causing injury to another. Such person is NOT CRIMINALLY LIABLE
as he acted without criminal intent
An Honest mistake of facts destroy the presumption of criminal intent which arises upon the commission of a felonious act
It is not applicable tin culpable felonies
PRESUMPTION OF CRIMINAL INTENT

ACTUS NON FACIT REUM, NISI MENS SIT REA
a crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing to act complained be innocent. It is true that a
presumption of criminal intent may arise from proof of the commission of a criminal act; and the general rule is that if
it is proved that the accused committed the criminal act charged, it will be presumed that the act was done with criminal
intention and that it is for the accused to rebut this presumption. But it must be borne in mind that the act from which such
presumption springs must be a criminal act. In the case at bar, the act was not criminal.
ACTUS ME INVITO FACTUS NON EST MEUS ACTUS

An act done by me against my will is not my act.
MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA

MALA IN SE36
A crime or an act that is inherently immoral, such as murder, arson or rape37
MALA PROHIBITA38
An act that is a crime merely because it is prohibited by statute, although the act itself is not necessarily immoral39
AS TO WHAT? MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA
As to nature Wrong from its very nature. Wrong because it is prohibited by law.
As to use of good faith as GF a valid defense, unless the crime is Good Faith is not a defense.
defense the result of culpa
35 (U.S. vs. Ah Chong, 15 Phil. 488, 495)
36 (“evil in itself”)
37 [Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Ed.]
38 (“prohibited evil”)
39 [Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Ed.]

! of 272
!
As to whether or not criminal Criminal intent is an element. Criminal intent is immaterial, BUT still
intent is an element requires intelligence & voluntariness
As to degree of Degree of accomplishment is taken into The act gives rise to a crime only when
accomplishment of crime account for the punishment. consummated.
As to mitigating and They are taken into account in They are not taken into account.
aggravating circumstances imposing penalty
When there is more than one offender, Degree of participation is generally not
the degree of participation of each in taken into account. All who participated
As to degree of participation the commission is taken into account. in the act are punished to the same
extent.
There are three stages: attempted, No such stages of execution

As to stages of execution
frustrated & consummated
The principal, accomplice & accessory. Generally, only the principal is liable. 
As to persons criminally Penalty is computed on the basis of Penalty of offenders is same whether
liable whether he is a principal offender or they acted as mere accomplices or
merely an accomplice or accessory accessories
As to what laws are violated Generally, the RPC. Generally, special laws.
Penalties may be divided into degrees There is no such as division of

As to division of penalties
and period penalties
(a) Dolo is not required in crimes mala prohibita.
(b) In those crimes which are mala prohibita, the act alone irrespective of its motives, constitutes the offense.  
(c) Good faith and absence of criminal intent are not valid defenses in crimes mala prohibita.  
(d) When the acts are inherently immoral, they are mala in se, even if punished under special law, like plunder which
requires proof of criminal intent.40 
(e) Where malice is a factor, good faith is a defense.  
(f) A crime in the RPC can absorb a crime punishable by a special lawif it is a necessary ingredient of the felony defined in
the Code but a special law can never absorb a crime punishable under the RPC, because violations of the Revised Penal
Code are more serious than a violation of a special law. 41 
(g) The crime of cattle-rustling is not malum prohibitum but a modification of the crime of theft of large cattle under the RPC
(i.e. there are special laws which only modify crimes under the RPC therefore still mala in se).42
40 [Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (2001)]
41 [People v. Rodriguez (1960)]
42 [People v. Martinada]

! of 272
!
Art. III, Sec. 14 (2), 1987 Const. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved.
Note: This is peculiar only to criminal law.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN INTENT AND MOTIVE

INTENT MOTIVE
is demonstrated by the use of a particular means to bring implies motion. It is the moving power which impels one to
about a desired result – it is not a state of mind or a reason do an act. When there is motive in the commission of a
for committing a crime. crime, it always comes before the intent. But a crime may
be committed without motive.
If the crime is intentional, it cannot be committed without
intent.
Intent is manifested by the instrument used by the offender.

The specific criminal intent becomes material if the crime is
to be distinguished from the attempted or frustrated stage.
If the crime is intentional, it cannot be committed without intent. Intent is manifested by the instrument used by the
offender. The specific criminal intent becomes material if the crime is to be distinguished from the attempted or frustrated
stage.
THERE IS NO FELONY BY DOLO IF THERE IS NO INTENT

DREAMING; a person who suddenly got up in his sleep, left the room with a bolo in his hand, and upon meeting his wife who
tried to stop him, wounded her in the abdomen and attacked others, is not criminally liable, because his acts were not
voluntary, for having acted in a dream; he had no criminal intent43
MISTAKE OF FACT
ignorance or mistake of fact relieves the accused from criminal liability (ignorantia facti excusat)
Mistake of fact is a misunderstanding of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to another. He is not, however,
criminally liable, because he did not act with criminal intent.
An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which arises upon the commission of a felonious act44
REQUISITES OF MISTAKE OF FACT AS A DEFENSE

1. That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be.
2. That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful.
3. That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.
43 (People vs. Taneo, 58 Phil. 255)
44 (People vs. Coching, et al., C.A., 52 O.G. 293, citing People vs. Oanis, 74 Phil. 257)

! of 272
!
THE MISTAKE MUST BE WITHOUT FAULT OR CARELESSNESS ON THE

PART OF THE ACCUSED.
Ah Chong case and Oanis case distinguished.
Ah Chong case Oanis case
there is an innocent mistake of fact without any fault or the accused found no circumstances whatever which would
carelessness on the part of the accused, because, having no press them to immediate action. The person in the room
time or opportunity to make any further inquiry, and being being then asleep, the accused had ample time and
pressed by circumstances to act immediately, the accused opportunity to ascertain his identity without hazard to
had no alternative but to take the facts as they then appeared themselves, and could even effect a bloodless arrest if any
to him, and such facts justified his act of killing the reasonable effort to that end had been made, as the victim
deceased. was unarmed. This, indeed, is the only legitimate course
ofaction for the accused to follow even ifthe victim was really
Balagtas, as they were instructed not to kill Balagtas at sight,
but to arrest, and to get him dead or alive only if resistance or
aggression
is offered by him.
Hence, the accused in the Oanis case were at fault when

they shot the victim in violation of the instructions given to
them. They were also careless in not verifying first the
identity of the victim.
LACK OF INTENT TO KILL THE DECEASED, BECAUSE HIS INTENTION

WAS TO KILL ANOTHER, DOES NOT RELIEVE THE ACCUSED FROM
CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY.
That the accused made a mistake in killing one man instead of another cannot relieve him from criminal responsibility, he
having acted maliciously and wilfully45
IN MISTAKE OF FACT, THE INTENTION OF THE ACCUSED IN

PERFORMING THE ACT SHOULD BE LAWFUL.
Thus, in error in personae or mistake in the identity of the victim, the principle of mistake of fact does not apply.
Example: A wanted to kill B by shooting him with a pistol. Thinking that the person walking in dark alley was B, A shot the
person. It turned out that the person killed was C, the brother of A. A had no intention to kill C. Since the act and intention of A
in firing his pistol are unlawful, A cannot properly invoke the principle of mistake of fact in his defense.
EXAMPLES OF FELONY BY OMISSION:
45 (People vs. Gona, 54 Phil. 605)

! of 272
!
1. Anyone who fails to render assistance to any person whom he finds in an uninhabited place wounded or in danger of
dying, is liable for abandonment of persons in danger 46
2. An officer entrusted with collection of taxes who voluntarily fails to issue a receipt as provided by law, is guilty of illegal
exaction 47
3. Every person owing allegiance to the Philippines, without being a foreigner, and having knowledge of any conspiracy
against the government, who does not disclose and make known the same to the proper authority, is liable for misprision
of treason48
It will be noted that in felonies by omission, there is a law requiring a certain act to be performed and the person required to
do the act fails to perform it.
RPC, ART. 365 PAR 7

Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material damage
results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act, taking
into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence physical condition and other circumstances regarding
persons, time and place.
Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in which the damage impending to be cause is
not immediate nor the danger clearly manifest.
REQUISITES OF CULPA
1. freedom
2. intelligence
3. imprudence, negligence or lack of foresight and skill
in culpable felonies, the injury caused to another should be unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act
performed without malice.
OMISSION RELATED LAWS UNDER BOOK TWO
Art. 116. Misprision of treason. — Every person owing allegiance to (the United States) the Government of the
Philippine Islands, without being a foreigner, and having knowledge of any conspiracy against them, conceals or
does not disclose and make known the same, as soon as possible to the governor or fiscal of the province, or the
mayor or fiscal of the city in which he resides, as the case may be, shall be punished as an accessory to the crime
of treason.
Art. 137. Disloyalty of public officers or employees. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period
shall be imposed upon public officers or employees who have failed to resist a rebellion by all the means in their
46 (Art. 275, par. 1)
47 (Art. 213, par. 2[b]
48 (Art. 116)

! of 272
!
power, or shall continue to discharge the duties of their offices under the control of the rebels or shall accept
appointment to office under them. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).
Art. 208. Prosecution of offenses; negligence and tolerance. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum
period and suspension shall be imposed upon any public officer, or officer of the law, who, in dereliction of the
duties of his office, shall maliciously refrain from instituting prosecution for the punishment of violators of the law, or
shall tolerate the commission of offenses.
Chapter Five  
INFIDELITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS  
 
Section One. — Infidelity in the custody of prisoners  
Art. 223. Conniving with or consenting to evasion. — Any public officer who shall consent to the escape of a
prisoner in his custody or charge, shall be punished:  
 
1. By prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and temporary special disqualification in its
maximum period to perpetual special disqualification, if the fugitive shall have been sentenced by final judgment to
any penalty.  
2. By prision correccional in its minimum period and temporary special disqualification, in case the fugitive shall not
have been finally convicted but only held as a detention prisoner for any crime or violation of law or municipal
ordinance.
Art. 224. Evasion through negligence. — If the evasion of the prisoner shall have taken place through the
negligence of the officer charged with the conveyance or custody of the escaping prisoner, said officer shall suffer
the penalties of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and temporary
special disqualification.
Chapter Two  
 
CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY  
 
Section One. — Abandonment of helpless persons and exploitation of minors. 

! of 272
!
 
Art. 275. Abandonment of person in danger and abandonment of one's own victim. — The penalty of arresto mayor
shall be imposed upon:  
 
1. Any one who shall fail to render assistance to any person whom he shall find in an uninhabited place wounded or
in danger of dying, when he can render such assistance without detriment to himself, unless such omission shall
constitute a more serious offense.  
 
2. Anyone who shall fail to help or render assistance to another whom he has accidentally wounded or injured.  
 
3. Anyone who, having found an abandoned child under seven years of age, shall fail to deliver said child to the
authorities or to his family, or shall fail to take him to a safe place.
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 953 
 
REQUIRING THE PLANTING OF TREES IN CERTAIN PLACES AND PENALIZING UNAUTHORIZED CUTTING,
DESTRUCTION, DAMAGING AND INJURING OF CERTAIN TREES, PLANTS AND VEGETATION 
 
WHEREAS, the planting of trees on lands adjoining the edge of rivers and creeks in both a measure of
beautification and reforestation; and 
 
WHEREAS, the planting of trees along roads and areas intended for the common use of owners of lots in
subdivisions will provide shade and healthful environment therein; 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in
me by the Constitution, do hereby order and decree: 
 
Section 1. The following shall plant trees: 
 
1. Every person who owns land adjoining a river or creek, shall plant trees extending at least five meters on his
land adjoining the edge of the bank of the river or creek, except when such land, due to its permanent
improvement, cannot be planted with trees; 
 
2. Every owner of an existing subdivision shall plant trees in the open spaces required to be reserved for the
common use and enjoyment of the owners of the lots therein as well as along all roads and service streets. The

! of 272
!
subdivision owner shall consult the Bureau of Forest Development as to the appropriate species of trees to be
planted and the manner of planting them; and 
3. Every holder of a license agreement, lease, license or permit from the Government, involving occupation and
utilization of forest or grazing land with a river or creek therein, shall plant trees extending at least twenty (20)
meters from each edge of the bank of the river or creek. 
 
The persons hereinabove required to plant trees shall take good care of them, and, from time to time, remove any
tree planted by them in their respective areas which has grown very old, is diseased, or is defective, and replant
with trees their respective areas whenever necessary. 
 
Section 2. Every owner of land subdivided into residential/commercial/industrial lots after the effectivity of this
Decree shall reserve, develop and maintain not less than thirty percent (30%) of the total area of the subdivision,
exclusive of roads, service streets and alleys, as open space for parks and recreational areas. 
 
No plan for a subdivision shall be approved by the Land Registration Commission or any office or agency of the
government unless at least thirty percent (30%) of the total area of the subdivision, exclusive of roads, service
streets and alleys, is reserved as open space for parks and recreational areas and the owner thereof undertakes to
develop such open space, within three (3) years from the approval of the subdivision plan, in accordance with the
development plan approved by the Bureau of Forest Development and to maintain such parks and recreational
areas. 
 
Section 3. Any person who cuts, destroys, damages or injures, naturally growing or planted trees of any kind,
flowering or ornamental plants and shrubs, or plants of scenic, aesthetic and ecological values, along public roads,
in plazas, parks other than national parks, school premises or in any other public ground or place, or on banks of
rivers or creeks, or along roads in land subdivisions or areas therein for the common use of the owners of lots
therein, or any species of vegetation or forest cover found therein shall, be punished with imprisonment for not less
than six months and not more than two years, or a fine of not less than five hundred pesos and not more than five
thousand pesos, or with both such imprisonment and fine at the discretion of the court, except when the cutting,
destroying, damaging or injuring is necessary for public safety or the pruning thereof is necessary to enhance
beauty, and only upon the approval of the duly authorized representative of the head of agency or political
subdivision having jurisdiction therein, or of the Director of Forest Development in the case of trees on banks of
rivers and creeks, or of the owner of the land subdivision in the case of trees along roads and in other areas therein
for the common use of owners of lots therein. If the offender is a corporation, partnership or association, the penalty
shall be imposed upon the officer or officers thereof responsible for the offense, and if such officer or officers are

! of 272
!
aliens, in addition to the penalty herein prescribed, he or they shall be deported without further proceedings before
the Commission on Immigration and Deportation. Nothing in this Decree shall prevent the cancellation of a license
agreement, lease, license or permit from the Government, if such cancellation is prescribed therein or in
Government regulations for such offense. 
 
Section 4. Any person who shall violate any provision of Section one hereof, or any regulation promulgated
thereunder, shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than six months but not more than two years, or with a
fine of not less than five hundred pesos but not more than five thousand pesos, or with both such imprisonment
than fine at the discretion of the court. If the offender is a public officer or employee, he shall, in addition, be
dismissed from the public service and disqualified perpetually to hold public office. 
 
Section 5. Any person who shall violate the provision of Section 2 hereof, or any regulation promulgated
thereunder, shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than two (2) years but not more than five (5) years, or
with a fine equivalent to the value, at current valuation, of the area representing thirty percent (30%) of the total
area of the subdivision, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the Court. 
 
Section 6. The Director of Forest Development shall issue such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry
out the purposes of this Decree. 
 
Section 7. All laws, rules and regulations, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. 
Section 8. This Decree shall take effect upon its promulgation.  
 
Done in the City of Manila, this 6th day of July in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-six.
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 287 July 25, 1987 
 
REPEALING PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1153, ENTITLED "REQUIRING THE PLANTING OF ONE TREE
EVERY MONTH FOR FIVE CONSECUTIVE YEAR BY EVERY CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES" 
 
WHEREAS, the policy announced in the Presidential Decree No. 1153, "to call upon every citizen of the Philippines
to help, as a duty and obligation, to conserve and develop the resources of the country" can be achieved without
the compulsion and the penalties for non-compliance therewith as set forth in the Decree.  

! of 272
!
NOW, THEREFORE, I, CORAZON C. AQUINO, President of the Philippines, do hereby order: 
 
Sec. 1. Presidential Decree No. 1153, entitled "Requiring the Planting of One Tree Every Month For Five
Consecutive Years By Every Citizen of the Philippines" and the rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto are
hereby repealed. 
 
Sec. 2. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately. 
 
DONE in the City of Manila, this 25th of July, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and eighty-seven.
JURISPRUDENCE
PEOPLE VS. OANIS

! of 272
!
GR. NO.: G.R. No. L-47722 July 27, 1943
PONENTE: MORAN, J.:
TOPIC/S: Mistake of fact | ignorantia facti excusat
Chief of Police Oanis and his co-accused Corporal Galanta were under instructions
to arrest one Balagtas, a notorious criminal and escaped convict, and if
overpowered, to get him dead or alive. Proceeding to the suspected house, they
TRIGGER OF THE FACTS: went into a room and on seeing a man sleeping with his back towards the door,
simultaneously fired at him with their revolvers, without first making any reasonable
inquiry as to his identity. The victim turned out to be an innocent man, Tecson, and
not the wanted criminal.
TRIGGER OF THE ISSUE/S: Both accused are guilty of murder.
Even if it were true that the victim was the notorious criminal, the accused would not
be justified in killing him while the latter was sleeping.

In apprehending even the most notorious criminal, the law does not permit the captor
to kill him. It is only when the fugitive(escapee) from justice is determined to fight the
officers of the law who are trying to capture him that killing him would be justified.
For all the foregoing, the judgment is modified and appellants are hereby declared
guilty of murder with the mitigating circumstance above mentioned, and accordingly
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from five (5) years of prision correctional to
VERDICT:
fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal, with the accessories of the law, and to pay
the heirs of the deceased Serapio Tecson jointly and severally an indemnity of
P2,000, with costs.
An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which arises
END POINT:
upon the commission of a felonious act
CITED DOCTRINE/S: N/A
An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which arises
CASE DOCTRINE:
upon the commission of a felonious act
Accused were instructed to arrest a notorious criminal and escaped convict, and
instructed if they were empowered shoot and get him lifeless or not. thereafter,
CIRCUMTANCES: accused went to the house of notorious criminal then they saw the criminal sleeping
and they fired the man which cause of his death and found out that it was not the
notorious man and it was an innocent man.
In dealing with justifying circumstance No. 5 Judge Guevara states: "There are two
requisites in order that this circumstance may be taken into account:
IMPORTANT POINT/S: (a) That the offender acted in the performance of his duty or in the lawful exercise of
a right; and
(b) That the injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the
performance of a duty or the lawful exercise of a right or office."

! of 272
!
RTC:
COURT DECISIONS: CA:
SC: Guilty of murder (convicted)
FACTS
• Captain Godofredo Monsod, Constabulary Provincial Inspector at Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, received from Major Guido a
telegram of the following tenor: "Information received escaped convict Anselmo Balagtas with bailarina and Irene in
Cabanatuan get him dead or alive." Captain Monsod accordingly called for his first sergeant and asked that he be given
four men.
• The same instruction was given to the chief of police Oanis who was likewise called by the Provincial Inspector.
• Defendants Oanis and Galanta then went to the room of Irene, and an seeing a man sleeping with his back towards the
door where they were, simultaneously or successively fired at him with their .32 and .45 caliber revolvers. Awakened by
the gunshots, Irene saw her paramour already wounded, and looking at the door where the shots came, she saw the
defendants still firing at him. Shocked by the entire scene.
• Irene fainted; it turned out later that the person shot and killed was not the notorious criminal Anselmo Balagtas but a
peaceful and innocent citizen named Serapio Tecson, Irene's paramour.
• According to Appellant Galanta, when he and chief of police Oanis arrived at the house, the latter asked Brigida where
Irene's room was. Brigida indicated the place, and upon further inquiry as to the whereabouts of Anselmo Balagtas, she
said that he too was sleeping in the same room.
ISSUE
1. WON Oanis and Galanta incur no liability due to innocent mistake of fact in the honest performance of their official duties.
2. WON Oanis and Galanta incur no criminal liability in the performance of their duty.
HELD
1. No. Innocent mistake of fact does not apply to the case at bar. “Ignorance facti excusat” applies only when the mistake is
committed without fault or carelessness. The fact that the supposedly suspect was sleeping, Oanis and Galanta could
have checked whether it is the real Balagtas.
2. No. Oanis and Galanta are criminally liable. A person incurs no criminal liability when he acts in the fulfillment of a duty or
in the lawful exercise of a right or office. There are 2 requisites to justify this: (1) the offender acted in the performance of
a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office, (2) that the injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence
of the due performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office. In this case, only the first requisite is
present.
SYLLABI
Id.; Id.; Case at Bar Distinguished from United States vs. Ah Chong (15 Phil., 488).—In support of the theory of non
liability by reason of honest mistake of fact, appellants rely on the case of United States vs. Ah Chong (15 Phil., 488). The
maxim is ignorantia facti excusat, but this applies only when the mistake is committed without fault or carelessness. In the Ah
Chong case, defendant therein after having gone to bed was awakened by someone trying to open the door. He called out
twice, "who is there," but received no answer.

! of 272
!
Fearing that the intruder was a robber, he leaped from his bed and called out again, "if you enter the room I will kill you." But
at that precise moment, he was struck by a chair which had been placed against the door and believing that he was then
being attacked, he seized a kitchen knife and struck and fatally wounded the intruder who turned out to be his room-mate.
A common illustration of innocent mistake of fact is the case of a man who was masked as a footpad at night and in a lonely
road held up a friend in a spirit of mischief, and with leveled pistol demanded his money or life. He was killed by his friend
under the mistaken belief that the attack was real, that the pistol level at his head was loaded and that his life and property
were in imminent danger at the hands of the aggressor.
In these instances, there is an innocent mistake of fact committed without any fault or carelessness because the accused,
having no time or opportunity to make a further injury, and being pressed by circumstances to act immediately, had no
alternative but to take the fact as they then appeared to him; and such facts justified his act of killing. In the case, appeliants,
unlike the accused in the instances cited, found no circumstances whatsoever which would press them to immediate action.
The person in the room being then asleep, appeliants had ample time and opportunity to ascertain his identity without hazard
to themselves, and could even effect a bloodless arrest if any reasonable effort to that end had been made, as the victim was
unarmed, according to one eyewitness.
This, indeed, is the only legitimate course of action for appellants to follow even if the victim was really Balagtas, as they
were instructed not to kill Balagtas, at sight, but to arrest him, and to get him dead or alive only if resistance or aggression is
oddered him.
Id.; Id.; Killing at Bar is Intentional and not Merely Accidental.—The crime committed by appellants is not merely
criminal negligence, the killing being intentional and not accidental. In criminal negligence, the injury caused to another
should be unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act performed without malice. (People vs. Sara,
55 Phil., 939.)
In the words of Viada. "para que se califique un hecho de imprudencia es preciso que no haya mediado en él malicia ni
intención alguna de dañar; existiendo esa intención, deberá calificarse el hecho del delito que ha producido, por más que no
haya sido la intención del agente el causar un mal de tanta gravedad como el que se produjo.” (Tomo 7, Viada Código Penal
Comentado, 5." ed.. pág. 7.)
And, as once held by this court, a deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is essentially inconsistent with, the idea of reckless
imprudence (People vs. Nanquil, 43 Phil. 232: People vs. Bindor. 56 Phil.. 16), and where such unlawful act is wilfully done, a
mistake in the identity of the intended victim cannot be considered as reckless imprudence (People vs. Gona, 54 Phil., 605)
to support a plea of mitigated liability.
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
• ignorantia facti excusat, but this applies only when the mistake is committed without fault or carelessness
• appellants found no circumstances whatsoever which would press them to immediate action. The person in the room being
then asleep, appellants had ample time and opportunity to ascertain his identity without hazard to themselves, and could
even effect a bloodless arrest if any reasonable effort to that end had been made, as the victim was unarmed.
• "No unnecessary or unreasonable force shall be used in making an arrest, and the person arrested shall not be subject to
any greater restraint than is necessary for his detention.”
! of 272
!
• a peace officer cannot claim exemption from criminal liability if he uses unnecessary force or violence in making an arrest
• The crime committed by appellants is not merely criminal negligence, the killing being intentional and not accidental. In
criminal negligence, the injury caused to another should be unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act
performed without malice.
• 2 requisites in order that the circumstance may be taken as a justifying one: 
offender acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right-present injury or offense committed be
the necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.-not
present
• According to article 69 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty lower by 1 or 2 degrees than that prescribed by law shall, in
such case, be imposed.
PEOPLE VS AH CHONG
GR. NO.: G.R. No. L-5272 March 19, 1910
PONENTE: CARSON, J.
mistake of fact | definition of felony | In mistake of fact, the act done would have been
TOPIC/S:
lawful, had the facts been as the accused believed them to be.
Ah Chong was a cook in Ft. McKinley. He was afraid of bad elements. One evening,
before going to bed, he locked himself in his room by placing a chair against the
door. After having gone to bed, he was awakened by someone trying to open the
door. He called out twice, "Who is there," but received no answer. Fearing that the
TRIGGER OF THE FACTS: intruder was a robber, he leaped from his bed and called out again, "If you enter the
room I will kill you." But at that precise moment, he was struck by the chair that had
been placed against the door, and believing that he was being attacked he seized a
kitchen knife and struck and fatally wounded the intruder who turned out to be his
roommate.
TRIGGER OF THE ISSUE/S: Whether or not the defendant can be held criminally responsible
No. The rule is that one is not criminally liable if he acted without malice (criminal
intent), negligence, and imprudence. In the present case, the accused acted in good
faith, without malice or criminal intent, in the belief that he was doing no more than
exercising his legitimate right of self-defense. Had the facts been as he believed
TRIGGER OF THE RULING: them to be, he would have been wholly exempt from criminal liability on account of
his act. Moreover, the accused cannot be said to have been negligent or reckless as
the facts as he saw them threatens his person and his property. Under such
circumstances, there is no criminal liability, as the ignorance or mistake of fact was
not due to negligence or bad faith.
The judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court should be
VERDICT: reversed, and the defendant acquitted of the crime with which he is charged and his
bail bond exonerated, with the costs of both instance de oficio.
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:

! of 272
!
CASE DOCTRINE:
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
RTC: Convicted
COURT DECISIONS: CA: Convicted
SC: RTC's decision is reversed. The defendant is acquitted.
FACTS
• The defendant Ah Chong was a cook at "Officers' quarters, No. 27," Fort McKinley, Rizal Province
• Pascual Gualberto, deceased, works at the same place as a house boy or muchacho
• "Officers' quarters, No. 27" was a detached house some 40 meters from the nearest building
• No one slept in the house except the two servants who jointly occupied a small room toward the rear of the building, the
door of which opened upon a narrow porch running along the side of the building
• This porch was covered by a heavy growth of vines for its entire length and height
• The door of the room was not furnished with a permanent bolt or lock; the occupants, as a measure of security, had
attached a small hook or catch on the inside of the door, and were in the habit of reinforcing this somewhat insecure
means of fastening the door by placing against it a chair
• On the night of August 14, 1908, at about 10:00 pm, the defendant was suddenly awakened by some trying to force open
the door of the room
• He called out twice, "Who is there?”
• He heard no answer and was convinced by the noise at the door that it was being pushed open by someone bent upon
forcing his way into the room
• The defendant warned the intruder "If you enter the room, I will kill you.”
• Seizing a common kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow, the defendant struck out wildly at the intruder (when he
entered the room) who turned out to be his roommate Pascual
• Pascual ran out upon the porch heavily wounded
• Recognizing Pascual, the defendant called to his employers who slept in the next house and ran back to his room to
secure bandages to bind up Pascual's wound
• Pascual died from the effects of the wound the following day
• The roommates appear to have been in friendly and amicable terms prior to the incident, and had an understanding that
when either returned at night, he should knock that the door and acquaint his companion with his identity
• The defendant alleges that he kept the knife under his pillow as personal protection because of repeated robberies in Fort
McKinley
• Defendant admitted to stabbing his roommate, but said that he did it under the impression that Pascual was "a ladron
(thief)" because he forced open the door of their sleeping room, despite the defendant's warnings
• Defendant was found guilty by the trial court of simple homicide, with extenuating (mitigating) circumstances, and
sentenced to 6 years and 1 day presidio mayor, the minimum penalty prescribed by law
ISSUE
Whether or not the defendant can be held criminally responsible

! of 272
!
HELD
• By reason of a mistake as to the facts, the defendant did an act for which he would be exempt from criminal liability if the
facts were as he supposed them to be (i.e. if Pascual was actually a thief, he will not be criminally liable/responsible
because it would be self-defense), but would constitute the crime of homicide or assassination if the actor had known the
true state of the facts (i.e. if he knew that it was actually Pascual, he would be guilty of homicide/assassination)
• The defendant's ignorance or mistake of fact was not due to negligence or bad faith
• "The act itself foes not make man guilty unless his intention were so”
• The essence of the offense is the wrongful intent, without which it cannot exist
• "The guilt of the accused must depend on the circumstances as they appear to him.”
• If one has reasonable cause to believe the existence of facts which will justify a killing, if without fault or carelessness he
does believe them, he is legally guiltless of the homicide
• The defendant was doing no more than exercise his legitimate right of self-defense
• He cannot be said to have been guilty of negligence or recklessness or even carelessness in falling into his mistake as to
the facts
RTC's decision is reversed. The defendant is acquitted.
SYLLABI
JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE; SELF-DEFENSE; MlSTAKE OF FACTS.—Defendant was a cook and the deceased was a
house boy, and both were employed in the same place and usually slept in the same room. One night, after the defendant
had gone to bed, he was awakened by some one trying to open the door, and called out twice, "Who is there?" He received
no answer, and fearing that the intruder was a robber, leaped from the bed and again called out: "If you enter the room I will
kill you." At that moment he was struck by a chair which had been placed against the door.
Believing that he was being attacked, he seized a kitchen knife and struck and fatally wounded the intruder, who turned out to
be his roommate. Thereupon he called to his employers and rushed back into the room to secure bandages to bind up the
wound. Defendant was charged with murder. While there can be no doubt of defendant's exemption from liability if the
intruder had really been a robber, the question presented is whether, in this jurisdiction, a person can be held criminally
responsible when, by reason of a mistake of f acts, he does an act for which he would be exempt if the facts were as he
supposed them to be, but would constitute murder if he had known the true state of facts at the time.
Held, That, under such circumstances, there is no criminal liability, provided that the ignorance or mistake of fact was not due
to negligence or bad faith. In other words, if such ignorance or mistake of facts is sufficient to negative a particular intent
which, under the law, is a necessary ingredient of the offense charged it destroys the presumption of intent and works an
acquittal; except in those cases where the circumstances demand a conviction under the penal provisions governing
negligence, and in cases where, under the provisions of article 1 of the Penal Code, a person voluntarily committing an act
incurs criminal liability even though the act be different from that which he intended to commit.
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
SEPARATE OPINION
! of 272
!
TORRES, J., dissenting:
The writer, with due respect to the opinion of the majority of the court, believes that, according to the merits of the case, the
crime of homicide by reckless negligence, defined and punishes in article 568 of the Penal Code, was committed, inasmuch
as the victim was wilfully (voluntariomente) killed, and while the act was done without malice or criminal intent it was,
however, executed with real negligence, for the acts committed by the deceased could not warrant the aggression by the
defendant under the erroneous belief on the part of the accused that the person who assaulted him was a malefactor; the
defendant therefore incurred responsibility in attacking with a knife the person who was accustomed to enter said room,
without any justifiable motive.
By reason of the nature of the crime committed, in the opinion of the undersigned the accused should be sentenced to the
penalty of one year and one month of prision correctional, to suffer the accessory penalties provided in article 61, and to pay
an indemnify of P1,000 to the heirs of the deceased, with the costs of both instances, thereby reversing the judgment
appealed from.
PEOPLE V. TEMBLOR
GR. NO.: 161 SCRA 623 (1988)
PONENTE:
TOPIC/S:
VERDICT:
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
CASE DOCTRINE:
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
COURT DECISIONS:
FACTS
ISSUE

! of 272
!
HELD
SYLLABI
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
CONCURRING
DISSENTING
SEPARATE OPINION
OBITER DICTUM

! of 272
!
PEOPLE V. TEMBLOR
GR. NO.: 161 SCRA 623 (1988)
PONENTE:
TOPIC/S:
VERDICT:
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
CASE DOCTRINE:
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
COURT DECISIONS:
FACTS
ISSUE
HELD
SYLLABI
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
CONCURRING

! of 272
!
DISSENTING
SEPARATE OPINION
OBITER DICTUM
CASE TITLE
GR. NO.:
PONENTE:
TOPIC/S:
VERDICT:
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
CASE DOCTRINE:
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
COURT DECISIONS:
FACTS
ISSUE
HELD

! of 272
!
SYLLABI
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
CONCURRING
DISSENTING
SEPARATE OPINION
OBITER DICTUM
CASE TITLE
GR. NO.:
PONENTE:
TOPIC/S:
VERDICT:
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
CASE DOCTRINE:
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
COURT DECISIONS:

! of 272
!
FACTS
ISSUE
HELD
SYLLABI
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
CONCURRING
DISSENTING
SEPARATE OPINION
OBITER DICTUM
CASE TITLE

! of 272
!
GR. NO.:
PONENTE:
TOPIC/S:
VERDICT:
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
CASE DOCTRINE:
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
COURT DECISIONS:
FACTS
ISSUE
HELD
SYLLABI
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
CONCURRING
DISSENTING
! of 272
!
SEPARATE OPINION
OBITER DICTUM
CASE TITLE
GR. NO.:
PONENTE:
TOPIC/S:
VERDICT:
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
CASE DOCTRINE:
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
COURT DECISIONS:
FACTS
ISSUE
HELD

! of 272
!
SYLLABI
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
CONCURRING
DISSENTING
SEPARATE OPINION
OBITER DICTUM
CASE TITLE
GR. NO.:
PONENTE:
TOPIC/S:
VERDICT:
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
CASE DOCTRINE:
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
COURT DECISIONS:

! of 272
!
FACTS
ISSUE
HELD
SYLLABI
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
CONCURRING
DISSENTING
SEPARATE OPINION
OBITER DICTUM
CASE TITLE

! of 272
!
GR. NO.:
PONENTE:
TOPIC/S:
VERDICT:
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
CASE DOCTRINE:
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
COURT DECISIONS:
FACTS
ISSUE
HELD
SYLLABI
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
CONCURRING
DISSENTING
! of 272
!
SEPARATE OPINION
OBITER DICTUM
CASE TITLE
GR. NO.:
PONENTE:
TOPIC/S:
VERDICT:
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
CASE DOCTRINE:
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
COURT DECISIONS:
FACTS
ISSUE
HELD

! of 272
!
SYLLABI
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
CONCURRING
DISSENTING
SEPARATE OPINION
OBITER DICTUM
CASE TITLE
GR. NO.:
PONENTE:
TOPIC/S: Relation of RPC to special laws RPC, Art. 10
VERDICT:
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
CASE DOCTRINE:
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
COURT DECISIONS:

! of 272
!
FACTS
ISSUE
HELD
SYLLABI
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
CONCURRING
DISSENTING
SEPARATE OPINION
OBITER DICTUM 

! of 272
!
CASE TITLE
GR. NO.:
PONENTE:
VERDICT:
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
CASE DOCTRINE:
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
COURT DECISIONS:
FACTS
ISSUE
HELD
SYLLABI
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
CONCURRING

! of 272
!
DISSENTING
SEPARATE OPINION
OBITER DICTUM
CASE TITLE
GR. NO.:
PONENTE:
VERDICT:
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
CASE DOCTRINE:
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
COURT DECISIONS:
FACTS
ISSUE
HELD

! of 272
!
SYLLABI
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
CONCURRING
DISSENTING
SEPARATE OPINION
OBITER DICTUM
CASE TITLE
GR. NO.:
PONENTE:
VERDICT:
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
CASE DOCTRINE:
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
COURT DECISIONS:

! of 272
!
FACTS
ISSUE
HELD
SYLLABI
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
CONCURRING
DISSENTING
SEPARATE OPINION
OBITER DICTUM 

! of 272
!
Article 4
Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be incurred:  
 
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended.  
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment, or an account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
COMMITTING A FELONY
Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person “committing a felony” not merely performing an act. It must be felonious
which an act of omission punishable by the revised penal code. If such act is not punishable by RPC, then it is not a felony.
But the offender must committed the felony by means of DOLO which with malice, because Art. 4 par. 1 speaks for the
“wrongful act done be different from that which he intended”
Kailangan kpag iaapply ang paragraph 1 of Art. 4 dapat i-determine mo kung yung felonies ba ay act (ginawa) or Omission (dapat ginawa,
pero hindi ginawa) from there kailangan mong idetermine kung yung felony na na-commit ay provided ng revised penal code kapag walang
batas na nagpupunish nung felony, hindi sya considered as felony. so meaning walang crime.
Sa paragraph na ito kailangan yung felony na DOLO kasi kailangan INTENTIONAL ginusto nyang gawin yung act o may deliberate intent.
pasok dapat yung 3 elements “freedom, intelligence and intent”. kapag may kulang sa tatlo na yan papasok na yung Art. 12. para masabing
may dolo dahil sabi ng paragraph 1 kailangan “willful nyang ginawa pero ang problema iba yung resulta nung ginawa nya… napunish sya sa
act na ginawa nya kahit iba yung plano na dapat na maging resulta.
PROXIMATE CAUSE
That cause, which, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury
without which the result would not have occurred.
The proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion,
all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate
predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which
first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinary prudent and
intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might
probably result therefrom49
ALTHOUGH THE WRONGFUL ACT DONE BE DIFFERENT

FROM THAT WHICH HE INTENDED
Different possible results
49 [Vda. De Bataclan v. Medina (1957)]

! of 272
!
The offender is CRIMINALLY LIABLE for ALL the natural and logical consequences of his felonious act,
although not intended, if the felonious act is the proximate cause of the resulting harm.
General rule:
Thus, the person is still criminally liable although the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended in the following cases:
English
Definition Application
Translation
mistake in the identity of the victim; injuring Ang plano ni Princess ay patayin si
one person mistaken for another (Art. 49 – Mike, pero ang napatay ni cess ay si
penalty for lesser crime in its maximum Jay.
period)
mistake in the Wrong person/indentity, ang dapat na
Error in
identity of the papatayin ay si mike pero ang napatay
personae (a) At least two subjects  
victim si Jay.
(b) A has intent to kill B, but kills C  
(c) Under Art. 3, if A hits C, he should have

no criminal liability. But because of Art. 4, his
act is a felony.
mistake in the blow; when offender intending A, with intent to kill, hacked B. B was not
to do an injury to one person actually inflicts hit but C who is also behind B was hit. C
it on another died. A is liable for his attempt to kill B. A
is also liable for the death of C. The
Aberratio Mistake in the (Art. 48 on complex crimes – penalty for death of C is the natural consequence of
ictus blow graver offense in its maximum period) the felonious act of A
(a) There is only one subject. 

(b) The intended subject is a different
subject, but the felony is still the same.
injurious result is greater than that intended Sinampal ko si jean, ang nasa isip ko
mamumula lang yung muka ni jean,
The injurious (Art. 13 – mitigating circumstance) pero ang resulta nung sampal ko kay
Praeter result is greater jean bumuka yung muka ni jean.
intentionem than that
If A’s act constitutes sufficient means to carry
intended Magkaiba yung expected result sa tunay
out the graver felony, he cannot claim
at aktual na nangyari; mas malala yung
praeter intentionem.
aktwal na resulta.
DISTINCTION OF ABERRATIO ICTUS VS. ERROR IN PERSONAE

! of 272
!
Aberration ictus Error in Personae
The victim, as well as the actual victim, is both in the scene The supposed victim may or may not be in the scene of the
of the crime crime
The offender delivers the blow to his intended victim but
the offender delivers the blow not to his intended victim
because of poor aim landed on someone else
Generally give rise to complex crime unless the resulting

There is no complex crime
consequence is not a grave or less grave felony
REQUISITES OF ART. 4 PAR. 1

(1) An intentional felony has been committed.
(a) The felony committed should be one committed by means of dolo (with malice) because Art. 4, Par. 1 speaks of
wrongful act done different from that which he intended.
(b) The act should not be punished by a special law because the offender violating a special law may not have the intent
to do an injury to another.
(c) No felony is committed when:
1. the act or omission is not punishable by the RPC,
2. the act is covered by any of the justifying circumstances enumerated in Art. 11.  
(2) The wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed by the
offender.
Natural - refers to an occurrence in the ordinary course of human life or events

Logical - means that there is a rational connection between the act of the accused and the resulting injury or damage
Cause - being the felonious act of the offended
Effect - being the resultant injuries and/or death of the victim
FELONY COMMITTED IS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE

RESULTING INJURY WHEN
(1) there is an active force that intervened between the felony committed and the resulting injury, and the active force is a
distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused.
(2) the resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim
WHEN DEATH IS PRESUMED TO BE THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF

PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED
(1) The victim, at the time the physical injuries were inflicted was in normal health
(2) The death may be expected from the physical injuries inflicted;
(3) The death ensued within a reasonable time
Note: There is no need for the offended party to submit to a surgical operation or medical to relieve the accused
from liability

! of 272
!
PROXIMATE CAUSE V. IMMEDIATE CAUSE V. REMOTE CAUSE

PROXIMATE CAUSE IMMEDICATE CAUSE REMOTE CAUSE
That cause, which, in a natural and The last event in a chain of events, A cause that does not necessarily or
continuous sequence, unbroken by any though not necessarily the proximate immediately produce an event or injury.
efficient intervening cause, produces cause of what follows.
the injury without which the result
Note: Criminal liability exists from the
would not have occurred.
concurrence of the mens rea and the
actus reus.
Criminal liability for some felonies
arises only upon a specific resulting
harm:
 
(1) Homicide and its qualified forms
requires DEATH
of the victim to be consummated. 
(2) Estafa: requires that the victim incur
damage for
criminal liability for the consummated
felony to arise.
THE FOLLOWING ARE NOT EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE

1. The weak or diseased physical condition of the victim, as when one is suffering from tuberculosis or heart disease50
2. The nervousness or temperament of the victim, as when a person dies in consequence of an internal hemorrhage
brought on by moving about against the doctor’s orders, because of his nervous condition due to the wound inflicted on
the accused 51
3. Causes which are inherent in the victim, such (a) the victim not knowing to swim and (b) the victim being addicted to tuba
drinking 52
4. Neglect of the victim or third person, such as the refusal by the injured party of medical attendance or surgical operation,
or the failure of the doctor to give anti-tetanus injection to the injured person 53
5. Erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment, as when the assault took place in anu outlaying barrio where proper
modern surgical service was not available 54
EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE

it is the cause which interrupted the natural flow of the event leading to one’s death. this may be relieve the offender from
criminal liability
50 [People v. Illustre]
51 [People v. Almonte]
52 [People v. Buhay and People v. Valdez]
53 [U.S. v. Marasigan]
54 [People v. Moldes]

! of 272
!
INSTANCES WHEN THERE IS PROXIMATE CAUSE AND WHEN THERE IS

NONE
instance Criminally liable
when there is an intervening disease
if the disease is closely related to the wound yes
if the disease is unrelated to the wound no
Yes. Mortal wound is a contributing fator to victim’s death.
Note: A mortal wound is a contributing factor when:

if disease is combined force with wound 1. The wound is sufficient to cause the victim’s death along
with the disease
2. the mortal wound was caused by actions committed by
the accused
when the death was caused by an infection of the wound due to the unskilled medical treatment from the doctors
yes. unskilled treatment and infection are not efficient

if the wound is mortal
intervening caused
no. unskilled treatment and infection are efficient intervening

if the wound is slight
causes
PAR. 2 OF ART. 4: IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
PURPOSE OF PUNISHING IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES

is to suppress criminal propensity or criminal tendencies. Objectively, the offender has not committed a felony, but
subjectively, he is a criminal.
REQUISITES (1-4)
(1) That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property.
(2) That the act was done with evil intent.
(3) That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual.
(1) inadequate - insufficient (e.g. small quantity of poison)
(2) ineffectual means - the means employed did not produce the result expected (e.g. pressed the trigger of the
gun not knowing that it is empty)
Inherent impossibility of its accomplishment:

Legal impossibility –The intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime. (killing a person already dead)
nagawa nya yung crime pero di nagamount sa crime dahil patay na yung dapat gagawan nya ng crime. pero ang pinupunish natin yung
crime na ginagawa kahit hindi naging successful yung comission of the crime.
Legal impossibility would apply to those circumstances where:

(i) the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law;
! of 272
!
(ii) there is intention to perform the physical act;
(iii) there is a performance of the intended physical act; and
(iv) the consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime. 55 
Physical or factual impossibility – Extraneous56 circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the
consummation of the intended crime. (e.g. when a man with the intention to steal another’s wallet and finds the pocket
empty; when a person steals a check which was later dishonored)
Hindi na nya hawak yung sitwasyon para hindi nya masatisfy yung crime na gagawin nya. gusto nyang magnakaw dahil sa check na nakuha
nya nung inen-cash nya yung account ay close nya. hindi na nya matuloy yung pagnanakaw nya. 
(4) That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC
WERE IT NOT FOR THE INHERENT IMPOSSIBILITY OF ITS

ACCOMPLISHMENT OR ON ACCOUNT OF THE
EMPLOYMENT OF INADEQUATE OR INEFFECTUAL MEANS
1. the commission of the offense (against persons or property) is inherently impossible of accomplishment
2. the means employed is either:
(1) inadequate - insufficient (e.g. small quantity of poison)
(2) ineffectual means - the means employed did not produce the result expected (e.g. pressed the trigger of the gun
not knowing that it is empty
“INHERENT IMPOSSIBILITY OF OF ITS ACCOMPLISHMENT”

Examples of impossible crimes which are punishable under the Revised Penal Code are:
(1) When one tries to kill another by putting in his soup a substance which he believes to be arsenic when in fact it is
common salt; and
(2) when one tries to murder a corpse 57
“WOULD BE AN OFFENSE AGAINST PERSONS.”

Example: A fired at B, who" was lying on bed, not knowing that B was dead hours before.
Rationale: In crime against persons, as would have been in this case, it is necessary that the victim could be injured or killed.
A dead person cannot be injured or killed. Had B been alive when he was shot, and as a consequence he died, the crime
committed by A would have been murder, a crime against persons. There is physical and legal impossibility in this example.
Felonies against persons are:

A. Parricide (Art. 246)
B. Murder (Art. 248)
C. Homicide (Art. 249)
D. Infanticide (Art. 255)
55 [Intod v. CA]
56 irrelevant
57 (People vs. Balmores, 85 Phil. 493, 496)

! of 272
!
E. Abortion (Arts. 256, 257, 258 and 259)
F. Duel (Arts. 260 and 261)
G. Physical injuries (Arts. 262, 263, 264, 265 and 266)
H. Rape (Art. 266-A)
“WOULD BE AN OFFENSE AGAINST PROPERTY.”

Example: A, with intent to gain, took a watch from the pocket of B. When A had the watch in his possession, he found out that
it was the watch which he had lost a week before. In other words, the watch belonged to A. Is this an impossible crime?
RATIONALE: It is believed that it may be an impossible crime. The act performed would have been theft had the watch been
the property of B. But there is a legal impossibility of accomplishing it, because in theft, the personal property taken must
belong to another.
Example: An employee who, having known the safe combination, opens the safe in the office for the purpose of stealing
money, but who finds the safe empty, is guilty of an impossible crime.
RATIONALE: The act performed would have been a crime of theft were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment. If there is no personal property that could be taken, it is inherently impossible to commit theft.
against property are:

1. Robbery (Arts. 294, 297, 298, 299, 300, 302 and 303)
2. Brigandage (Arts. 306 and 307)
3. Theft (Arts. 308, 310 and 311)
4. Usurpation (Arts. 312 and 313)
5. Culpable insolvency (Art. 314)
6. Swindling and other deceits (Arts. 315, 316, 317 and 318)
7. Chattel mortgage (Art. 319)
8. Arson and other crimes involving destruction (Arts. 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325 and 326)
9. Malicious mischief (Arts. 327, 328, 329, 330 and 331)
“EMPLOYMENT OF INADEQUATE” MEANS

Example: A, determined to poison B, uses a small quantity of arsenic by mixing it with the food given to B, believing that the
quantity employed by him is sufficient. But since in fact it is not sufficient, B is not killed. The means employed (small quantity
of poison) is inadequate to kill a person.
Where the means employed is adequate. But where the means employed is adequate and the result expected is not
produced, it is not an impossible crime, but a frustrated felony.
Thus, if the quantity of poison used is sufficient to kill an ordinary person, but the intended victim has developed strong
resistance to poison because he has been working in a mine, the crime committed is frustrated murder.
EMPLOYMENT OF "INEFFECTUAL MEANS.”

EXAMPLE: A tried to kill B by putting in his soup a substance which he thought was arsenic when in fact it was sugar. B could
not have been killed, because the means employed was ineffectual.

! of 272
!
RATIONALE: But A showed criminal tendency and, hence, he should be punished for it in accordance with Art. 4, par. 2, in
relation to Art. 59.
Example: A, with intent to kill B, aimed his revolver at the back of the latter, A, not knowing that it was empty. When he
pressed the trigger it did not fire. The means used by A is ineffectual.
IN IMPOSSIBLE CRIME THE ACT PERFORMED SHOULD NOT

CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF ANOTHER PROVISION OF THE CODE.
EXAMPLE: A, who knew that B owned and always carried a watch, decided to rob B of said watch. When A met B for that
purpose, B did not have the watch because he forgot to carry it with him. Thinking that B had the watch with him, A pointed
his gun at him and asked for the watch. Finding that B did not have the watch, A allowed B to go without further molestation.
Is this an impossible crime?
It is believed that A committed attempted robbery, not impossible crime. There was intent to gain on the part of A when he
decided to take the watch of B at the point of gun.
The crime of robbery with intimidation of person is not produced, not because of the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment, but because of a cause or accident (that B forgot to carry the watch with him) other than A's own
spontaneous desistance.
(Art. 6, par. 3) Note also that A's pointing his gun at B already constituted at least the crime of grave threats under Art. 282,
subdivision 2, of the Revised Penal Code. This is another reason why it is not an impossible crime.
JURISPRUDENCE

! of 272
!
INTOD VS. CA
GR. NO.: 215 SCRA 52
PONENTE:
TOPIC/S:
VERDICT:
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
CASE DOCTRINE:
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
COURT DECISIONS:
FACTS
Sulpicio Intod and 3 other men went to Salvador Mandaya’s house to ask him to go with them to the house of Bernardina
Palangpangan. The group had a meeting with Aniceto Dumalagan who told Mandaya that he wanted Palangpangan to be
killed because of a land dispute between them and that Mandaya should accompany the 4 men otherwise he would also be
killed. At 10:00 p.m. of that same day, Intod and companions, all armed with firearms arrived at Palangpangan’s house.
Thereafter, petitioner fired at the said room. It turned out the Palangpangan was in another city and her home was then
occupied by her son-in-law and his family. No one was in the room when the accused fired. No one was hit by the gunfire.
The RTC convicted Intod of attempted murder.
Petitioner Intod seeks a modification of the judgment on the ground that he is only liable for an impossible crime {Art. 4(2)}.
Petitioner contends that, Palangpangan's absence from her room on the night he and his companions riddled it with bullets
made the crime inherently impossible. On the other hand, Respondent People of the Philippines argues that the crime was
not impossible instead the facts were sufficient to constitute an attempt and to convict Intod for attempted murder.
Respondent likewise alleged that there was intent. Further, In its Comment to the Petition, respondent pointed out that “xxx.
The crime of murder was not consummated, not because of the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment (Art 4 (2), RPC),
but due to a cause of accident other that petitioner’s and his co-accused’s own spontaneous desistance (Art. 3)
Palangpangan did not sleep at her house at that time. Had it not been for this fact, the crime is possible, m not impossible.
ISSUE
Is petitioner is liable only for an impossible crime?

! of 272
!
HELD
Under Article 4(2) of the RPC, the act performed by the offender cannot produce an offense against person or property
because:
1) the commission of the offense is inherently impossible of accomplishment; or

2) the means employed is either
1) inadequate or
2) ineffectual.
To be impossible under this clause, the act intended by the offender must be by its nature one impossible of accomplishment.
There must be either
1) legal impossibility, or
2) physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended act in order to qualify the act as an impossible crime.
Legal impossibility occurs where the intended act, even if complete would not amount to a crime. Thus: legal impossibility
would apply to those circumstances where
1) the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law;
2) there is intention to perform the physical act;
3) there is a performance of the intended physical act; and
4) the consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime. The impossibility of killing a person already
dead falls in this category.
On the other had, factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control
prevent the consummation of the intended crime. One example is the man who puts his hand in the cot pocket of another
with the intention to steal the latter’s wallet and finds the pocket empty.
The case at bar belongs to this category. Petitioner shoots the place where he thought his victim would be, although in reality,
the victim was not present in said place and thus, the petitioner failed to accomplish his end.
The factual situation in the case at bar presents a physical impossibility which render the intended crime impossible of
accomplishment. And under Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, such is sufficient to make the act an
impossible crime.
SYLLABI
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
CONCURRING
! of 272
!
DISSENTING
SEPARATE OPINION
OBITER DICTUM
GEMMA T. JACINTO VS PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES
GR. NO.: GR No. 162540, July 13, 2009
PONENTE: Justice Diosdado M. Peralta
TOPIC/S:

Petition granted. Decision is MODIFIED. Petitioner Gemma T. Jacinto is found
VERDICT: GUILTY of an IMPOSSIBLE CRIME and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of six (6)
months of arrresto mayor, and to pay the costs.
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
Doctrine: The requisites of an impossible crime are: (1) that the act performed would
be an offense against persons or property; (2) that the act was done with evil intent;
CASE DOCTRINE:
and (3) that its accomplishment was inherently impossible, or the means employed
was either inadequate or ineffectual
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
COURT DECISIONS:

! of 272
!
FACTS
Petitioner Jacinto was an employee of Megafoam International, received a check amounting to Pho 10, 000 as payment of
Baby Aquino to her purchase to Megafoam. However, instead of delivering it to Megafoam, she deposited it to her account.
The check was later discovered to be unfunded. Both RTC and CA ruled that the petitioner was guilty of qualified theft.
Petitioner filed a petition for review of certiorari to SC.
ISSUE
WON petitioner is correctly convicted for the crime of Qualified Theft.
HELD
NO. Petitioner is guilty of committing an impossible crime of theft only. ,
The requisites of an impossible crime are: (1) that the act performed would be an offense against persons or property; (2)
that the act was done with evil intent; and (3) that its accomplishment was inherently impossible, or the means employed was
either inadequate or ineffectual.
Petitioner’s evil intent cannot be denied, as the mere act of unlawfully taking the check meant for Mega Foam showed her
intent to gain or be unjustly enriched. Were it not for the fact that the check bounced, she would have received the face value
thereof, which was not rightfully hers. Therefore, it was only due to the extraneous circumstance of the check being
unfunded, a fact unknown to petitioner at the time, that prevented the crime from being produced. The thing unlawfully taken
by petitioner turned out to be absolutely worthless, because the check was eventually dishonored, and Mega Foam had
received the cash to replace the value of said dishonored check.
SYLLABI
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
CONCURRING
DISSENTING
SEPARATE OPINION

! of 272
!
OBITER DICTUM
CASE TITLE
GR. NO.:
PONENTE:
TOPIC/S: Wrongful act different from that intended
VERDICT:
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
CASE DOCTRINE:
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
COURT DECISIONS:
FACTS
ISSUE
HELD
SYLLABI
PERSONAL ANNOTATION

! of 272
!
CONCURRING
DISSENTING
SEPARATE OPINION
OBITER DICTUM 
SANTIAGO NOTES Page !100 of !272

CASE TITLE
GR. NO.:
PONENTE:
TOPIC/S: Wrongful act different from that intended
VERDICT:
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
CASE DOCTRINE:
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
COURT DECISIONS:
FACTS
ISSUE
HELD
SYLLABI
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
CONCURRING

DISSENTING
SEPARATE OPINION
OBITER DICTUM 

Article 5
Art.5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by the law,
and in cases of excessive penalties. — Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to
repress and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision and shall report to the Chief
Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be
made the subject of penal legislation.  
 
In the same way the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department ofJustice, such statement as
may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the
provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the
degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense.
TRIAL OF CRIMINAL CASE BASED ON PAR. 1

The 1st paragraph of this article which contemplates a trial of a criminal case requires the following:
1. The act committed by the accused appears not punishable by any law;
2. But the court deems it proper to repress such act;
3. In that case, the court must render the proper decision by dismissing the case and acquitting the accused;
4. The judge must then make a report to the Chief Executive, through the Secretary of Justice, stating the reasons which
induce him to believe that the said act should be made the subject of penal legislation.  
NOTE: BASIS OF THIS PARAGRAPH: “NULLUM CRIMEN NULLA POENA SINE LEGE” there is no crime when there is no
law punish the act.
IN CASE OF EXCESSIVE PENALTY

The 2nd paragraph of Art. 5 requires that —
1. The court after trial finds the accused guilty;

2. The penalty provided by law and which the court imposes for the crime committed appears to be clearly excessive,
because — (A) the accused acted with lesser degree of malice, and/ or; (B) there is no injury or the injury caused is of
lesser gravity.
3. The court should not suspend the execution of the sentence.
4. The judge should submit a statement to the Chief Executive, through the Secretary of Justice, recommending executive
clemency.

Supreme Court applied Article 5 of the

In a case where the accused
Revised Penal Code, "considering that
maltreated his wife in his inebriated
the accused had no intent to kill his
state, because she prevented him from
wife and that her death might have
whip- ping their negligent son, and the
Examples of the accused acting with maltreatment inflicted by the accused been hastened by lack of appropriate
lesser degree of malice medical attendance or her weak
was the proximate cause of her death,
constitution."The penalty of reclusion
perpetua the crime committed, appears
(People vs. Monleon, No. L-36282, to be excessive.
Dec. 10, 1976, 74 SCRA 263, 269)
Father and son were convicted of The Court of Appeals held: In the light
qualified theft for stealing ten tender of the circumstances surrounding the
coconut fruits from two coconut trees in case, we are of the belief that the
a coconut plantation, for the family's degree of malice behind the appellants'
consumption. The court sentenced felonious act does not warrant the
each ofthem to an indeterminate imposition of so stiff a penalty as we
penalty of from four (4) months and are now constrained to mete out under
Examples on how pardon applied one (1) day of arresto mayor to three the law. We recommend, therefore, that
(3) years, six (6) months and twenty- they be pardoned after they shall have
one (21) days of served four (4) months of the penalty
prision correccional, according to Art. so imposed. Let a copy ofthis decision
310 of the Revised Penal Code. be forwarded to His Excellency, the
President of the Philippines, through
(People vs. Espino, et al., CA-G.R. No. the Honorable, the Secretary of
14029-R, Feb. 20, 1956) Justice.
THE PENALTIES ARE NOT EXCESSIVE WHEN INTENDED TO ENFORCE

A PUBLIC POLICY.
The rampant lawlessness against property, person, and even the very security of the Government, directly trace- able in
large measure to promiscuous carrying and use of powerful weapons, justify imprisonment which in normal circumstances
might appear excessive. (People vs. Estoista, 93 Phil. 647, 654)
With regard to the fine of P5,000.00 imposed by the court for selling a can ofpowdered Klim milk for P2.20 when the selling
price for it was PI.80, it should be considered that Congress thought it necessary to repress profiteering with a heavy fine
so that dealers would not take advantage of the critical condition to make unusual profits. (People vs. Tiu Ua, 96 Phil. 738,
741)
WHEN STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISION OF THIS

CODE
Art. 5 of the Revised Penal Code may not be invoked in cases involving acts mala prohibita, because said article applies only
to acts mala in se, or crimes committed with malice or criminal intent. (People vs. Quebral, C.A., 58 O.G. 7399) The ruling is
based on the phrase, "taking into consideration the degree of malice.

Before the case of People vs. Salazar, supra, was decided by the Supreme Court, it applied the second paragraph of Art. 5 in
cases involving illegal possession of firearms, a crime punishable by a special law58 and to the offenses punished by the
Price Control Law59
BAR QUESTION
Criminal Liability: Destructive Arson (2000)

A, B, C and D, all armed with armalites, proceeded to the house of X. Y, a neighbor of X, who happened to be passing by,
pointed to the four culprits the room that X occupied. The four culprits peppered the room with bullets. Unsatisfied, A even
threw a hand grenade that totally destroyed X's room. However, unknown to the four culprits, X was not inside the room and
nobody was hit or injured during the Incident. Are A, B, C and D liable for any crime? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. A, B. C and D are liable for destructive arson because of the destruction of the room of X with the use of an explosive,
the hand grenade. Liability for an impossible crime is to be imposed only if the act committed would not constitute any other
crime under the Revised Penal Code. Although the facts involved are parallel to the case of Intod vs. Court of Appeals (215
SCRA 52), where it was ruled that the liability of the offender was for an impossible crime, no hand grenade was used in said
case, which constitutes a more serious crime though different from what was intended,
Criminal Liability: Felonious Act of Scaring (1996)

Alexander, an escaped convict, ran amuck on board a Superlines Bus bound for Manila from Bicol and killed ten (10)
persons. Terrified by the incident, Carol and Benjamin who are passengers of the bus, jumped out of the window and while
lying unconscious after hitting the pavement of the road, were ran over and crushed to death by a fast moving Desert Fox
bus tailing the Superlines Bus.
Can Alexander be held liable for the death of Carol and Benjamin although he was completely unaware that the two jumped
out of the bus? Explain. 
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Alexander can be held liable for the death of Carol and Benjamin because of felonious act of running was the proximate
cause of the victim's death. The rule is that when a person, by a felonious act, generates in the mind of another a sense of
imminent danger, prompting the latter to escape from or avoid such danger and in the process, sustains injuries or dies, the
person committing the felonious act is responsible for such injuries or death. (US vs. Valdez, 41 Phil, 1497; People vs. Apra,
27 SCRA 1037.)
Criminal Liability: Felonious Act; Proximate Cause (1996)

Vicente hacked Anacleto with a bolo but the latter was able to parry it with his hand, causing upon him a two- inch wound on
his right palm. Vicente was not able to hack Anacleto further because three policemen arrived and threatened to shoot
Vicente if he did not drop his bolo. Vicente was accordingly charged by the police at the prosecutor's office for attempted
homicide. Twenty- five days later, while the preliminary investigation was in progress, Anacleto was rushed to the hospital
because of symptoms of tetanus infection on the two-inch wound inflicted by Vicente. Anacleto died the following day.
58 (People vs. Estoesta, 93 Phil. 654; People vs. Lubo, 101 Phil. 179),
59 (Ayuda vs. People, G.R. No. L-6149, April 12, 1954)

Can Vicente be eventually charged with homicide for the death of Anacleto? Explain. 
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 
Yes, Vicente may be charged of homicide for the death of Anacleto, unless the tetanus infection which developed twenty five
days later, was brought about by an efficient supervening cause. Vicente's felonious act of causing a two-inch wound on
Anacleto's right palm may still be regarded as the proximate cause of the latter's death because without such wound, no
tetanus infection could develop from the victim's right palm, and without such tetanus infection the victim would not have died
with it.
Criminal Liability: Impossible Crimes (2000)

1. What is an impossible crime? (2%)
2. Is an impossible crime really a crime? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. An impossible crime is an act which would be an offense against person or property, were if not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means (Art. 4, par. 2,
RPC)
2. No, an impossible crime is not really a crime. It is only so-called because the act gives rise to criminal liability. But
actually, no felony is committed. The accused is to be punished for his criminal tendency or propensity although no crime
was committed.  
Criminal Liability; Felonious Act of Scaring (2001)

Maryjane had two suitors - Felipe and Cesar. She did not openly show her preference but on two occasions, accepted
Cesar's invitation to concerts by Regine and Pops. Felipe was a working student and could only ask Mary to see a movie
which was declined. Felipe felt insulted and made plans to get even with Cesar by scaring him off somehow. One day, he
entered Cesar's room in their boarding house and placed a rubber snake which appeared to be real in Cesar's backpack.
Because Cesar had a weak heart, he suffered a heart attack upon opening his backpack and seeing the snake. Cesar died
without regaining consciousness. The police investigation resulted in pinpointing Felipe as the culprit and he was charged
with Homicide for Cesar's death. In his defense, Felipe claimed that he did not know about Cesar's weak heart and that he
only intended to play a practical joke on Cesar.
Is Felipe liable for the death of Cesar or will his defense prosper? Why? (5%} 
Yes, Felipe is liable for the death of Cesar but he shall be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance that he did not
intend to commit so grave a wrong as that which was committed (Art. 13, par. 3, RPC).
When Felipe intruded into Cesar's room without the latter's consent and took liberty with the letter's backpack where he
placed the rubber snake. Felipe was already committing a felony. And any act done by him while committing a felony is no
less wrongful, considering that they were part of "plans to get even with Cesar".
Felipe's claim that he intended only "to play a practical joke on Cesar" does not persuade, considering that they are not
friends but in fact rivals in courting Maryjane. This case is parallel to the case of People vs. Pugay, et al.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, Felipe is not liable because the act of frightening another is not a crime. What he did may be wrong, but not all wrongs
amount to a crime. Because the act which caused the death of Cesar is not a crime, no criminal
liability may arise therefrom.
Criminal Liability; Felonious Act of Scaring (2005)

Belle saw Gaston stealing the prized cock of a neighbor and reported him to the police. Thereafter, Gaston, while driving a
car saw Belle crossing the street. Incensed that Belle had reported him, Gaston decided to scare her by trying to make it
appear that he was about to run her over. He revved the engine of his car and drove towards her but he applied the brakes.
Since the road was slippery at that time, the vehicle skidded and hit Belle causing her death.
Was gaston criminally liable? 
What is the liability of Gaston? Why? (4%) 
Yes, Gaston is liable for Belle's death because even though Gaston has no intent to kill Belle rather just to scare Belle. "To
scare" does not indicate intent to kill. However, under Art. 4 of the Revised Penal Code, provides in part that criminal liability
shall be incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
In other words, the rule is that when a person, by a felonious act, generates in the mind of another a sense of imminent
danger, prompting the latter to escape from or avoid such danger and in the process, sustains injuries or dies, the person
committing the felonious act is responsible for such injuries or death. (US vs. Valdez, 41 Phil, 1497; People vs. Apra, 27
SCRA 1037.) 
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: 
Yes, Gaston is liable for Belle's death because by his acts of revving the engine of his car and driving towards Belle is
felonious, and such felonious act was the proximate cause of the vehicle to skid and hit Belle, resulting in the latter's death.
Stated otherwise, the death of Belle was the direct, natural and logical consequence of Gaston's felonious act. (People v.
Arpa, 27 SCRA 1037).
Criminal Liability; Felonious Act; Immediate Cause (2003) 

The conduct of wife A aroused the ire of her husband B. Incensed with anger almost beyond his control, B could not help but
inflict physical injuries on A. Moments after B started hitting A with his fists, A suddenly complained of severe chest pains. B,
realizing that A was indeed in serious trouble, immediately brought her to the hospital. Despite efforts to alleviate A's pains,
she died of heart attack. It turned out that she had been suffering from a lingering heart ailment. What crime, if any, could B
be held guilty of? 8% 
B could be held liable for parricide because his act of hitting his wife with fist blows and therewith inflicting physical injuries on
her, is felonious. A person committing a felonious act incurs criminal liability although the wrongful consequence is different
from what he intended (Art. 4, par. 1, Revised Penal Code).
Although A died of heart attack, the said attack was generated by B's felonious act of hitting her with his fists. Such felonious
act was the immediate cause of the heart attack, having materially contributed to and hastened A's death. Even though B
may have acted without intent to kill his wife, lack of such intent is of no moment when the victim dies. However, B may be
given the mitigating circumstance of having acted without intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed (Art. 13,
par. 3, Revised Penal Code).
Criminal Liability; Felonious Act; Proximate Cause (1994)

Bhey eloped with Scott. Whereupon, Bhey's father, Robin, and brother, Rustom, went to Scott's house. Upon reaching the
house, Rustom inquired from Scott about his sister's whereabouts, while Robin shouted and threatened to kill Scott. The
latter then went downstairs but Rustom held his (Scott's) waist. Meanwhile Olive, the elder sister of Scott, carrying her two-
month old child, approached Rustom and Scott to pacify them. Olive attempted to remove Rustom's hand from Scott's waist.
But Rustom pulled Olive's hand causing her to fall over her baby. The baby then died moments later.
Is Rustom criminally liable for the death of the child?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Rustom is criminally liable for the death of the child because his felonious act was the proximate cause of such death. It
was Rustom's act of pulling Olive's hand which caused the latter to fall on her baby. Had It not been for said act of Rustom,
which is undoubtedly felonious (at least slight coercion) there was no cause for Olive to fall over her baby. In short, Rustom's
felonious act is the cause of the evil caused. Any person performing a felonious act is criminally liable for the direct, natural
and logical consequence thereof although different from what he intended (Art. 4, par. 1, RFC; People vs, Pugay, et al, GR
No. 74324, Nov. 18, 1988).

While the crew of a steamer prepared to raise anchor at the Pasig River, A, evidently impatient with the progress of work,
began to use abusive language against the men. B, one of the members of the crew, remonstrated saying that they could
work best if they were not insulted. A took B's attitude as a display of insubordination and, rising in a rage, moved towards B
wielding a big knife and threatening to stab B. At the instant when A was only a few feet from B, the latter, apparently
believing himself to be in great and immediate peril, threw himself into the water, disappeared beneath the surface, and
drowned.
May A be held criminally liable for the death of B?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. A can be held criminally liable for the death of B, Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides in part that criminal
liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended. In U.S. vs. Valdez 41 Phil. 497. where the victim who was threatened by the accused with a knife, jumped into the
river but because of the strong current or because he did not know how to swim, he drowned, the Supreme Court affirmed
the conviction for homicide of the accused because, if a person against whom a criminal assault is directed believes himself
to be in danger of death or great bodily harm and in order to escape jumps into the water, impelled by the instinct of self-
preservation, the assailant is responsible for the homicide in case death results by drowning.

During the robbery in a dwelling house, one of the culprits happened to fire his gun upward in the ceiling without meaning to
kill anyone. The owner of the house who was hiding thereat was hit and killed as a result.
The defense theorized that the killing was a mere accident and was not perpetrated in connection with, or for purposes of,
the robbery. 
Will you sustain the defense? Why? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, I will not sustain the defense. The act being felonious and the proximate cause of the victim's death, the offender is liable
therefore although it may not be intended or different from what he intended.

The offender shall be prosecuted for the composite crime of robbery with homicide, whether the killing was intentional or
accidental, as long as the killing was on occasion of the robbery.

Luis Cruz was deeply hurt when his offer of love was rejected by his girlfriend Marivella one afternoon when he visited her.
When he left her house, he walked as if he was sleepwalking so much so that a teenage snatcher was able to grab his cell
phone and flee without being chased by Luis. At the next LRT station, he boarded one of the coaches bound for Baclaran.
While seated, he happened to read a newspaper left on the seat and noticed that the headlines were about the sinking of the
Super Ferry while on its way to Cebu. He went over the list of missing passengers who were presumed dead and came
across the name of his grandfather who had raised him from childhood after he was orphaned. He was shocked and his mind
went blank for a few minutes, after which he ran amuck and, using his balisong, started stabbing at the passengers who then
scampered away, with three of them Jumping out of the train and landing on the road below. All the three passengers died
later of their injuries at the hospital.
Is Luis liable for the death of the three passengers who jumped out of the moving train? State your reasons. (5%)
Yes, Luis is liable for their deaths because he was committing a felony when he started stabbing at the passengers and such
wrongful act was the proximate cause of said passengers' jumping out of the train; hence their deaths.
Under Article 4, Revised Penal Code, any person committing a felony shall incur criminal liability although the wrongful act
done be different from that which he intended. In this case, the death of the three passengers was the direct, natural and
logical consequence of Luis' felonious act which created an immediate sense of danger in the minds of said passengers who
tried to avoid or escape from it by jumping out of the train. (People vs. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1O37; U.S. vs. Valdez, 41 Phil. 497}

On his way home from office, ZZ rode in a jeepney. Subsequently, XX boarded the same jeepney. Upon reaching a secluded
spot in QC, XX pulled out a grenade from his bag and announced a hold-up. He told ZZ to surrender his watch, wallet and
cellphone. Fearing for his life, ZZ jumped out of the vehicle. But as he fell, his head hit the pavement, causing his instant
death . Is XX liable for ZZ's death? Explain briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, XX is liable for ZZ's death because his acts of pulling out a grenade and announcing a hold-up, coupled with a demand
for the watch, wallet and cellphone of ZZ is felonious, and such felonious act was the proximate cause of ZZ's jumping out of
the jeepney, resulting in the latter's death. Stated otherwise, the death of ZZ was the direct, natural and logical consequence
of XX's felonious act which created an immediate sense of danger in the mind of ZZ who tried to avoid such danger by
jumping out of the jeepney (People v. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1037).
Criminal Liability; Impossible Crime (2004)

OZ and YO were both courting their co-employee, SUE. Because of their bitter rivalry, OZ decided to get rid of YO by
poisoning him. OZ poured a substance into YO's coffee thinking it was arsenic. It turned out that the substance was white
sugar substitute known as Equal. Nothing happened to YO after he drank the coffee. What criminal liability did OZ incur, if
any? Explain briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

OZ incurred criminal liability for an impossible crime of murder. Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person performing
an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment
or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means (Art. 4, par. 2, RFC).
In the problem given, the impossibility of accomplishing the crime of murder, a crime against persons, was due to the
employment of ineffectual means which OZ thought was poison. The law imputes criminal liability to the offender although no
crime resulted, only to suppress his criminal propensity because subjectively, he is a criminal though objectively, no crime
was committed.
Criminal Liability; Impossible Crimes (1994)

JP, Aries and Randal planned to kill Elsa, a resident of Barangay Pula, Laurel, Batangas. They asked the
assistance of Ella, who is familiar with the place.
On April 3, 1992, at about 10:00 in the evening, JP, Aries and Randal, all armed with automatic weapons, went to Barangay
Pula. Ella, being the guide, directed her companions to the room in the house of Elsa. Whereupon, JP, Aries and Randal fired
their guns at her room. Fortunately, Elsa was not around as she attended a prayer meeting that evening in another barangay
in Laurel.
JP, et al, were charged and convicted of attempted murder by the Regional Trial Court at Tanauan, Batangas.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, all the accused ascribed to the trial court the sole error of finding them guilty of attempted
murder. 
If you were the ponente, how will you decide the appeal?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the ponente, I will set aside the judgment convicting the accused of attempted murder and instead find them guilty of
impossible crime under Art. 4, par. 2, RPC, in relation to Art. 59, RPC. Liability for impossible crime arises not only when the
impossibility is legal, but likewise when it is factual or physical impossibility, as in the case at bar. Elsa's absence from the
house is a physical impossibility which renders the crime intended Inherently incapable of accomplishment. To convict the
accused of attempted murder would make Art. 4, par. 2 practically useless as all circumstances which prevented the
consummation of the offense will be treated as an incident independent of the actor's will which is an element of attempted or
frustrated felony (Intod vs. CA, 215 SCRA 52).
Criminal Liability: Impossible Crimes (1998)

Buddy always resented his classmate, Jun. One day. Buddy planned to kill Jun by mixing poison in his lunch. Not knowing
where he can get poison, he approached another classmate, Jerry to whom he disclosed his evil plan. Because he himself
harbored resentment towards Jun, Jerry gave Buddy a poison, which Buddy placed on Jun's food. However, Jun did not die
because, unknown to both Buddy and Jerry, the poison was actually powdered milk.
1. What crime or crimes, if any, did Jerry and Buddy commit? [3%]
2. Suppose that, because of his severe allergy to powdered milk, Jun had to be hospitalized for 10 days for ingesting it.
Would your answer to the first question be the same? [2%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

! of !272
1. Jerry and Buddy are liable for the so-called "impossible crime" because, with intent to kill, they tried to poison Jun and thus
perpetrate Murder, a crime against persons. Jun was not poisoned only because the would-be killers were unaware that what
they mixed with the food of Jun was powdered milk, not poison. In short, the act done with criminal intent by Jerry and Buddy,
would have constituted a crime against persons were it not for the inherent inefficacy of the means employed. Criminal
liability is incurred by them although no crime resulted, because their act of trying to poison Jun is criminal.
2. No, the answer would not be the same as above. Jerry and Buddy would be liable instead for less serious physical injuries
for causing the hospitalization and medical attendance for 10 days to Jun. Their act of mixing with the food eaten by Jun the
matter which required such medical attendance, committed with criminal intent, renders them liable for the resulting injury.
Criminal Liability; Impossible Crimes; Kidnapping (2000)

Carla, 4 years old, was kidnapped by Enrique, the tricycle driver paid by her parents to bring and fetch her to and from
school. Enrique wrote a ransom note demanding P500,000.00 from Carla's parents in exchange for Carla's freedom. Enrique
sent the ransom note by mail. However, before the ransom note was received by Carla's parents, Enrique's hideout was
discovered by the police. Carla was rescued while Enrique was arrested and incarcerated. Considering that the ransom note
was not received by Carla's parents, the investigating prosecutor merely filed a case of "Impossible Crime to Commit
Kidnapping" against Enrique. Is the prosecutor correct? Why? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the prosecutor is not correct in filing a case for "impossible crime to commit kidnapping" against Enrique. Impossible
crimes are limited only to acts which when performed would be a crime against persons or property. As kidnapping is a crime
against personal security and not against persons or property, Enrique could not have incurred an "impossible crime" to
commit kidnapping. There is thus no impossible crime of kidnapping.
Impossible Crime of Murder (2009)

No. IV. a. Charlie hated his classmate, Brad, because the latter was assiduously courting Lily, Charlie’s girlfriend. Charlie went
to a veterinarian and asked for some poison on the pretext that it would be used to kill a very sick, old dog. Actually, Charlie
intended to use the poison on Brad.
The veterinarian mistakenly gave Charlie a non-toxic powder which, when mixed with Brad’s food, did not kill Brad.
Did Charlie commit any crime? If so, what and why? If not, why not? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Charlie committed an impossible crime of murder. His act of mixing the non- toxic powder with Brad‟s food, done with intent
to kill, would have constituted murder which is a crime against persons, had it not been for the employment of a means
which, unknown to him, is ineffectual (Art. 4, par. 2, RPC).
JURISPRUDENCE
CASE TITLE

! of !272
GR. NO.:
PONENTE:
TOPIC/S:
VERDICT:
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
CASE DOCTRINE:
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
COURT DECISIONS:
FACTS
ISSUE
HELD
SYLLABI
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
CONCURRING
DISSENTING
! of !272
SEPARATE OPINION
OBITER DICTUM 

! of !272
Article 6
Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. — Consummated felonies as well as those which are
frustrated and attempted, are punishable.  
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present;  
 
and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a
consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator.  
 
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly or over acts, and does not
perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than
this own spontaneous desistance.
FORMAL CRIMES OR CRIMES OF EFFECT

These are felonies which by a single act of the accused consummates the offense as a matter of law (i.e. PHYSICAL
INJURIES, ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS, ATTEMPTED FLIGHT TO AN ENEMY COUNTRY, COERCION, SLANDER,
ILLEGAL EXACTION)
Those which are always consummated because the offender cannot perform all the acts necessary to consummate the
offense without consummating it.
For instance, physical injuries are formal crimes since these are punished as to result and the gravity of the injury cannot be
determined whether slight, less serious or serious unless and until consummated.
Slander is a formal crime because the moment the defamatory words were uttered and heard by third persons, the crime is
consummated
STAGES OF EXECUTION
Hierarchy What constitute Example and Application Production of execution
When the offender commences the

commission of a felony directly by overt
acts, and does not perform all the acts of
Attempted execution which should produce the
felony by reason of some cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance.

! of !272
Hierarchy What constitute Example and Application Production of execution
When the offender performs all the acts

of execution which would produce the
felony as a consequence but which,
Frustrated
nevertheless, do not produce it by
reason of causes independent of the will
of the perpetrator.
When all the elements necessary for its
Consummated execution and accomplishment are
present; the felony is produced.
DEVELOPMENT OF ACTS
WHAT EXCEPTIONS ILLUSTRATION
Princess plans to kill Mike.
Intent, ideas and plans Yung “PLANO” is not punishable, pero kapag inexecute
are not generally na nya yung plano na patayin si mike dun palang
INTERNA punishable. Meaning yung plano na patayin at yung act
punishable, the intention
L ACTS ng pagpatay dapat connected.
and act must be in
harmony
If for instance ang plano ay patayin si mike pero ang
ginawa ni cess ninakawan nya si mike. the plan and act
must be in harmony.

! of !272
It covers It is the exemption because, EXAMPLE OF PREPARATORY ACTS:

in general it is not a felony.
“Preparatory Acts” - but because there is a law 1. Buying poison or carrying inflammable
Acts tending toward the specifically provides that first materials to the place where a house is to be
crime. stage may be considered burned
felony and punishable by rpc.
Preparing is considered By mere doing any of these acts, a person is not
first stage in committing EXAMPLE OF EXCEPTION liable for attempted homicide or attempted arson,
the crime (E.G. 1) because they do not constitute even the first
Ordinarily not punished stage of the acts of execution of those crimes.
kahit nasa preparatory ka na except when considered by
o prineprepare mo na yung law as independent crimes Hindi pa sya punishable dahil hindi ang pina-concrete
gamit or etc. para sa plano (i.e. Art. 304 – possession of na bagay para masabi mong yung mga prinepare para
mo hindi pa din sya macommit yung crime ay dapat gamitin nya yun. kasi
picklocks)
magcoconstitute ng felony dapat yung pre-nepare mo connected sya sa plano
dahil yung intent mo na which leads to the commission of the felony.
(E.G. 2)
gawin yung crime di pa
disclosed dahil di mo pa Proposal and conspiracy to
RATIO: bumili ka ng lason, dapat yung lason na yan
ginagamit yung prenepare commit a felony are not magamit mo sa taong plano mong lasunin dahil hindi pa
mo to commit the crime. punishable except when the felony ang pagpeprepare ng lason.
law provides for their
EXTERN punishment in   RATIO: bumili ka ng gaas para sa plano mong sunugin
bahay ni JEAN, dapat yung prinipare mong gas
AL ACTS certain felonies.
magamit mo sa plano mong pagsunog dahil hindi
pinapunish ang pagpeprepare.
“Acts of Execution” - Ex. Princess stabs Mike

Usually overt acts with a
logical relation to a What is the preparatory Act?
particular concrete 1. pwedeng prinepare nya yung gagamitin nyang

pansaksak kay mike. (instance kapag planado to
offense.  
commit the crime)
2. pwede din naman walang preparation para sa
pagsaksak ni mike. (instance kapag hindi
They are punishable
pinaghandaan yung pagawa ng crime)
under RPC
On the scenario given yung preparatory hindi

ESTABLISHMENT OF pinupunish ng revised penal code pero yung act na
STAGES. inistab ni cess si mike considered as an act of
execution.
First stage: PREPARATORY
ACTS Determination of Acts of execution
Second Stage: EITHER 1. kung ang pagsaksak kay mike ay planado at ang
Attempted or frustrated felony expected nya na mamatay si mike pero hindi
(it did not produce the felony namatay considered sya as frustrated
he intent to commit.) 2. kung sa pagsaksak kay mike ay planado na dapat
A commission of the felony is deemed commenced when the following are present: 
(1) There are external acts. 
(2) Such external acts have a direct connection with the crime intended to be committed.

! of !272
ATTEMPTED FELONY; REQUISITES
There is an attempt when the offender begins the commission of a

felony directly overt acts.he has not performed all the acts of ANNOTATION
execution which should produce the flony
1 The offender commences the commission of the felony

directly by overt acts;
2 He does not perform all the acts of execution which should Nagaawa nya yun initial action pero hindi nya nagawa yung
produce the felony; second stage para macommit yung crime.
3 The offender's act is not stopped by his own spontaneous
desistance
4 The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to
desistance cause or accident other than his spontaneous
desistance.
WHEN TO SAY OVERT ACTS WAS COMMENCED

A commission of the felony is deemed commenced when the following are present:
2 REQUISITES ANNOTATION
May preparatory act at may acts of execution (attempted, frustrated and comsummated)
Ex. Nag-prepare by means of buying balisong na ipangsaksaksak kay “A” para sa planong
(1) There are external acts.
pagpatay. hindi natin pwedeng ipunish yun dahil di pa nya ginagamit yung kampit na
prinepare nya. kapag ginamit na nya dun papasok yung Attempted, frustrated at
consummated.
thereafter, kapag pumasok na yung stages of execution dun papasok yung determination
kung may overt acts.
Continuation of the situation above: Nakapagprepare, nakaplano ang pagpatay kay “A”
(2) Such external acts have a direct then ieexecute nya by using the balisong to kill “A” pumasok yung 3 stages of execution.
connection with the crime intended to
be committed. APPLICATION OF REQ. 2
Yung ginamit na balisong pansaksak ay nadisclose na intended talgang gamitin yung
balisong to kill “A”
OVERT ACT WAS ESTABLISHED
WHAT IS AN OVERT ACT?

some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or
preparation, which if carried to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external
obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense.

! of !272
DISTINCTIONS
Preparatory acts overt acts
If A bought poison from a drugstore, in preparation for the if A mixed the poison with the food intended for B, and the
killing of B by means of poison, such act is only a latter, not knowing that it contained poison, put into his
preparatory act. mouth a spoonful thereof, the act of A was more than a
mere planning or preparation for the commission of murder.
It is not an overt act, because it has no direct connection The buying of poison and mixing it with the food ofB who
with the crime of murder which A intended to commit. later put into his mouth part thereof to eat it, taken together,
constituted the overt acts of murder. The nature of the
The poison purchased may be used by A to kill rats or external act thus performed by A clearly indicated that he
insects. Hence, the act of buying poison did not disclose intended to commit the crime of murder. If for some reason
necessarily an intention to kill a person with it. or another, B threw away the food with poison from his
mouth, A is liable for attempted murder.
Note: Killing a person by means ofpoison is murder. (Art.

248, R.P .C.

! of !272
DistiNction of attempted and frustrated

Attempted Felony Frustrated Felony
Overt acts of execution are started All acts of execution are finished
Na-disclose na yung nasa isip na planong Na-disclose na yung nasa isip na planong
Acts performed
pagpatay, may clear picture ng plano. pero not pagpatay, may clear picture ng plano. nakumpleto
totally nagawa yung mga stages to commit the yung execution pero hindi naproduce yung result ng
crime act na ginawa.
Not all acts of execution are present The crime sought to be committed is not
BUT
achieved
D u e t o t h e r e a s o n o t h e r t h a n t h e Due to the intervening causes independent of

spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator the will of the perpetrator
Why
Habang ine-execute nya yung crime, nakaramdam Habang ineexecute nya yung crime, natigil sya
sya ng kunsensya kaya sya sa sarili nya itinigil nya dahil may intervening cause may pumasok na wala
yung pagcocommit ng crime. sa plano na hindi nya kontrolado.
Offender still in subjective phase because he offender is already in objective phase

still has control of his acts, including their because all acts of execution are already
natural cause present and the cause of its non-
accomplishment is other than the offender’s
Dito tinitignan yung remorse mo kasi hindi mo will.
tinuloy on your own yung pagexecute nung act
Position in the timeline
mo. Dito tinitignan na wala kang pagsisisi, determinado
kang magawa yung act mo pero dahil sa may di
Tinitignan yung morality mo na ikaw sa sarili mo inaasahang pangyayari di mo naexecute ng buo
may set back ka from committing the crime. yung crime mo. pero tinitignan na wala kang
pagsisisi mas matindi yung penalty ng walang
pagsisisi.
Note: Both Stages above did not produce what is planned to commit
WHAT IS AN INDETERMINATE OFFENSE?

It is one where the purpose of the offender in performing an act is not certain. Its nature in relation to its objective is
ambiguous.
In the case of People vs. Lamahang, supra, the final objective of the offender, once he succeeded in entering the store, may
be to rob, to cause physical injury to the inmates, or to commit any other offense. In such a case, there is no justification in
finding the offender guilty of attempted robbery by the use of force upon things.
Hindi mo pa totally nadedetermine kung para saan yung prenepare nung isang tao. We cannot pressumed that it will be use to commit the
crime. He may be punished on the basis of his acts but yung nasa isip nya na act na gagawin nya wala kang assurance.

! of !272
On the given case above (People vs. Lamahang) Ang plano ni “A” ay magnakaw sa bahay ni “B” pumasok sya sa bahay [Knowing na first
stage yun to commit robbery, dahil kung magnanakaw ka sa bahay kailangan mong pumasok sa bahay nung nanakawan mo] on this part of
the story wala pang certain na act na sinasabing magnanakaw sya sa loob ng bahay kahit nagawa nya yung first stage. kasi yung pagpasok
sa bahay pwedeng magnanakaw lang, pero paano kung napatay mo pala yung mga tao sa loob ng bahay then it is not an attempted
robbery. hindi natin pwedeng paghawakan yung magnanakaw sya dahil may iba pa syang pwedeng gawin bukod sa magnakaw.
SUBJECTIVE PHASE
That portion of the acts constituting a crime, starting from the point where the offender begins the commission of the crime to
that point where he still has control over his acts including their (act’s) natural course
xAll acts from the beginning going to the point over his control of his acts in their natural course
If between those two points, the offender is stopped by reason of any cause outside of his own voluntary desistance, the
subjective phase has not been passed and it is merely an attempt.
DESISTANCE
is an absolutory cause which negates criminal liability because the law encourages a person to desist from committing a
crime.
Kaya binigiyan ng merit kapag ikaw mismo sa attempted ang pumigil na wag ituloy yung overt act.
But, it does not negate all criminal liability, if the desistance was made when acts done by him already resulted in a felony,
Kapag tapos na yung act kahit magsisi pa sya may criminal liability pa din sya. nawawala yung halaga ng set back kapag yung crime
nagtuloy pa din kahit napigilan mo na. 
The offender will still be criminally liable for the felony brought about by his act.
What is negated60 is only the attempted stage, but there may be other felonies arising from his act.
DESISTANCE IS TRUE ONLY IN THE ATTEMPTED STAGE OF THE

FELONY.
60 invalidate

INSTANCES ANNOTATION
If the felony is already in its frustrated stage, desistance

will NOT render null and void the criminal liability.
In the attempted stage, the definition uses the word

“directly.”
The word “directly” emphasizes the requirement that the

attempted felony is that which is directly linked to the
overt act performed by the offender, not the felony he has
in his mind.
There are some acts which are ingredients of a certain

crime, but which are, by themselves, already criminal
offenses like in the case of People v. Lamahang (1935)
where the act of removing the panel indicates only at
most the intention to enter, he can only be prosecuted for
trespass and not robbery.
KINDS OF DESISTANCE
KINDS WHAT ANNOTATION
it is a desistance referred to in law

which would obviated criminal liability
unless the overt or preparatory act
Legal Desistance already committed in themselves
constitute a felony other than what the
actor intended. it is made during the
attempted stage.
It is the actual desistance of the actor;

the actor is still liable for the attempt.
Factual Desistance
it is one made after the attempted
stage of the crime
Note: The desistance which exempts from criminal liability has reference to the crime intended to be committed, and has
no reference to the crime actually committed by the offender before his desistance
FRUSTRATED STAGE

Elements: ANNOTATION
The offender performs all the acts of execution;
All the acts performed would produce the felony as a

consequence;
But the felony is not produced;
By reason of causes independent of the will of the

perpetrator.
OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE

What When it is encountered Application
the result of the acts of

execution, that is, the
Objective phase Occurs in Frustrated felony
accomplishment of the
crime.
it is the portion of the acts

constituting the crime,
starting from the point
where the offender begins
Subjective phase the commission of the crime Occurs in Attempted felony
to that point where he has
still control over his acts,
including their (acts) natural
course
The end of the subjective phase and the beginning of the objective phase.
Difference:
If the subjective and objective phases have been passed there is a consummated felony.
CRIMES WHICH DO NOT ADMIT OF FRUSTRATED STAGE

Crime How constitute Application ANNOTATION
The essence of the A. No matter what the offender may do to

crime is carnal accomplish a penetration, if there was no
knowledge. penetration yet, it cannot be said that the
offender has performed all the acts of
execution.
B. We can only say that the offender in rape
Rape has performed all the acts of execution
when he has effected a penetration.
C. Once there is penetration, no matter how
slight it is, the offense is consummated.
For this reason, rape admits only of the
attempted and consummated stages, no
frustrated stage. [People v. Orita]
One cannot say that The crime of arson is therefore consummated

the offender, in the even if only a portion of the wall or any part of
crime of arson, has the house is burned. The consummation of the
already performed all crime of arson does not depend upon the
the acts of execution extent of the damage caused. (People v.
Arson which could produce Hernandez)
the destruction of the
premises through the
use of fire, unless a
part of the premises
has begun to burn.
Bribery and T h e m a n n e r o f A. If there is a meeting of the minds, there is  

Corruption of committing the crime
consummated bribery or consummated  
Public requires the meeting
Officers  of the minds between corruption.
  t h e g i v e r a n d t h e B. If there is none, it is only attempted.
receiver.  
Adultery  This requires sexual i f t h a t l i n k i s p r e s e n t t h e c r i m e i s
  contact between two consummated

participant

Under the Revised 1. There is no simple crime of physical

Penal Code, the crime injuries. There is the need to categorize
of physical injuries is because there are specific articles that
penalized on the basis apply whether the physical injuries are
Physical
of the gravity of the serious, less serious or slight.
Injuries
injuries.   2. Thus, one could not punish the attempted
or frustrated stage because one does not
know what degree of physical injury was
committed unless it is consummated.
Once there is unlawful 1. Either the thing was taken or not.

Theft
taking, theft is   2. Disposition of the stolen goods is not an
element of theft under the RPC.
consummated.
Rule of thumb: Felonies that do not require any result do not have a frustrated stage.
MURDER/HOMICIDE/PARRICIDE/INFANTICIDE
Situation: “A” Prepare all the materials need to kill “B” In the time of execution “A” performed all the acts of
execution which produce the result of “A’s” Act.
APPLICATION STAGES OF EXECUTION ANNOTATION
In the Situation above.
Attempted will be applicable if “A” on the

With intent to kill, but no mortal wound
Attempted time of the execution of his intent to kill,
is inflicted
he showed remorse before and after the
commission of the crime and desist from
executing the killing.
In the situation above.
Frustrated would be applicable if “A’s”

With intent to kill, and mortal wound is
Frustrated plan is to kill “B” and he satisfactorily
inflicted but the victim does not die
executed all the acts and produce mortal
wounds to the offender but “B” does not
die.
In the situation above.
The moment victim dies, intent to kill

Consummated Consummated would be applicable if all
is conclusively presumed
the acts is executed and produce the
result of the act.
RULES ON CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS OR PROPERTY (MHPI)

Death results Intent to kill gravity of the wound crime committed
YES Presumed MORTAL MHPI
NO YES MORTAL FRUSTRATED MHPI
NO YES NON-MORTAL ATTEMPTED MHPI
NO YES Overt Act only - NO-MORTAL ATTEMPTED MHPI
NO YES Mortal Wound SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
NO YES Non-mortal Wound LESS SERIOUS/SLIGHT PHYSICAL

INJURIES
FACTORS IN DETERMINING THE STAGE OF EXECUTION OF A FELONY

1. The manner of committing the crime;
2. The elements of the crime; and
3. The nature of the crime itself.
These three factors are helpful in trying to pinpoint whether the crime is still in its attempted, frustrated or consummated
stage.
THE MANNER OF COMMITTING THE CRIME

Formal Crimes - consummated in one instant, no attempt. ANNOTATION
There can be no attempt, because

between the thought and the deed,
Ex. Slander and false testimony
there is no chain of acts that can be
severed.
Ex. Flight to enemy’s country (Art.

Crimes consummated by mere
121) and corruption of minors (Art.
attempt or proposal by overt act.
340)
There can be no attempted stage

when the felony is by omission,
Felony by omission because the offender does not
execute acts, he omits to perform an
act which the law requires him to do.
In bribery, the manner of committing

the crime requires the meeting of the
minds between the giver and the
Crimes requiring the intervention of
receiver.
two persons to commit them are
When the giver delivers the money to
consummated by mere agreement.
the supposed receiver, but there is no
meeting of the minds, the only act
done by the giver is an attempt.
Thus, in determining the stage of

some crimes, the manner of
execution becomes pivotal(central,
crucial) in determining the end of the
Material Crimes – have three stages subjective phase, i.e. once the
of execution offender performs the act in the
manner provided for in the law, HE IS
A L R E A D Y D E E M E D TO H AV E
PERFORMED EVERY ACT FOR ITS
EXECUTION.
THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME

ANNOTATION
Along with the manner of execution, there  

are crimes wherein the existence of certain elements
becomes the factor in determining its consummation.
In the crime of estafa, the element of damage is essential

before the crime could be consummated. If there is no
damage, even if the offender succeeded in carting away
the personal property involved, estafa cannot be
considered as consummated.
On the other hand, if it were a crime of theft, damage or

intent to cause damage is not an element of theft.
What is necessary only is intent to gain, not even gain is
important.
In the crime of abduction, the crucial element is the taking

away of the woman with lewd designs.
THE NATURE OF THE CRIME ITSELF

ANNOTATION
In defining of the frustrated stage of crimes involving the

taking of human life (parricide, homicide, and murder),it is
indispensable that the victim be mortally wounded.
Hence, the general rule is that there must be a fatal injury

inflicted, because it is only then that death will follow.
CONSUMMATED
When all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present.
Note: the offender does not have to do anything else to consummate the offense. He has already reached the objective state
of the offense that he no longer has control of his acts having already performed all that is necessary to accomplish his
purpose.
JURISPRUDENCE
CASE TITLE

GR. NO.:
PONENTE:
TOPIC/S:
VERDICT:
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
CASE DOCTRINE:
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
COURT DECISIONS:
FACTS
ISSUE
HELD
SYLLABI
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
CONCURRING
DISSENTING
SEPARATE OPINION
OBITER DICTUM

Article 7
Art. 7. When light felonies are punishable. — Light felonies are punishable only when they have been
consummated, with the exception of those committed against person or property.
WHAT ARE LIGHT FELONIES?

Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding
200 pesos, both, is provided. (Art. 9, par. 3)
The light felonies punished by the Revised Penal Code:

1. Slight physical injuries. (Art. 266)
2. Theft. (Art. 309, pars. 7 and 8)
3. Alteration of boundary marks. (Art. 313)
4. Malicious mischief. (Art. 328, par. 3; Art. 329, par. 3)
5. Intriguing against honor. (Art. 364)  
The penalty for the above-mentioned crimes is arresto menor (imprisonment from one day to thirty days), or a fine not
exceeding P200.
"WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE COMMITTED AGAINST PERSONS

OR PROPERTY.”
General Rule: Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated.
EXCEPTIONS: Light felonies committed against persons or property, are punishable even attempted or frustrate
REASON FOR THE GENERAL RULE

Light felonies produce such light, such insignificant moral and material injuries that public conscience is satisfied with
providing a light penalty for their consummation. If they are not consummated, the wrong done is so slight that there is no
need of providing a penalty at all.
REASON FOR EXCEPTION

The commission of felonies against persons or property presupposes in the offender moral depravity. For that reason, even
attempted or frustrated light felonies against persons or property are punishable.
EXAMPLES OF LIGHT FELONIES AGAINST PERSON

Art. 266 — Slight physical injuries and maltreatment.
EXAMPLES OF LIGHT FELONIES AGAINST PROPERTY

1. Art. 309, No. 7 — Theft by hunting or fishing or gathering fruits, cereals or other forest or farm products upon an inclosed
estate or field where trespass is forbidden and the value of the thing stolen does not exceed f*5.00  

2. Art. 309, No. 8 — Theft, where the value of the stolen property does not exceed f*5.00 and the offender was prompted
by hunger, poverty, or the difficulty of earning a livelihood.
3. Art. 313 — Alteration of boundary marks.
4. Art. 328, No. 3; Art. 329, No. 3 — Malicious mischief where the damage is not more than P200.00 or if it cannot be
estimated.  

Article 8
Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. — Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only
in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.  
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it.  
 
There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other
person or persons.
RELATED LAWS
Art. 115. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason; Penalty. — The conspiracy or proposal to commit the crime of
treason shall be punished respectively, by prision mayor and a fine not exceeding P10,000 pesos, and prision
correccional and a fine not exceeding P5,000 pesos.
Art. 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d'etat, rebellion or insurrection. — The conspiracy and proposal
to commit coup d'etat shall be punished by prision mayor in minimum period and a fine which shall not exceed eight
thousand pesos (P8,000.00).  
 
The conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection shall be punished respectively, by prision
correccional in its maximum period and a fine which shall not exceed five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) and by
prision correccional in its medium period and a fine not exceeding two thousand pesos (P2,000.00). (As amended by R.A.
6968, approved October 24, 1990).
Art. 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition. — Persons conspiring to commit the crime of sedition shall be punished by
prision correccional in its medium period and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).

Art. 186. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum
period or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon:  
1. Any person who shall enter into any contract or agreement or shall take part in any conspiracy or combination in
the form of a trust or otherwise, in restraint of trade or commerce or to prevent by artificial means free competition
in the market;  
 
2. Any person who shall monopolize any merchandise or object of trade or commerce, or shall combine with any
other person or persons to monopolize and merchandise or object in order to alter the price thereof by spreading
false rumors or making use of any other article to restrain free competition in the market;  
 
3. Any person who, being a manufacturer, producer, or processor of any merchandise or object of commerce or an
importer of any merchandise or object of commerce from any foreign country, either as principal or agent,
wholesaler or retailer, shall combine, conspire or agree in any manner with any person likewise engaged in the
manufacture, production, processing, assembling or importation of such merchandise or object of commerce or with
any other persons not so similarly engaged for the purpose of making transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce,
or of increasing the market price in any part of the Philippines, of any such merchandise or object of commerce
manufactured, produced, processed, assembled in or imported into the Philippines, or of any article in the
manufacture of which such manufactured, produced, or imported merchandise or object of commerce is used. 
 
If the offense mentioned in this article affects any food substance, motor fuel or lubricants, or other articles of prime
necessity, the penalty shall be that of prision mayor in its maximum and medium periods it being sufficient for the
imposition thereof that the initial steps have been taken toward carrying out the purposes of the combination.  
 
Any property possessed under any contract or by any combination mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, and
being the subject thereof, shall be forfeited to the Government of the Philippines.  
 
Whenever any of the offenses described above is committed by a corporation or association, the president and
each one of its agents or representatives in the Philippines in case of a foreign corporation or association, who
shall have knowingly permitted or failed to prevent the commission of such offense, shall be held liable as
principals thereof.

Chapter Two  
BRIGANDAGE  
 
Art. 306. Who are brigands; Penalty. — When more than three armed persons form a band of robbers for the
purpose of committing robbery in the highway, or kidnapping persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain
ransom or for any other purpose to be attained by means of force and violence, they shall be deemed highway
robbers or brigands.  
 
Persons found guilty of this offense shall be punished by prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in
its minimum period if the act or acts committed by them are not punishable by higher penalties, in which case, they
shall suffer such high penalties.  
 
If any of the arms carried by any of said persons be an unlicensed firearms, it shall be presumed that said persons
are highway robbers or brigands, and in case of convictions the penalty shall be imposed in the maximum period.
Art. 340. Corruption of minors. — Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution or corruption of
persons underage to satisfy the lust of another, shall be punished by prision mayor, and if the culprit is a pubic
officer or employee, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations, he shall also suffer the
penalty of temporary absolute disqualification. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 92).
CONSPIRACY
Exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
(Article 8, RPC).
General rule: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony are not punishable.
Exception: They are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefore.
REQUISITES OF CONSPIRACY
1. An agreement concerning the commission of a felony
2. A decision to commit the felony; and
3. Overt acts which, though different, separate and independent of each other, indicate closeness, coordination, or personal
association so as to show a concerted action, common criminal design, community of criminal purpose or joint criminal
objective
Note: There must be participation in the criminal resolution because simple knowledge thereof by a person may only make
him liable as an accomplice.

CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT

Crime Gist
Art. 115. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason; Penalty. — The

conspiracy or proposal to commit the crime of treason shall be punished
Treason (Art. 115)
respectively, by prision mayor and a fine not exceeding P10,000 pesos,
and prision correccional and a fine not exceeding P5,000 pesos.
Rebellion (Art. 136) Title Three

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
Insurrection (Art. 138)
Chapter One

Chapter One
REBELLION, SEDITION AND DISLOYALTY
 
Art. 134. Rebellion or insurrection; How committed. — The crime of
rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms
against the Government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance
to said Government or its laws, the territory of the Philippine Islands or
any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed forces,
depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of
any of their powers or prerogatives. (As amended by R.A. 6968).
Article 134-A. Coup d'etat; How committed. — The crime of coup d'etat
is a swift attack accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy
or stealth, directed against duly constituted authorities of the Republic of
the Philippines, or any military camp or installation, communications
network, public utilities or other facilities needed for the exercise and
continued possession of power, singly or simultaneously carried out
anywhere in the Philippines by any person or persons, belonging to the
military or police or holding any public office of employment with or
without civilian support or participation for the purpose of seizing or
diminishing state power. (As amended by R.A. 6968).
Art. 135. Penalty for rebellion, insurrection or coup d'etat. — Any person
Coup d’état, (Art. 136) who promotes, maintains, or heads rebellion or insurrection shall suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Any person merely participating or executing the commands of others in

a rebellion shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal.
Any person who leads or in any manner directs or commands others to

undertake a coup d'etat shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Any person in the government service who participates, or executes
directions or commands of others in undertaking a coup d'etat shall
suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period.
Any person not in the government service who participates, or in any

manner supports, finances, abets or aids in undertaking a coup d'etat
shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period.
When the rebellion, insurrection, or coup d'etat shall be under the

command of unknown leaders, any person who in fact directed the
others, spoke for them, signed receipts and other documents issued in
their name, as performed similar acts, on behalf or the rebels shall be
deemed a leader of such a rebellion, insurrection, or coup d'etat. (As
amended by R.A. 6968, approved on October 24, 1990).
Art. 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d'etat, rebellion or
SANTIAGO NOTES insurrection. — The conspiracy and proposal to commit Page
coup d'etat shall
!137 of !272
Art. 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition. — Persons conspiring to

commit the crime of sedition shall be punished by prision correccional in
its medium period and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos. (Reinstated
by E.O. No. 187).
Art. 186. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade. — The
penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging
from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon:  
 
1. Any person who shall enter into any contract or agreement or shall
take part in any conspiracy or combination in the form of a trust or
otherwise, in restraint of trade or commerce or to prevent by artificial
means free competition in the market;  
 
2. Any person who shall monopolize any merchandise or object of trade
or commerce, or shall combine with any other person or persons to
monopolize and merchandise or object in order to alter the price thereof
by spreading false rumors or making use of any other article to restrain
free competition in the market;  
 
3. Any person who, being a manufacturer, producer, or processor of any
merchandise or object of commerce or an importer of any merchandise
or object of commerce from any foreign country, either as principal or
Sedition (Art. 141) agent, wholesaler or retailer, shall combine, conspire or agree in any
manner with any person likewise engaged in the manufacture,
production, processing, assembling or importation of such merchandise
or object of commerce or with any other persons not so similarly
engaged for the purpose of making transactions prejudicial to lawful
commerce, or of increasing the market price in any part of the
Philippines, of any such merchandise or object of commerce
manufactured, produced, processed, assembled in or imported into the
Philippines, or of any article in the manufacture of which such
manufactured, produced, or imported merchandise or object of
commerce is used. 
 
If the offense mentioned in this article affects any food substance, motor
fuel or lubricants, or other articles of prime necessity, the penalty shall
be that of prision mayor in its maximum and medium periods it being
sufficient for the imposition thereof that the initial steps have been taken
toward carrying out the purposes of the combination.  
 
Any property possessed under any contract or by any combination
mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, and being the subject thereof,
shall be forfeited to the Government of the Philippines.  
 
Whenever any of the offenses described above is committed by a
corporation or association, the president and each one of its agents or
Art. 186. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade. — The

penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging
from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who shall enter into any contract or agreement or shall
take part in any conspiracy or combination in the form of a trust or
otherwise, in restraint of trade or commerce or to prevent by artificial
means free competition in the market;
2. Any person who shall monopolize any merchandise or object of trade

or commerce, or shall combine with any other person or persons to
monopolize and merchandise or object in order to alter the price thereof
by spreading false rumors or making use of any other article to restrain
free competition in the market;
3. Any person who, being a manufacturer, producer, or processor of any

merchandise or object of commerce or an importer of any merchandise
or object of commerce from any foreign country, either as principal or
agent, wholesaler or retailer, shall combine, conspire or agree in any
manner with any person likewise engaged in the manufacture,
production, processing, assembling or importation of such merchandise
or object of commerce or with any other persons not so similarly
Monopolies and combinations in restraint of
engaged for the purpose of making transactions prejudicial to lawful
trade, espionage (Art. 186)
commerce, or of increasing the market price in any part of the
Philippines, of any such merchandise or object of commerce
manufactured, produced, processed, assembled in or imported into the
Philippines, or of any article in the manufacture of which such
manufactured, produced, or imported merchandise or object of
commerce is used.
If the offense mentioned in this article affects any food substance, motor
fuel or lubricants, or other articles of prime necessity, the penalty shall
be that of prision mayor in its maximum and medium periods it being
sufficient for the imposition thereof that the initial steps have been taken
toward carrying out the purposes of the combination.
Any property possessed under any contract or by any combination

mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, and being the subject thereof,
shall be forfeited to the Government of the Philippines.
Whenever any of the offenses described above is committed by a

corporation or association, the president and each one of its agents or
representatives in the Philippines in case of a foreign corporation or
association, who shall have knowingly permitted or failed to prevent the
commission of such offense, shall be held liable as principals thereof.

Art. 147. Illegal associations. — The penalty of prision correccional in its

minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos
shall be imposed upon the founders, directors, and presidents of
Illegal association (Art. 147) associations totally or partially organized for the purpose of committing
any of the crimes punishable under this Code or for some purpose
contrary to public morals. Mere members of said associations shall
suffer the penalty of arresto mayor. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187)

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 532 August 8, 1974

ANTI-PIRACY AND ANTI-HIGHWAY ROBBERY LAW OF 1974
WHEREAS, reports from law-enforcement agencies reveal that lawless

elements are still committing acts of depredations upon the persons and
properties of innocent and defenseless inhabitants who travel from one
place to another, thereby distributing the peace, order and tranquility of
the nation and stunting the economic and social progress of the people;
WHEREAS, such acts of depredations constitute either piracy or

highway robbery/brigandage which are among the highest forms of
lawlessness condemned by the penal statutes of all countries; and,
WHEREAS, it is imperative that said lawless elements be discouraged

from perpetrating such acts of depredations by imposing heavy penalty
on the offenders, with the end in view of eliminating all obstacles to the
economic, social, educational and community progress of the people;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the

Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution and
pursuant to proclamation No. 1081, dated September 21, 1972 and No.
1104, dated January 17, 1973 and General Order No. 1, dated
Highway Robbery (P.D. 532) September 22, 1972, do hereby order and decree as part of the law of
the land the following:
Section 1. Title. This Decree shall be known as the Anti-Piracy and Anti-
Highway Robbery Law of 1974.
Section 2. Definition of Terms. The following terms shall mean and be

understood, as follows:
a. Philippine Waters. It shall refer to all bodies of water, such as but not
limited to, seas, gulfs, bays around, between and connecting each of
the Islands of the Philippine Archipelago, irrespective of its depth,
breadth, length or dimension, and all other waters belonging to the
Philippines by historic or legal title, including territorial sea, the sea-bed,
the insular shelves, and other submarine areas over which the
Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.
b. Vessel. Any vessel or watercraft used for transport of passengers and

cargo from one place to another through Philippine Waters. It shall
include all kinds and types of vessels or boats used in fishing.
c. Philippine Highway. It shall refer to any road, street, passage,

highway and bridges or other parts thereof, or railway or railroad within
the Philippines used by persons, or vehicles, or locomotives or trains for
Espionage (Sec. 3, C.A. 616)
Selected acts under the Dangerous Drugs Acts
Arson
Terrorism (R.A. 9372)
Rationale: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime are only preparatory acts and the law regards them as innocent or
at least permissible except in rare and exceptional cases.
PROPOSAL TO COMMIT
CRIME GIST
Treason (Art. 115) Art. 115. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason; Penalty. — The conspiracy or
proposal to commit the crime of treason shall be punished respectively, by prision mayor
and a fine not exceeding P10,000 pesos, and prision correccional and a fine not
exceeding P5,000 pesos.
Coup d’ etat (Art. 136) Art. 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d'etat, rebellion or insurrection. —
The conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d'etat shall be punished by prision mayor
Rebellion (Art. 136)
in minimum period and a fine which shall not exceed eight thousand pesos (P8,000.00).
The conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection shall be punished

respectively, by prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine which shall not
exceed five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) and by prision correccional in its medium
period and a fine not exceeding two thousand pesos (P2,000.00). (As amended by
R.A. 6968, approved October 24, 1990).
Inducement not to answer Art. 150. Disobedience to summons issued by the National Assembly, its committees or
summons, appearor be sworn subcommittees, by the Constitutional Commissions, its committees, subcommittees or
in Congress, etc. (Art. 150) divisions. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from two hundred to one
thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment shall be imposed upon any person
who, having been duly summoned to attend as a witness before the National Assembly,
(Congress), its special or standing committees and subcommittees, the Constitutional
Commissions and its committees, subcommittees, or divisions, or before any
commission or committee chairman or member authorized to summon witnesses,
refuses, without legal excuse, to obey such summons, or being present before any such
legislative or constitutional body or official, refuses to be sworn or placed under
affirmation or to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents,
or records in his possession, when required by them to do so in the exercise of their
functions. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who shall restrain
another from attending as a witness, or who shall induce disobedience
Rationale: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime are only preparatory acts and the law regards them as innocent or
at least permissible except in rare and exceptional cases.

CONSPIRACY AS A FELONY, DISTINGUISHED FROM CONSPIRACY AS

A MANNER OF INCURRING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
As a felony, conspirators do not need to actually commit As a manner of incurring criminal liability, if they commit
treason, rebellion, insurrection, etc., it being sufficient that treason, rebellion, etc., they will be held liable for it, and the
two or more persons agree and decide to commit it. conspiracy which they had before committing the crime is
only a manner of incurring criminal liability, not a separate
offense.
In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.
Application Annotation
General rule: When the conspiracy is

established, all who participated
therein, irrespective of the quantity or
quality of his participation is liable
equally, whether conspiracy is pre-
planned or instantaneous.
Exception: Unless one or some of

the conspirators committed some
other crime which is not part of the
conspiracy.
Exception to the Exception: When

the act constitutes a “single indivisible
offense.”
Proposal to commit a felony - when (1) Proposal to commit treason (Art.

the person who has decided to 115) and 
c o m m i t a f e l o n y p r o p o s e s i t s (2) proposal to commit coup d’état,
execution to some other person or rebellion or insurrection (Art. 136).
persons. [Art. 8, RPC]
REQUISITES OF PROPOSAL
1. That a person has decided to commit a felony; and
2. That he proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
THERE IS NO CRIMINAL PROPOSAL WHEN

1. The person who proposes is not determined to commit the felony;
EXAMPLE: A desires that the present government be overthrown. But A is afraid to do it himself with others. A then suggests the
overthrowing of the government to some desperate people who will do it at the slightest provocation. In this case, A is not liable for
proposal to commit rebellion, because A has not decided to commit it.
2. There is no decided, concrete and formal proposal;
ANNOTATION: In the above example, note that there was merely a suggestion—not a decided, concrete and formal proposal.
3. It is not the execution of a felony that is proposed.
Example: A conceived the idea of overthrowing the present government. A called several of his trusted followers and instructed them
to go around the country and secretly to organize groups and to convince them of the necessity of having a new government. Note
that what A proposed in this case is not the execution of the crime of rebellion, but the performance of preparatory acts for the
commission of rebellion. Therefore, there is no criminal proposal.
Note: It is not necessary that the person to whom the proposal is made agrees to commit treason or rebellion.
DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED CONSPIRACY

Conspiracy need not be direct but may be inferred from the conduct of the parties, their joint purpose, community of interest
and in the mode and manner of commission of the offense61
2 Concept of
Stage How incurred Legal Requirements Illustration
Conspiracy
(1) The RPC must specifically punish the act of A, B, C and D came to an agreement to commit rebellion. Their
conspiring (and proposing)   agreement was to ring about the rebellion on a certain date.
Even if none of them has performed the act of rebellion, there is
(2) the act MUST NOT BE   already criminal liability arising from the conspiracy to commit the
ACCOMPLISHED, else the conspiracy is rebellion.
AS A FELONY IN Preparatory obliterated(erase) and the ACT ITSELF IS
Mere agreement
ITSELF acts PUNISHED.  But if anyone of them has committed the overt act of rebellion,
the crime of all is no longer conspiracy but rebellion itself.
(3) QUANTUM OF PROOF: Conspiracy as a crime
must be established beyond reasonable doubt This subsists even though the other co-conspirators do not know
that one of them had already done the act of rebellion.
(1) Participants acted in concert or simultaneously Three persons plan to rob a bank. For as long as the
or IN ANY WAY which is indicative of a meeting conspirators merely entered the bank there is no crime yet. But
of the minds towards a common criminal goal when one of them draws a gun and disarms the security guard,
or criminal objective. all of them shall be held liable, unless a co-conspirator was
(2) The act of meeting together is not necessary as absent from the scene of the crime or he showed up, but he tried
long as a common objective can be discerned to prevent the commission of the crime.
ASA BASIS FOR Executory Commission of from the overt acts.
LIABILITY acts overt act (3) THE ACT MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED, if there
is only conspiracy or proposal, THERE IS NO
CRIME TO BE PUNISHED.
(4) QUANTUM OF PROOF: Reasonably inferred
from the acts of the offenders when such acts
disclose or show a common pursuit of the
criminal objective. [People v. Pinto]
BAR QUESTION
Conspiracy (1997)
A had a grudge against F. Deciding to kill F, A and his friends, B, C, and D, armed themselves with knives and proceeded to
the house of F, taking a taxicab for the purpose. About 20 meters from their destination, the group alighted and after
instructing E, the driver, to wait, traveled on foot to the house of F. B positioned himself at a distance as the group's lookout.
C and D stood guard outside the house. Before A could enter the house, D left the scene without the knowledge of the
others. A stealthily entered the house and stabbed F. F ran to the street but was blocked by C, forcing him to flee towards
another direction. Immediately after A had stabbed F, A also stabbed G who was visiting F. Thereafter, A exiled from the
house and, together with B and C, returned to the waiting taxicab and motored away. G died. F survived. 
Who are liable for the death of G and the physical injuries of F? 
61 [People v. Pangilinan (2003)]

A alone should be held liable for the death of G. The object of the conspiracy of A. B, C, and D was to kill F only. Since B, C,
and D did not know of the stabbing of G by A, they cannot be held criminally therefor. E, the driver, cannot be also held liable
for the death of G since the former was completely unaware of said killing.
For the physical injuries of F, A, B and C. should be held liable therefore. Even if it was only A who actually stabbed and
caused physical injuries to G, B and C are nonetheless liable for conspiring with A and for contributing positive acts which led
to the realization of a common criminal intent. B positioned himself as a lookout, while C blocked F's escape. D, however,
although part of the conspiracy, cannot be held liable because he left the scene before A could enter the house where the
stabbing occurred. Although he was earlier part of the conspiracy, he did not personally participate in the execution of the
crime by acts which directly tended toward the same end (People vs. Tomoro, et al 44 Phil. 38),
In the same breath, E, the driver, cannot be also held liable for the infliction of physical injuries upon F because there is no
showing that he had knowledge of the plan to kill F.
Conspiracy; Avoidance of Greater Evil (2004)

BB and CC, both armed with knives, attacked FT. The victim's son, ST, upon seeing the attack, drew his gun but was
prevented from shooting the attackers by AA, who grappled with him for possession of the gun. FT died from knife wounds.
AA, BB and CC were charged with murder.
In his defense, AA invoked the justifying circumstance of avoidance of greater evil or injury, contending that by preventing ST
from shooting BB and CC, he merely avoided a greater evil.
Will AA's defense prosper? Reason briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, AA's defense will not prosper because obviously there was a conspiracy among BB, CC and AA, such that the principle
that when there is a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, shall govern. The act of ST, the victim's son, appears to be a
legitimate defense of relatives; hence, justified as a defense of his father against the unlawful aggression by BB and CC. ST's
act to defend his father's life, cannot be regarded as an evil inasmuch as it is, in the eyes of the law, a lawful act.
What AA did was to stop a lawful defense, not greater evil, to allow BB and CC achieve their criminal objective of stabbing
FT.
Conspiracy; Co-Conspirator (1998)

Juan and Arturo devised a plan to murder Joel. In a narrow alley near Joel's house, Juan will hide behind the big lamppost
and shoot Joel when the latter passes through on his way to work. Arturo will come from the other end of the alley and
simultaneously shoot Joel from behind. On the appointed day, Arturo was apprehended by the authorities before reaching the
alley. When Juan shot Joel as planned, he was unaware that Arturo was arrested earlier. Discuss the criminal liability of
Arturo, if any. [5%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Arturo, being one of the two who devised the plan to murder Joel, thereby becomes a co-principal by direct conspiracy. What
is needed only is an overt act and both will incur criminal liability. Arturo's liability as a conspirator arose from his participation
in jointly devising the criminal plan with Juan, to kill Jose. And it was pursuant to that conspiracy that Juan killed Joel. The
conspiracy here is actual, not by inference only. The overt act was done pursuant to that conspiracy whereof Arturo is co-
conspirator. There being a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Arturo, therefore, should be liable as a co-conspirator
but the penalty on him may be that of an accomplice only (People vs. Nierra, 96 SCRA 1; People us. Medrano, 114 SCRA
335) because he was not able to actually participate in the shooting of Joel, having been apprehended before reaching the
place where the
crime was committed.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Arturo is not liable because he was not able to participate in the killing of Joel. Conspiracy itself is not punishable unless
expressly provided by law and this is not true in the case of Murder. A co-conspirator must perform an overt act pursuant to
the conspiracy.
Conspiracy; Common Felonious Purpose (1994)

At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino and Raffy were walking along Padre Faura Street, Manila. Johnny hit them with a
rock injuring Dino at the back. Raffy approached Dino, but suddenly, Bobby, Steve, Danny and Nonoy surrounded the duo.
Then Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny kept on hitting Dino and Raffy with rocks. As a result. Dino died,
Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny were charged with homicide.
Is there conspiracy in this case?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, there is conspiracy among the offenders, as manifested by their concerted actions against the victims, demonstrating a
common felonious purpose of assaulting the victims. The existence of the conspiracy can be inferred or deduced from the
manner the offenders acted in commonly attacking Dino and Raffy with rocks, thereby demonstrating a unity of criminal
design to inflict harm on their victims.
Conspiracy; Complex Crime with Rape (1996)

Jose, Domingo, Manolo, and Fernando, armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in the morning, robbed a house at a desolate
place where Danilo, his wife, and three daughters were living. While the four were in the process of ransacking Danilo's
house, Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo's daughters was trying to get away, ran after her and finally caught up with her
in a thicket somewhat distant from the house. Fernando, before bringing back the daughter to the house, raped her first.
Thereafter, the four carted away the belongings of Danilo and his family.
a) What crime did Jose, Domingo, Manolo and Fernando commit? Explain.
b) Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns in raping the three daughters of Danilo inside the latter's house, but before
they left, they killed the whole family to prevent identification, what crime did the four commit? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) Jose, Domingo, and Manolo committed Robbery, while Fernando committed complex crime of Robbery with Rape,
Conspiracy can be inferred from the manner the offenders committed the robbery but the rape was committed by Fernando
at a place "distant from the house" where the robbery was committed, not in the presence of the other conspirators. Hence,
Fernando alone should answer for the rape, rendering him liable for the special complex crime. (People vs. Canturia et. al,
G.R. 108490, 22 June 1995}
b) The crime would be Robbery with Homicide ... (implied: there is still conspiracy)
Conspiracy; Flight to Evade Apprehension (2003)

A and B, both store janitors, planned to kill their employer C at midnight and take the money kept in the cash register. A and B
together drew the sketch of the store, where they knew C would be sleeping, and planned the sequence of their attack.
Shortly before midnight, A and B were ready to carry out the plan. When A was about to lift C's mosquito net to thrust his
dagger, a police car with sirens blaring passed by. Scared, B ran out of the store and fled, while A went on to stab C to death,
put the money in the bag, and ran outside to look for B. The latter was nowhere in sight. Unknown to him, B had already left
the place. What was the participation and corresponding criminal liability of each, if any? Reasons. 8%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
There was an expressed conspiracy between A and B to kill C and take the latter's money. The planned killing and taking of
the money appears to be intimately related as component crimes, hence a special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
The conspiracy being expressed, not just implied, A and B are bound as co-conspirators after they have planned and agreed
on the sequence of their attack even before they committed the crime. Therefore, the principle in law that when there is a
conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, already governs them. In fact, A and B were already in the store to carry out their
criminal plan.
That B ran out of the store and fled upon hearing the sirens of the police car, is not spontaneous desistance but flight to
evade apprehension. It would be different if B then tried to stop A from continuing with the commission of the crime; he did
not. So the act of A in pursuing the commission of the crime which both he and B designed, planned, and commenced to
commit, would also be the act of B because of their expressed conspiracy. Both are liable for the composite crime of robbery
with homicide.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A shall incur full criminal liability for the crime of robbery with homicide, but B shall not incur criminal liability because he
desisted. B's spontaneous desistance, made before all acts of execution are performed, is exculpatory. Conspiracy to rob
and kill is not per se punishable.
The desistance need not be actuated by remorse or good motive. It is enough that the discontinuance comes from the
person who has begun the commission of the crime but before all acts of execution are performed. A person who has began
the commission of a crime but desisted, is absolved from criminal liability as a reward to one, who having set foot on the
verge of crime, heeds the call of his conscience and returns to the path of righteousness.
Conspiracy; Flight to Evade Apprehension (2003)

A and B, both store janitors, planned to kill their employer C at midnight and take the money kept in the cash register. A and B
together drew the sketch of the store, where they knew C would be sleeping, and planned the sequence of their attack.
Shortly before midnight, A and B were ready to carry out the plan. When A was about to lift C's mosquito net to thrust his
dagger, a police car with sirens blaring passed by. Scared, B ran out of the store and fled, while A went on to stab C to death,
put the money in the bag, and ran outside to look for B. The latter was nowhere in sight. Unknown to him, B had already left
the place. What was the participation and corresponding criminal liability of each, if any? Reasons. 8%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
There was an expressed conspiracy between A and B to kill C and take the latter's money. The planned killing and taking of
the money appears to be intimately related as component crimes, hence a special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
The conspiracy being expressed, not just implied, A and B are bound as co-conspirators after they have planned and agreed
on the sequence of their attack even before they committed the crime. Therefore, the principle in law that when there is a
conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, already governs them. In fact, A and B were already in the store to carry out their
criminal plan.
That B ran out of the store and fled upon hearing the sirens of the police car, is not spontaneous desistance but flight to
evade apprehension. It would be different if B then tried to stop A from continuing with the commission of the crime; he did
not. So the act of A in pursuing the commission of the crime which both he and B designed, planned, and commenced to
commit, would also be the act of B because of their expressed conspiracy. Both are liable for the composite crime of robbery
with homicide.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A shall incur full criminal liability for the crime of robbery with homicide, but B shall not incur criminal liability because he
desisted. B's spontaneous desistance, made before all acts of execution are performed, is exculpatory. Conspiracy to rob
and kill is not per se punishable.
The desistance need not be actuated by remorse or good motive. It is enough that the discontinuance comes from the
person who has begun the commission of the crime but before all acts of execution are performed. A person who has began
the commission of a crime but desisted, is absolved from criminal liability as a reward to one, who having set foot on the
verge of crime, heeds the call of his conscience and returns to the path of righteousness.
Conspiracy; Implied Conspiracy (1998)
What is the doctrine of implied conspiracy? [3%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The doctrine of implied conspiracy holds two or more persons participating in the commission of a crime collectively
responsible and liable as co-conspirators although absent any agreement to that effect, when they act in concert,
demonstrating unity of criminal intent and a common purpose or objective. The existence of a conspiracy shall be inferred or
deduced from their criminal participation in pursuing the crime and thus the act of one shall be deemed the act of all.
Conspiracy; Implied Conspiracy; Effects (2003)

State the concept of "implied conspiracy" and give its legal effects. 4% 

An "IMPLIED CONSPIRACY" is one which is only inferred or deduced from the manner the participants in the commission of
crime carried out its execution. Where the offenders acted in concert in the commission of the crime, meaning that their acts
are coordinated or synchronized in a way indicative that they are pursuing a common criminal objective, they shall be
deemed to be acting in conspiracy and their criminal liability shall be collective, not individual.
The legal effects of an "implied conspiracy" are:
a) Not all those who are present at the scene of the crime will be considered conspirators;
b) Only those who participated by criminal acts in the commission of the crime will be considered as co-conspirators; and
c) Mere acquiescence to or approval of the commission of the crime, without any act of criminal participation, shall not
render one criminally liable as co-conspirator.
Conspiracy (2012)
Define conspiracy. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
When two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it, there is
conspiracy.
Conspiracy (2008)
No. XI. Ricky was reviewing for the bar exam when the commander of a vigilante group came to him and showed him a list of
five policemen to be liquidated by them for graft and corruption. He was further asked if any of them is innocent. After going
over the list, Ricky pointed to two of the policemen as honest. Later, the vigilante group liquidated the three other policemen
in the list. The commander of the vigilante group reported the liquidation to Ricky. Is Ricky criminally liable? Explain. (7%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, there was no conspiracy between Ricky and the Commander of the vigilante. Mere vouching for the honesty of the two
(2) policemen in the list cannot make him a co-conspirator for the killing. Ricky enjoys the presumption of innocence.
Conspiracy vs. Conspiracy to Commit Rebellion vs. Conspiracy to Commit Murder (2012)
No. IX. b. Distinguish by way of illustration conspiracy as a felony from conspiracy as a manner of incurring liability in relation
to the crimes of rebellion and murder. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Conspiracy to commit rebellion – if “A” and “B” conspired to overthrow the government, conspiracy is punishable. Conspiracy
to commit rebellion is a felony. Rebellion – if they committed rebellion, they are equally liable for the crime of rebellion.
However, they will not be additionally charged with conspiracy to commit rebellion. Since they committed what they
conspired, conspiracy will not be considered as an independent felony but as a manner of incurring criminal responsibility.
conspiracy to commit homicide, not punishable – if “A” and “B” conspire to kill “X”, conspiracy is not punishable. The law
provides no penalty for conspiracy to be commit homicide. Homicide – if pursuant to conspiracy to commit homicide, “A”
embraced “X” and then “B” stabbed and killed “X”, the conspirators are equally liable for homicide. Conspirators are equally
liable for homicide. Conspiracy in this case will be considered as a manner of incurring liability.
JURISPRUDENCE

CASE TITLE
GR. NO.:
PONENTE:
TOPIC/S:
VERDICT:
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
CASE DOCTRINE:
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
COURT DECISIONS:
FACTS
ISSUE
HELD
SYLLABI
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
CONCURRING

DISSENTING
SEPARATE OPINION
OBITER DICTUM 

CASE TITLE
GR. NO.:
PONENTE:
TOPIC/S:
VERDICT:
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
CASE DOCTRINE:
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
COURT DECISIONS:
FACTS
ISSUE
HELD
SYLLABI
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
CONCURRING

DISSENTING
SEPARATE OPINION
OBITER DICTUM 

CASE TITLE
GR. NO.:
PONENTE:
TOPIC/S:
VERDICT:
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
CASE DOCTRINE:
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
COURT DECISIONS:
FACTS
ISSUE
HELD
SYLLABI
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
CONCURRING

DISSENTING
SEPARATE OPINION
OBITER DICTUM 

CASE TITLE
GR. NO.:
PONENTE:
TOPIC/S:
VERDICT:
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
CASE DOCTRINE:
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
COURT DECISIONS:
FACTS
ISSUE
HELD
SYLLABI
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
CONCURRING

DISSENTING
SEPARATE OPINION
OBITER DICTUM 

CASE TITLE
GR. NO.:
PONENTE:
TOPIC/S:
VERDICT:
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
CASE DOCTRINE:
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
COURT DECISIONS:
FACTS
ISSUE
HELD
SYLLABI
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
CONCURRING

DISSENTING
SEPARATE OPINION
OBITER DICTUM 

CASE TITLE
GR. NO.:
PONENTE:
TOPIC/S:
VERDICT:
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
CASE DOCTRINE:
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
COURT DECISIONS:
FACTS
ISSUE
HELD
SYLLABI
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
CONCURRING

DISSENTING
SEPARATE OPINION
OBITER DICTUM 

CASE TITLE
GR. NO.:
PONENTE:
TOPIC/S:
VERDICT:
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
CASE DOCTRINE:
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
COURT DECISIONS:
FACTS
ISSUE
HELD
SYLLABI
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
CONCURRING

DISSENTING
SEPARATE OPINION
OBITER DICTUM 

Article 9
Art. 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light felonies. — Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches
the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of this
Code.  
 
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are
correctional, in accordance with the above-mentioned Art.. 
 
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which a penalty of arrest menor or a fine not
exceeding 200 pesos or both; is provided.
GRAVE FELONIES
They are those felonies to which the law attahes the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are
afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of this code.
These are:
1. Reclusion perpetua,
2. Reclusion temporal,
3. Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
4. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
5. Prisio`n mayor
6. Fines more than Php. 6000
LESS GRAVE FELONIES

Felonies which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with Art. 25 of
the code.
1. Prision correccional,
2. Arresto mayor,
3. Suspension,
4. Destierro.
5. Fines equal to or more than P200 but less than Php 6000
LIGHT FELONIES
infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both, is
provided.
IMPORTANCE OF CLASSIFICATION
1. to determine whether these felonies can be complexed or not
2. To determine the prescription of the crime and the prescription of penalty
3. To determine the duration of subsidiary penalty yo be imposed
4. To determine the duration of the detention in case of failure to post the bond to keep the peace (art. 125)
5. To determine the proper penalty for quasi-offenses

Article 10
Art. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. — Offenses which are or in the future may be
punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to
such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary.
GENERAL RULE
RPC provisions are supplementary to special laws
EXCEPTIONS
1. Where the special law provides otherwise; and
2. when the provisions of the RPC are impossible of application, either by express provision or by necessary implication
Thus, when the special law pts the penalties imposed in the RPC, such as reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal, the
provisions of the RPC on imposition of penalties based on stage of execution, degree of participation, and attendance of
mitigating and aggravating circumstances may be applied by necessary implication
CRIMES DEFINED AND PENALIZED BY SPECIAL LAWS
• There are 3 classes of crimes. The RPC defines and penalizes the first two classes: 1) intentional and 2) culpable felonies.
• The third class of crimes is those defined and penalized by special laws which include crimes punished by municipal or city
ordinances.
♣ The provisions of this Code are not applicable to offenses punished by special laws especially those relating to the
requisite of criminal intent; the stages of commission; and the application of penalties.
♣ However, when the special law is silent, the Code can give suppletory effect.
♣ Dolo is not required in crimes punished by special laws because these crimes are mala prohibita.
♣ In those crimes punished by special laws, the act alone irrespective of its motives, constitutes the offense.
♣ Good faith and absence of criminal intent are not valid defenses in crimes punished by special laws

CHAPTER 2
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES AND

CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXEMPT FROM
!
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Article 11
Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do not incur any criminal liability:  
 
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur;  
First. Unlawful aggression. 
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.  
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.  
 
2. Any one who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate,
natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those consanguinity
within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding
circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the revocation was given by the person attacked, that
the one making defense had no part therein.  
 
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and second requisites
mentioned in the first circumstance of this Art. are present and that the person defending be not induced by
revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.  
 
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes damage to another, provided that
the following requisites are present;  
 
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;  
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;  
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.  
 
5. Any person who acts in the fulfilment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.  
 
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.

Unlawful aggression “MAY CLEAR NA DANGER NA PARATING SA ISANG TAO” kailangan

CONDITION SINE-QUA NON may PHYSICAL ASSAULT (SALITAAN MAY NOT CONSTITUTE UNLAWFUL
AGGRESSION)
The recognizes the non-existence of a crime by expressly stating in the opening sentence of
Art. 11 that the persons therein mentioned “do not incur any criminal liability”
INTENT OF THIS ARTICLE
The ordinary person would not stand idly by and see his companion killed without attempting
to save his life.
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance with law, so that such person is deemed not to have transgressed
the law and is free from both criminal and civil liability. There is no civil liability except in par. 4, Art. 11, where the civil liability
is borne by the persons benefited by the act.
PAR. 1. REQ. 1. SELF-DEFENSE (CSQ)
INTENT OF THIS REQUISITE
The accused invokes self-dedense, it is incumbent upon him to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted
in defense of himself. he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution.
Self-defense, must be proved with certainty by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence that excludes any vestige62 of
criminal aggression63 on the part of the person invoking it and it cannot be justifiably entertained where it is not only
uncorroborated by any separate competent evidence but, in itself, is extremely doubtful64
In self-defense, the burden of proof rests upon the accused. His duty is to establish self-defense by clear and convincing
evidence, otherwise, conviction would follow from his admission that he killed the victim. He must rely on the strength of his
own evidence and not on the weakness of that for the prosecution65
The plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably entertained where it is not only uncorroborated by any separate competent
evidence but in itself is extremely doubtful66
RIGHTS INCLUDED IN SELF-DEFENSE

Includes not only the defense of the person or body of the one assaulted but also that of his rights, the enjoyment of which is
protected by law. It includes:
62 indication
63 aggressiveness
64 (People vs. Mercado, No. L-33492, March 30, 1988, 159 SCRA 453, 458; People vs. Lebumfacil, Jr., No. L-32910, March 28, 1980, 96 SCRA 573, 584)
65(People vs. Clemente, G.R. No. L-23463, September 28, 1967, 21 SCRA 261; People vs. Talaboc, Jr., G.R. No. L-25004, October 31,1969,30 SCRA 87; People vs. Ardisa, G.R. No.
L-29351, January 23,1974,55 SCRA 245; People vs. Montejo, No. L-68857, Nov. 21, 1988, 167 SCRA 506, 512; People vs. Corecor, No. L-63155, March 21, 1988, 159 SCRA 84, 87)
66(People vs. Flores, L-24526, February 29, 1972,43 SCRA 342; Ebajan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 77930-31, Feb. 9, 1989, 170 SCRA 178, 189; People vs. Orongan, No. L-32751,
Dec. 21,1988,168 SCRA 586, 597-598; People vs. Mendoza, [CA] 52 O.G. 6233)

(a) The defense of honor. Hence, a slap on the face is considered as unlawful aggression since the face represents a
person and his dignity 67
(b) The defense of property rights can be invoked if there is an attack upon the property although it is not coupled with an
attack upon the person of the owner of the premises. All the elements for justification must however be present68
REQUISITE OF SELF-DEFENSE 
Requisites APPLICATION ANNOTATION
Unlawful aggression (condition “A” pointing a gun to discharge against Yung pagtutok ng baril ay threat kay “B”
sine qua non); “B” merong pagbabadya. dahil kapag hindi ka

nagapply ng self-defense wala na di mo na
maapply yun dahil kapag naunahan ka
nung putok ng baril at tumama sayo di na
magapply yung self-defense.
Reasonable necessity of the “B” with no mathematical equation took kung ang pinaka posibleng gamitin ni “B” to
means employed to prevent or the nearest thing to use in preventing prevent and protect himself ay balisong
repel it; and the aggression showed by “A”
Lack of sufficient provocation on

the part of the person defending
himself.
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim has committed an unlawful aggression against the
person defending himself69
For the right of defense to exist, it is necessary that we be assaulted or that we be attacked, or at least that we be
threatened with an attack in an immediate and imminent manner
as, for example,

1. brandishing a knife with which to stab us
2. pointing a gun to discharge against us 70
• Unlawful aggression must be equivalent to an actual physical assault or, at least

EX.
• threatened assault of an immediate and imminent kind which is offensive and positively strong, showing the wrongful
intent to cause injury.
EX
67 (Rugas vs, People)
68 (People v. Narvaez)
69(People vs. Sazon, G.R. No. 89684, Sept. 18, 1990, 189 SCRA 700, 704; People vs. Bayocot, G.R. No. 55285, June 28,1989,174 SCRA 285,291, citing Ortega vs. Sandi- ganbayan,
G.R. No. 57664, Feb. 8, 1989, 170 SCRA 38; Andres vs. CA, No. L-48957, June 23,1987,151 SCRA 268; People vs. Picardal, No. 72936, June 18, 1987, 151 SCRA 170; People vs.
Apolinario, 58 Phil. 586)
70 (1 Viada, 5 edicion, 173, p. 3275)

AGGRESSION MUST BE UNLAWFUL

EXAMPLE OF
UNLAWFUL LAWFUL NOT UNLAWFUL AGRESSION
Paramour surprised in the act of The fulfillment of a duty or the "Foot-kick greeting" is not unlawful
adultery cannot invoke self- defense if exercise of a right in a more or less aggression.
he killed the offended husband who violent manner is an aggression
was assaulting him.
Teodoro Sabio was squatting with a
friend, Irving Jurilla, in a plaza.
In a case, the Supreme Court, in
Romeo Bacobo and two others —
denying the paramour's plea of self-
Ruben Minosa and Leonardo Garcia
defense, said: "(E)ven though it were
— approached them. All of them were
true and even if the deceased did
close and old friends. Romeo Bacobo
succeed in entering the room in which
then asked Sabio where he spent the
the accused (the paramour and the
holy week. At the same time, he gave
wife of the deceased) were lying, and
Sabio a "foot-kick greeting," touching
did immediately thereupon assault
Sabio's foot with his own left foot.
(the paramour), giving him several
Sabio thereupon stood up and dealt
blows with the bolo which (the
Romeo Bacobo a fist blow, inflicting
deceased) carried, that assault was
upon him a lacerated wound, 3/4 inch
natural and lawful, for the reason that
long, at the upper lid of the left eye. It
it was made by a deceived and
took from 11 to 12 days to heal and
offended husband in order to defend
prevented Romeo Bacobo from
his honor and rights by punishing the
working during said period as
offender of his honor, and if he had
employee of Victorias Milling Co., Inc.
killed his wife and (the paramour), he
would have exercised a lawful right
and such acts would have fallen Held: A playful kick at the foot by way
within the sanction of Article 423 (now of greeting between friends may be a
Art. 247) of the Penal Code . . . The practical joke, and may even hurt; but
(paramour) well knew that by it is not a serious or real attack on a
maintaining unlawful relations with person's safety. It may be a mere
(the deceased's wife), he was slight provocation. (People vs. Sabio,

performing an unlawful and criminal 19 SCRA 901)
act and exposed himselfto the
vengeance ofthe offended husband,
and that, by their meeting each other
in the said house, he was running the
danger of the latter's surprising them
there, as in fact it did occur." (U.S. vs.
Merced, 39 Phil. 198, 202-203)

(t)he owner or lawful possessor of a

thing has the right to exclude any
person from the enjoyment and
disposal thereof. For this purpose, he
may use such force as may be
reasonably necessary to repel or
prevent an actual or threatened
unlawful physical invasion or
usurpation of his property.
MEANING OF UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION

There is unlawful aggression when the peril to one's life, limb or right is either actual or imminent. There must be actual
physical force or actual use of weapon71 There must be an actual physical assault upon a person, or at least a threat to
inflict real injury. In case of threat, the same must be offensive and positively strong, showing the wrongful intent to cause an
injury72 Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not
merely a threatening or intimidating attitude73
Unlawful aggression refers to an attack that has actually broken out or materialized or at the very least is clearly imminent; it
cannot consist in oral threats or a merely threatening stance or posture74
WHEN THERE IS NO PERIL75 TO ONE'S LIFE, LIMB76 OR RIGHT, THERE

IS NO UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
the act of the deceased in preventing the accused from inflicting a retaliatory blow on the person who had boxed the accused
is not unlawful aggression77
PERIL TO ONE’S LIMB

When a person is attacked, he is in imminent danger of death or bodily harm. The peril to one's limb may also be actual or
only imminent. Peril to one's limb includes peril to the safety of one's person from physical injuries.
Ex. An attack with fist blows may imperil one's safety from physical injuries. Such an attack is unlawful aggression78
NOTE: Right to kill depends on right to live to which all rights are subordinated79
71 (People vs. Crisostomo, No. L-38180, Oct. 23, 1981, 108 SCRA 288, 298)
72 (U.S. vs. Guysayco, 13 Phil. 292, 295)
73(People vs. Pasco, Jr., No. L- 45715, June 24, 1985, 137 SCRA 137; People vs. Bayocot, G.R. No. 55285, June 28, 1989, 174 SCRA 285, 292; People vs. Rey, G.R. No. 80089, April 13,
1989, 172 SCRA 149, 156)
74(People vs. Lachica, 132 SCRA 230 [1984]; People vs. Tac-an, G.R. Nos. 76338-39, Feb. 26, 1990, 182 SCRA 601, 613) There must be a real danger to life or personal safety. (People
vs. Cagalingan, G.R. No. 79168, Aug. 3, 1990, 188 SCRA 313, 318)
75 danger
76 life and bodily faculties
77 (People vs. Flores, C.A., 47 O.G. 2969)
78 (People vs. Montalbo, 56 Phil. 443)
79 GR> 2657-R, July 30, 1949

PRESENCE OF ACTUAL PHYSICAL FORCE OR ACTUAL USE OF

WEAPON 
No unlawful aggression
• insulting words addressed to the accused, no matter how objectionable they may have been, without physical assault,
could not constitute unlawful aggression.
• A light push on the head with the hand does not constitute unlawful aggression.
• A mere push or a shove, not followed by other acts, does not constitute unlawful aggression.
ACTUAL - The danger must be present, that is, actually in existence

Note: The person defending himself must have been attacked with actual physical force and/or with the actual use of
weapon.
IMMINENT - The danger is on the point of happening. it is required that the attack already begins, for it may be too late
Must come from the person attacked by the accused

Note: No unlawful aggression when there was an agreement to fight
PAR. 1. REQ. 2. REASONABLE NECESSITY OF MEANS

EMPLOYED TO PREVENT OR REPEL IT.
DOCTRINE OF RATIONAL EQUIVALENCE.

[The] reasonable necessity of the means employed [to repel the unlawful aggression] does not imply material
commensurability between the means of attack and defense [but] [w]hat the law requires is rational equivalence, in the
consideration of which will enter the principal factors of the emergency, the imminent danger to which the person attacked is
exposed, and the instinct, more than the reason, that moves or impels the defense, and the proportionateness
thereof does not depend upon the harm done, but rests upon the imminent danger of such injury80 
This doctrine justify the means employed to prevent or repel the person attack. Dito i-justify kung ang ginamit mo ay kutsilyo
pansaksak sa taong aatake sayo tapos yung aatake sayo kasing laki ng hawkogan tama lang yung kutsilyo kasi kung ang
gagamitin nung aatakihin ni hawkogan ay kamao nya tapos knowing na payat sya hindi effective yun para maiwasan nya yung
atake nung kasing laki ni hawkogan, kaya tama ung self-defense na ginamit nya ay kutsilyo.
hindi natin tinitignan yug harm na mapoproduce nung pagsaksak ng kutsilyo kay ataker na kasing laki ni hawkogan dahil kapag
self defense mawawala na yung pagiisip mo kung ano ba dapat gamitin. kaya nga diba sa mga palabas kapag aatakihin na yung
isang tao para makalayo lahat ng mahawakan binabato nya dun sa aatake sa kanya para mapigilan yug pagatake nya… para
mapigilan nya kailangan nyang mapabagsak yung taong aatake sa kanya.
80 [People v. Gutual, 324 Phil. 244, 259-260 (1996)].

TEST OF REASONABLENESS

The means employed depends upon:
REQUISITES APPLICATION ANNOTATION
deceased was a gangster with a Gangster is known for violence, kaya ung
reputation for violence, the use by the dagger to defend himself against the ganster
acccused of a dagger to repel the is reasonable tool.
nature and quality of the weapon
persistent aggression by the
used by the aggressor
deceased with a wooden pestle is
reasonably necessary under the
circumstaces
The aggressor was a bully, a man

larger and stronger of known violent
character, with previous criminal
records for assault. he attacked with
fist blows a smaller man who was
aggressor ’s physical condition,
then armed with bolo. In spite of
character, size
having received, a a warning, a cut
with a bolo on the left shoulder, the
aggressor continued to attempt to
possess himself of the bolo. killing
him with a bolo was justified.

In view of the imminence of the

danger, a shotgun is a reasonable
means to prevent an aggression with
a bolo.
M. being abruptly awakened by

shouts that P was pursuing H and M’s
two children, and seeing, upon
awakening, that in fact P was
infuriated and pursuing H with a bolo
in his hand and his arm raised in an
attitude as if to strike, took up a
shotgun lying within his reach and
fired at P, killing him at once.
other circumstances
Held: Under the circumstances, in

view of the imminence of the danger,
the only remedy which could be
considered reasonably necessary to
repel or prevent that aggression, was
to render the aggressor harmless. As
M has on hand a loaded shotgun, this
weapon was the most appropriate
one that could be used for the
purpose, even at the risk of killing the
aggressor since the latter ’s
aggression also gravely threatened
the lives of the parties assaulted.
and those of the person defending

himself
the place and occasion of the assault.
RETALIATION IS NOT SELF-DEFENSE.

Retaliation is different from an act of self-defense. In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured party already
ceased to exist when the accused attacked him. In self-defense, the aggression was still existing when the aggressor was
injured or disabled by the person making a defense.
When a person had inflicted slight physical injuries on another, without intention to inflict other injuries, and the latter attacked
the former, the one making the attack was an unlawful aggressor. The attack made was a retaliation. But where a person is
about to strike another with fist blows and the latter, to prevent or repel the blows, stabs the former with a knife, the act of
striking with fist blows is an unlawful aggression which may justify the use of the knife. If the knife is a reasonable means,
there is self-defense.

For example. “A” nakikipagbiruan, walang intensyon na i-injure si “B” tapos si “B” napikon inattack nya si “A” yung attack na ginawa ni “B” ay
“RETALLIATION” and not self-defense. Tapos ang ginawa ni “A” nung aatakihin na sya ni “B” ang ginawa nya sinaksak nya ng kutsilyo si “B”
bago pa sya maatake ni “A”. dun may self-defense dahil ung pagsaksak nya defense nya bago pa sya maatake ni “B” at yung kutsilyo pwede
ma-justify na papasok yung second requisite ng Art. 11. par 2. na reasonable yung pagamit ng kutsilyo.
RETALIATION VS. SELF-DEFENSE

RETALIATION (PAGANTI) SELF-DEFENSE
The unlawful aggression begun by the injured party had Unlawful aggression was still existing when the aggressor
already ceased when the accused attacked was injured by the person making the defense.
There must be no appreciable time interval between the

unlawful aggression and the killing
PAR. 1. REQ. 3. LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION ON

PART OF DEFENDER

INSTANCES APPLICATION ANNOTATION
In case there was a provocation on

the part of the person attacked, the
attack should not immediately
precede(go/come before) the
provocation for defense to be valid.
Never confuse unlawful aggression

with provocation.
Mere provocation is not enough. It

must be real and imminent. Unlawful
aggression is an indispensable
requisite.
If there is unlawful aggression but one

of the other requisites is lacking, it is
considered an incomplete self-
defense which mitigates liability.
Self-defense includes the defense of

one’s rights, that is, those rights the
enjoyment of which is protected by
law.
Retaliation is different from an act of

self- defense.
When Aggression ceases - When the aggressor retreats, the aggression ceases
Retreat of aggressor – aggression ceases, except when retreat is made to take a more advantageous position
to insure the success of the attack, unlawful aggression continues.
LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION
Sufficient provocation should not come from the person defending himself/accused, and it must immediately come before
the aggression
Provocation is any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party, capable of exciting, inciting or irritating anyone. it
is sufficient when it is adequate to steer one to its commission.
NO PROVOCATION AT ALL
When "A' shot “B” to death, because “B” was running amuch and with a dagger was rushing towards “A’ manifestly intending
to stab “A”, there was no provocation whatsoever on the part of “A”. The third requisite of self-defense is present

UNDER R.A 9262, KNOWN AS VAWC81

Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome do not incur any criminal or civil
liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the RPC. (Sec.
26, R.A. No. 9262) The law provides for an additional justifying circumstance.
Battered Woman Syndrome – refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioural symptoms found in
women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse.
Battery – refers to any act of inflicting physical harm upon the woman or her child resulting to physical and psychological or
emotional distress.
“CYCLE OF VIOLENCE”
Requirement Application Annotation
it could be verbal or slight physical bumubuo ng tensyon like nagmumurahan,

The tension building phase abuse or another form of hostile nagsisigawan, yung tipong nakukutkut
(unfriendly) behavior. lahat ng galit
said to be characterized by brutality, Nagkakasakitan to the point na wala ng

destructiveness and, sometimes, magawa yung wife dahil ang makakapigil
lang sa battery ay yung batterer or yung
death.
nambubugbug.
During this phase, she has no control;

only the batterer may put an end to
The acute battering incident; and
the violence. Its nature can be as
unpredictable as the time of its
explosion, and so are his reasons for
ending it.
CONDITION SINE QUA NON
the batterer may show a tender and A f t e r n g b u g b u g a n , s i h u s b a n d

nurturing behavior towards his nakapagisip na nagliwanag ang isip nya at
The tranquil(peaceful, restful),
partner. He knows that he has been na-realize nya na mali ung ginawa nya.
loving (or at least non-violent) magppakita ngayon kay wife ng remorse,
viciously cruel and tries to make up
phase (People vs. Genosa) magbibigay ng pangako ng hindi na uulit,
for it, begging for her forgiveness and
tong si wife nakipagayus.
promising never to beat her again.
If these phases were absolutely occured for 3 times of these cycle of violence, as the law provides, action
made by the wife against her husband may be justified as self-defense.
DEFENSE OF HONOR AND PROPERTY
81 the Anti- Violence against Women and their Children Act of 2004

DEFENSE OF HONOR DEFENSE OF PROPERTY
People v. Dela Cruz (1935) People v. Narvaez (1983)
Accused was found guilty of homicide for stabbing and inside his house when he heard that the wall of his house
killing Rivera. Prosecution claimed that Dela Cruz and was being chiseled. He saw that Fleischer and Rubia, were
Rivera had a relationship and that the accused was madly fencing the land of the father of the deceased Fleischer. He
in love with the deceased and was extremely jealous of asked the group to stop but they refused. The accused got
another woman with whom Rivera also had a relationship. mad so he got his shotgun and shot Fleischer. Rubia ran
Dela Cruz claimed, on the other hand, that on her way towards the jeep and knowing there is a gun on the jeep, the
home one evening, Rivera followed her, embraced and accused fired at Rubia as well. Narvaez claimed he acted in
kissed her and touched her private parts. She didn’t know defense of his person and rights.
that it was Rivera and that she was unable to resist the
strength of Rivera so she got a knife from her pocket and
Held: There was aggression by the deceased not on the
stabbed him in defense of her honor.
person of the accused but on his property rights when
Fleischer angrily ordered the continuance of the fencing. The
Held: She is justified in using the pocketknife in repelling third element of self-defense is also present because there
what she believed to be an attack upon her honor. It was was no sufficient provocation on the part of Narvaez since he
a dark night and she could not have identified Rivera. was sleeping when the deceased where fencing.
There being no other means of self- defense.
However, the second element was lacking. Shooting the

victims from the window of his house is disproportionate to
the physical aggression by the victims. Thus, there is
incomplete self-defense.
People vs. Apolinar.

This can only be invoked as justifying circumstance if
 
(1) Life and limb of the person making the defense is also the
subject of unlawful aggression
(2) Life cannot be equal to property.
HOW TO DETERMINE THE SUFFICIENCY OF PROVOCATION

Provocation must be sufficient, it should be proportionate to the act of aggression and adequate to blend the aggressor to its
commission.
Example: When one challenges the deceased to come out of the house and engage in a fist-fight with him and prove who is
the better man.
yung provocation nageexist mostly sa nagsisimula ng gulo, sa nagsimula nagugat yung pagalaw at paglaban nung prinovoke nya.
ILLUSTRATION OF THE THREE REQUISITES OF SELF-DEFENSE

People vs. Dolfo (C.A., 46 O.G. 1621)
A was an electrician while B was his assistant. A called B to him, who instead of
approaching asked him, "Why are you calling me?" A considered the retort as a provocative
answer and suddenly threw a 4 by 2 inches piece of wood at B. B retaliated by throwing at A
FACTS
the same piece of wood. A picked up the piece of wood, approached B and started to beat
him with the piece of wood. B defended himself with a screwdriver and inflicted a mortal
wound on A.
(1) Was there sufficient Wa s t h e r e r e a s o n a b l e In determining whether or not a

provocation on the part of B necessity in using the particular means employed to
ISSUE/S
when he retorted "Why are screwdriver to repel the r e p e l a n a g g r e s s i o n i s
you calling me?" attack? reasonable
(1) B's answer of "Why are (2) The act of A in hurling the person attacked should not
you calling me?" when the piece of wood at B be expected to judge things
summoned by A might have when his pride was hurt calmly and to act coolly or
mortified and annoyed the c o n s t i t u t e d u n l a w f u l serenely as one not under
latter but it was not a aggression. Subsequent act stress or not facing a danger to
sufficient provocation. The of A in attacking B with the life or limb.
p r o v o c a t i o n m u s t b e piece of wood, after B had
sufficient or proportionate to hurled back the thrown The test is: Considering the
the act committed and piece of wood, was a s i t u a t i o n o f t h e p e r s o n
adequate to arouse one to continuation of the unlawful defending himself, would a
RULING its commission. It is not aggression already begun. reasonable man placed in the
s u f f i c i e n t t h a t t h e The subsequent act of A same circumstance have acted
p r o v o c a t i v e a c t b e placed B in his defense, in the same way? In this case,
unreasonable or annoying. justifying the use of a t h e s c r e w d r i v e r w a s a
A small question of self- reasonable means to repel reasonable means to repel the
p r i d e d o e s n o t j u s t i f y it. unlawful aggression of A. B
hurting or killing an was justified in killing him with
opponent. it. All the three requisites ofself-
defense were present. Hence,
accused B must be, as he was,
acquitted.
END POINT All the elements of self-defense are present in this case.
PAR 2. REQ. 1 DEFENSE OF RELATIVES

it is found not only upon a humanitarian sentiment, but also upon the impulse of blood which
INTENT OF THIS PARAGRAPH impels men to rush, on the occasion of great perils, to the rescue of those close to them by ties of
blood.
It is found not only upon a humanitarian sentiment, but also upon the impulse of blood which impels men to rush, on the
occasion of great perils, to the rescue of those close to them by ties of blood.

ELEMENTS DEFENSE OF RELATIVES 

ELEMENTS WHAT APPLICATION / RATIONALE
Unlawful aggression Unlawful aggression may not exist as a Si “A” inatake nya si “B” gamit ang balisong,
matter of fact; it can be made to depend bumagsak si “B” at agad na bumangon mula sa
upon the honest belief of the one making atake ni “A” para depensahan ang kanyang sarili, si
“A” inatake naman nya si “B” bumagsak naman si
the defense.
“B” tapos si “A” tumayo sa harap ni “B” habang si
Reason: The law acknowledges the “B” ay sugatan at bulagta, ang plano ni “A” ay
possibility that a relative, by virtue of atakihin ulit si “B”.
blood, will instinctively come to the aid of
their relatives. Dumating yung anak ni “B” nakita nyang bulagta at
sugatan yung tatay nya at nakita nyang nakatayo
sa harap nung tatay nya si “A” ang aatakihin ni “A”
si “B” ang ginawa nung anak pinatay nya si “A” para
ipagtangol ang tatay nya.
Mistake of fact, dahil all knowing na si “A” ang may

unlawful aggression prto ang nakita nung anak
yung tatay nya yung dehado, pinatay nya si “A” sabi
ng supreme court “JUSTIFIED" yung pagpatay
nung anak ni “A” as a defense of relative.
Reasonable necessity of it does not mean that the relative

m e a n s e m p l o y e d t o defended should give provocation to the
prevent or repel it aggressor.
In case the provocation In the given scenario above, it shows that the
was given by the person relative through the son of “A” has no provocation.
nakita lang nya na nadedehado yung tatay nya
attacked, the one making
kaya kahit hindi sya kasama sa provovation sa
the defense had no part
tatay nya napatay nya. clear action of relative.
therein
Although the provocation prejudices the person who gave it, its effects do not reach the defender who took no part therein,
because the latter was prompted by some noble or generous sentiment in protecting and saving a relative
If the these 3 elements were present, this would constitute legitimate defense.

RELATIVES THAT CAN BE DEFEND DEFINITION AND COVERAGE
Spouse a husband or wife, considered in relation to their partner.
Persons with whom one is related in the ascending line; one's

parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc (PATAAS
Ascendants
MULA SAYO - MGA KAMAGANAK MO BAGO KA
IPANGANAK)
One who Is descended from another; a person who proceeds

Descendants from the body of another, such as a child, grandchild, etc., to
the remotest degree. (PABABANG LAHI MUNA SAYO)
To make lawful; to confer legitimacy; to place a child born

Legitmate before marriage on the footing of those born in lawful
wedlock.
Adopted brothers and sisters
Relatives because of marriage, are parents-in-law, son or

Relatives by affinity in the same degrees
daughter-in-law, and brother or sister-in-law
It refers to blood relatives. Brothers and sisters are within the

second degreee; uncle and niece or aunt and nephew are
Relatives by consanguity within the fourth civil degree
within the third civil degree; and first cousins are within the
fourth civil degree
Death of one spouse does not terminate the relationship by affinity established between the surviving spouse and the
blood relatives of the deceased
The fact that the relative defended gave provocation is imaterial
There is no distinction in the revised penal code whether the descendant should be legitimate or illegitimate; when the law
does not distinguish the courts cannot distinguish

!  
EXAMPLE OF DEFENSE OF SPOUSE
The accused, at a distance of about 20 “Brazas” from his house, heard his wife shouting for help. He rushed to the house
and once inside saw the deceased on top of his wife. He drew his bolo and hacked the deceased at the base of his neck
when the latter was forcibly abusing his wife.
PAR 3. DEFENSE OF STRANGERS
ELEMENTS OF DEFENSE OF STRANGERS

REQUISITE ANNOTATION
Unlawful aggression;
Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent Application same as above

or repel it;
The person defending was not induced by revenge,

resentment or other evil motive.
WHO ARE DEEMED STRANGER

• Any person not included in the enumeration of relatives under par. 2 of Art. 11
• Damage to another includes injury to persons and damage to property.
• A person defending his common-law spouse82 or adopted child will fall under this paragraph.
A common-law marriage is one in which the couple, usually a man and woman, lives together for a period of time and holds themselves out to friends, family and the community as "being
82
married," but never go through a formal ceremony or get a marriage license.

REVENGE RESENTMENT OTHER EVIL MOTIVE
to inflict injury in return for a feeling of indignant displeasure or

persistent ill will at something regarded
as a wrong, insult, or injury
EXAMPLE OF A DEFENSE OF A STRANGER

Si “A” person not identified sumisigaw at nagiiyak asking for a help, then “B” responded with the person creams, “B” saw “C”
attacking his wife “A’s wife”. “B” and “C” struggled for the possession of the weapon, in the course of which “C” inflicted
wounds on “C” [JUSTIFIED DEFENSE OF A STRANGER]
PAR. 4. AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL
INJURY TO PERSON
Example: A person was driving his car on a narrow read with due diligence and care when suddenly he saw a “six by six”
truck in front of his car. If he would swerve83 his car to the left he would fall into a precipice, or if he would swerve it to the
right he would kill a passer-by. He was forced to choose between losing his life in the precipice84 or sacrificing the life of the
innocent bystander. he chose the latter, swerved his car tot the right, ran over and killed the passer-by.
The principle involved, the killing of the foetus to save the life of the mother may be held excusable.
Was there a violation of the phrase “that the injury be greater than that done to avoid it.”? ANS: No. the instinct of self-
preservation will always make one feel that his own safety is of greater importance than that of another.
This, if the driver drove his car without due diligence and care through full speed, disregarding the condition of the place, and
although he saw the six by six truck at a distance 500 meters away, he did not lower the speed, This paragraph cannot be
invoked. The state of necessity was brought about his own reckless imprudence.
STATE OF NECESSITY
Art. 11, Par. 4 Art. 12. Par. 4
Offender deliberately(INTENTIONALLY) caused damage Offender accidentally caused damage
The damage caused by the accused in the state of

necessity contemplated here is deliberate(Intention)
When the accused was not avoiding any evil, he cannot invoke the justifying circumstance of avoidance of a greater
evil or injury.
83 to change direction to avoid hitting someone or something
84 cliff face

Pio with a bolo and Severo with an axe attacked Geminiano who was wounded. Nearby, Juan embraced Marianito,
Geminiano's son, who had a gun slung on his shoulder, and grappled with him. Geminiano died. Pio, Severo and Juan were
prosecuted for murder. Juan invoked the justifying circumstance of avoidance of a greater evil or injury (Par. 4, Article 11,
R.P.C.) in explaining his act of preventing Marianito from shooting Pio and Severo.
Planado na paaptayin si GEMINIANO provided na gagawin nila yung pagpatay ng walang risk. kaya yung pagyakap ni JUAN sa anak ni
geminiano ay hakbang para maisakatuparan yung pagpatay ng walang risk from geminiano o kahit kay juan. 
Held: His reliance on that justifying circumstance is erroneous. The act of Juan Padernal in preventing Marianito de Leon
from shooting Ricohermoso and Severo Padernal, who were the aggressors, was designed to insure the killing of Geminiano
de Leon without any risk to his assailants. Juan Padernal was not avoiding any evil when he sought to disable Marianito85
Yung action ni juan will not avoid the greater evil, pero yung action ni Marianito ay defense of relative dahil tatay nya yun.
EXAMPLE OF DAMAGE TO PROPERTY

1. Fire breaks out in a cluster of nipa houses, and in order to prevent its spread to adjacent houses of strong materials, the
surrounding nipa houses are pulled down. 86
2. Where a truck of the Standard Vacuum Oil Co. delivering gasoline at a gas station caught fire and, in order to prevent the
burning of the station, the truck was driven to the middle ofthe street and there abandoned, but it continued to move and
thereafter crashed against and burned a house on the other side of the street, the owner of the house had a cause of
action against the owner of the gas station under paragraph 2 of Art. 101, in relation to paragraph 4 of Art. 11. 87
There is damage to property, but the person who placed the truck to avoid the greater evil has no criminal liability, only liability for the
payment of such damages.
3. During the storm, the ship which was heavily loaded with goods was in danger of sinking. The captain of the vessel
ordered part of the goods thrown overboard. In this case, the captain is not criminally liable for causing part of the goods
thrown overboard.
THE EVIL WHICH BROUGHT ABOUT THE GREATER EVIL MUST NOT
RESULT FROM A VIOLATION OF LAW BY THE ACTOR.
Thus, an escaped convict who has to steal clothes in order to move about unrecognized, does not act from necessity. (Albert)
He is liable for theft of the clothes.
THERE IS CIVIL LIABILITY UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH.

Although, as a rule there is no civil liability in justifying circumstances, it is only in paragraph 4 of Art. 11 where there is civil
liability, but the civil liability is borne by the persons benefited.
In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented, shall be civilly
liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have received. (Art. 101)
85 (People vs. Ricohermoso, et al., 56 SCRA 431)
86 (Albert)
87 (Tan vs. Standard Vacuum Oil Co., 91 Phil. 672)

PAR. 5. FULFILMENT OF A DUTY

The deceased who escaped from prison while serving sentence was under the obligation to surrender, and had no right, after
evading the service of his sentence to commit assault and disobedience with a weapon on hand which compelled the
policeman to resort to such extreme means, which although it proved to be fatal, was justified by the circumstances88
The executor of death convicts at the bilibid prison cannot be held liable for murder for the executions performed by him
because he was merely acting in lawful exercise of his office.
• Shooting an offender who refused to surrender is justified89
BUT SHOOTING A THIEF WHO REFUSED TO BE ARRESTED IS NOT

JUSTIFIED
A security guard accosted a thief who had stolen ore in the tunnel of a mining company. The thief tried to flee. The security
guard ordered him to stop, but the latter disregarded the order. The security guard fired four shots into the air with his carbine
to scare the thief and to stop him. As the thief continued to flee, saying that he would not stop even if he died, the security
guard fired a fifth shot directed at the leg of the thief, but the bullet hit him in the lumbar region. The thief died.
Held: The security guard acted in the performance of his duty, but he exceeded the fulfillment of his duty by shooting the
deceased. He was adjudged guilty of homicide90
ILLEGAL PERFORMANCE OF DUTY.

The defense of fulfillment of a duty does not avail. The attitude adopted by the deceased in putting his hands in his pocket is
not sufficient to justify the accused to shoot him. The deceased was unarmed and the accused could have first warned him,
as the latter was coming towards him, to stop where he was, raise his hands, or do the things a policeman is trained to do,
instead of mercilessly shooting him upon a mere suspicion that the deceased was armed91
The requisite was not fulfilled for there was no crime committed by the accused. the policeman basis was merely an allegation.
DISTINGUISHED FROM SELF-DEFENSE AND FROM CONSEQUENCE OF

FELONIOUS ACT.
88 people vs. delima Gr. No. 18660, december 22, 1922
89 people vs. gayrama 60 phil. 796
90 People vs. Bentres, C.A., 49 O.G. 4919
91 (People vs. Tan, No. L-22697, Oct. 5, 1976, 73 SCRA 288, 292-293)

CONSEQUENCE OF FELONIOUS ACT SELF-DEFENSE
People us. Delima, supra, the prisoner who attacked the when the guard levelled his gun at the escaping prisoner
policeman with "a stroke ofhis lance" was already running and the prisoner grabbed the muzzle of the gun and, in the
away when he was shot, and, hence, the unlawful struggle for the possession of the gun, the guard jerked
aggression had already ceased to exist; but the killing was away the gun from the hold ofthe prisoner, causing the latter
done in the performance ofa duty. The rule of self-defense to be thrown halfway around, and because of the force of
the pull, the guard's finger squeezed the trigger, causing it to
does not apply.
fire, hitting and killing the prisoner, the guard was acting in
the fulfillment of duty. (People vs. Bisa, C.A., 51 O.G.
The public officer acting in the fulfillment of a duty may
4091)
appear to be an aggressor but his aggression is not
unlawful, it being necessary to fulfill his duty.
DOCTRINE OF “SELF-HELP”
Art. 429 of the Civil code is applicable under this paragraph. The articles states;
“The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal
thereof.”
for this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful
physical invasion or usurpation of his property.
The actual invasion of property may consist of a mere disturbance of possession or of a real dispossession. if it is a mere
disturbance of possession, force may be used against it at any time as long as it continues, even beyond the prescriptive
period of forcible entry. if the invasion consists of a real dispossession, force to regain possession can be used only
immediately after the dispossession. 
Illustrations:
Q: “A” constructed a small house in a piece of land which he believed to be a disposable public land. He has been occupying
the lot for over a year. One day, “B” came and claimed ownership over the land. “B” proceeded in dismantling the house of
“A” the latter pleaded “B” to stop but his plea fell on deaf ears. thereupon, “A” pulled “B” to prevent him from further
dismantling the house. in the process, “B” fell on the ground and suffered physical injuries. Is “A” liable for the injuries
sustained by “B”?
ANSWER: No, "A" is not liable . Under the law, he has the right to employ reasonable force to prevent or repel actual or
threatened assault on his property. His act of pulling “B” was reasonably necessary to protect his possessory rights over his
property.
Q: Suppose in the same problem, “A” shot “B” with his .45 caliber gun instead of pulling down “B” and “B” dies as a result.
Will the answer be the same?

ANSWER: NO. This time “A” is criminally liable for the death of “B” His act of shooting “B” to death is not reasonably
necessary to prevent the invasion of his property.
PAR. 6. OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED FOR SOME

LAWFUL PURPOSE
Unlawful aggression “MAY CLEAR NA DANGER NA PARATING SA ISANG TAO” kailangan

CONDITION SINE-QUA NON may PHYSICAL ASSAULT (SALITAAN MAY NOT CONSTITUTE UNLAWFUL
AGGRESSION)
INTENT OF THIS ARTICLE The recognizes the non-existence of a crime
REQUISITES
1. That the order has been issued by a superior
2. That such order must be for some lawful purpose; and
3. that the means used by the subordinates to carry out said order is lawful. 
 
The person who issued and the person who will execute the order must be both acting within the limitation prescribed by
law.
EXAMPLE OF ABSENCE OF THE THIRD REQUISITE.

The court ordered that the convict should be executed on a certain date. The executioner put him to death on a day earlier
than the date fixed by the court.
RATIO: The execution of the convict, although by virtue of a lawful order of the court, was carried out against the provision of
Art. 82. The executioner is guilty of murder. When the order is not for a lawful purpose, the subordinate who obeyed it is
criminally liable.
(1) One who prepared a falsified document with full knowledge of its falsity is not excused even if he merely acted in
obedience to the instruction of his superior, because the instruction was not for a lawful purpose92  
(2) A soldier who, in obedience to the order of his sergeant, tortured to death the deceased for bringing a kind of fish different
from that he had been asked to furnish a constabulary detachment, is criminally liable. Obedience to an order of a superior is
justified only when the order is for some lawful purpose. The order to torture the deceased was illegal, and the accused was
not bound to obey it93
The subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal order of his superior, if he is not aware of the illegality of the order and
he is not negligent.
92 (People vs. Barroga, 54 Phil. 247)
93 (People vs. Margen, et al., 85 Phil. 839)

When the accused acted upon orders of superior officers, which he, as military subordinate, could not question, and obeyed
the orders in good faith, without being aware of their illegality, without any fault or negligence on his part, he is not liable
because he had no criminal intent and he was not negligent94
BAR QUESTION
Justifying vs. Exempting Circumstances (2004)

Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between justifying and exempting circumstances in criminal law. 
Justifying circumstance affects the act, not the actor; while exempting circumstance affects the actor, not the act. In justifying
circumstance, no criminal and, generally, no civil liability is incurred; while in exempting circumstance, civil liability is generally
incurred although there is no criminal liability.
Justifying vs. Exempting Circumstances (1998) Distinguish between justifying and exempting circumstances. [3%] 
1. In Justifying Circumstances:
a. The circumstance affects the act, not the actor;
b. The act is done within legal bounds, hence considered as not a crime;
c. Since the act is not a crime, there is no criminal;
d. There being no crime nor criminal, there is no criminal nor civil liability.  
Whereas, in an Exempting Circumstances:

a. The circumstance affects the actor, not the act;
b. The act is felonious and hence a crime but the actor acted without voluntariness;
c. Although there is a crime, there is no criminal because the actor is regarded only as an instrument of the crime;
d. There being a wrong done but no criminal.  
Justifying; Defense of Honor; Requisites (2002)

When A arrived home, he found B raping his daughter. Upon seeing A, B ran away. A took his gun and shot B, killing him.
Charged with homicide, A claimed he acted in defense of his daughter's honor. Is A correct? If not, can A claim the benefit of
any mitigating circumstance or circumstances? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, A cannot validly invoke defense of his daughter's honor in having killed B since the rape was already consummated;
moreover, B already ran away, hence, there was no aggression to defend against and no defense to speak of.
A may, however, invoke the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of having acted in immediate vindication of a grave offense
to a descendant, his daughter, under par. 5, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
Justifying; Defense of Stranger (2002)

A chanced upon three men who were attacking B with fist blows. C, one of the men, was about to stab B with a knife. Not
knowing that B was actually the aggressor because he had earlier challenged the three men to a fight, A shot C as the latter
was about to stab B. May A invoke the defense of a stranger as a justifying circumstance in his favor? Why? (2%)
94 (People vs. Beronilla, 96 Phil. 566)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. A may invoke the justifying circumstance of defense of stranger since he was not involved in the fight and he shot C
when the latter was about to stab B. There being no indication that A was induced by revenge, resentment or any other evil
motive in shooting C, his act is justified under par 3, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
Justifying; Fulfillment of Duty; Requisites (2000)

Lucresia, a store owner, was robbed of her bracelet in her home. The following day, at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, a
neighbor, 22-year old Jun-Jun, who had an unsavory reputation, came to her store to buy bottles of beer. Lucresia noticed
her bracelet wound around the right arm of Jun-Jun. As soon as the latter left, Lucresia went to a nearby police station and
sought the help of a policeman on duty, Pat. Willie Reyes. He went with Lucresia to the house of Jun-Jun to confront the
latter. Pat. Reyes introduced himself as a policeman and tried to get hold of Jun-Jun who resisted and ran away. Pat. Reyes
chased him and fired two warning shots in the air. Jun-Jun continued to run and when he was about 7 meters away, Pat,
Reyes shot him in the right leg. Jun-Jun was hit and he fell down but he crawled towards a fence, intending to pass through
an opening underneath. When Pat. Reyes was about 5 meters away, he fired another shot at Jun-Jun hitting him at the right
lower hip. Pat. Reyes brought Jun-Jun to the hospital, but because of profuse bleeding, he eventually died. Pat Reyes was
subsequently charged with homicide. During the trial, Pat Reyes raised the defense, by way of exoneration, that he acted in
the fulfillment of a duty. Is the defense tenable? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the defense of Pat. Reyes is not tenable. The defense of having acted in the fulfillment of a duty requires as a condition,
inter alia, that the injury or offense committed be the unavoidable or necessary consequence of the due performance of the
duty (People vs. Oanis, et.al., 74 Phil. 257). It is not enough that the accused acted in fulfillment of a duty. After Jun-Jun was
shot in the right leg and was already crawling, there was no need for Pat, Reyes to shoot him further. Clearly, Pat. Reyes
acted beyond the call of duty which brought about the cause of death of the victim.
Justifying; SD; Defense of Honor; Requisites (1998)

One night, Una, a young married woman, was sound asleep in her bedroom when she felt a man on top of her. Thinking it
was her husband Tito, who came home a day early from his business trip, Una let him have sex with her. After the act, the
man said, "I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did." Not recognizing the voice, it dawned upon Lina that the man was not Tito,
her husband. Furious, Una took out Tito's gun and shot the man. Charged with homicide Una denies culpability on the ground
of defense of honor. Is her claim tenable? [5%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Una's claim that she acted in defense of honor, is not tenable because the unlawful aggression on her honor had already
ceased. Defense of honor as included in self- defense, must have been done to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression.
There is no defense to speak of where the unlawful aggression no longer exists.
Justifying; Defense of Honor; Elements (2000)

Osang, a married woman in her early twenties, was sleeping on a banig on the floor of their nipa hut beside the seashore
when she was awakened by the act of a man mounting her. Thinking that it was her husband, Gardo,who had returned from
fishing in the sea, Osang continued her sleep but allowed the man, who was actually their neighbor, Julio, to have sexual
intercourse with her. After Julio satisfied himself, he said "Salamat Osang" as he turned to leave. Only then did Osang realize
that the man was not her husband. Enraged, Osang grabbed a balisong from the wall and stabbed Julio to death. When tried
for homicide, Osang claimed defense of honor. Should the claim be sustained? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Osang"s claim of defense of honor should not be sustained because the aggression on her honor had ceased when she
stabbed the aggressor. In defense of rights under paragraph 1, Art. 11 of the RPC, It is required inter alia that there be (1)
unlawful aggression, and (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. The unlawful aggression
must be continuing when the aggressor was injured or disabled by the person making a defense.
But if the aggression that was begun by the injured or disabled party already ceased to exist when the accused attacked him,
as in the case at bar, the attack made is a retaliation, and not a defense. Paragraph 1, Article 11 of the Code does not
govern. Hence, Osang's act of stabbing Julio to death after the sexual intercourse was finished, is not defense of honor but
an immediate vindication of a grave offense committed against her, which is only mitigating.
Justifying; SD; Defense of Property; Requisites (1996)

A security guard, upon seeing a man scale the wall of a factory compound which he was guarding, shot and killed the latter.
Upon investigation by the police who thereafter arrived at the scene of the shooting, it was discovered that the victim was
unarmed. When prosecuted for homicide, the security guard claimed that he merely acted in self-defense of property and in
the performance of his duty as a security guard. If you were the judge, would you convict him of homicide? Explain. 
Yes. I would convict the security guard for Homicide if I were the Judge, because his claim of having acted in defense of
property and in performance of a duty cannot fully be justified. Even assuming that the victim was scaling the wall of the
factory compound to commit a crime inside the same, shooting him is never justifiable, even admitting that such act is
considered unlawful aggression on property rights. In People vs. Narvaes, 121 SCRA 329, a person is justified to defend his
property rights, but all the elements of self-defense under Art. 11, must be present. In the instant case, just like in Narvaes,
the second element (reasonable necessity of the means employed) is absent. Hence, he should be convicted of homicide but
entitled to incomplete self-defense.
Justifying; SD; Defense of Property; Requisites (2003)

The accused lived with his family in a neighborhood that often was the scene of frequent robberies. At one time, past
midnight, the accused went downstairs with a loaded gun to investigate what he thought were footsteps of an uninvited
guest. After seeing what appeared to him an armed stranger looking around and out to rob the house, he fired his gun
seriously injuring the man. When the lights were turned on, the unfortunate victim turned out to be a brother-in-law on his way
to the kitchen to get some light snacks. The accused was indicted for serious physical injuries. Should the accused, given the
circumstances, be convicted or acquitted? Why? 4%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The accused should be convicted because, even assuming the facts to be true in his belief, his act of shooting a burglar
when there is no unlawful aggression on his person is not justified. Defense of property or property right does not justify the
act of firing a gun at a burglar unless the life and limb of the accused is already in imminent and immediate danger. Although
the accused acted out of a misapprehension of the facts, he is not absolved from criminal liability.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Considering the given circumstances, namely; the frequent robberies in the neighborhood, the time was past midnight, and
the victim appeared to be an armed burglar in the dark and inside his house, the accused could have entertained an honest
belief that his life and limb or those of his family are already in immediate and imminent danger. Hence, it may be reasonable
to accept that he acted out of an honest mistake of fact and therefore without criminal intent. An honest mistake of fact
negatives criminal intent and thus absolves the accused from criminal liability.

Qualifying; Elements of a Crime (2003)
When would qualifying circumstances be deemed, if at all, elements of a crime? 4% 
A qualifying circumstance would be deemed an element of a crime when -
a. it changes the nature of the crime, bringing about a more serious crime and a heavier penalty;
b. it is essential to the crime involved, otherwise some other crime is committed; and
c. it is specifically alleged in the Information and proven during the trial.  
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A qualifying circumstance is deemed an element of a crime when it is specifically stated by law as included in the definition of
a crime, like treachery in the crime of murder. 

JURISPRUDENCE
PEOPLE VS. GENOSA

GR. NO.: 135981. January 15, 2004
PONENTE: PANGANIBAN, J.
“Battered Woman” | defined |“Cycle of Violence” |Phases |Tension-Building Phase|Acute Battering

TOPIC/S:
Incident |Tranquil Period |Elements |Unlawful aggression
Appellant (who was pregnant at that time), in her testimony, she and her husband Ben, had a
quarrel. When she was about to pack her clothes as the quarrel had graver, her husband allegedly
flew into a hot temper, dragged appellant outside of the bedroom towards a drawer holding her by
the neck. Ben got a blade, as the drawer - that contained a gun, was locked. She however,
smashed the arm of Ben with a pipe, causing him to drop the blade and his wallet. Appellant then
smashed Ben at his back with the pipe as he was about to pick up the blade and his wallet. She
thereafter ran inside the bedroom. Appellant, however, insisted that she ended the life of her
TRIGGER OF THE husband by shooting him. She supposedly twisted the drawer where the gun was and shot Ben.
FACTS:
He did not die on the spot, though, but in the bedroom.
It should be noted that appellant was physically abused by her husband. The defense presented
Dra. Dayan, a psychologist and believed that appellant is suffering the Battered Woman
Syndrome. Another decorated expert, Dr. Alfredo Pajarillo, a physician, Dr. Pajarillo said that at
the time she killed her husband appellant's mental condition was that she was re-experiencing the
trauma.
TRIGGER OF THE Can Marivic Genosa be granted the Justifying circumstance of Self-defense, and can she be held
ISSUE/S: liable for the aggravating circumstance of treachery?
For the first issue, the SC held that the defense failed to establish all the elements of self-defense
arising from battered woman syndrome, to wit:
(a) Each of the phases of the cycle of violence must be proven to have characterized at least two
battering episodes between the appellant and her intimated partner;
TRIGGER OF THE (b) The final acute battering episode preceding the killing of the batterer must have produced in
RULING:
the battered person’s mind an actual fear of an imminent harm from her batterer and an honest
belief that she needed to use force in order to save her life, and;
(c) At the time of the killing, the batterer must have posed probable – not necessarily immediate
and actual – grave harm to the accused based on the history of violence perpetuated by the
former against the latter.
The conviction of Appellant Marivic Genosa for parricide is hereby AFFIRMED. However, there
being two (2) mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance attending her
VERDICT:
commission of the offense, her penalty is REDUCED to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor as minimum; to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum.

When can BWS (Battered Woman Syndrome) as self defense be appreciated?
Where the brutalized person is already suffering from BWS, further evidence of actual physical
assault at the time of the killing is not required. Incidents of domestic battery usually have a
predictable pattern. To require the battered person to await an obvious, deadly attack before she
END POINT:
can defend her life "would amount to sentencing her to 'murder by installment.' Still, impending
danger (based on the conduct of the victim in previous battering episodes) prior to the defendant's
use of deadly force must be shown. Threatening behavior or communication can satisfy the
required imminence of danger. Considering such circumstances and the existence of BWS, self-
defense may be appreciated.
CITED DOCTRINE/
N/A
S:
The defense should prove all (3) three phases of cycle of violence characterizing the relationship
of parties
CASE DOCTRINE:
Note: The existence of battered woman syndrome in a relationship does not in itself establish a
legal right of a woman to kill her partner. Evidence must still be considered in the context of self-
defense
The wife had suffered maltreatment from her husband for over eight years. She was 8 months
pregnant when, one evening, her husband came home drunk and started to batter her. Shouting
that his wife "might as well be killed so there will be nobody to nag" him, he dragged her towards a
drawer where he kept a gun, but was not able to open the drawer because it was locked. So he
got out a cutter from his wallet, but dropped it. She was able to hit his arm with a pipe and escape
CIRCUMTANCES:
into another room. The wife, thinking of all the suffering that her husband had been inflicting on
her, and thinking that he might really kill her and her unborn child, distorted the drawer and got the
gun. She shot her husband, who was by then asleep on the bed. She was tried and convicted for
parricide, which is punishable by reclusion perpetua (20 years and 1 day to 40 years) to death. On
appeal, she alleged "battered woman syndrome" as a form of self-defense.
IMPORTANT
POINT/S:
RTC -
COURT
CA -
DECISIONS:
SC -
FACTS
That Marivic Genosa, the Appellant on the 15November1995, attacked and wounded his husband, which ultimately led to his
death. According to the appellant she did not provoke her husband when she got home that night it was her husband who
began the provocation. The Appellant said she was frightened that her husband would hurt her and she wanted to make sure
she would deliver her baby safely. In fact, The Appelant had to be admitted later at the Rizal Medical Centre as she was
suffering from eclampsia and hypertension, and the baby was born prematurely on December 1, 1995.

The Appellant testified that during her marriage she had tried to leave her husband at least five (5) times, but that Ben would
always follow her and they would reconcile. The Apellant said that the reason why Ben was violent and abusive towards her
that night was because 'he was crazy about his recent girlfriend, Lulu Rubillos.
The Appellant after being interviewed by specialists, has been shown to be suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome.
The appellant with a plea of self defense admitted the killing of her husband, she was then found guilty of Parricide, with the
aggravating circumstance of treachery, for the husband was attacked while asleep.
ISSUE
Can Marivic Genosa be granted the Justifying circumstance of Self-defense, and can she be held liable for the aggravating
circumstance of treachery?
HELD
No, There is treachery when one commits any of the crimes against persons by employing means, methods or forms in the
execution thereof without risk to oneself arising from the defense that the offended party might make.
The circumstances must be shown as indubitably as the killing itself; they cannot be deduced from mere inferences, or
conjectures, which have no place in the appreciation of evidence. Besides, equally axiomatic is the rule that when a killing is
preceded by an argument or a quarrel, treachery cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, because the deceased
may be said to have been forewarned and to have anticipated aggression from the assailant.
In the present case, however it was not conclusively shown, that the appellant intentionally chose a specific means of
successfully attacking her husband without any risk to herself from any retaliatory act that he might make. To the contrary, it
appears that the thought of using the gun occurred to her only at about the same moment when she decided to kill her
spouse. In the absence of any convincing proof that she consciously and deliberately employed the method by which she
committed the crime in order to ensure its execution, the doubt should be resolved in her favor.
SYLLABI
Same; Same; Justifying Circumstances; Self-defense; In criminal cases, self-defense shifts the burden of proof from
the prosecution to the defense.—When the accused admits killing the victim, it is incumbent upon her to prove any claimed
justifying circumstance by clear and convincing evidence. Well-settled is the rule that in criminal cases, self-defense (and
similarly, defense of a stranger or third person) shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS); The concept has been recognized in foreign
jurisdictions as a form of self-defense or, at the least, incomplete self-defense.—In claiming self-defense, appellant
raises the novel theory of the battered woman syndrome. While new in Philippine jurisprudence, the concept has been
recognized in foreign jurisdictions as a form of self-defense or, at the least, incomplete self-defense. By appreciating
evidence that a victim or defendant is afflicted with the syndrome, foreign courts convey their “understanding of the justifiably
fearful state of mind of a person who has been cyclically abused and controlled over a period of time.”

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; “Battered Woman”, defined; In order to be classified as a battered woman, the
couple must go through the battering cycle at least twice.—A battered woman has been defined as a woman “who is
repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something he
wants her to do without concern for her rights. Battered women include wives or women in any form of intimate relationship
with men. Furthermore, in order to be classified as a battered woman, the couple must go through the battering cycle at least
twice. Any woman may find herself in an abusive relationship with a man once. If it occurs a second time, and she remains in
the situation, she is defined as a battered woman.”
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Battered women exhibit common personality traits.—Battered women exhibit
common personality traits, such as low self-esteem, traditional beliefs about the home, the family and the female sex role;
emotional dependence upon the dominant male; the tendency to accept responsibility for the batterer’s actions; and false
hopes that the relationship will improve.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; “Cycle of Violence”; Phases; Tension-Building Phase; During the tension-building
phase, minor battering occurs—it could be verbal or slight physical abuse or another form of hostile behavior.—
During the tension-building phase,minor battering occurs—it could be verbal or slight physical abuse or another form of
hostile95 behavior. The woman usually tries to pacify the batterer through a show of kind, nurturing behavior; or by simply
staying out of his way. What actually happens is that she allows herself to be abused in ways that, to her, are comparatively
minor. All she wants is to prevent the escalation of the violence exhibited by the batterer. This wish, however, proves to be
double-edged, because her “placatory96” and passive behavior legitimizes his belief that he has the right to abuse her in the
first place. However, the techniques adopted by the woman in her effort to placate him are not usually successful, and the
verbal and/or physical abuse worsens. Each partner senses the imminent loss of control and the growing tension and
despair. Exhausted from the persistent stress, the battered woman soon withdraws emotionally. But the more she becomes
emotionally unavailable, the more the batterer becomes angry, oppressive and abusive. Often, at some unpredictable point,
the violence “spirals out of control” and leads to an acute battering incident.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Acute Battering Incident; The acute battering incident is said to be characterized
by brutality, destructiveness and, sometimes, death.—The acute battering incidentis said to be characterized by brutality,
destructiveness and, sometimes, death. The battered woman deems this incident as unpredictable, yet also inevitable.
During this phase, she has no control; only the batterer may put an end to the violence. Its nature can be as unpredictable as
the time of its explosion, and so are his reasons for ending it. The battered woman usually realizes that she cannot reason
with him, and that resistance would only exacerbate her condition. At this stage, she has a sense of detachment from the
attack and the terrible pain, although she may later clearly remember every detail. Her apparent passivity in the face of acute
violence may be rationalized thus: the batterer is almost always much stronger physically, and she knows from her past
painful experience that it is futile to fight back. Acute battering incidents are often very savage and out of control, such that
innocent bystanders or intervenors are likely to get hurt.
95 unfriendly, confrontalnation
96 Intended to make some less angry or hostile

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Tranquil Period; The final phase of the cycle of violence begins
when the acute battering incident ends—during this tranquil period, the couple experience profound relief.—The final
phase of the cycle of violence begins when the acute battering incident ends. During this tranquil period, the couple
experience profound relief. On the one hand, the batterer may show a tender and nurturing behavior towards his partner. He
knows that he has been viciously cruel and tries to make up for it, begging for her forgiveness and promising never to beat
her again. On the other hand, the battered woman also tries to convince herself that the battery will never happen again; that
her partner will change for the better; and that this “good, gentle and caring man” is the real person whom she loves. A
battered woman usually believes that she is the sole anchor of the emotional stability of the batterer. Sensing his isolation
and despair, she feels responsible for his well-being. The truth, though, is that the chances of his reforming, or seeking or
receiving professional help, are very slim, especially if she remains with him. Generally, only after she leaves him does he
seek professional help as a way of getting her back. Yet, it is in this phase of remorseful reconciliation that she is most
thoroughly tormented psychologically. The illusion of absolute inter dependency is well-entrenched in a battered woman’s
psyche. In this phase, she and her batterer are indeed emotionally dependent on each other—she for his nurturant behavior,
he for her forgiveness. Underneath this miserable cycle of ‘‘tension, violence and forgiveness,” each partner may believe that
it is better to die than to be separated. Neither one may really feel independent, capable of functioning without the other.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Elements; One who resorts to self-defense must face a real threat on one’s life, not
merely imaginary.—Settled in our jurisprudence, however, is the rule that the one who resorts to self-defense must face a
real threat on one’s life; and the peril sought to be avoided must be imminent and actual, not merely imaginary. Thus, the
Revised Penal Code provides the following requisites and effect of self-defense: “Art. 11. Justifying circumstances.—The
following do not incur any criminal liability: “1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following
circumstances concur; First. Unlawful aggression; Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel
it; Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.”
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Unlawful aggression; Unlawful aggression is the most essential element of self-
defense.—Unlawful aggression is the most essential element of self-defense. It presupposes actual, sudden and unexpected
attack—or an imminent danger thereof—on the life or safety of a person.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Aggression, if not continuous, does not warrant self-defense.—Aggression,
if not continuous, does not warrant self-defense. In the absence of such aggression, there can be no self-defense—complete
or incomplete—on the part of the victim.
Same; Same; Mitigating Circumstances; Passion and Obfuscation; Requisites; To appreciate this circumstance, the
following requisites should concur.—In addition, we also find in favor of appellant the extenuating circumstance of having
acted upon an impulse so powerful as to have naturally produced passion and obfuscation. It has been held that this state of
mind is present when a crime is committed as a result of an uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior unjust or
improper acts or by a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome reason. To appreciate this circumstance, the following
requisites should concur: (1) there is an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of mind; and (2) this act
is not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the accused might
recover her normal equanimity.
PERSONAL ANNOTATION

CONCURRING
DISSENTING
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Dissenting Opinion:
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Once BWS and an impending danger based on the conduct of the deceased in
previous battering episodes are established, actual occurrence of an assault is no longer a condition sine qua non
before self-defense may be upheld.—Traditionally, in order that self-defense may be appreciated, the unlawful aggression
or the attack must be imminent and actually in existence. This interpretation must, however, be re-evaluated vis-à-vis the
recognized inherent characteristic of the psyche of a person afflicted with the “Battered Woman Syndrome.” As previously
discussed, women afflicted by this syndrome live in constant fear for their life and thus respond in self-defense. Once BWS
and an impending danger based on the conduct of the deceased in previous battering episodes are established, actual
occurrence of an assault is no longer a condition sine qua non before self defense may be upheld. Threatening behavior or
communication can satisfy the required imminence of danger. As stated in the ponencia, to require the battered person to
await an obvious deadly attack before she can defend her life would amount to sentencing her to murder by installment. 

Article 12
Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. — the following are exempt from criminal liability:  
 
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.  
 
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court
shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall
not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court.  
 
2. A person under nine years of age.  
 
3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with discernment, in which case, such
minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80 of this Code.  
 
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in conformably with the provisions of this and
the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody of his family who shall be charged with his
surveillance and education otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some institution or person mentioned in
said Art. 80.  
 
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or
intention of causing it.  
5. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.  
 
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.  
 
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful insuperable cause.
The exemption from punishment is based on the complete absence of intelligence,

INTENT OF THIS ARTICLE/ freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on the part of the
PARAGRAPH/REQUISITE/ accused.
ELEMENT
BUT IT DID NOT REMOVE THE CIVIL LIABILITY OF THE ACCUSED
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE (FOR NON-IMPUTABILITY)

Those grounds which free the offender from criminal liability but does not relieve him of civil liability except in par. 4 (accident)
where he is relieved of both civil and criminal liability.
There is crime but the person who committed the act is not subjected to criminal liability.
BURDEN OF PROOF
It is a matter of defense and the same must be proved by the defendant to the satisfaction of the court
DISTINCTION BETWEEN JUSTIFYING AND EXEMPTING

CIRCUMSTANCE
AS TO WHAT JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE
PERSON It affect the act, not the actor I affect the actor, not the act.
The act is considered to have been The act complained of is actually

done within the bounds of law; hence, wrongful, but the actor is not liable
PARAMETER
legitimate and lawful in the eye of the
law
The act is considered lawful, there is The act complained of is actually wrong
no crime there is a crime but since the actor
WAS THERE A CRIME?
acted without voluntariness, there is no
DOLO nor CULPA.
NO CRIME There is a crime

NO CRIMINAL No Criminal
NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY No criminal liability
LIABILITY
NO CIVIL LIABILITY (Except Art. 11. There is civil liability (Except Art. 12.
Par. 4,[avoid greater evil] where there par. 4 and 7 where there is no civil
is liability liability)
Contemplates unintentional acts and May be invoked in culpable felonies.
INTENT
hence, are incompatible with dolo.
PAR. 1. IMBECILITY OR INSANITY

PARAGRAPH/REQUISITE/ Complete absence of intelligence, an element of voluntariness
ELEMENT
2 TEST OF INSANITY
1. Test of cognition - complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the crime

2. Test of volition - total deprivation of freedom of will
in the Philippines, both cognition and volition tests are applied. There must be complete derivation of the intellect (cognition)
or will or freedom (volition)
PRESUMPTION
The defense must prove that the accused was insane at the time of the commission of the crime because the presumption is
always in favor of sanity
OCCURENCE OF INSANITY AND ITS EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL LIABILITY

TIME WHEN ACCUSED SUFFERS INSANITY EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL LIABILITY
At the time of the commission of the crime EXEMPT from liability
Proceedings will be suspended and accused is committed to

During trial
a hospital
Execution of judgment is suspended. the accused is

committed to a hospital the period of confinement in the
After judgment or while serving sentence
hospital is counted for the purpose of the prescription of the
penalty
CIRCUMSTANCE OF ILLNESS

COVERED BY INSANITY
ILLNESS WHAT or Other instance, lack ANNOTATION
intelligence
It exists when a person, Katawang normal pero isip bata. meaning
while of advanced age, has there is mental problem which the intelligence
a mental development is lacking.

Other instance, lack
IMBECILITY
comparable to that of intelligence
children between two (2)
and seven (7) years of age.
It exist when there is a May mental problem na nagpapakitang wala
complete deprivation of syang kakayanang magdesisiyon nang kung

ano yung tama o mali. nawawala yung
intelligence or freedom of
intelligence nya.
the will. Mere abnormality of
mental faculties is not
INSANITY COVERED Pero kailangan the person is insane when the
enough especially if the
crime was committed. dahlia hindi sa lahat ng
offender has not lost pagkakataon baliw ang isang tao, meron
consciousness of his acts silang lucid interval.
Insane has lost it consciousness.
A form of psychosis where

homicidal attack is common,
because of delusions that
DEMENTIA
he is being interfered with
PRAECOX or
sexually, or that his property COVERED
SCHIZOPHRENIA
is being taken. during the
(NO CONTROL)
period of excitement, such
person has no control of his
acts.
It must be clearly proven to Somnambulism or sleepwalking, where the

SOMNAMBULISM be considered as an acts ofthe person afflicted are automatic, is
Other instance, lack
or exempting circumstance embraced in the plea of insanity and must be
intelligence
SLEEPWALKING clearly proven. (People vs. Gimena, 55 Phil.
under this Article
604)
I t a ff e c t s t h e n e r v o u s Thus, one who was suffering from malignant
system and causes among malaria when she wounded her husband who
others such complication as died as a consequence is not criminally liable,

MALIGNANT because such illness affects the nervous
acute melancholia and Other instance, lack
MALARIA system and causes among others such
insanity at times, and if intelligence / covered
(BIGLANG complication as acute melancholia and
clearly proven will be insanity at times
NAGWAWALA) insanity at times. (People vs. Lacena, 69 Phil.
considered as an exempting 350)
circumstances under this
paragraph

COVERED BY INSANITY
intelligence
It is not a pervading disease It must be shown that the person is epeleptic

but a nerve disorder. hence, from the time of the commission of the crime.
after a seizures, the victim is if not such person is not exempted from
EPILEPSY COVERED criminal liability.
normal for all intents and
purposes. it may be covered
by the term of insanity
Pedophilia or paedophilia is Because he can distinguish right and wrong
a psychiatric disorder in
which an adult or older NOT COVERED IN
PEDOPHILLA adolescent experiences a INSANITY, NOR
primary or exclusive sexual EXEMPTING
attraction to prepubescent
children.
a partial or total loss of But it must shown by a competent proof that
memory. the accused did not know the nature and

Other instance, lack quality of his action and that it was wrong.
AMNESIA
intelligence Failure to remeber is in itself no proof of the
mental condition of the accused when the
crime was performed.
is a state of human
consciousness involving
focused attention and
reduced peripheral
awareness and an WON hypnotism is so effective to make the subject act during artificial
HYPNOTISM
enhanced capacity to somnambulism is still a debatable question
respond to suggestion. The
term may also refer to an
art, skill, or act of inducing
hypnosis.

COVERED BY INSANITY
intelligence
is the inability to refrain from (But circumstancial, Accused is due to his

the urge for stealing items mental disease or a mental defect, the
and is usually done for accused has been deprived or has lost the
power of his will.)
reasons other than personal
use or financial gain. First
described in 1816,
kleptomania is classified in COVERED for some
KLEPTOMANIA
psychiatry as an impulse instances
control disorder. Some of
the main characteristics of
the disorder suggest that
kleptomania could be an
obsessive-compulsive
spectrum disorder.
person has a feeeble mind Because the offender could distinguish right
or wea; mentally slow, from wrong. 
NOT CONSIDRED  
people who act dumb
EXEMPTING Insane and imbacile cannot distinguish right
without the benefit of a
from wrong
medical excuse.
FEEBLEMINDED Note: The fact that a person behaves crazily is not conclusive that he is insane. The prevalent
NESS meaning of the word “CRZY” is not symptoms with the legal terms “INSANE”, Unsound mind “IDIOT”
or “LUNAIC”.
The popular conception of the word crazy is being used to describe a person or an act unnatural or
out of the ordinary. A man may behave in a crazy manner but it does not necessarily and conclusively
prove that he is legally so.
PAR. 2 AND 3. MINORITY
CONDITION SINE-QUA NON INTELLIGENCE / MINOR

The exempting circumstance of minority is based also on the complete absence of
intelligence
ELEMENT
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (R.A. 9344); also refer to Child and Youth Welfare Code (P.D. 603, as
amended)
DEFINITION OF CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW

Section 4 (e). "Child in conflict with the law" – a child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having
committed an offense under Philippine laws.
MINIMUM AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
RA 9344, SEC. 6.Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. - A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of
the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an
intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.  
 
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability
and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case, such child
shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act. 
 
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be
enforced in accordance with existing laws.
WHAT IS THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE SYSTEM?

"Juvenile Justice and Welfare System" refers to a system dealing with children at risk and children in conflict with the law,
which provides child- appropriate proceedings, including programs and services for prevention, diversion, rehabilitation, re-
integration and aftercare to ensure their normal growth and development. (See Title V: Juvenile Justice and Welfare System
of RA 9344).
DETERMINATION OF AGE (SEC. 7, RA 9344)

PRESUMPTION: Minority of child in conflict with the law. S/he shall enjoy all the rights of a child in conflict with the law until
s/he is proven to be 18 years old or older.
The age of a child may be determined from:
1. The child‘s birth certificate,
2. Baptismal certificate, or
3. Any other pertinent documents.
IN THE ABSENCE OF THESE DOCUMENTS, AGE MAY BE BASED ON:

1. information from the child himself/herself,
2. testimonies of other persons,
3. the physical appearance of the child, and
4. other relevant evidence.  
 
In case of doubt as to the child‘s age, it shall be resolved in his/her favor.

EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY

(1) 15 yrs old or below at the time of commission of offense: absolutely exempt from criminal liability but subject to
intervention program
(2) Over 15 yrs old but below 18: exempt from criminal liability & subject to intervention program
• If acted w/ discernment subject to diversion program
Discernment – mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong as determined by the child‘s
appearance , attitude, comportment and behavior not only before and during the commission of the offense but also after and
during the trial. It is manifested through:  
(1) Manner of committing a crime – Thus, when the minor committed the crime during nighttime to avoid detection
or took the loot to another town to avoid discovery, he manifested discernment.
(2) Conduct of the offender – The accused shot the victim with his sling shot and shouted ―Putang ina moǁ.  
Note: The exemption from criminal liability shall not include exemption from civil liability.
DISCERNMENT INTENT
Refers to moral significance the person ascribes to Refers to the desired act of the person
the act
AUTOMATIC SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE

Once the child who is under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the offense is found guilty of the
offense charged, the court shall determine and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from the offense
committed. However, instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with the law
under suspended sentence, without need of application: Provided, however, That suspension of sentence shall still be
applied even if the juvenile is already eighteen years (18) of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt.
Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the various circumstances of the child, the court shall impose the
appropriate disposition measures as provided in the Supreme Court Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law. (Sec. 38)
DISCHARGE OF THE CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW.

Upon the recommendation of the social worker who has custody of the child, the court shall dismiss the case against the
child whose sentence has been suspended and against whom disposition measures have been issued, and shall order the
final discharge of the child if it finds that the objective of the disposition measures have been fulfilled.
The discharge of the child in conflict with the law shall not affect the civil liability resulting from the commission of the offense,
which shall be enforced in accordance with law. (Sec. 39)

PAR. 4 ACCIDENT WITHOUT FAULT OR INTENTION OF CAUSING IT 

CONDITION SINE-QUA NON Accident
INTENT OF THIS ARTICLE/ The exempting circumstance in paragraph 4 of Art. 12 is based on lack of
PARAGRAPH/REQUISITE/ negligence and intent. Under this circumstance, a person does not commit either
ELEMENT an intentional felony or a culpable felony.
REQUISITES
(1) A person performing a lawful act; 
(2) With due care; 
(3) He causes an injury to another by mere accident; 
(4) Without fault or intention of causing it.
Accident - something that happens outside the sway of our will and, although coming about through some act of our will, lies
beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences.
Under Article 12, paragraph 4, the offender is exempt not only from criminal but also from civil liability.
ILLUSTRATION
A person who is driving his car within the speed limit, while considering the condition of the traffic and the pedestrians at that
time, tripped on a stone with one of his car tires. The stone flew hitting a pedestrian on the head. The pedestrian suffered
profuse bleeding. There is no civil liability under paragraph 4 of Article 12. Although this is just an exempting circumstance,
where generally there is civil liability, yet, in paragraph 4 of Article 12, there is no civil liability as well as criminal liability. The
driver is not under obligation to defray the medical expenses.
PAR. 5. ANY PERSON WHO ACT UNDER THE COMPULSION

OF IRRESISTIBLE FORCE.
CONDITION SINE-QUA NON Accident
The exempting circumstance in paragraph 5 of Art. 12 is based on the complete

absence of freedom, an element of voluntariness.
A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who acts
under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, is exempt from
ELEMENT
criminal liability because he does not act with freedom. (People vs. Loreno, No.
L-54414, July 9, 1984, 130 SCRA 311, 321)
ELEMENTS

Requisites Annotation
That the compulsion is by means of physical force. Ex. Striking him with the butts of their guns, they
compelled him to bury the bodies of the victim
That the physical force must be irresistible. The pretension of an accused that he was
threatened with a gun by his friend, the
mastermind, is not credible where he himself
was armed with a rifle. (People vs. Sarip, Nos.
L-31481-31483, Feb. 28, 1979, 88 SCRA 666,
673-674)
That the physical force must come from a third person.
NO COMPULSION OF IRRESISTIBLE FORCE.

The pretension of an accused that he was threatened with a gun by his friend, the mastermind, is not credible where he
himself was armed with a rifle97
PASSION OR OBFUSCATION CANNOT BE IRRESISTIBLE FORCE.

The irresistible force can never consist in an impulse or passion, obfuscation. It must consist of an extraneous force coming
from a third person
NATURE OF FORCE REQUIRED.

The force must be irresistible to reduce the actor to a mere instrument who acts not only without will but against his will. The
duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending and of such a nature as to induce a well-
grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act is not done.
A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to the accused
for escape or self-defense in equal combat98 
PAR. 6 UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR

CONDITION SINE-QUA NON The fear of an injury is greater than, or at least equal to, that committed
The exempting circumstance in paragraph 6 of Art. 12 is also based on the

complete absence of freedom.
Paragraph/Requisite/Element
"Actus me invito factus non est meus actus." ("An act done by me against my will
is not my act."
ELEMENTS
97 (People vs. Sarip, Nos. L-31481-31483, Feb. 28, 1979, 88 SCRA 666, 673-674)
98 (People vs. Loreno, No. L-54414, July 9, 1984, 130 SCRA 311, 321-322, citing People vs. Villanueva, 104 Phil. 450)

REQUISTES APPLICATION ANNOTATION
SCENARIO: Liberato Exaltacion and Buenaventura Tanchinco were compelled under fear of death to swear allegiance
to the Katipunan whose purpose was to overthrow the government by force of arms
1. The existence of an uncontrollable They were complled under “FEAR OF h i n d i n i l a k a y a n g t a n g i h a n y u n g

fear DEATH” pinapagawa sa kanila kasi buhay ang
gagalawin sa kanila.
2. That the fear must be real and Knowing that they were armed, they can Presumption would be like: Habang
imminent; and do what they have said kincompel silang magswear ng allegiance
to the katipunan group, the gun was
directed to them. failure to follow what is
mandated to them, may cause to pull a
trigger against them.
3. The fear of an injury is greater The act which he was asked to commit If he did not commit it, he would be killed.
than, or at least equal to, that was to swear allegiance to the katipunan
and become one of those engaged in Death is a much greater injury than
committed
overthrowing the government by force of imprisonment for 12 years and paying a
arms fine.
INJURY IS LESS THAN THAT COMMITED

Ex. “A” had threatened to burn the house of “B” should the latter not kill his (B's) father, and “B” killed his father for fear that
“A” might burn his (B's) house, “B” is not exempt from criminal liability for the reason that the evil with which he was
threatened was much less than that of killing his father.
Dapat laging ATLEAST EQUAL or GREATER yung injury yung kapalit kapag hindi mo ginawa yung pinapagawa sayo. On the given example
above, yung pananakot na susunugin yung bahay ay di hamak na mas matindi kaysa sa pagpatay na pinapagawa nya. Kahit sunugin yung
bahay mo kayang palitan yung bahay pero yung buhay di na yun mababalik o mapapalitan.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN PAR. 5 AND 6

Par. 5, Art. 12 Par. 6, Art. 12
A person is compelled to commit a crime by another, but A person is compelled to commit a crime by another, but
the ompulsion is by means of intimidation or threat the compulsion is means of force or violence
DURESS99 AS A VALID DEFENSE

‑
It should be based on real imminent or reasonable fear for one’s life or limb and should not be speculative, fanciful, or remote
fear.
Note: Dures is unavailing where the accused had very opportunity to run away if had wanted to or to resist any possible
aggression because he was also alarmed.
Even if the person being intimidated was under a group or a gang has several opportunities of leaving the gang to commit the
crime, his defense of being intimidated was untenable.
99 pressure
! of !272
PARAMETER OF UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR

If the person being threatened or compelled to commit a crime has more capable of refusal through his own defense, he may not avail the
defense of uncontrollable fear for he can control it. If he can act in self-defense or kaya mong tumakas, thus, defense of uncontrollable fear is
untenable.
Kung kaya mong pigilan or kaya mong umayaw kahit na takutin ka or balaan ka hindi mo maiivoke yung paragprah na ito. dahil hindi mo
nasuffice yung term na uncontrollable fear.
Example: Yung leader tinatakot ka tapos yung hawak lang pala nya ay baril na mababang klase o mahina lang na pwede mong i-resist dahil
ikaw ang hawak mo pala eh machine gun. meaning may kapasidad kang lumaban ipagtangol at ungusan yung fear mo at pwedeng maging
controllable on your part.
BOTTOM LINE: basta may kapasidad ka o mas malakas ka o mas kargado ka ng armas o kaya mong umayaw at tumakas, okaya kaya
mong humingi ng tulong, hindi pwedeng iinvoke and uncontrollable fear dahil kaya mo talagang kontrolin. DAPAT NO CHOICE KA BUT TO
FOLLOW THEM.
COMPULSION100 ‑
The compulsion must be of such character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal
combat.
REAL, IMMINENT OR REASONABLE FEAR

A threat of future injury is not enough. it must be real, imminent or reasonable.
IRRESISTIBLE VS. UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR

IRRESISTIBLE FORCE UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
As to offender’s act
Offender uses violence or physical force o compel another Offender employs intimidation or threat in compelling
person to commit a crime another to commit a crime
as to who the act is directed
Must have been made to operate directly upon the person may be generated by a threatened act direct to a 3rd
of the accused person (E.g. the wife of the accused who was kidnapped)
As to the act feared
The injury feared may be of a lesser degree than the The evil feared must be greater or at least equal to the
damage caused by the accused damage caused to avoid it
PAR. 7. INSUPERABLE CAUSE
100 force
The circumstance in paragraph 7 of Art. 12 exempts the accused from criminal

liability, because he acts without intent, the third condition of voluntariness in
intentional felony.
INSUPERABLE101 CAUSE
it is some motive which has lawfully, morally or physical prevented a person to do what the law commands.
It applied to felonies by omission.
Refusal of right thing to do. Nilabag mo yung batas dahil sa wala kang choice kundi ang labagin ito.
ELEMENTS
REQUISITES ANNOTATION
That an act is required by law to be done;
That a person fails to perform such act;
That his failure to perform such act was due to some

lawful or insuperable cause.
ILLUSTRATIONS
The municipal president detained the offended party for three days because to take him to the nearest justice of the peace
required a journey for three days by boat as there was no other means of transportation. the distance which required a
journey for three days was considered an insuperable cause.
Note: under the law, the person arrested incident to arrest must be delivered to the nearest judicial authority at most within
36 hours under Art. 125 RPC; otherwise, the public officer will be liable delay in the delivery to judicial authorities
A mother, who at the time of childbirth was overcome b y severe dizziness and extreme debility, and left the child in a thicket
where said child died, is not liable for infanticide because it was physically impossible for her to take home the child.
The severe dizziness and extreme debility of the woman constitute an insuperable cause.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN OF PARAGRAPH
101 hopeless
Par. 1,2,3 Par. 5,6 Par. 4 Par. 7
Not having intelligence, Not having freedom of Not having intent, it is Act without intent, the third
does not act with intent action, does not act with specifically stated that the condition of voluntariness in
intent actor causes an injury by intentional felony
mere accident without
intention of causing it.
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
are those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is no penalty imposed.
Examples of absolutory causes
Spontaneous desistance Art. 6
Slight or less serious physical injuries inflicted under

Art. 247
exceptional circumstances
Attempted or frustrated light felonies Art. 7
Instigation
Marriage of the offender and the and the offended party in

cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness who Art. 344
are exempt from criminal liability
Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability by

Art. 20 and in light felonies
reason or relationship
adultery and concubinage if the offended party shall have
Art. 344
consented or pardoned the offenders
Persons exempt from criminal liability for theft, swindling

Art. 332
and malicious mischief
Trespass to dwelling when the purpose of entering

another’s dwelling when the purpose of entering anothers
dwelling against the latter’s will is to prevent some serious
harm to himself, the occupantsof the dwelling or a third Art. 280, par. 2
person, or for the purpose of rendering some service to
humanity or justice or when entering cafes, taverns, inns
and other public houses, while the same are open
DISTINGUISH ENTRAPMENT AND INSTIGATION

ENTRAPMENT INSTIGATION
As to nature
Ways a means are resorted to for the capture of law Instigator induces the would-be accused to commit the crime,
breakers in the execution of his criminal plan hence he becomes a co-principal
As to origin
The meas originates from the mind of the criminal The law enforcer conceives the commission of the crime and
suggest to the accused who adopts the idea and carries it
into execution
As to liability
Not a bar to the prosecution and conviction of the It will result in the acquittal of the accused
lawbreakers
if the one who made the instigation is a private individual, not performing public function, both he and the one induced are
criminally liable for the crime committed: the former, as principal by inducement; and the latter, as principal by direct
participation
BAR QUESTION
Exempting Circumstances; Coverage (2000)

A, brother of B, with the intention of having a night out with his friends, took the coconut shell which is being used by B as a
bank for coins from inside their locked cabinet using their common key. Forthwith, A broke the coconut shell outside of their
home in the presence of his friends.
A. What is the criminal liability of A, if any? Explain. (3%)

B. Is A exempted from criminal liability under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code for being a brother of B? Explain. (2%)  
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. A is criminally liable for Robbery with force upon things.....
B. No, A is not exempt from criminal liability under Art. 332 because said Article applies only to theft, swindling or malicious
mischief. Here, the crime committed is robbery.
Exempting Circumstances; Minority (1998)

John, an eight-year old boy, is fond of watching the television program "Zeo Rangers." One evening while he was engrossed
watching his favorite television show, Petra, a maid changed the channel to enable her to watch "Home Along the Riles." This
enraged John who got his father's revolver, and without warning, shot Petra at the back of her head causing her
instantaneous death. Is John criminally liable? [2%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, John is not criminally liable for killing Petra because he is only 8 years old when he committed the killing. A minor below
nine (9) years old is absolutely exempt from criminal liability although not from civil liability. (Art. 12, par. 2, RPC).

Exempting; Minority; 11 yrs Old; Absence of Discernment (2000) 
While they were standing in line awaiting their vaccination at the school clinic, Pomping repeatedly pulled the ponytail of
Katreena, his 11 years, 2 months and 13 days old classmate in Grade 5 at the Sampaloc Elementary School. Irritated,
Katreena turned around and swung at Pomping with a ball pen. The top of the ball pen hit the right eye of Pomping which
bled profusely. Realizing what she had caused. Katreena immediately helped Pomping. When investigated, she freely
admitted to the school principal that she was responsible for the injury to Pomping's eye. After the incident, she executed a
statement admitting her culpability. Due to the injury. Pomping lost his right eye.
A. Is Katreena criminally liable? Why? (3%)

B. Discuss the attendant circumstances and effects thereof. (2%) 
A. No, Katreena is not criminally liable although she is civilly liable. Being a minor less than fifteen (15) years old although
over nine (9) years of age, she is generally exempt from criminal liability. The exception is where the prosecution proved that
the act was committed with discernment. The burden is upon the prosecution to prove that the accused acted with
discernment.
The presumption is that such minor acted without discernment, and this is strengthened by the fact that Katreena only
reacted with a ballpen which she must be using in class at the time, and only to stop Pomping's vexatious act of repeatedly
pulling her ponytail. In other words, the injury was accidental.
B. The attendant circumstances which may be considered are:
1. Minority of the accused as an exempting circumstance under Article 12. paragraph 3, Rev. Penal Code, where she shall
be exempt from criminal liability, unless it was proved that she acted with discernment. She is however civilly liable;
2. If found criminally liable, the minority of the accused as a privileged mitigating circumstance. A discretionary penalty lower
by at least two (2) degrees than that prescribed for the crime committed shall be imposed in accordance with Article 68.
paragraph 1, Rev. Penal Code. The sentence, however, should automatically be suspended in accordance with Section
5(a) of Rep. Act No. 8369 otherwise known as the "Family Courts Act of 1997";
3. Also if found criminally liable, the ordinary mitigating circumstance of not Intending to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed, under Article 13, paragraph 3, Rev. Penal Code; and
4. The ordinary mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the
act.  

Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between justifying and exempting circumstances in criminal law. 
Justifying circumstance affects the act, not the actor; while exempting circumstance affects the actor, not the act. In justifying
circumstance, no criminal and, generally, no civil liability is incurred; while in exempting circumstance, civil liability is generally
incurred although there is no criminal liability.

Distinguish between justifying and exempting circumstances. [3%] 

1. In JustifyingCircumstances:
A. The circumstance affects the act, not the actor;
B. The act is done within legal bounds, hence considered as not a crime;
C. Since the act is not a crime, there is no criminal;
D. There being no crime nor criminal, there is no criminal nor civil liability.  
Whereas, in an Exempting Circumstances:

A. The circumstance affects the actor, not the act;
B. The act is felonious and hence a crime but the actor acted without voluntariness;
C. Although there is a crime, there is no criminal because the actor is regarded only as an instrument of the crime;
D. There being a wrong done but no criminal.
Exempting Circumstances (2007)

No. IV. a. Macky, a security guard, arrived home late one night after rendering overtime. He was shocked to see Joy, his wife,
and Ken, his best friend, in the act of having sexual intercourse. Macky pulled out his service gun and shot and killed Ken.
The court found that Ken died under exceptional circumstances and exonerated Macky of murder but sentenced him to
destierro, conformably with Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The court also ordered Macky to pay indemnity to the heirs
of the victim in the amount of P50,000. Did the court correctly order Macky to pay indemnity even though he was exonerated
of murder? Explain your answer. (10%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the court did not act correctly in ordering the accused to indemnify the victim. Since the killing of ken was committed
under the exceptional circumstances in Article 247, revised Penal Code, it is the consensus that no crime was committed in
the light of the pronouncement in People v Cosicor (79 Phil. 672 [1947]) that banishment (destierro) is intended more for the
protection of the offender rather than as a penalty. Since the civil liability under the Revised Penal Code is the consequence
of criminal liability, there would be no legal basis for the award of indemnity when there is no criminal liability.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, because the crime punishable by desteirro was committed, which is death under exceptional circumstances under Art.
247 of the Revised Penal Code.
Exempting Circumstances; Accessories; Ascendants (2010)

No. XXII. Immediately after murdering Bob, Jake went to his mother to seek refuge. His mother told him to hide in the maid’s
quarters until she finds a better place for him to hide. After two days, Jake transferred to his aunt’s house. A week later, Jake
was apprehended by the police.
Can Jake’s mother and aunt be made criminally liable as accessories to the crime of murder? Explain. (3 %)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Obviously, Jake‟s mother was aware of her son‟s having committed a felony, such that her act of harboring and concealing
him renders her liable as an accessory. It being an ascendant to Jake, she is exempt from criminal liability by express
provision of Article 20 of the Revised Penal Code.

On the other hand, the criminal liability of Jake‟s aunt depends on her knowledge of his commission of the felony, her act of
harboring and concealing Jake would render her criminally liable as accessory to the crime of murder; otherwise without
knowledge of Jake‟s commission of the felony, she would not be liable.
Exempting Circumstances; Insanity (2010)

No. XIII. a. While his wife was on a 2-year scholarship abroad, Romeo was having an affair with his maid Dulcinea. Realizing
that the affair was going nowhere, Dulcinea told Romeo that she was going back to the province to marry her childhood
sweetheart. Clouded by anger and jealousy, Romeo strangled Dulcinea to death while she was sleeping in the maid’s
quarters.
The following day, Romeo was found catatonic inside the maid’s quarters. He was brought to the National Center for Mental
Health (NCMH) where he was diagnosed to be mentally unstable. Charged with murder, Romeo pleaded insanity as a
defense.
Will Romeo’s defense prosper? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Romeo‟s defense of insanity will not prosper because, even assuming that Romeo was “insane” when diagnosed after
he committed the crime, insanity as a defense to the commission of crime must have existed and proven to be so existing at
the precise moment when the crime was being committed. The fact of the case indicate that Romeo committed the crime with
discernment.
Exempting Circumstances; Insanity; Effect (2010)

No. XIII. b. While his wife was on a 2-year scholarship abroad, Romeo was having an affair with his maid Dulcinea. Realizing
that the affair was going nowhere, Dulcinea told Romeo that she was going back to the province to marry her childhood
sweetheart. Clouded by anger and jealousy, Romeo strangled Dulcinea to death while she was sleeping in the maid’s
quarters. The following day, Romeo was found catatonic inside the maid’s quarters. He was brought to the National Center
for Mental Health (NCMH) where he was diagnosed to be mentally unstable. Charged with murder, Romeo pleaded insanity
as a defense.
What is the effect of the diagnosis of the NCMH on the case? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The effect of the diagnosis made by NCMH is possibly a suspension of the proceedings against Romeo and his commitment
to appropriate institution for treatment until he could already understand the proceedings.
JURISPRUDENCE
CASE TITLE
GR. NO.:
PONENTE:
TOPIC/S:
VERDICT:
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
CASE DOCTRINE:
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
COURT DECISIONS:
FACTS
ISSUE
HELD
SYLLABI
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
CONCURRING
DISSENTING
SEPARATE OPINION
OBITER DICTUM 

Article 13
Mitigating circumstances. — The following are mitigating circumstances;  
 
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal
liability in the respective cases are not attendant.  
 
2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he shall be
proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80.  
 
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.  
 
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act.  
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony
(delito), his spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.  
 
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.  
 
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that he had
voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution;  
 
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his
means of action, defense, or communications with his fellow beings.  
 
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender without however
depriving him of the consciousness of his acts. 
 
10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned.

Mitigating circumstances are based on the diminution of either freedom of action,
intelligence, or intent, or on the lesser perversity of the offender.
ELEMENT
NOTE: IF THE ELEMENT/REQUISITES OF ART. 11 were not complete, but the essential element are present. Art. 12 will govern for to
vindicate such defense.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Mitigating circumstances are those which, if present in the commission of the crime, do not entirely free the actor from
criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the penalty.
A mitigating circumstance arising from a single fact absorbs all the other mitigating circumstances arising from the same fact,
mitigating circumstances may be ordinary or privileged.
CLASSES OF MITIGATING
Ordinary Mitigating Privileged Mitigating
As to source
Par. 2-10 of Art. 13 (RPC) Par. 1 of Art. 13 of RPC, Arts. 68, 69 and 64 of RPC
Par. 1 and 2 are privileged mitigating under Art. 68 as Art. 64 applies only when there are two o more ordinary
amended by R.A 9433 and Art. 69 mitigating circumstances without any generic aggravating
Par. 1 of Art. 13 are ordinary mitigating circumstances, if circumstances
Art. 49 is not applicable
As to effect
If not offset (by a generic aggravating circumstance) it will It operates to reduce the penalty by one or two degrees.
operate to have the penalty imposed at its minimum
period, provided the penalty is a divisible one.
As to availability of offsetting
May be offset by generic aggravating circumstances Cannot be offset by a generic aggravating circumstance
Note: In self-defense, defense of a relative or defense of a stranger, it is essential that unlawful aggression be present,
otherwise said justifying circumstances cannot be appriciated in favor of the accused in the mitigating circumstances of
incomplete self-defense, defense of a relative or strangers, there must be unlawful aggression and any of the two remaining
elements. Under Art. 69 of RPC, when only unlawful aggression is present, if unlawful aggression and any of the remaining
two elements are present, the accused is entitled to two degrees lower
Complete defense Incomplete defense
All elements to say that the crime was committed are all It is incomplete for the other elements were not present
present but the essential element is present for it is considered a
defense but not complete.
hindi lahat ng elements present pero present yung essential

requisite magiging privilege nalang kasi kung kumpleto magiging
justified yung act, meaning walang kaso. Pero dahil hindi present
lahat ng elements meaning hindi justfied, may kaso pa din pero
bibigyan nila ng merit yung essential requisite na present kaya
papasok ng mitigating pabababain lang yung penalty.

Privilege Mitigating Circumstances Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances
Sign post It cannot be offset by aggravating circumstance Easily taken of being offset by any aggravating
circumstance
It attacks what? Degree (Degree of penalty.) E.g. Reclusion perpetua “Period” in case of divisible penalties (Minimum,
affect it to up or down.. since mitigating “Reclusion medium and maximum)
Temporal” BY DEFAUL - MEDIUM PERIOD
PAR. 1. INCOMPLETE JUSTIFICATION AND EXEMPTION

CONDITION SINE-QUA NON UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
INTENT OF THIS ARTICLE/ Art. 13, par. 1, applies only when unlawful aggression is present, but the other two
Paragraph/Requisite/Element requisites are not present.
The circumstances of justification or exemption which may give place to mitigation, because not all the requisites necessary
to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are attendant, are the following:
(1) Self-defense (Art.11,par.1)
(2) Defense of relatives (Art.11,par.2)
(3) Defense of strangers (Art.11,par.3)
(4) State of necessity (Art.11,par.4)
(5) Performance of duty (Art. 11, par. 5)
(6) Obedience to the order of superiors (Art. 11, par. 6)
(7) Minority over 15 years of age but below 18 years of age (Art. 12, par. 3)
(8) Causing injury by mere accident (Art. 12, par.4)
(9) Uncontrollable fear(Art.12 par.6)
INCOMPLETE SELF-DEFENSE, DEFENSE OF RELATIVES, AND DEFENSE

OF A STRANGER
CONDITION SINE-QUA NON UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
Unlawful aggression must be present, it being an indispensable requisite. When two of the three requisites mentioned therein
are present (i.e., unlawful aggression and any one of the other two), the case should be considered a privileged mitigating
circumstance referred to in Art. 69 of this Code.
Laging present dapat si UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION, dahil kapag wala yang element na yan walang self-defense. knowing na 3 yung
requisites nya. (See Art. 11 Par. 1) kapag kumpleto yung 3 requisites “JUSTIFIED” walang criminal, walang civil liability. pero kung unlawful
aggression lang yung present ordinary mitigating lang, pero kung sa tatlong requisite 2 yung present at yung isa dun ay yung unlawful
aggression, pasok sya as privilege mitigating, meaning may self-defense, pero yung isang requisite ay kulang dahil maybe hindi reasonable
yung means nya (ex. binatukan lang tapos binaril kagad.. hindi reasonable yun) so meaning hindi present yung pangalawang requisite pero
present yung pangatlong requisite so meaning may criminal liability pa rin sya pero pababain lang yung penalty dahil nga sa self-defense pa
rin yung ginawa nya it just happen na baril yung ginamit nya.
So, kaya binibigay yung privileged mitigating para macompensate yung thing na “self-defense” at kaya ka hindi totally abswelto dahil naka-
commit ka pa rin ng crime kaya hindi mo nafullfill yung ibang requisite. may kaso pa din pero bibigyan ng merit yung self-defense kaya
bababa yung penalty ng automatic 1 degree lower under Art. 69.

INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF AVOIDANCE OF

GREATER EVIL OR INJURY
CONDITION SINE-QUA NON That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Requisites under par. 4 of Art. 11:

1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
2. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
3. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
Avoidance of greater evil or injury is a justifying circumstance if all the three requisites mentioned in par. 4 of Art. 11
are present.
But if any of the last two requisites is lacking, there is only a mitigating(ordinary) circumstance. The first element is
indispensable.
INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF PERFORMANCE OF DUTY

CONDITION SINE-QUA NON That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Requisites under par.5, Art. 11
(1) That the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office; and
(2) That the injury caused or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty or the
lawful exercise of such right or office.
In the case of People v. Oanis (1943), where only one of the requisites was present, Article 69 was applied.
People v. Oanis (1943): Since the Supreme Court considered one of the two requisites as constituting the majority, it seems
that there is no ordinary mitigating circumstance under Art. 13, par. 1, when the justifying or exempting circumstance has two
requisites only.
INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES OF OBEDIENCE TO AN

ORDER
The order must always be superior
isa lang requisite, so meaning walang mitigating kasi mere fact na di pagsunod sa superior, violation na kagad yun.
INCOMPLETE EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE OF MINORITY OVER 9 AND

UNDER 15 YEARS OF AGE
Under R.A. No. 9344 a child below fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall be exempt from criminal
liability UNLESS he/she acted with discernment (R.A No. 9344, Sec. 6) in other words, where before, an offender fifteen (15)
or over but under eighteen (18) years of age is entitled only to the benefits provided under Art. 68 of RPC, under R.A No.
9344 or the juvenile justice and welfare act of 2006” such offender may be exempt from criminal liability if he/she acte without
discernment.

On the other hand, if such offender acted with discernment, such child in conflict with the law shall undergo diversion
programsprovided under chapter 2 of R.A. No. 9344
DIVERSION PROGRAM
It is an alternative, child-appropriate process of determining the responsibility and treatment of child in conflict with the law on
the basis of his/her social, cultural, economic, psychological or educational background without resulting to formal court
proceedings.
INCOMPLETE EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE OF ACCIDENT

CONDITION SINE-QUA NON With due care and without fault
Requisites under par. 4 of Art. 12: 

(1) A person is performing a lawful act 
(2) With due care 
(3) He causes an injury to another by mere accident 
(4) Without fault or intention of causing it
There is NO SUCH MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE because:
If the 2nd requisite and 1st part of the 4th requisite are absent, the case will fall under Art. 365 which punishes reckless
imprudence for they act without due care which means at fault.
If the 1st requisite and 2nd part of the 4th requisite are absent, it will be an intentional felony (Art. 4, par. 1).
kapag complete papasok sya sa exempting pero kung incomplete hindi sya papasok sa mitigating dahil kapag nawala yung due care
meaning reckless yung tao.
INCOMPLETE EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE OF UNCONTROLLABLE

FEAR
CONDITION SINE-QUA NON With due care and without fault
Requisites under par. 6 of Art. 12:

1. That the threat which caused the fear was of an evil greater than, or at least equal to, that which he was required to
commit;
2. That it promised an evil of such gravity and imminence that an ordinary person would have succumbed to it.
Note: If only one of these requisites is present, there is only a mitigating(ordinary) circumstance.
PAR. 2 OVER 15 UNDER 18 WITH DISCERNMENT OR OVER

70 YEARS OLD

INTENT OF THIS ARTICLE/ The mitigating circumstances in paragraph 2 of Art. 13 are based on the diminution of
Paragraph/Requisite/Element intelligence, a condition of voluntariness.
it is the age of the accused at the time of the commission of the crime which should be determined. His age at the time of the
trial is immaterial.
DETERMINATION OF AGE
The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the presumption of minority. He/She shall enjoy all the rights of a child in conflict
with the law until he/she is proven to be eighteen (18) years old or older. The age of a child may be determined from the
child's birth certificate, baptismal certificate or any other pertinent documents. In the absence of these documents, age may
be based on information from the child himself/herself, testimonies of other persons, the
physical appearance of the child and other relevant evidence. In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be resolved
in his/her favor.
Any person contesting the age of the child in conflict with the law prior to the filing of the information in any appropriate court
may file a case in a summary proceeding for the determination of age before the Family Court which shall decide the case
within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the appropriate pleadings of all interested parties.
If a case has been fiied against the child in conflict with the law and is pending in the appropriate court, the person shall file a
motion to determine the age of the child in the same court where the case is pending. Pending hearing on the said motion,
proceedings on the main case shall be suspended.
In all proceedings, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges and other government officials concerned shall exert all
efforts at determining the age of the child in conflict with the law. (Sec. 7, RA 9344).
Basis: Diminution of intelligence
IN LOWERING THE PENALTY

Based on age of the offender at the time of the commission of the crime not the age when sentence is imposed
IN SUSPENSION OF THE SENTENCE

Based on age of the offender (under 18) at the time the sentence is to be promulgated (See Art. 80, RPC)
PAR. 2 CONTEMPLATES THE FOLLOWING

1. An offender over 9 but under 15 of age who acted with discernment.
2. An offender fifteen or over but under 18 years of age.
3. An offender over 70 years old
LEGAL EFFECTS OF VARIOUS AGES OF OFFENDERS

Age Liability
15 and below Exempting
also an exempting circumstance, unless he acted with discernment (Art.

Above 15 but under 18 years of age
12, par. 3 as amended by RA 9344).
the sentence may be suspended. (Art. 192, PD No. 603 as amended by

Minor delinquent under 18 years of age
PD 1179)
18 years or over full criminal responsibility
mitigating, no imposition of death penalty; if already imposed. Execution

70 years or over
of death penalty is suspended and commuted.
 
CHILD CONFLICT WITH THE LAW
It refers to a child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having committed an offense under philippine laws
BASIS: DIMINUTION102 OF INTELLIGENCE
PAR. 3 NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG

(PRAETER INTENTIONEM)
RULE FOR THE APPLICATION OF THIS PARAGRAPH

This circumstance can be taken into account only when the facts proven show that there is a notable and evident
disproportion between the means employed to execute the criminal act and its consequences. (U.S. vs. Reyes, 36 Phil. 904,
907)
ILLUSTRATIONS
1. The husband who was quarreling with his wife punched her in the abdomen, causing the rupture of her hypertrophied
spleen, from which she died. (People vs. Rabao, 67 Phil. 255, 257, 259)
2. The accused confined himself to giving a single blow with a bolo on the right arm of the victim and did not repeat the
blow. The death of the victim was due to neglect and the lack of medical treatment, his death having resulted from hemor-
rhage which those who attended to him did not know how to stop or control in time. (U.S. vs. Bertucio, 1 Phil. 47, 49)
3. The accused, a policeman, boxed the deceased, a detention prisoner, inside the jail. As a consequence of the fistic
blows, the deceased collapsed on the floor. The accused stepped on the prostrate body and left. After a while, he
returned with a bottle, poured its contents on the recumbent body of the deceased, ignited it with a match and left the cell
again. As a consequence, the victim later on died. Held: The accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of "no
intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed." (People vs. Ural, No. L-30801, March 27, 1974, 56 SCRA 138,
140-141, 146)
! 102 lowering, curtailment

INSTANCES WHEN THE RULE ON PRAETER INTENTIONEM WOULD NOT

BE APPLICABLE
INSTANCE NOTE ANNOTATION
n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o f e l o n i e s b y the reason is that in felonies through Kailangan may intent (dahil dapat may
negligence negligence, the offender acts without intention ka tapos ginawa mo naging grave
intent. The intent in intentional a wrong dahil yung resulta mas malala at
iba sa inaakala)
felonies is replaced by negligence,
imprudence, lack of skill or lack of
foresight in culpable felonies
not applicable in murder qualified by In crimes against persons who do not

treachery die as a result of the assault, the
absence of intent to kill reduces the
felony to mere physical injuries, but it
does not constitute a mitigating
circumstances
not appreciated in cases where there applicable only to offenses resulting in
is no material harm done physical injuries or material harm
not available as defense in violation of since the law is malum prohibitum,

anti-hazing law (sec. 4 par. 8 RA. No. the intention of the offender is
8049) immaterial
cannot be appriaciated in abberatio because in this case, there is intent to

ictus commit the felony
cannot be appriciated in error in because there is again intent to

personae commit felony
Intent at the time of the commission of the felony not during the planning stage, should be considered
BASIS: DIMUNUTION OF INTENT AND LESSER CRIMINAL PERVERSITY(unreasonableness)
Note: The intention of the accused is always considered and it must be proven that the intention to commit the crime is no
intention to commit so grave a wrong. If the accused failed to established such intention, this paragraph may not be invoked.
PAR. 4 PROVOCATION OR THREAT

CONDITION SINE-QUA NON dapat sapat yung pagpapagalit..
INTENT OF THIS ARTICLE/ The mitigating circumstance in paragraph 4 of Art. 13 is based on the diminution of
Paragraph/Requisite/Element intelligence and intent (freewill)
PROVOCATION
It is any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party, capable of exciting, inciting or irritating any one.
REQUISITES

ELEMENTS ANNOTATION
That the provocation must be sufficient. dapat sapat yung pagpapagalit.
That it must originate from the offended party kung sino yung nagprovoke sayo dapat sya din yung
pagdidiskitahan mo. (Example: A and B were together. A hit C on
the head with a piece of stone from his sling-shot and ran away. As
he could not overtake A, C faced B and assaulted the latter. In this
case, C is not entitled to this mitigating circumstance, because B
never gave the provocation or took part in it.)
That the provocation must be immediate to the act, i.e., to yung pagpapagalit ay instant dun sa retaliation.
the commission of the crime by the person who is provoked.
SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION
Provocation in order to be mitigating must be sufficient and immediately preceding the act. The word "sufficient" means
adequate103 to excite a person to commit the wrong and must accordingly be proportionate to its gravity104
NOTE: One instance of sufficient provocation is equivalent only to one retaliation.

kung prinovoke(sufficient provocation) ni “A” tapos si “B” napikon at nagdilim ang paningin nya na-injure nya si “A” yung action ni “B” ay
pasok sa paragraph na ito, pero kung si “A” nakaganti after syang iinjure ni “B” yung ganti ni “A” hindi na yun pasok dito dahil wala ng
sufficient provocation dahil one is to one lang… para makapasok dapat iprovoke ulit then lumaban ka mitigating yun…
EXAMPLE
103 Enough
104 (People vs. Nabora, 73 Phil. 434, 435)

EXAMPLE ANNOTATION
When the aggression is in retaliation for an insult, injury, or D i t o s a p a r a g r a p h n a t o p i n a p a k i t a y u n g h a l a g a n g

threat, the offender cannot successfully claim self-defense, “PROVACATION” sa Art. 11 hindi sya considered na self-defense
but at most he can be given the benefit of the mitigating dahil paganti(retaliation) na yung action tapos na yung gusto mo
lang syang iwasan o i-prevent yung danger na palapit sayo, dito
circumstance under the provisions of paragraph 4 of Article
pinapakita na yung provocation yung rason kaya ka
13
gumanti(retaliate), since, gumanti ka nga.. criminally liable ka, pero
dahil prinovoke ka kaya mo nagawa yung act mo na paganti, dito
considered sya as mitigating pababain yung penalty para
macompensate yung bagay na kinutkut yung galit mo.
Dito dinidistinguish yung intent nung nagretaliate kasi ginalit. yung

retaliation nya ay bunga ng pagtrigger sa kanya pero wala talaga
syang intention na i-injure yung tao. ibig sabihin kahit voluntary
yung paganti nya.. bibigyan natin ng merit yung fact na prinovoke
sya.. “mga term na “eh ginalit po ako eh” yung galit nakadepende
sa kung ano yung ginawa nung nagpapagalit.
Although there was no unlawful aggression, because the kapag napagisipan ang isang bagay di pwedeng iinvoke yung
challenge was accepted by the accused, and therefore there paragraph na ito.
was no self-defense, there was however the mitigating
circumstance of immediate provocation. In this case, the
deceased insulted the accused and then challenged the
latter
When the defendant sought the deceased, the challenge to Naghamon nang away ang isang tao, so meaning wala ng self-
fight by the latter is not provocation. defense. tapos ininsulto si “A” si “B” na hinahamon tumugon sa
hamon ng away hindi na pwedeng iinvoke ni “B” yung paragraph na
ito dahil nakapagisip na sya, meaning yung pagpayag nya na
Thus, if the defendant appeared in front of the house of the
makipagaway ay napagisipan na..
deceased, after they had been separated by other persons
who prevented a fight between them, even if the deceased
tinitignan natin dito sa paragraph yung full intention na paganti..
challenged him to a fight upon seeing him near his house, kapag nakapagisip na sya at nakapaghanda na sya hindi na
the defendant cannot be given the benefit of the mitigating pwedeng iinvoke yung paragraph na ito dahil may intention na
circumstance of provocation, because when the defendant syang lumaban…
sought the deceased, the former was ready and willing to
fight para pumasok sa paragraph na to dapat may halong nabigla ka
lang, dapat immediate kasi kapag hindi immediate magkakaroon ka
ng time magisip… dapat nagdilim kagad ang paningin mo ng dahil
sa provocation nya…
SUFFICIENCY DEPENDS UPON

1. the act constituting provocation
2. the social standing of the person provoked
3. he place and time when the provocation is made.

NOTE: Between the provocation by the offended party and the commission of the crime, there should not be any interval in
time. Reason: When there is an interval of time between the provocation and the commission of the crime, the perpetrator
has time to regain his reason.
SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION AS A REQUISITE OF PROVOCATION AS A MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE

INCOMPLETE SELF-DEFENSE
It pertains to its absence on the part of the person defending It pertains to its presence on the part of the offended party.
himself. (People v. CA, G.R. No. 103613, 2001)
nakatingin dun sa napikon at kinaqualify kung full intention ba yung
sa dumidipensa yung focus para mawala yung liability. paganti nya o nagdilim yung paningin nya dahil sa provocation nung
isa. pero dito pababain lang yung penalty, hindi tatangalin.
PROVOCATION HELD NOT SUFFICIENT.

1. When the injured party asked the accused for an explanation for the latter's derogatory remarks against certain ladies,
the accused cannot properly claim that he was provoked to kill 105
2. While the accused was taking a walk at the New Luneta one evening, the deceased met him and pointing his finger at the
accused asked the latter what he was doing there and then said: "Don't you know we are watching for honeymooners
here?" The accused drew out his knife and stabbed the deceased who died as a consequence. Held: The provocation
made by the deceased was not sufficient 106
3. The fact that the deceased (a public officer) had ordered the arrest of the accused for misdemeanour is not such a
provocation within the meaning of this paragraph that will be considered in mitigation of the penalty for the crime of
homicide committed by the accused who killed the officer giving such order 107. The performance of a duty is not a source
of provocation.
4. Assuming for the sake of argument that the blowing of horns, cutting of lanes or overtaking can be considered as acts of
provocation, the same were not sufficient. The word 'sufficient' means adequate to excite a person to commit a
wrong and must accordingly be proportionate to its gravity. Moreover, the deceased's act of asking for the accused
to claim that he was provoked to kill or injure the deceased 108.
THREAT
it should not be offensive and positively strong. Otherwise, the threat to inflict real injury is unlawful aggression
VAGUE THREATS NOT SUFFICIENT

VAGUE THREAT CLEAR THREAT
The victim's mere utterance, "If you do not agree, beware," But where the victims shouted at the accused, "Follow us if
without further proof that he was bent upon translating his you dare and we will kill you," there is sufficient threat.
vague threats into immediate action, is not sufficient.
105 (People vs. Laude, 58 Phil. 933)
106 (People vs. Nabora, 73 Phil. 434)
107 (U.S. vs. Abijan, 1 Phil. 83)
108 (People vs. Court of Appeals, et. al, G.R. No. 103613, Feb. 23, 2001)

PAR. 5 IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE


PARAGRAPH/REQUISITE/ Diminution of free will and self-control
ELEMENT
ELEMENTS
1. That there be a grave offense done to the one committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate,
natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degree.
2. That the felony is committed in vindication of such grave offense. A lapse of time is allowed between the vindication and
the doing of the grave offense.
3. The vindication need not be done by the person upon whom the grave offense was committed  
Note: Lapse of time is allowed. The word ―immediateǁ used in the English text is not the correct translation. The Spanish
text uses ―proxima.ǁ Although the grave offense (slapping of the accused in front of many persons hours before the killing),
which engendered the perturbation of mind, was not so immediate, it was held that the influence thereof, by reason of its
gravity, lasted until the moment the crime was committed109
WHO MAY INVOKE THIS PARAGRAPH

PARAMETER COMPRISES OF
Spouse
Ascendants
Relative by affinity
With the same degrees
IMMEDIATE
Allows for a lapse of time as long as the offender is still suffering from the mental agony brought about by the offense to him.
GRAVE OFFENSE
includes any act that is offensive to the offender or his relatives and the same need not be unlawful
The grave offense must be the proximate cause or proximate to the offender.
The question whether or not a certain personal offense is grave must be decided by the court, having in mind
1. the social standing of the person,
2. the place and
109 (People v. Parana).

3. the time when the insult was made.  
Vindication of a grave offense and passion or obfuscation cannot be counted separately and independently.
People v. Torpio 2004: The mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation cannot be considered apart from the
circumstance of vindication of a grave offense. These two circumstances arose from one and the same incident, i.e., the
attack on the appellant by Anthony, so that they should be considered as only one mitigating circumstance.  
PROVOCATION VINDICATION
It is made directly only to the person committing the felony. The grave offense may be committed against the offender‘s
relatives mentioned by law.
The offense need not be a grave offense. The offended party must have done a grave offense to the
offender or his relatives.
The provocation or threat must immediately precede the act. The grave offense may be proximate, which admits of an
interval of time between the grave offense done by the
offended party and the commission of the crime by the
accused.
It is a mere spite against the one giving the provocation or It concerns the honor of the person.
threat.
PAR 6. PASSION OR OBFUSCATION110

lumaban pero yung paglaban nya hindi considered as self-defense or revenge kundi prinovoke ka tapos naginit ka sa sinabi nya o ginawa
nya kaya mo napatulan yung nagprovoke sayo. dito may intention na manakit pero hindi complete intention dahil yung action nya ay nagugat
lamang sa ginawa nagpoprovoke. “NAGDILIM ANG PANINGIN NABANATAN”
it is important to establish an act that is sufficient to produce a condition of mind to

commit a felony or a crime
Passion or obfuscation is a mitigating circumstance because the offender who acts

with passion or obfuscation suffers a diminution of his intelligence and intent.
ELEMENT
(freewill and self-control)
ELEMENTS
1. The accused acted upon an impulse
2. The impulse must be so powerful that it naturally produces passion or obfuscation in him.
REQUISITES
1. That there be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind; and
110 (Arrebato y Obsecacion)

2. That said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable
length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity 111
Note: Passion or obfuscation must arise from lawful sentiments.
PASSION OR OBFUSCATION NOT APPLICABLE WHEN

1. The act committed in a spirit of LAWLESSNESS.
2. The act is committed in a spirit of REVENGE.
The mitigating circumstance of obfuscation arising from jealousy cannot be invoked in favor of the accused whose
relationship with the woman was illegitimate.
Also, the act must be sufficient to produce such a condition of mind. If the cause of loss of self-control is trivial112 and slight,
obfuscation is not mitigating.
Moreover, the defense must prove that the act which produced the passion or obfuscation took place at a time not far
removed from the commission of the crime113
Passion and obfuscation may lawfully arise from causes existing only in the honest belief of the offender.
US v. De la Cruz (1912): De la Cruz, in the heat of passion, killed the deceased who was his querida (lover) upon
discovering her in the act of carnal communication with a mutual acquaintance. He claims that he is entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of passion or obfuscation and that the doctrine in Hicks is inapplicable.
Held: US v. Hicks is not applicable to the case. In Hicks, the cause of the alleged passion and obfuscation of the aggressor
was the convict's vexation114, disappointment and deliberate anger engendered by the refusal of the woman to continue to
live in illicit relations with him, which she had a perfect reason to do. In this case, the impulse upon which the defendant
acted was the sudden revelation that his paramour was untrue to him and his discovery of her in flagrante in the arms of
another. 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 mitigating circumstances to be taken into the consideration of the court.
Passion and Obfuscation cannot co-exist with:

1. Vindication of grave offense
Exception: When there are other facts closely connected. Thus, where the deceased, had eloped115 with the
daughter of the accused, and later when the deceased saw the accused coming, the deceased ran upstairs,
there are 2 facts which are closely connected, namely:
1. elopement, which is a grave offense for the family of old customs, and
111 (People v. Alanguilang)
112 UNIMPORT
113 (People v. Gervacio, 1968)
114 annoyance
115 run away to marry

2. refusal to deal with him, a stimulus strong enough to produce passion. The court in People v. Diokno116,
considered both mitigating circumstances in favor of the accused.
2. Treachery 117
PASSION/OBFUSCATION V. IRRESISTIBLE FORCE

PASSION/OBFUSCATION IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
Mitigating Circumstance Exempting circumstance
Cannot give rise to physical force because it does not Physical force is a condition sine qua non.
involves physical force.
Passion/obfuscation comes from the offender himself. Irresistible force comes from a third person.
Must arise from lawful sentiments to be mitigating. Irresistible force is unlawful.
PASSION/OBFUSCATION V. PROVOCATION
PASSION/OBFUSCATION PROVOCATION
Passion/obfuscation is produced by an impulse which may Provocation comes from the injured party.
be caused by provocation.
The offense which engenders the perturbation of mind need Must immediately precede the commission of the crime.
not be immediate. It is only required that the influence
thereof lasts until the moment the crime is committed.
In both, the effect of the loss of reason and self- control on the part of the offender.
TIME APPLICABILITY
INTERVENTION APPLICABILITY
Immediate Yes there is dahil yung pagdidilim ng paningin galaw kagad kasunod nun
There could have been no mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation when

24 hours more than 24 hours elapsed between the alleged insult and the commission of the
felony
if several hours passed between the cause of passion or obfuscation and the
several hours
commission of the crime. No MITIGATING
intervened between the previous fight and subsequent killing of the deceased by the
half an hour
accused
The reason for these rulings is that the act producing the obfuscation must not be far removed from the commission of the
crime by a considerable length of time, during which the accused might have recovered his normal equanimity(calmness).
116 (G.R. No. L-45100)
117 (People vs.Wong)

LAWFUL SENTIMENT
E.G. ANNOTATION
Facts: For about 5 years, the accused and the deceased the cause of passion and obfuscation of the accused was
lived illicitly in the manner of husband and wife. After- wards, his vexation, disappointment and anger engendered by the
the deceased separated from the accused and lived with refusal of the woman to continue to live in illicit relations with
another man. The accused enraged by such conduct, killed him, which she had a perfect right to do.
the deceased.
"the causes which produce in the mind loss of reason and
self- control and which lessen criminal responsibility are
Held: Even if it is true that the accused acted with
those which originate from lawful sentiments, not those
obfuscation because of jealousy, the mitigating
which arise from vicious, unworthy and immoral passions,"
circumstance cannot be considered in his favor because the
causes which mitigate criminal responsibility for the loss of
Illicit = unlawful which means yung galit nya ay hindi tama
self-control are such which originate from legitimate
dahil kabet lang sya, kung kasal sila yung galit nya ay pasok
dito as mitigating dahil lawful yung asawa nya…
feelings, and not those which arise from vicious, unworthy
and immoral passions.
The case of People vs. Engay, (C.A.) 47 O.G. 4306. Kinonsider pa din yung circumstances at sitwasyon nung
Art. 13 Par. 6 common law wife even if it is unlawful sentiment. Dahil well
founded sya at yung tagal ng pagsasama ay naghohook
Facts: The accused, as common-law wife, lived with the para magkaroon sya ng pakiramdam na guguho mundo nya
deceased for 15 years, whose house she helped support. kapag nawala yung common law husband nya.
Later, the deceased married another woman. The accused
killed him kaya at the end SC, considered her action mitigated
Held: Although it was held in the Hicks case that "the

causes which produce in the mind loss of reason and self-
control and which lessen criminal responsibility are those
which originate from lawful sentiments, not those which
arise from vicious, unworthy and immoral passions," yet
such is not the case here where the fact that the accused
lived for 15 long years as the real wife of the deceased,
whose house she helped to support, could not but arouse
that natural feeling of despair in the woman who saw her life
broken and found herself abandoned by the very man whom
she considered for so long a time as her husband and for
whom she had made so many sacrifices.
The mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation was

considered in favor of the accused.
Even if there is unlawful sentiment, if the circumstances are still considered as long as the basis was justified.

SPIRIT OF LAWLESSNESS
The accused who raped a woman is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of "having acted upon an impulse so powerful
as naturally to have produced passion" just because he finds himself in a secluded place with that young ravishing woman,
almost naked, and therefore, "liable to succumb to the uncontrollable passion of his bestial instinct118
Hindi porket may chance, DAPAT MO NG SUWAGIN. hindi porket nakahubad tapos walang ibang tao tapos nagdilim paningin mo tapos
tinira mo. yung pagdidilim ng paningin mo dahil kamo nakahubad sya nalibugan ka hindi pasok sa article na to kasi labag sa batas yung
ginawa mo. dapat lawful..
SPIRIT OF REVENGE
A woman taking care of a 9-month-old child, poisoned the child with acid. She did it, because sometime before the killing of
the child, the mother of the child, having surprised her (accused) with a man on the bed of the master, had scolded her. She
invoked the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation resulting from that scolding by the mother of the child.
Held: She cannot be credited with such mitigating circumstance. She was actuated more by spirit of lawlessness and
revenge than by any sudden impulse of natural and uncontrollable fury119
Yung pagdidilim ng paningin mo hindi dapat panghihiganti. hindi pwedeng nagdilim yung paningin mo tapos nagisip ka kung paano ka
gaganti para saktan yung nagpadilim ng paningin mo.
SPIRIT OF RESENTMENT120
it is not considered if the circumstances are fall under the resentment or bitterness.
OBFUSCATION ARISING FROM PASSION OF JEALOUSY

The feeling of resentment resulting from rivalry in amorous relations with a woman is a powerful stimulant to jealousy and is
sufficient to produce loss of reason and self-control.
OBFUSCATION — WHEN RELATIONSHIP IS ILLEGITIMATE — NOT MITI-

GATING.
The relations of the accused with Rosario Rianzales were illeßgitimate. The injured party made indecent propositions to her
which provoked the accused. The accused attacked the injured party. The obfuscation of the accused is not mitigating,
because his relations with Rosario Rianzales were illegitimate121
OFFENDER MUST ACT UNDER THE IMPULSE OF SPECIAL MOTIVES

Excitement is the natural feeling of all persons engaged in a fight, especially those who had received a beating, and the
impulse in that state is not considered in law so powerful as to produce obfuscation sufficient to mitigate liability122
118 (People vs. Sanico, C.A., 46 O.G. 98)
119 (People vs. Caliso, 58 Phil. 283, 295)
120 bitterness
121 (People vs. Olgado, et al, G.R. No. L-4406, March 31, 1952)
122 (People vs. De Guia, C.A., 36 O.G. 1151)

Illustration: The accused killed P, because the latter did not deliver the letter of F to A, on which (letter) the accused had
pinned his hopes of settling the case against him amicably. The failure of P to deliver the letter is a prior unjust and improper
act sufficient to produce great excitement and passion in the accused as to confuse his reason and impel him to kill P. It was
a legitimate and natural cause of indignation and anger123
MAY PASSION OR OBFUSCATION LAWFULLY ARISE FROM CAUSES

EXISTING ONLY IN THE HONEST BELIEF OF THE OFFENDER?
Yes.  
Thus, the belief of the defendant that the deceased had caused his dismissal from his employment is sufficient to confuse his
reason and impel him to commit the crime124
It has also been held that the belief entertained in good faith by the defendants that the deceased cast upon their mother a
spell of witchcraft which was the cause of her serious illness, is so powerful a motive as to naturally produce passion or
obfuscation125
One of the accused, a self-anointed representative of God who claims supernatural powers, demanded of the deceased to
kiss and awake her dead sister who, she said, was merely asleep. The deceased, an old lady, refused. The accused thought
that the deceased had become a devil. Then she commanded her companions to surround the deceased and pray to drive
the evil spirits away, but, allegedly without success. The accused barked an order to beat the victim to death as she had
turned into Satan or Lucifer.
Held: The accused and her sisters are entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation. Her order to kiss and
awake her sister was challenged by the victim. This generated a false belief in the minds of the three sisters that in the
victim's person resided the evil spirit — Satan or Lucifer. And this triggered "an impulse so powerful as naturally to have
produced passion or obfuscation."126
PROVOCATION AND OBFUSCATION ARISING FROM ONE AND THE

SAME CAUSE SHOULD BE TREATED AS ONLY ONE MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCE.
Since the alleged provocation which caused the obfuscation of the appellants arose from the same incident, that is, the
alleged maltreatment and/or ill-treatment of the appellants by the deceased, those two mitigating circumstances cannot be
considered as two distinct and separate circumstances but should be treated as one127
123 (People vs. Mil, 92 SCRA 89)
124 (U.S. vs. Ferrer, 1 Phil. 56, 62)
125 (U.S. vs. Macalintal, 2 Phil. 448, 451; People vs. Zapata, 107 Phil. 103, 109)
126 (People vs. Torres, 3 CAR [2s] 43, 56, 57)
127 (People vs. Pagal, No. L-32040, Oct. 25, 1977, 79 SCRA 570, 575)

Thus, where the accused killed his wife during a quarrel, because he, who had no work, resented her suggestion to join her
brother in the business of cutting logs, the court erred in considering in favor of the accused the two mitigating circumstances
of provocation and obfuscation.
PASSION OR OBFUSCATION INCOMPATIBLE WITH TREACHERY.

Passion or obfuscation cannot co-exist with treachery, for while in the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation the
offender loses his reason and self-control, in the aggravating circumstance of treachery, the mode of attack must be
consciously adopted. One who loses his reason and self-control cannot deliberately employ a particular means, method or
form of attack in the execution of a crime128
PASSION AND OBFUSCATION CANNOT CO-EXIST WITH EVIDENT PRE-

MEDITATION.
The aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation cannot co-exist with the circumstance of passion and obfuscation.
The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by calm thought and
reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a
composed judgment129
PROVOCATION VIZ-A-VIZ VINDICATION
PROVOCATION VINDICATION (PAGHIHIGANTI)
it is made directly to the person committing the felony The grave offense may be committed also against the
offender’s relatives mentioned by law
the cause that brought about the provocation need not be a the offended party must have done a grave offense to the
grace offense offender or his relatives mentioned by law
it is necessary that the provocation or threat immediately the vindication of the grave offense may be proximate,
preceded the act which admits of an interval of time
it is mere spite against the one giving the provocation or it concerns the honor of a person
threat
PAR. 7 SURRENDER AND CONFESSION OF GUILT
The basis of the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty
CONDITION SINE-QUA NON is the lesser perversity of the offender. (SHOWED REPENTANCE AND
REMORSE)
It is an act of repentance and respect for the law; it indicates a moral disposition in
INTENT OF THIS ARTICLE/ the accused, favorable to his reform. (People vs. De la Cruz, 63 Phil. 874, 876)
LESSER PERVERSITY OF THE OFFENDER
128 (People vs. Wong, 18 CAR [2s] 934, 940-941)
129 (People vs. Pagal, et. al., G.R. No. L-32040, Oct. 25, 1977)

TWO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES ARE PROVIDED IN THIS

PARAGRAPH.
1. Voluntary surrender to a person in authority or his agents.
2. Voluntary confession of guilt before the court prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.
REQUISITES OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER.

ELEMENTS ANNOTATION
That the offender had not been actually arrested. Wala pang warrant, hindi sya hinuhuli
That the offender surrendered himself to a person in nagsurrender sya sa authority not to the police station
authority or to the latter's agent.
That the surrender was voluntary Willful voluntary
That the surrender must be unconditional and it must be voluntary and no conditions
That the surrender must be spontaneous there must no force and must be voluntary
REQUISITES OF VOLUNTARINESS
For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the same must be spontaneous in such a manner that it shows the interest of the
accused to surrender unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledged his guilt or because he wishes to
save them the trouble and expenses necessarily incurred in his search and capture130
Merely requesting a policeman to accompany the accused to the police headquarters is not equivalent to the requirement
that he "voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents." The accused must actually surrender his
own person to the authorities, admitting complicity in the crime. His conduct, after the commission of the crime, must indicate
a desire on his part to own the responsibility for the crime131
CASES OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER.

1. The accused, after plunging a bolo into the victim's chest, ran toward the municipal building. Upon seeing a patrolman, he
immediately threw away his bolo, raised his two hands, offered no resistance and said to the patrolman "here is my bolo,
I stabbed the victim." There was intent or desire to surrender voluntarily to the authorities132
2. After the commission of the crime, the accused fled to a hotel to hide not from the police authorities but from the
companions of the deceased who pursued him to the hotel but could not get to him because the door was closed after the
accused had entered. Once in the hotel, the accused dropped his weapon at the door and when the policemen
came to investigate, he readily admitted ownership of the weapon and then voluntarily went with them. He was
investigated by the fiscal the following day. No warrant had been issued for his arrest. The accused was granted
the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender133
130 (People vs. Gervacio, No. L-21965, Aug. 30, 1968, 24 SCRA 960, 977, citing People vs. Sakam, 61 Phil. 27)
131 (People vs. Flores, 21 CAR [2s] 417, 424-425)
132 (People vs. Tenorio, No. L-15478, March 30, 1962, 4 SCRA 700, 703)
133 (People vs. Dayrit, 108 Phil. 100, 103)

3. Immediately after the shooting, the accused having all the opportunity to escape, did not do so but instead called up the
police department. When the policemen went to the scene of the crime to investigate, he voluntarily approached them
and without revealing his identity, told them that he would help in connection with the case as he knew the
suspect and the latter's motive. When brought to the police station immediately thereafter as a possible witness, he
confided to the investigators that he was voluntarily surrendering and also surrendering the fatal gun used in the shooting
of the victim. These acts of the accused were held strongly indicative of his intent or desire to surrender voluntarily to the
authorities 134 
4. The two accused left the scene of the crime but made several attempts to surrender to various local officials which
somehow did not materialize for one reason or another. It was already a week after when they were finally able to
surrender. Voluntary surrender avails. After committing the crime, the accused defied no law or agent of the authority, and
when they surrendered, they did so with meekness and repentance 135
5. Tempered justice suggests that appellants be credited with voluntary surrender in mitigation. That they had no opportunity
to surrender because the peace officers came, should not be charged against them. For one thing is certain—they
yielded their weapons at the time. Not only that. They voluntarily went with the peace officers to the municipal building.
These acts, in legal effect, amount to voluntary surrender136
6. The accused did not offer any resistance nor try to hide when a policeman ordered him to come down his house. He even
brought his bolo used to commit the crime and voluntarily gave himself up to the authorities before he could be arrested.
These circumstances are sufficient to consider the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in his favor 137
7. All that the records reveal is that the accused trooped to the police headquarters to surrender the firearm used in
committing the crime. It is not clear whether or not he also sought to submit his very person to the authorities. The
accused is given the benefit of the doubt and his arrival at the police station is considered as an act of surrender 138
8. Where there is nothing on record to show that the warrant for the arrest of the accused had actually been served on him,
or that it had been returned unserved for failure of the server to locate said accused, and there is direct evidence to show
that he voluntarily presented himself to the police when he was taken into custody 139
CASES NOT CONSTITUTING VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
134 (People vs. Benito, No. L-32042, Feb. 13, 1975, 62 SCRA 351, 355)
135 (People vs. Magpantay, No. L-19133, Nov. 27, 1964, 12 SCRA 389, 392, 393)
136 (People vs. Torres, 3 CAR [2s] 43,57, citing earlier cases)
137 (People vs. Radomes, No. L-68421, March 20, 1986, 141 SCRA 548, 562)
138 (People vs. Jereza, G.R. No. 86230, Sept. 18, 1990, 189 SCRA 690, 698-699)
139 (People vs. Brana, No. L-29210, Oct. 31, 1969, 30 SCRA 307, 316-317)

INSTANCE ANNOTATION
The warrant of arrest showed that the accused was in fact Aarestohin na, di na nya kailangan pang maginitiate ng voluntary
arrested. (El Pueblo contra Conwi, 71 Phil. 595, 597) surrender kasi gagalaw na ang otoridad
The accused surrendered only after the warrant of arrest warrant of arrest has been served upon him (dapat inunahan na
was served upon him. (People vs. Roldan, No. L-22030, nya)
May 29,1968, 23 SCRA 907, 910)
Where the accused was actually arrested by his own admis- because of the warrant of arrest he surrendered, not considered!
sion or that he yielded(produce) because of the warrant of but the mere filing of an information and/or the issuance of a
arrest, there is no voluntary surrender although the police warrant arrest will not automatically make the surrender
“INVOLUNTARY”
blotter euphemistically used the word "surrender." (People
vs. Velez, No. L-30038, July 18, 1974, 58 SCRA 21, 30)
The accused went into hiding and surrendered only when No choice but to surrender but we require voluntarily in order to
they realized that the forces of the law were closing in on consider his act of surrendering.
them. (People vs. Mationg, No. L-33488, March 29, 1982,
113 SCRA 167, 178)
Where the accused were asked to surrender by the police They were given a chance but they did not take it. until time he had
and military authorities but they refused until only much later no choice to choose but to surrender. not considered.
when they could no longer do otherwise by force of
circumstances when they knew they were completely
surrounded and there was no chance of escape. Their
surrender was not spontaneous as it was motivated more by
an intent to insure their safety. (People vs. Salvilla, G.R. No.
86163, April 26, 1990, 184 SCRA 671, 678-679; People vs.
Sigayan, No. L-18308, April 30,1966,16 SCRA 834, 844)
Where the search for the accused had lasted four (4) years, Napaka tagal nya bago sumuko.
which belies(Contradict) the spontaneity of the surrender.
(People vs. De la Cruz, No. L-30059, Dec. 19, 1970, 36
SCRA 452, 455)
Where other than the accused's version in court that he

went to a police officer in Dagupan City and asked the latter
to accompany him to Olongapo City after he was told by
someone that his picture was seen posted in the municipal
building, no other evidence was presented to establish
indubitably that he deliberately surrendered to the police.
(People vs. Garcia, No. L-32071, July 9, 1981, 105 SCRA
325, 343)
Where the accused only went to the police station to report

that his wife was stabbed by another person and to seek
protection as he feared that the same assailant would also
stab him. (People vs. Trigo, G.R. No. 74515, June 14,1989,
174 SCRA 93, 99)

Where the accused went to the PC headquarters not to

surrender but merely to report the incident which does not
evince any desire to own the responsibility for the killing of
the deceased. (People vs. Rogales, No. L-17531, Nov. 30,
1962, 6 SCRA 830, 835)
Where the accused went to the PC headquarters not to

surrender but merely to report the incident which does not
evince any desire to own the responsibility for the killing of
the deceased. (People vs. Rogales, No. L-17531, Nov. 30,
1962, 6 SCRA 830, 835)
Where the Chief of Police placed the accused under arrest
in his employer's home to which that officer was summoned
and it does not appear that it was the idea of the accused to
send for the police for the purpose of giving himself up.
(People vs. Canoy, 90 Phil. 633, 643)
Where the accused accompanied the Chief of Police to the

scene of the crimes and he was not yet charged with, or
suspected of having taken any part in, said crimes, and the
authorities were not looking for him, and would not have
looked for him if he had not been present at the
investigation by the Chief of Police. (People vs. Canoy, 90
Phil. 633, 644)
Where the accused was arrested in his boarding house and

upon being caught, pretended to say that he was on his way
to the municipal building to surrender to the authorities, for
that is not the nature of voluntary surrender that may serve
to mitigate one's liability in contemplation of law. (People vs.
Rubinal, 110 Phil. 119, 127)
NOTE: The fact that the order of arrest has already been issued is no bar in the consideration of the circumstance because
the law does not require that surrender be prior the order of arrest.
VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED HIMSELF

Surrender of weapons cannot be equated with voluntary surrender140
Where the accused merely surrendered the gun used in the killing, without surrendering his own person to the authorities,
such act of the accused does not constitute voluntary surrender141
140 People vs. Verges, No. L-36882-84, July 24, 1981, 105 SCRA 744, 756)
141 (People vs. Palo, 101 Phil. 963, 968)

The fact that the accused did not escape or go into hiding after the commission of the murder and in fact he accompanied the
chief of police to the scene of the crime without however surrendering to him and admitting complicity in the killing did not
amount to voluntary surrender to the authorities and this circumstance would not be extenuating in that case142
Appellant did not go to the PC headquarters after the shooting to surrender but merely to report the incident. Indeed, he
never evinced any desire to own the responsibility for the killing of the deceased143
PERSON IN AUTHORITY
He is one who, by directly vested with jurisdiction which is the power to govern and to execute the laws, whether as an
individual or as a member of some court or governmental corporation, board or commission
AGENT OF A PERSON IN AUTHORITY

He is one who, by direct provision of the law, or by election, or by appointment by competent authority, is charged with the
maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property and any person who come to the aid of
persons in authority
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER DOES NOT SIMPLY MEAN NON-FLIGHT

Voluntary surrender does not simply mean non-flight. As a matter of law, it does not matter if the accused never avoided
arrest and never hid or fled. What the law considers as mitigating is the voluntary surrender of an accused before his arrest,
showing either acknowledgment of his guilt or an intention to save the authorities from the trouble and expense that his
search and capture would require144
The fact that the accused did not escape or go into hiding after the commission of the murder and in fact he accompanied the
chief of police to the scene of the crime without however surrendering to him and admitting complicity in the killing did not
amount to voluntary surrender to the authorities and this circumstance would not be extenuating in that case145
NATURE OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER

1. it must be spontaneous
2. intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities
must be either:
1. he acknowledge his guilt
2. he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture
NOTE: If none of these two reasons impelled the accused to surrender, because his surrender was obviously
motivated more by an intention to insure hisspe safety, his arrest being inevitable, the surrender is not
spontaneous and therefore not voluntary 146
142 (People vs. Canoy, 90 Phil. 633; People vs. Rubinal, G.R. No. L-12275, Nov. 29, 1960)
143 (People vs. Rogales, 6 SCRA 830)
144 (Quial vs. Court of Appeals, No. L-63564, Nov. 28, 1983, 126 SCRA 28, 30; People vs. Radomes, No. L-68421, March 20, 1986,141 SCRA 548, 560)
145 (People vs. Canoy and People vs. Rubinal, supra)
146 (People vs. Laurel, C.A., 59 O.G. 7618)

3. The conduct of the accused determines the spontaneity of the arrest
4. intention to surrender without actually surrendering is not mitigating
5. not mitigating when defendant was in fact arrested
6. it is not required that to be appreciated, it be prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest
7. surrender of weapons cannot be equated with the voluntary surrender
REQUISITES OF VOLUNTARY PLEA OF GUILTY

that the offender spontaneously(well being asked) there is spontaneity even if the surrender is induced by fear of
confessed his guilt retaliation by the victim’s relatives
that the confession of guilt was made in an open court, that a court of a competent jurisdiction
is, before the competent court that is to try the case
that the confession of guilt was made prior to the dahil kapag nagpresent na ng evidence pwedeng dun pa lang
presentation of evidence for the prosecution; and makita na kagad na convicted ka wala ng sense yung pagconfess.
that the confession of guilt was to the offense charged in the dapat yung icoconfess yung sa kung ano yung related yung kaso.
information
• Plea of guilty is not mitigating in culpable felonies and in crimes punished by special laws
“Art. 365, par. 5, of the Revised Penal Code, which prescribes the penalties for culpable felonies, provides
that "in the imposition of these penalties, the courts shall exercise their sound discretion, without regard to
the rules prescribed in Art. 64." This last mentioned article states, among other rules, that when there is a
mitigating circumstance without any aggravating circumstance, the penalty to be imposed is the minimum
period of the divisible penalty. (People vs. Agito, 103 Phil. 526, 529)
When the crime is punished by a special law, the court shall also exercise its sound discretion, as Art. 64
is not applicable. The penalty prescribed by special laws is usually not divisible into three periods. Art. 64
is applicable only when the penalty has three periods.”
• Where in the original information the accused pleaded not guilty but he pleaded guilty to the amended information, it is
considered a voluntary plea of guilty and considered a mitigating circumstance
• the plea of guilty must be made at the first opportunity; Thus, plea of guilty in the CFI (NOW RTC) in a case appealed
from MTC is not mitigating
PAR. 8 PHYSICAL DEFECT OF OFFENDER
CONDITION SINE-QUA NON Defect must be related to the offense of the offender
Paragraph 8 of Art. 13 considers the fact that one suffering from physical defect,
INTENT OF THIS ARTICLE/ which restricts one's means of action, defense, or communication with one's fellow
Paragraph/Requisite/Element beings, does not have complete freedom of action and, therefore, there is a
diminution of that element of voluntariness.

When the offender is deaf and dumb, blind, or otherwise suffering from some physical defect, restricting his means of action,
defense, or communication with others.
the physical defect must relate to the offense committed. In other words, the defect or illness must be a contributing factor to
the commission of the crime. without such relation, the defect or illness should not be considered
(E.G. BLINDNESS DOES NOT MITIGATE ESTAFA)
Dumb - means lacking the power of human speech
This paragraph does not distinguish between the educated and uneducated person with physical defect.
PAR. 9 ILLNESS OF THE OFFENDER
CONDITION SINE-QUA NON diminishes his exercise of will power
INTENT OF THIS ARTICLE/ The circumstance in paragraph 9 of Art. 13 is mitigating because there is a
Paragraph/Requisite/Element diminution of intelligence and intent.
REQUISITES
1. That the illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of his will-power.
2. That such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts.
WHEN THE OFFENDER COMPLETELY LOST THE EXERCISE OF WILL-

POWER, IT MAY BE AN EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE.
When a person becomes affected either by dementia praecox or by manic depressive psychosis, during the period of
excitement, he has no control whatsoever of his acts147 In such case, the person affected, acted upon an irresistible
homicidal impulse. In the Bonoan case, the Supreme Court found the accused demented at the time he perpetrated the
crime of murder arid acquitted the accused.
DOES THIS CIRCUMSTANCE INCLUDE ILLNESS OF THE MIND?

Question: Does this paragraph refer to the mental condition more or less disturbed?
It is said that the foregoing legal provision refers only to diseases of pathological state that trouble the conscience or will148
Thus, this paragraph was applied to a mother who, under the influence of a puerperal fever, killed her child the day following
her delivery. (Dec. Sup. Ct. Spain, Sept. 28, 1897)
147 (Opinion of Dr. Elias Domingo, cited in the case of People vs. Bonoan, 64 Phil. 95)
148 (Albert)

But in the case ofPeople vs. Francisco, 78 Phil. 694, it was held that this paragraph applies to defendant who committed the
crime while suffering from some illness149
Note that in accordance with the ruling in the above-mentioned case, illness of the mind is included. It would seem that a
diseased mind, not amounting to insanity, may give place to mitigation.
ILLNESS OF THE OFFENDER CONSIDERED MITIGATING.

1. The mistaken belief of the accused that the killing of a witch was for the public good may be considered a mitigating
circumstance for the reason that those who have obsession that witches are to be eliminated are in the same condition as
one who, attacked with a morbid infirmity but still retaining consciousness of his acts, does not have real control over his
will150
2. Example of illness of the nerves or moral faculty.
"Although she is mentally sane, we, however, are inclined to extend our sympathy to the appellant because of her
misfortunes and weak character. According to the report she is suffering from a mild behaviour disorder as a consequence of
the illness she had in early life. We are willing to regard this as a mitigating circumstance under Art. 13, Revised Penal Code,
either in paragraph 9 or in paragraph 10.”151
3. One who was suffering from acute neurosis which made him ill-tempered and easily angered is entitled to this mitigating
circumstance, because such illness diminished his exercise of will power152 ‑
4. The fact that the accused is feebleminded warrants the finding in his favor of the mitigating circumstance either under
paragraph 8 or under paragraph 9 of Art. 13.153
5. The evidence of accused-appellant shows that while there was some impairment of his mental faculties, since he was
shown to suffer from the chronic mental disease called disorder or psychosis, such impairment was not so complete as to
deprive him of his intelligence or the consciousness of his acts. The schizo-affective disorder or psychosis of accused-
appellant may be classified as an illness which diminishes the exercise of his will-power but without depriving him of the
consciousness of his acts. He may thus be credited with this mitigating circumstance but will not exempt him from his criminal
liability154
PAR. 10 SIMILAR ANALOGOUS155 CIRCUMSTANCES
149 (of the body, the mind, the nerves, or t h e moral faculty).
150 (People vs. Balneg, et al., 79 Phil. 805)
151 (People vs. Amit, 82 Phil. 820)
152 (People vs. Carpenter, C.A., G.R. No. 4168, April 22, 1940)
153 People vs. Formigones, 87 Phil. 658)
154 (People vs. Antonio, Jr., G.R. No. 144266, Nov. 27, 2002)
155 comparable

CONDITION SINE-QUA NON diminishes his exercise of will power
INTENT OF THIS ARTICLE/ The circumstance in paragraph 9 of Art. 13 is mitigating because there is a
Paragraph/Requisite/Element diminution of intelligence and intent.
MUST BE OF SIMILAR NATURE AND ANALOGOUS TO THOSE

MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPHS 1 TO 9 OF ART. 13
This paragraph authorizes the court to consider in favor of the accused "any other circumstance of a similar nature and
analogous to those mentioned" in paragraphs 1 to 9 of Art. 13.
Examples:
1. impulse of jealousy, similar to passion and obfuscation

2. Manifestation of Battered Wife Syndrome, analogous to an illness that diminishes the exercise of will power
3. over 60 years old with failing sight similar to over 70 years of age with failing sight similar to over 70 years of age under
par. 2
4. the act of the accused leading the law enforcers to the place where he buried the instruments he used to commit the
crime is similar to voluntary surrender (NILABAS YUNG PINAGLIBIGAN NG PATAY)
5. Extreme poverty, as a similar to a state of necessity, which may apply to crimes against property but not violence, such
as murder
6. outraged feeling unpaid creditor, as akin to vindication or obfuscation
7. appeal to the espirit de corps of the accused as analogous to passion
8. wartime state of confusion resulting in illegal possession of firearm after the liberation, as being similar to lack of intent to
commit so grave a wrong
9. voluntary return of funds marversed by the accused, as equivalent to voluntary surrender
10. testifying for the infromation, as being like a plea of guilty
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE NEITHER EXEMPTING NOR MITIGATING

1. Mistake in the blow or aberratio ictus
2. Mistake in identity
3. entrapment
4. accused over 18 years of age
5. performance of righteous action
SPECIFIC MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

1. illegal detention (voluntary release within 3 days; without attaining purpose; before criminal action)
2. Adultery (abandonment of spouse); and
3. infanticide/abortion (intent to conceal dishonour or mother)
BAR QUESTION
Mitigating; Non-Intoxication (2000)

Despite the massive advertising campaign in media against firecrackers and gun-firing during the New Year's celebrations,
Jonas and Jaja bought ten boxes of super lolo and pla-pla in Bocaue, Bulacan. Before midnight of December 31, 1999,
Jonas and Jaja started their celebration by having a drinking spree at Jona's place by exploding their high-powered
firecrackers in their neighborhood. In the course of their conversation, Jonas confided to Jaja that he has been keeping a
long-time grudge against his neighbor Jepoy in view of the latter's refusal to lend him some money. While under the influence
of liquor, Jonas started throwing lighted super lolos inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and the same exploded inside the
latter's yard. Upon knowing that the throwing of the super lolo was deliberate, Jepoy became furious and sternly warned
Jonas to stop his malicious act or he would get what he wanted. A heated argument between Jonas and Jepoy ensued but
Jaja tried to calm down his friend. At midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45 caliber pistol so that he could use it
to knock down Jepoy and to end his arrogance. Jonas thought that after all, explosions were everywhere and nobody would
know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja lent his firearm to Jonas, the latter again started started throwing lighted super lolos and pla-
plas at Jepoy's yard in order to provoke him so that he would come out of his house. When Jepoy came out, Jonas
immediately shot him with Jaja's .45 caliber gun but missed his target. Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy's five year old son who
was following behind him, killing the boy instantaneously,
a) What crime or crimes can Jonas and Jaja be charged with? Explain. (2%) 
b) If you were Jonas' and Jaja's lawyer, what possible defenses would you set up in favor of your clients? Explain. (2%)
c) If you were the Judge, how would you decide the case? Explain. (1%) 
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Jonas and Jaja, can be charged with the complex crime of attempted murder with homicide because a single act caused
a less grave and a grave felony (Art. 48. RPC)
B. If I were Jonas' and Jaja's lawyer, I will use the following defenses:
a. That the accused had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed as they merely intended to frighten
Jepoy;
b. That Jonas committed the crime in a state of intoxication thereby impairing his will power or capacity to understand
the wrongfulness of his act. Non-intentional intoxication is a mitigating circumstance (People us. Fortich, 281 SCRA
600 (1997); Art. 15, RPC.).  
Mitigating; Plea of Guilty (1999)

An accused charged with the crime of homicide pleaded "not guilty" during the preliminary investigation before the Municipal
Court. Upon the elevation of the case to the Regional Trial Court the Court of competent jurisdiction, he pleaded guilty freely
and voluntarily upon arraignment. Can his plea of guilty before the RTC be considered spontaneous and thus entitle him to
the mitigating circumstance of spontaneous plea of guilty under Art. 13(7), RPC? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, his plea of guilty before the Regional Trial Court can be considered spontaneous, for which he is entitled to the
mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty. His plea of not guilty before the Municipal Court is immaterial as it was made during
preliminary investigation only and before a court not competent to render judgment.
Mitigating; Plea of Guilty; Requisites (1999)

In order that the plea of guilty may be mitigating, what requisites must be complied with? (2%) 
For plea of guilty to be mitigating, the requisites are:
a. That the accused spontaneously pleaded guilty to the crime charged;
b. That such plea was made before the court competent to try the case and render judgment; and  
c. That such plea was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.  
Mitigating; Plea of Guilty; Voluntary Surrender (1997)

After killing the victim, the accused absconded. He succeeded in eluding the police until he surfaced and surrendered to the
authorities about two years later. Charged with murder, he pleaded not guilty but, after the prosecution had presented two
witnesses implicating him to the crime, he changed his plea to that of guilty.
Should the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty be considered in favor of the accused? 
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Voluntary surrender should be considered as a mitigating circumstance. After two years, the police were still unaware of the
whereabouts of the accused and the latter could have continued to elude arrest. Accordingly, the surrender of the accused
should be considered mitigating because it was done spontaneously, indicative of the remorse or repentance on the part of
said accused and therefore, by his surrender, the accused saved the Government expenses, efforts, and time.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Voluntary surrender may not be appreciated in favor of the accused. Two years is too long a time to consider the surrender
as spontaneous (People us. Ablao, 183 SCRA 658). For sure the government had already incurred considerable efforts and
expenses in looking for the accused.
Plea of guilty can no longer be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance because the prosecution had already started with
the presentation of its evidence (Art. 13, par. 7. Revised Penal Code).
Mitigating; Voluntary Surrender (1996)

Hilario, upon seeing his son engaged in a scuffle with Rene, stabbed and killed the latter. After the stabbing, he brought his
son home. The Chief of Police of the town, accompanied by several policemen, went to Hilario's house, Hilario, upon seeing
the approaching policemen, came down from his house to meet them and voluntarily went with them to the Police Station to
be investigated in connection with the killing. When eventually charged with and convicted of homicide, Hilario, on appeal,
faulted the trial court for not appreciating in his favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Is he entitled to such
a mitigating circumstance? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Hilario is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The crux of the issue is whether the fact that
Hilario went home after the incident, but came down and met the police officers and went with them is considered "Voluntary
surrender," The voluntariness of surrender is tested if the same is spontaneous showing the intent of the accused to submit
himself unconditionally to the authorities. This must be either (a) because he acknowledges his guilt, or (b) because he
wishes to save them the trouble and expenses necessarily incurred in his search and capture. (Reyes' Commentaries, p.
303). Thus, the act of the accused in hiding after commission of the crime, but voluntarily went with the policemen who had
gone to his hiding place to investigate, was held to be mitigating circumstance.(People vs. Dayrit, cited in Reyes'
Commentaries, p. 299)
Mitigating; Voluntary Surrender; Elements (1999)

When is surrender by an accused considered voluntary, and constitutive of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender? (3%) 
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A surrender by an offender is considered voluntary when it is spontaneous, indicative of an intent to submit unconditionally to
the authorities.
To be mitigating, the surrender must be:
A. spontaneous, i.e., indicative of acknowledgment of guilt and not for convenience nor conditional;
B. made before the government incurs expenses, time and effort in tracking down the offender's whereabouts; and
C. made to a person in authority or the latter's agents.
Mitigating; Voluntary Surrender (2009)

No. XI. b. Voluntary surrender is a mitigating circumstance in all acts and omissions punishable under the Revised
Penal Code.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
False, Voluntary surrender may be appreciated in cases of criminal negligence under Art. 365 since in such cases, the courts
are authorized to imposed a penalty without considering Art. 62 regarding mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
Privilege Mitigating Circumstance (2012)

No. II. a. What is a privileged mitigating circumstance? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Privileged mitigating circumstances are those that mitigate criminal liability of the crime being modified to one or two degrees
lower. These circumstances cannot be off-set by aggravating circumstance. The circumstance of incomplete justification or
exemption (when majority of the conditions are present), and the circumstance of minority (if the child above 15 years of age
acted with discernment) are privileged mitigating circumstances.
Privilege Mitigating Circumstance vs. Ordinary Mitigating Circumstance (2012)
No. II. b. Distinguish a privileged mitigating circumstance from an ordinary mitigating circumstance as to reduction of penalty
and offsetting against aggravating circumstance/s. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The distinction between ordinary and privilege mitigating circumstances are: (a) Under the rules for application of divisible
penalties (Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code), the presence of a mitigating circumstance, has the effect of applying the
divisible penalty in its minimum period. Under the rules on graduation of penalty (Articles 68 and 69), the presence of
privileged mitigating circumstance has the effect of reducing the penalty one or two degrees lower. (b) Ordinary mitigating
circumstances can be off-set by the aggravating circumstances. Privileged mitigating circumstances are not subject to the off-
set rule.
JURISPRUDENCE

CASE TITLE
GR. NO.:
PONENTE:
TOPIC/S:
VERDICT:
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
CASE DOCTRINE:
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
COURT DECISIONS:
FACTS
ISSUE
HELD
SYLLABI
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
CONCURRING

DISSENTING
SEPARATE OPINION
OBITER DICTUM 

CHAPTER 4
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MITIGATE CRIMINAL

LIABILITY
!
Article 14.

Aggravating circumstances. — The following are aggravating circumstances:  
 
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.  
 
2. That the crime be committed in contempt or with insult to the public authorities.  
 
3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank,
age, or sex, or that is be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation.  
 
4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.  
 
5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive or in his presence, or where public authorities
are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship.  
 
6. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such
circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense.  
 
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an offense, it shall be
deemed to have been committed by a band.  
 
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other
calamity or misfortune.  
 
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity.  
 
9. That the accused is a recidivist.  
 
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment
of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code.  
10. That the offender has been previously punished by an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater
penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.  
 
11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise.  

12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or
international damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving great waste
and ruin.  
 
13. That the act be committed with evidence premeditation.  
 
14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed.  
 
15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken the defense.  
 
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).  
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or
forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended party might make.  
 
17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act.  
 
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.  
 
There is an unlawful entry when an entrance of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken.  
 
20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age or by means of motor vehicles,
motorized watercraft, airships, or other similar means. (As amended by RA 5438).  
 
21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not
necessary for its commissions.

They are based on the greater perversity of the offender manifested in the commission
of the felony as shown by:

(1) the motivating power itself,
(2) the place of commission,
ELEMENT
(3) the means and ways employed,
(4) the time, or
(5) the personal circumstances of the offender, or of the offended party.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Aggravating circumstances are those which, if attendant in the commission of the crime, serve to increase the penalty
without, however, exceeding the maximum of the penalty provided by law for the offense.
KINDS OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

KINDS DEFINITION EXAMPLE NOTE
T h o s e t h a t c a n Dwelling, nighttime, or
generally apply to all recidivism.
GENERIC
crimes
Those that apply only Ignominy in crimes against In Art. 14, the circumstances in paragraphs
to particular crimes chastity or   Nos. 3 (except dwelling), 15,16,17 and 21 are
SPECIFIC
cruelty and treachery in specific aggravating circumstances.
crimes against persons.
Those that change the A l e v o s i a ( t r e a c h e r y ) o r Art. 248 enumerates the qualifying aggravating
nature of the crime e v i d e n t p r e m e d i t a t i o n circumstances which qualify the killing of
QUALIFYING
qualifies the killing of a person to murder
person to murder.
Those that must of Evident premeditation is Therefore, not considered in increasing the
necessity accompany inherent in robbery, theft, penalty to be imposed.
INHERENT
the commission of the e s t a f a , a d u l t e r y a n d
crime. (Art. 62, par. 2) concubinage.
Those which arise complex crime, use of

under s p e c i a l unlicensed firearm in
conditions to increase homicide or murder, taking
t h e p e n a l t y o f t h e advantage of public position
SPECIAL
offense and cannot be a n d m e m b e r s h i p i n a n
offset by mitigating organized/syndicated crime
circumstances group, error in personae,
quasi-recidivisim

GENERIC VS. QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

GENERIC AGGRAVATING QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING
AS TO ITS EFFECT
increase the penalty which should be imposed upon the Gives the crime its proper and exclusive name and places
accused to the maximum period but without exceeding the the author thereof in such a situation as to deserve no other
limit prescribed by law penalty than that specially prescribed by law for said crime
AS TO WHETHER IT CAN BE OFFSET BY A MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
May be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance since it cannot be offset by a mitigating circumstances since it is
is not an ingredient of the crime considered ingredient of the crime
AS TO THE OFFENSE COMMITTED
does not change the nature of the offense and the name of the offense
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES, NOT ALLEGED

KINDS IMPORTANCE: ALLEGED OR NOT
An aggravating circumstance, even if not alleged in the information may be proved over the
GENERIC
objection of the defense
QUALIFYING the same must be alleged in the information because it is an integral part of the offense.
RULES OF COURT, RULE Regardless of its kind, should be specifically alleged in the information AND proved as fully
110, sec. 9 as the crime itself in order to increase the penalty
CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT INCREASE THE PENALTY

1. Aggravating circumstances shall not be appreciated if:
1. They constitute a crime specially punishable by law
2. they are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing a penalty therefore
Example: “That the crime be committed by means of fire, explosion156 ” is in itself a crime of arson157
Yung crime of fire, explosion nakapaloob na sya sa crime of arson kaya yung aggravating par. 12 will not be applied or will not aggravate.
mostly mga magkakamukang kaso na sa special law nakastate kung ano yung punishment at penalty.
2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such a degree that it must
of necessity accompany the commission thereof158
Example: Evident premeditation is inherent159 in theft, robbery, estafa, adultery and concubinage
156 RPC, Art. 14 Par. 12
157 RPC, Art. 321
158 Art. 62, RPC
159 built in

Yung aggravating circumstances sa crime ay innate, meaning para para ma commit mo yung crime kailangan yung aggravating
circumstances. on the given example, evident premeditation as also known in tagalog na pinagplanuhan, pinaghandaan, sa theft, kailangan
mong paghandaan kung paano ka papasok sa bahay, paano mo bubuksan yun pinto ng hindi naririnig. sa robbery, ganun din paghahandaan
mo pano mo papasukin.
meaning on the given examples, yung aggravating na premeditation nakapaloob na sya sa crime stated thereof, hindi na kailangan pang
increase yung penalty. hindi na kailangang, theft nakapaloob na yung paghahanda, tapos iaaggravate pa dahil aggravating. may punishment
na kay theft may bukod pang punishment kay premeditation, hindi na pwede yung considered na syang isa lang na punishment kaya wala
ng aggravating dun.
Example: Taking advantage of public position is inherent in crimes where the offenders, who are public officers, committed
the crime in the exercise of their functions, such as in bribery, malversation, etc.
Kahit anong gawin nya nakapaloob sa kanya hanggat public official sya nung na-commit nya yung crime kaya dapat isang punishment lang.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE PERSONAL TO THE

OFFENDERS.
Aggravating circumstances which arise:
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARISE: ANNOTATION

from the moral attributes of the offender, or tinataas natin yung penalty kasi tinitignan natin yung moralidad ng
tao, kung example nang rape si “A” tapos ang ginawa pa nya
pinasukan pa yung organ ng kung ano ano para mas tumaas yung
urges si “A” instead ng magsisisi sya hindi iyun ang ginawa nya
kaya moral attributed tinitignan natin.
from his private relations with the offended party, or Tinitignan yung moralidad mo na kaya mong saktan yung taong
related sayo o relative mo in some instance
from any other personal cause, shall only serve to Dito kapag may by a group, idedetermine kung sino yung utak o
aggravate the liability of the principals, accomplices, and sino yung may alam nung buong execution ng crime tapos pasok
accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant. sa aggravating provisions dun magaapply yung aggravating
circumstances
(Art. 62, par. 3)
Examples:
from the moral attributes of the offender, or

A, with evident premeditation, gave B P l.OOO to kill C. B immediately killed C. Evident premeditation is an aggravating
circumstance which arises from the moral attribute of A. It shall serve to aggravate only the liability of A, but not that of B.
Si A lang ang dapat magkaroon ng aggravating of premeditation dahil sya lang naman yung nagplano at inutusan lang naman nya si B kaya
di kasa si B sa magsusuffer ng aggravating ni A. ang tinitignan sa example na to ay yung moral attributes mo, pinaghahandaan mo pa yung
pagpatay mo kay C at binayaran mo pa si C.
from his private relations with the offended party, or

A, stepson of B, killed the latter. C, knowing that A killed B without justification, buried the dead body of B to prevent the
discovery of the crime. The private relation of A with B shall serve to aggravate only the liability of A. It shall not serve to
aggravate the liability of C, the accessory160
Dito tinitignan yung relasyon ni “A” at “B”. kung san unang example hinuhusgahan yung kapasidad mong gumawa ng krimen, dito
hinusgahan ka na gumawa ng crimen at hindi mo pa kinonsider yung relasyon ng gagawa ng krimen. on the given example, si “A”
hinuhusgahan sya na kaya nyang patayin yung stepson nya na si “B” mas mabigat yung expectation ng tao kapag kamaganak mo yung
ginawan mo ng krimen.
from any other personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate the liability of the principals, accomplices, and
accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant.
A, who was previously convicted by final judgment of theft and served sentence therefor, and B committed robbery. Both
were prosecuted and found guilty after trial. Upon his conviction for robbery, A was a recidivist. Recidivism is an aggravating
circumstance which arises from personal cause. It shall serve to aggravate only the liability of A, but not that of B.
Dito nahusgahan na sya sa pagcocommit nya at yung kanino nya icocommit, at dito aggravating si “A” dahil inulit na naman nya kaya
iincrease yung penalty para matauhan ka para di mo na ulitin.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH DEPEND FOR THEIR

APPLICATION UPON THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE OFFENDERS.
The circumstances which consist:
(1) in the material execution of the act, or
(2) in the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate the liability of those persons only who had knowledge of
them at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein. (Art. 62, par. 4)
EXCEPTION: when there is a proof of conspiracy in which case the act of one is deemed to be the act of all, regardless of
lack of knowledge of the facts constituting the circumstances161
Illustrations:
APPLICATION OF FIRST CIRCUMSTANCES
In his house, A ordered B to kill C. A and B did not talk about the manner C would be killed. B left the house of A and looked
for C. B found C and killed the latter with treachery. The aggravating circumstance of treachery162 consists in the material
execution of the act. Since A had no knowledge of it, treachery shall only aggravate the liability of B.
Dahil wala silang express kasunduan kung paano papatayin si “C” yung pagpatay ni “B” kay “C” ay sa sarili nyang paraan, nagkataon na
yung paraan ng pagpatay ni “B” kay “C” ay pasok sa provision ng aggravating circumstances, dahil walang alam si “A” sa material execution
ni “B” yung aggravating circumstances magaapply lang kay “B” dahil di alam ni “A” kung paano ieexecute ni “B” yung usapang pagpatay kay
“C”.
APPLICATION OF SECOND CIRCUMSTANCES
160 (Art. 19, par. 2)
161 Art. 62, Par 4 RPC
162 (Art. 14, par. 16)

A ordered B and C to kill D, instructing them to wait until nighttime so that the crime could be committed with impunity. B and
C killed D at nighttime. Although A did not take direct part in the commission of the crime, the aggravating circumstance of
nighttime shall also aggravate his liability, because he had knowledge of it at the time of the execution of the act by B and C
Dito may knowledge si “A” kung paano yung material execution ng pagpatay kay “D” kaya kahit wala syang direct participation sa pagpatay
kay “D” sa kanya magapply yung aggravating circumstances of nighttime. Bale sya ang utak ng pagpatay, inutusan lang si “B” and “C”
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES NOT PRESUMED.

An aggravating circumstance should be proved as fully as the crime itself in order to increase the penalty163
PAR. 1 THAT ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN BY THE OFFENDER OF

HIS PUBLIC POSITION
CONDITION SINE-QUA NON Offender must use the his public authority
INTENT OF THIS ARTICLE/ This is based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the personal
PARAGRAPH/REQUISITE/ circumstance of the offender and also by the means used to secure the commission of
ELEMENT the crime.
APPLICABLE ONLY WHEN THE OFFENDER IS A PUBLIC OFFICER

The aggravating circumstance that advantage be taken by the offender of his public position applies only when the person
committing the crime is a public officer who takes advantage of his public position.
USE OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY

1. Influence
2. Prestige
3. Ascendancy
it cannot be taken into consideration in offenses where taking advantage of official position is an integral element of a crime
(e.g. Malversation)
There must be deliberate intent to use IPA thus, when coupled with circumstances where intent is lacking (i.e., the crime was
attendant of negligence, passion or obfuscation, vindication, or sufficient provocation) this aggravating circumstances cannot
be appreciated
it is also inherent in the case of accessories under Art. 19, Par. 3 (Harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the
principal of the crime) and in crimes committed by public officers
Illustration:
A policeman on guard duty who has maltreated a prisoner. Because he could not have done the same where it nor for his
position as a guard on duty.
(People vs. Barrios, No. L-34785, July 30,1979,92 SCRA 189,196, citing People vs. Marcina, 77 SCRA 238, 246; People vs. Almario, G.R. No. 69374, March 16, 1989, 171 SCRA 291,
163
302)

ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN BY THE OFFENDER OF HIS PUBLIC POSITION

The public officer must use the influence, prestige or ascendancy which his office gives him as the means by which he
realizes his purpose.
A. The accused took advantage of his public position. He could not have maltreated the victim if he was not a policeman on
guard duty. Because of his position, he had access to the cell where the victim was confined. The prisoner was under his
custody164
B. There is abuse of public position where a police officer in the course of investigation of a charge against him for grave
threats shot the complainant in a treacherous manner 165
C. Advantage of public position is present where the accused used their authority as members of the police and
constabulary to disarm the victim before shooting him 166
THIS AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE IS PRESENT WHEN A

COUNCILOR COLLECTS FINES AND MISAPPROPRIATES THEM.
U.S. vs. Torrida (23 Phil. 189)
Facts: The accused, shortly after entering upon his duties as councilor of the town of Aparri, ordered that deaths of all large
animals must be reported to him as councilman. As a result of this instruction, the owners of several such animals were
induced to pay the accused supposed fines on the belief that such were required by a municipal ordinance. He spent the
money paid to, and received by him as fines.
Held: The fact that the accused was councilor at the time placed him in a position to commit these crimes. If he were not a
councilor he could not have induced the injured parties to pay these alleged fines. It was on account of his being councilor
that the parties believed that he had the right to collect fines and it was for this reason that they made the payments. It is true
that he had no right to either impose or collect any fine whatsoever and it is likewise true that a municipal councilor is not an
official designated by law to collect public fines, but these facts do not destroy or disprove the important fact that the accused
did, by taking advantage of his public position, deceive and defraud the injured parties out of the money they paid him.
Note: The crime committed by Torrida is estafa by means of deceit. (Art. 315, par. 2)
Yung pangongolekta nya ay tama at lawful dahil kailangan pa ng approval from the government to allow them to do such, naging unlawful
dahil yung nakolektang fines ay winaldas ni counselor. si counselor has the power to collec fines pero dapat niremit nya. kaya aggravating
dahil sya ay public official.
WHEN THE PUBLIC OFFICER DID NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE

INFLUENCE OF HIS POSITION, THIS AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE IS
NOT PRESENT.
164 (People vs. Ural, No. L-30801, March 27, 1974, 56 SCRA 138, 145)
165 (People vs. Reyes, No. L-33154, Feb. 27, 1976, 69 SCRA 474, 480-481)
166 (People vs. Asuncion, G.R. No. 83870, Nov. 14,1989,179 SCRA 396, 402)

U.S. vs. Dacuycuy (9 Phil. 84)

Facts: Thirty-nine (39) persons requested the accused, then a councilor, to purchase cedulas for them giving him P39.00. He
took only 16 cedulas, and spent the rest of the money.
Held: When a public officer commits a common crime independent of his official functions and does acts that are not
connected with the duties of his office, he should be punished as a private individual without this aggravating circumstance.
Note: In this case, Dacuycuy did not avail himself of the influence, prestige or ascendancy which his position carried with it,
when he committed the crime of estafa with abuse of confidence. (Art. 315, par. 1) He received the money in his private
capacity. He was requested by the people to buy cedula certificates for them.
Basta dapat ginamit yung public position in committing the crime, pasok sa paragraph na to. pero kung yung crime na ginawa hindi
konektado sa public position nya hindi papasok sa paragraph na ito.
PAR. 2 THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN CONTEMPT OF

OR WITH INSULT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
CONDITION SINE-QUA NON Knowledge of public/person in authority
INTENT OF THIS ARTICLE/ This is based on the greater perversity(contrariness) of the offender, as shown by his
PARAGRAPH/REQUISITE/ lack of respect for the public authorities.
ELEMENT
REQUISITES OF THIS CIRCUMSTANCE:

1. That the public authority is engaged in the exercise of his functions.
2. That he who is thus engaged in the exercise of said functions is not the person against whom the crime is committed 167
3. The offender knows him to be a public authority.
4. His presence has not prevented the offender from committing the criminal act.  
Example of this aggravating circumstance:

A and B are quarrelling on a street and the municipal mayor, upon passing by, attempts to separate them to stop the quarrel.
Not- withstanding the intervention and the presence of the mayor, A and B continued to quarrel until A succeeds in killing B. In
this case, A commits the crime of homicide with the aggravating circumstance of a "in contempt of or with insult to the public
authority.
A stabbed to death B in front of the Governor and Mayor during a public peace rally
PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
167 (U.S. vs. Rodriguez, 19 Phil. 150,156; People vs. Siojo, 61 Phil. 307, 317)

A public authority, sometimes also called a person in authority, is a public officer who is directly vested with jurisdiction, that
is, a public officer who has the power to govern and execute the laws. The councilor, the mayor, the governor, etc., are
persons in authority. The barangay captain and barangay chairman are also persons in authority168
Exemption:
Teachers or professor of a public or recognized private school and lawyers are not considered as “Public Authorities” within
the contemplation of this paragraph for they are have no directly vested jurisdiction, power to govern and execute the laws.
Not applicable when crime is committed in the presence of an

agent only.
Paragraph 2 of Art. 14 was not applied in a case where the crime was committed in the presence of the chief of police of a
town, because he is not a public authority, but an agent of the authorities169
An agent of a person in authority is "any person who, by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by
competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property, such
as barrio councilman, barrio policeman and barangay leader, and any person who comes to the aid of persons in
authority.170 ”
KNOWLEDGE THAT A PUBLIC AUTHORITY IS PRESENT IS ESSENTIAL.

Lack of knowledge on the part of the offender that a public authority is present indicates lack of intention to insult the public
authority.
Thus, if A killed B in the presence of the town mayor, but A did not know of the presence of the mayor, this aggravating
circumstance should not be considered against A.
Kailangan its either hindi alam na may public authority or hindi alam ng nung person in authority yung crime or yung bangayan hindi
pwedeng iinvoke yung paragraph na ito.
PAR. 3 THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH INSULT OF

RANK, AGE, OR SEX, OR THAT IT BE COMMITTED IN THE
DWELLING OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
INTENT OF THIS ARTICLE/ These circumstances are based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by
PARAGRAPH/REQUISITE/ the personal circumstances of the offended party and the place of the commission of
ELEMENT the crime.
168 (Art. 152, as amended by P.D. No. 1232, Nov. 7, 1977)
169 (People vs. Siojo, 61 Phil. 307, 311, 317; People vs. Verzo, No. L-22517, Dec. 26, 1967, 21 SCRA 1403, 1410)
170 (Art. 152, as amended by BP Big. 873)

ELEMENTS
1. with insult or in disregard of respect due the offended party on account of his rank
2. Disregard of respect due to age
3. disregard of respect due to sex; and
4. that it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation
Definitions
The designation or title of distinction used to fix the relative position of offended
Rank of the offended party
party in reference to others
Age of the offended party May refer to old age or the tender age of the victim
Sex of the offended party Refers to the female sex, not to the male sex
APPROACH IF ALL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE PRESENT

If all are present, it is considered as one aggravating circumstances only. But if not, single circumstances may take as a
single circumstances each.
APPLICABLE ONLY TO CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS OR HONOR

This circumstance (rank, age or sex) may be taken into account only in crimes against persons or honor.
Thus, in the case of the robbery of a thing belonging to the President, the aggravating circumstance of disregard of respect
due the offended party cannot be taken into account, because the mere fact that the thing belongs to the President does not
make it more valuable than the things belonging to a private person.
Disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank, age or sex may be taken into account only in crimes
against persons or honor, when in the commission of the crime, there is some insult or disrespect to rank, age or sex. It is not
proper to consider this aggravating circumstance in crimes against property. Robbery with homicide is primarily a crime
against property and not against persons. Homicide is a mere incident of the robbery, the latter being the main purpose and
object of the criminal171
Meaning ang titignan mo yung act ng offender bago mo iqualify yung aggravating circumstances nya. on the given example above, robbery
yung act ng offender, so meaning crimes against property yung kasi yung robbery gamit yung gusto nya… so meaning kahit matanda sya at
babae. yung paragraph na ito ay para lamang sa crimes against person or honor so hindi considered as aggravating yung sa crime of
robbery. dapat ang main purpose ng crime is against person para pumasok sa paragraph na ito.
THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF DISREGARD OF RANK, AGE

OR SEX IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE FOLLOWING CASES
1. When the offender acted with passion and obfuscation
2. when there exists a relationship between the offended party and the offender
171 (People vs. Pagal, No. L-32040, Oct. 25, 1977, 79 SCRA 570, 576-577)

3. when the condition of being a woman is indispensable in the commission of the crime (e.g. abduction, seduction and
rape)
Illustration:
1. A clerk who murdered the assistant chief of Personnel transaction of the civil service commission
2. A, a 45 year old man who killed an octogenarian
3. A, unable to take revenge of B, the killer of his relative, instead went after and killed the sister of B.
Rank - refers to a high social position or standing as a grade in the armed forces; or to a graded official standing or social
position or station; or to the order or place in which said officers are placed in the army and navy in relation to others; or to
the designation or title of distinction conferred upon an officer in order to fix his relative position in reference to other officers
in matters of privileges, precedence, and sometimes of command or by which to determine his pay and emoluments as in the
case of army staff officers; or to a grade or official standing, relative position in civil or social life, or in any scale of
comparison, status, grade, including its grade, status or scale of comparison within a position172
DWELLING
BAR QUESTION
Aggravating Circumstances (1996)

Jose, Domingo, Manolo, and Fernando, armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in the morning, robbed a house at a desolate
place where Danilo, his wife, and three daughters were living. While the four were in the process of ransacking Danilo's
house, Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo's daughters was trying to get away, ran after her and finally caught up with her
in a thicket somewhat distant from the house. Fernando, before bringing back the daughter to the house, raped her first.
Thereafter, the four carted away the belongings of Danilo and his family.
A. What crime did Jose, Domingo, Manolo and Fernando commit? Explain.
B. Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns in raping the three daughters of Danilo inside the latter's house, but before
they left, they killed the whole family to prevent identification, what crime did the four commit? Explain.
C. Under the facts of the case, what aggravating circumstances may be appreciated against the four? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Jose, Domingo, and Manolo committed Robbery, while Fernando committed complex crime of Robbery with Rape...
B. The crime would be Robbery with Homicide because the killings were by reason (to prevent identification) and on the
occasion of the robbery. The multiple rapes committed and the fact that several persons were killed [homicide), would be
considered as aggravating circumstances. The rapes are synonymous with Ignominy and the additional killing
synonymous with cruelty, (People vs. Solis, 182 SCRA; People vs. Plaga, 202 SCRA 531)
C. The aggravating circumstances which may be considered in the premises are:
172 (People vs. Rodil, supra, at 330)

1. Band because all the four offenders are armed;
2. Noctumity because evidently the offenders took advantage of nighttime;
3. dwelling; and
4. Uninhabited place because the house where the crimes were committed was "at a desolate place" and obviously the
offenders took advantage of this circumstance in committing the crime.
Aggravating Circumstances; Generis vs. Qualifying (1999) 

Distinguish generic aggravating circumstance from qualifying aggravating circumstance.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Generic Aggravating Circumstances:
A. affects only the imposition of the penalty prescribed, but not the nature of the crime committed;
B. can be offset by ordinary mitigating circumstances;
C. need not be alleged in the Information as long as proven during the trial, the same shall be considered in imposing
the sentence.  
Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances:
A. must be alleged in the Information and proven during trial;

B. cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances;
C. affects the nature of the crime or brings about a penalty higher in degree than that ordinarily prescribed.  
Aggravating Circumstances; Kinds & Penalties (1999)

Name the four (4) kinds of aggravating circumstances and state their effect on the penalty of crimes and nature thereof. (3%) 
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The four (4) kinds of aggravating circumstances are: 
1. GENERIC AGGRAVATING or those that can generally apply to all crimes, and can be offset by mitigating circumstances,
but if not offset, would affect only the maximum of the penalty prescribed by law;
2. SPECIFIC AGGRAVATING or those that apply only to particular crimes and cannot be offset by  
mitigating circumstances:
1. QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES or those that change the nature of the crime to a graver one, or brings about a
penalty next higher in degree, and cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances;
2. INHERENT AGGRAVATING or those that essentially accompany the commission of the crime and does not affect the
penalty whatsoever.  
Aggravating; Cruelty; Relationship (1994)

Ben, a widower, driven by bestial desire, poked a gun on his daughter Zeny, forcibly undressed her and tied her legs to the
bed. He also burned her face with a lighted cigarrete. Like a madman, he laughed while raping her. What aggravating
circumstances are present in this case?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A. Cruelty, for burning the victim's face with a lighted cigarrete, thereby deliberately augmenting the victim's suffering by acts
clearly unnecessary to the rape, while the offender delighted and enjoyed seeing the victim suffer in pain (People vs.
Lucas, 181 SCRA 316).
B. Relationship, because the offended party is a descendant (daughter) of the offender and considering that the crime is one
against chastity.
Aggravating; Must be alleged in the information (2000)

Rico, a member of the Alpha Rho fraternity, was killed by Pocholo, a member of the rival group, Sigma Phi Omega. Pocholo
was prosecuted for homicide before the Regional Trial Court in Binan, Laguna. During the trial, the prosecution was able to
prove that the killing was committed by means of poison in consideration of a promise or reward and with cruelty. If you were
the Judge, with what crime will you convict Pocholo? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Pocholo should be convicted of the crime of homicide only because the aggravating circumstances which should qualify the
crime to murder were not alleged in the Information.
The circumstances of using poison, in consideration of a promise or reward, and cruelty which attended the killing of Rico
could only be appreciated as generic aggravating circumstances since none of them have been alleged in the information to
qualify the killing to murder. A qualifying circumstance must be alleged in the Information and proven beyond reasonable
doubt during the trial to be appreciated as such.
Aggravating; Nighttime; Band (1994)

At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino and Raffy were walking along Padre Faura Street, Manila. Johnny hit them with a
rock injuring Dino at the back. Raffy approached Dino, but suddenly, Bobby, Steve, Danny and Nonoy surrounded the duo.
Then Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny kept on hitting Dino and Raffy with rocks. As a result. Dino died,
Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny were charged with homicide.
Can the court appreciate the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and band? 
No, nighttime cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance because there is no indication that the offenders
deliberately sought the cover of darkness to facilitate the commission of the crime or that they took advantage of nighttime
(People vs. De los Reyes, 203 SCRA 707). Besides, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that Padre Faura Street is well-
lighted.
However, band should be considered as the crime was committed by more than three armed malefactors; in a recent
Supreme Court decision, stones or rocks are considered deadly weapons.
Aggravating; Recidivism (2001)

Juan de Castro already had three (3) previous convictions by final judgment for theft when he was found guilty of Robbery
with Homicide. In the last case, the trial Judge considered against the accused both recidivism and habitual delinquency. The
accused appealed and contended that in his last conviction, the trial court cannot consider against him a finding of recidivism
and, again, of habitual delinquency. Is the appeal meritorious? Explain. (5%) 
No, the appeal is not meritorious. Recidivism and habitual delinquency are correctly considered in this case because the
basis of recidivism is different from that of habitual delinquency.
Juan is a recidivist because he had been previously convicted by final judgment for theft and again found guilty for Robbery
with Homicide, which are both crimes against property, embraced under the same Title (Title Ten, Book Two] of the Revised
Penal Code. The implication is that he is specializing in the commission of crimes against property, hence aggravating in the
conviction for Robbery with Homicide.
Habitual delinquency, which brings about an additional penalty when an offender is convicted a third time or more for
specified crimes, is correctly considered ...
Aggravating; Recidivism vs. Quasi-Recidivism (1998)

Distinguish between recidivism and quasi-recidivism. [2%] 
In recidivism -
1. The convictions of the offender are for crimes embraced in the same Title of the Revised Penal Code; and
2. This circumstance is generic aggravating and therefore can be effect by an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
Whereas in quasi-recidivlsm -
1. The convictions are not for crimes embraced in the same Title of the Revised Penal Code, provided that it is a felony that
was committed by the offender before serving sentence by final judgment for another crime or while serving sentence for
another crime; and
2. This circumstance is a special aggravating circumstance which cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance.  
Aggravating; Treachery & Unlawful Entry (1997)

The accused and the victim occupied adjacent apartments, each being a separate dwelling unit of one big house. The
accused suspected his wife of having an illicit relation with the victim. One afternoon, he saw the victim and his wife together
on board a vehicle. In the evening of that day, the accused went to bed early and tried to sleep, but being so annoyed over
the suspected relation between his wife and the victim, he could not sleep. Later in the night, he resolved to kill victim. He
rose from bed and took hold of a knife. He entered the apartment of the victim through an unlocked window. Inside, he saw
the victim soundly asleep. He thereupon stabbed the victim, inflicting several wounds, which caused his death within a few
hours.
Would you say that the killing was attended by the qualifying or aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation,
treachery, nighttime and unlawful entry?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Evident premeditation cannot be considered against the accused because he resolved to kill the victim "later in the night"
and there was no sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution, to allow his conscience to overcome
the resolution of his will.
2. TREACHERY may be present because the accused stabbed the victim while the latter was sound asleep. Accordingly, he
employed means and methods which directly and specially insured the execution of the act without risk himself arising
from the defense which the victim might have made (People vs. Dequina. 60 Phil. 279 People vs. Miranda, et at. 90 Phil.
91).
3. Nighttime cannot be appreciated because there is no showing that the accused deliberately sought or availed of nighttime
to insure the success of his act. The Intention to commit the crime was conceived shortly before its commission (People
vs Pardo. 79 Phil, 568). Moreover, nighttime is absorbed in treachery.
4. UNLAWFUL ENTRY may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, inasmuch as the accused entered the room of
the victim through the window, which is not the proper place for entrance into the house (Art. 14. par. 18. Revised Penal
Code, People vs. Baruga 61 Phil. 318).
Aggravating Circumstances; Dwelling; Nocturnity; Use of Picklock (2009)

No. XVII. b. Wenceslao and Loretta were staying in the same boarding house, occupying different rooms. One late evening,
when everyone in the house was asleep, Wenceslao entered Loretta’s room with the use of a picklock. Then, with force and
violence, Wenceslao ravished Loretta. After he had satisfied his lust, Wenceslao stabbed Loretta to death and, before leaving
the room, took her jewelry.
Discuss the applicability of the relevant aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nocturnity and the use of the picklock to enter
the room of the victim. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Dwelling is aggravating because the crimes were committed in the property of Loretta‟s room which in law is considered as
her dwelling. It is well settled that “dwelling” includes a room in a boarding house being occupied by the offended party where
she enjoys privacy, peace of mind and sanctity of an abode.
Nocturnity or nightime is also aggravating because although it was not purposely or especially sought for by Wenceslao,
nighttime was obviously taken advantaged of by him in committing the other crimes. Under the objective test, noctunity is
aggravating when taken advantage of by the offender during the commission of the crime thus facilitating the same. The use
of a picklock to enter the room of the victim is not an aggravating circumstance under Art. 14 of the Code but punished as a
crime by itself where the offender has no lawful cause for possessing it. The use of picklocks is equivalent to force upon
things in robbery with force upon things.
Specific Aggravating Circumstance; Use of Unlicensed Firearm (2009)
No. I. c. The use of an unlicensed firearm in homicide is considered a generic aggravating circumstance which can be offset
by an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
SUGGESTED ASNWER:
False, offsetting may not take place because the use of an unlicensed firearm in homicide or murder is a specific aggravating
circumstance provided for by Rep. Act. No. 8294. It is not one of the generic aggravating circumstances under Article 14 of
the Revised Penal Code (People v. Avecilla, 351 SCRA 63 [2001]).
JURISPRUDENCE
CASE TITLE

GR. NO.:
PONENTE:
TOPIC/S:
VERDICT:
END POINT:
CITED DOCTRINE/S:
CASE DOCTRINE:
CIRCUMTANCES:
IMPORTANT POINT/S:
COURT DECISIONS:
FACTS
ISSUE
HELD
SYLLABI
PERSONAL ANNOTATION
CONCURRING
DISSENTING
SEPARATE OPINION
OBITER DICTUM

Criminal Law Book One Notes

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Criminal Law Book One Notes

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CRIMINAL LAW BOOK ONE REVISED PENAL CODE

CONDITION SINE-QUA NON

INTENT OF THIS ARTICLE/

TRIGGER OF THE FACTS:

TRIGGER OF THE ISSUE/S:

TRIGGER OF THE RULING:

SANTIAGO NOTES Page 2

SANTIAGO NOTES Page 3

BAR QUESTION .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2

CASE TITLE ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

SANTIAGO NOTES Page 4

BAR QUESTION ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 39

US VS. SWEET .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 39

LIANG VS. PEOPLE ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................42

MIQUIABAS V. PHILIPPINES-RYUKUS COMMAND (1948) ............................................................................................................................................................. 45

SANTIAGO NOTES Page 5

PEOPLE VS AH CHONG ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 66

PEOPLE V. TEMBLOR ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 69

PEOPLE V. TEMBLOR ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 71

CASE TITLE ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 72

CASE TITLE ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 73

CASE TITLE ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 74

CASE TITLE ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 76

CASE TITLE ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 77

CASE TITLE ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 78

CASE TITLE ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 80

CASE TITLE ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 81

CASE TITLE ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 83

CASE TITLE ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 84

CASE TITLE ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 85

“WOULD BE AN OFFENSE AGAINST PROPERTY.”

INTOD VS. CA .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 95

GEMMA T. JACINTO VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES................................................................................................................................................................ 97

CASE TITLE ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 99

CASE TITLE ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 101

WHEN STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISION OF THIS CODE

SANTIAGO NOTES Page 6

CASE TITLE...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 111

CASE TITLE ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 127

BAR QUESTION .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 144

CASE TITLE ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 150

CASE TITLE ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 152

CASE TITLE ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 154

CASE TITLE ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 156

CASE TITLE ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 158

SANTIAGO NOTES Page 7

CASE TITLE ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 162

PAR. 1. REQ. 1. SELF-DEFENSE (CSQ)

PAR. 1. REQ. 2. REASONABLE NECESSITY OF MEANS EMPLOYED TO PREVENT OR REPEL IT.

PAR. 1. REQ. 3. LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION ON PART OF DEFENDER

PAR 2. REQ. 1 DEFENSE OF RELATIVES

PAR 3. DEFENSE OF STRANGERS

PAR. 4. AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL

SANTIAGO NOTES Page 8

PAR. 6. OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED FOR SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE

BAR QUESTION .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 190

PEOPLE VS. GENOSA .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 194

PAR. 1. IMBECILITY OR INSANITY

PAR. 2 AND 3. MINORITY

PAR. 6 UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR

PAR. 7. INSUPERABLE CAUSE

BAR QUESTION .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 215

CASE TITLE ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 218

PAR. 4 PROVOCATION OR THREAT

RULE 115. Rights of Accused 

he can properly protect his rights without the assistance of counsel.  

examination. His silence shall not in any manner prejudice him.  

CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS 

(a) The crime is obliterated.  

(b) Pending cases are dismissed.  

(c) Unserved penalties imposed are remitted.  

imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.  