Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Enlightenment – We can learn the law by ourselves—we can study the law and
advocate it.
We can now access the law directly through technology.
“We do not need anybody to tell us anymore.”
Objectives:
REVISED PENAL CODE = GENERAL PENAL LAW
Special Criminal Legislation
RA 6232 – Anti-Violence Against Women and Children
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
Anti-Trafficking Act
Tobacco Regulation Act
OBJECTIVE:
Deterring Criminality; but note: the Gov’t does not want to impose
punishment on its constituents.
Medidas de Seguridad (Measures of Security/Prevention or Safety non-
penalties)
The imposition of Punishment – fines, inhibitions, imprisonment
Example: Joseph Estrada – convicted of plunder, pardoned by President, but
prohibited him from running for public office. Challenged in the SC.
Lorenzo vs Posadas
Dissent of Malcolm, J in People vs Moran
CRIMINOLOGY
Criminal Biology
Criminal Sociology
Penology
Criminal Policy
Etiology
Criminal statistics
If the new law shortens the prescriptive period, the retroactivity in Sec. 122 of the
Revised Penal Code can be applied.
TWO THEORIES IN CRIMINAL LAW
1887 Spanish Penal Law (applying 1870 Penal Law in Spain) – Revised by Rafael
Belpan – Presented as Correctional Code – rejected by Phil Legislature – 1932
DOJ appoints Commission to draft Revised Penal Code.
Unfortunately, this barely modified the Spanish Penal Code. There was an effort
justifying and exempting some circumstances.
For today:
Definition of Criminal Law
Related disciplines in criminal science
Its rationale
Two prevailing theories in Criminal Law as well as to identify…
TERRITORIALITY
Art 3: NOT EXCEEDING 12 Nautical Miles Territorial Sea, measured from
Baselines.
Art. 33 – Contiguous Zone – MAY NOT EXTEND beyond 24 Nautical
Miles
200 NM Exclusive Economic Zone—or Internal Economic Zone
Art. 27 – Criminal Jurisdiction on board a foreign ship
UNCLOS Arts. 2, 3, 4-26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34-45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50,
51-54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60-72, 73, 74-76, 77,78, 79-85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91,
92, 93, 94, 95, 96-107
INTERNAL WATERS
Breadth of the EEZ: Shall not extend beyond 200 NM from the baselines
from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is
measured.
High Seas are what lies beyond the territorial waters. Free for all states,
whether coastal or landlocked.
*NOTE: Some crimes may be tried anywhere (usually these are against
mankind): Slavery, Piracy.
Exceptions: Genocide cannot be a basis for exemption from criminal liability (No
prescriptive period) by a head of state or diplomatic agents/head of the
mission/members of the mission/diplomatic staff.
NOTE: Diplomatic Officials have immunity from criminal action. What is the
difference between consular officials and diplomats?
Consuls: Civil Functions– documents etc.
Diplomats: Diplomacy/ Diplomatic Actions.
There have been concepts that are lost in translation, such as:
Delito el faltas = now construed as felony and misdemeanors.
CRIMES:
Felony (punishable by Revised Penal Code) vs. Offense vs. Infraction (of
Ordinances)
Only violations of statutes enacted by the National Legislature can give
rise to ‘crimes’ or a ‘criminal record’--as these terms are used in our law
on Local Gov’ts or the Law of Public Officers.
**NOTE: The Local Government Units are not delegated with authority to define
what is a crime.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT.
Louis XIV. The law, that’s me. (Power lay in the French Monarch). After the
French Revolution, there arose the Principle of Legality, as now recognized by
the statute of the International Criminal Court. There can be no crime without a
law. Also, there can be no penalty without a law.
Note: The concept of the Civil Code is from the Romans.
Ex-post facto legislation – the passing of a law arising after the act was
committed, and penalizing the act.
Limitation of the Arbitrary Powers possessed by the judges in the time of
Louis XIV—when judges can prescribe penalties not prescribed by law.
Art. 21-22, embodiment in the Revised Penal Code (Criminal/Penalty
Guarantee [no crime can be committed unless prescribed by law/no
penalty can be imposed without being prescribed by law] – Universality
of Principle as stated in the Rome Convention.
International laws will be made in accordance with these principles as
taught by history.
Example: US v Montecillo
Example: US v Donoso – power to apply the law is vested in the courts.
Executives cannot take unto themselves the impostion of penalties (extra-
judicial killings) unlike during the Inquisition: suspects were killed before
they were given the chance to prove they were innocent.
Example: Sheriff of Manila vs Moya – all cases must be done for all. People of the
Philippines vs X. Procedure is being undertaken on behalf of all.
E.g. Price controls by DTI. Pricing above SRP is against the imposition of price
ceiling/controlling/fixing by the government—is not a crime except in emergency
cases. So there should be an emergency. )
DEFINITION OF A CRIME
Felony
Offense
Infraction of Ordinance
Article 22
1. A person shall not be criminally responsible under this Statute unless the
conduct in question constitutes, at the time it takes place, a crime within
the jurisdiction of the Court.
3. This article shall not affect the characterization of any conduct as criminal
under international law independently of this Statute.
Article 23
A person convicted by the Court may be punished only in accordance with this
Statute.
EX POST FACTO
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
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. Assuming 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 of some lawful protection to which he has become
entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of
amnesty.
-In re Kay Villegas Kami, Inc.
*Note: Prescription is the concept where the state has a defined period of time
to act on the crime. Afterwards, the state loses the right to prosecute.
Imprescriptible Crimes: Genocide, War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity
Mala Prohibita: not wrong in itself, but because the law prohibits it.
Example: Right to bear arms / right to revolution.
Good faith is irrelevant/not a defense for mala prohibita. The only question to
be asked is, “Was the act committed?” That would be enough for you to bear
criminal responsibility.
IV. ARTICLE 1: This Code shall take effect on the first day of January, 1932. It
was a revision of an older law of the Spanish dated December 17, 1886, enforcing
royal decree of September 4 1884—effective four months after.)
A. History of Revised Penal Code (US v Tamporong, 31 Phil 321; In
Shoop, 41 Phil 213; US v Balcorta, 25 Phil 373; Berbari v Concepcion, 40
Phil 837; Rationale of code of Crimes, Report, p.2)
B. Date of Effectiveness (Art. 1 and 366, RPC). If provisions of the older
Penal Code are helpful to the accused, they may apply.
C. Date of Effectivity of Penal Laws (Time, Inc. v Reyes, 39 SCRA 303;
Tanada v Tuvera [1986], 146 SCRA 446). The promulgation of a law
must take place before law takes effect.
V. ARTICLE 2. (Note: Memorize Article 1-22)
A. Source (Sec. 2 of Rafael del Pan’s Correctional Code of 1916; Code of
Maruecos; original draft of German Penal Code of 1913.)
B. Jurisdictional Limits of the Philippines (Opinion of Atty-Gen., January
18,1912; Art. 1, Constitution, Sec 3, Chap1, Book 1, Admin Code of
1982, see also discussion under territoriality, above).
C. Where offense punishable under the Revised Penal Code is also
Punished under Military Law
a. Military and Civil Courts have concurrent Jurisdiction (Domiit
Cabiling v Prison Officer, 75 Phil 1, Reyes v Crisologo, 75 Phil 225;
Ruffy v Chief of Staff, 75 Phil 875; Concepcino v Jalandoni, 75 Phil
655; Untal v Chief of Staff, 84 Phil. 586).
i. But War Crimes are not triable in Civil Courts (Cantos v
Styer, 76 Phil 748; Yamashita v Styer, 75 Phil 563, 66 Sup Ct.
340; Kuroda v Jalandoni, 83 Phil 171; Raquiza v Bradford, 75
Phil 50). Criminal law and war crimes is sui generis (of its
own kind)—criminal law is different from international law
on war crimes.
1. But See: presently, RA 9851 (Philippine Act on Crimes
against Int’l Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and other
crimes against humanity), Section: 4, War Crimes, 5
Genocide, 6 Other crimes against humanity, 9
irrelevance of official capacity), …33 Superior Orders
and Prescription of Law).
…
4. Piracy is triable anywhere (People v Lol-lo and Saraw,
43 Phil 19).
VI. ARTICLE III: Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of
fault (culpa).
In the original design: these are the ELEMENTS OF A CRIME under the Revised
Penal Code:
1. Freedom – no one can be convicted when the person
was not free to commit the act. (also for Special Penal
Laws and Ordinances)
2. Intelligence – capacity to think. 15 years old and
below is incapable of exercising
intelligence/discernment (Art. 12) (also for Special
Penal Laws and Ordinances)
3. Dolo (criminal intent/malice/deceit -- > delicto
/dolo / delictum) and Culpa (imprudence – lack of
skill/negligence -lack of foresight/ fault). For Special
Penal Laws and Ordinances, “intent to perpetrate the
act.” (Homicide - Art. 246 – Parricide, Art. 248 –
Murder, Art. 249 – Infanticide) Without regard to the
mind of the offender.
*Note: In terms of history, we have a lot of Special Penal Laws that deal with
Mala In Se.
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.
*Note: Criminal law only aspires to provide penal sanctions by acts manifested
externally (positive/negative—omission or commission). Not thoughts.
Revised Penal Code usually covers mala in se. Special Penal Laws and
Ordinances are mala prohibita but nothing stops LGUs form legislating criminal
acts—as long as it does not violate constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy.
People v Purisima: National legislation prohibiting carrying deadly weapons.
Elements of BP 22 (Bouncing Checks) and Estafa (Art. 315 of Revised Penal Code
– mala in se not because a check bounced, but because of deceit) are different.
Deceit will not be tried under BP 22.
Criminal Law is not to make persons good but to prevent them from committing
evil.
There can only arise a crime by omission where there is a legal duty that was
omitted. Examples: Crime of Possessing an Unlicensed Firearms, Explosives,
Dangerous Drugs. Filing of Income Tax Returns.
Tragedy occurs while 3 people were hunting in the forest. They saw a deer,
accidentally/involuntarily killing the person in front. Accident = acting in due
care, without intent to cause damage, injures somebody. This is not punishable.
US v Siy Cong Bieng = adulterated coffee. This is a crime of mala prohibita. Just
intent is required to be punished. 30 Phil 577.
Good faith negates criminal intent. But if crime is mala prohibita, good faith is
not a defense. Mala prohibita does not require intent. (Art. 217)
Timoner v People 125 SCRA 830. Coercion is a defense in itself. This means good
faith for the mayor who destroyed a barbershop built ON Maharlika Highway.
Being a nuisance per se can be abated.
People v People, Go Foo Suy, People v Diva, People v Marcos 70 Phil 468. The
Role of Motive. Motive impels us to do something. Intent is what we strive for
ahead of us. Motive is not an element of a crime except in a few crimes.
Rebellion: there must be political motive. Acts of Lasciviousness: There must be a
lewd motive. Malicious mischief.
2. Impossible Crimes
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.
a) Elements
1) Act performed would be a crime against persons or property.
a) Crimes against persons:
1) parricide (Article 246, RPC)
2) murder (Article 248, RPC)
3) Homicide (Article 249, RPC)
4) Infanticide (Article 255, RPC)
5) Abortion (Article 256-259, RPC)
6) Duel (Article 260-261, RPC)
7) Physical Injuries (Article 262-266, RPC)
8) Rape (Article 266A-B, RPC)
b) Crimes against property
Theft (308,310,313), usurpation (312-313), culpable
insolvency (314), swindling and other deceits (315-317),
chattel mortgage (319), arson and other crimes involving
destruction (320-326, Amended by PD 1613, Art 320,
amended by Sec. 10, RA 7659, PD 1613), malicious mischiefs
(Article 327-331).
2) Evil Intent.
3) Not Accomplished.
a) Inherent Impossibility
b) Employment of inadequate or ineffectual means
i) if crime is not produced despite adequate or
effectual means: Frustrated felony.
4) Reason why impossible crimes are punished.
5) No frustrated or attempted stage.
b) When accused cannot be convicted of impossible crime. (People v Ignacio)
Good faith applies for crimes that are committed intentionally. Negligence, it
doesn’t apply.
Non-Criminal: Prove good faith (DAP). Else, this will be treated as criminal.
Good Faith must be one of fact. For foreign laws, mistake of law is not a mistake
of fact. Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.
Mistake upon a difficult case of law, (Case of First Impression) good faith may be
a defense.
WHAT IS CULPABILITY?!
Mala prohibita: not even good faith is an excuse. Technical malversation. Article
220 of RPC. Has public service been embarrassed by DAP?
Article 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
Legislation.
In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the
Department of Justice, 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.
Malice and degree of injury – mala in se. not applicable to mala prohibita.
1. …
2. Clearly excessive penalty (Art. 5, Part 2, RPC)
A. Act charged is not punished by law but which court deems proper
to repress (Art. 5, par. 1, RPC)
1. Reasons: Nullum Crimen, Nulla Poena Sine Lege.
2. Acting with Lesser Degree of Malice (People v Orifon, 57
Phil 594; People v Castaneda, 60 Phil 604; People v Espino, et
al, CA-GR No 14029-R, Feb 20, 1956).
3. Duty to apply law as interpreted by SC (People v Santos, et
al., 104 Phil 1184).
4. Not applicable to Special Penal Laws: Possession of Firearms
(People v Estoista, 93 Phil. 654; People v Lubo, 101 Phil. 179);
Offenses punished by price control law (Ayuda v People, GR
L-6149, Apr 12, 1954); Violation of Dangerous Drugs Act
(People v Jandayan, GR No 74871, Feb 27, 1989)
5. Does not refer to Crimes Mala Prohibita (People v Quebral,
CA, 58 OG 7399).
Article 6.
1. Phases in Commission of Felonies
A. Subjective (US v Eduave, 36 Phil. 209)
B. Objective (People v Sy Pio (GR No. L-5848).
2. Development of Crimes – (Actus Reus—criminal act) Actions and
Thoughts for Mala In Se (Mens Rea—from a criminal
mind/malice/Criminal Intent—Good Faith negates Mens Rea)
A. Internal Acts.
Indeterminate Offense-Asks woman for clothes with a gun to her head. (US v
limbuangco) – checks and estafa.
People v Toling, 91 SCRA 382 – A,B,C – intimidated D to join them. Present but
did not participate. C and B – guns for hire. To rob a house. But to Kill X is the
real purpose. Murder – AB. Robbery ABC. Acquitted D.
Capital = beheading
DEGREES OF PENALTIES:
Grave Penalties
Death - indivisible
Reclusion Perpetual (20 yesars+ 1 day - 40
Reclusion Temporal (12 y + 1 day – 20y)
Prison Mayor (6 y + 1 day – 12y)
Correctional Penalties:
Prison Correctional (6m +1y – 6 y)
Arresto Mayor (1m + 1d to 6y)
Light Penalties:
Arresto Menor (1-30 days ) (min, med, max)
Special Aggravating Circumstance (ex. quasi-recidivism not susceptible of being cancelled out by any ordinary mitigating
circumstance. But only raises) v Generic Aggravating Circumstance.
People v Mesias – translation of ‘rice’ – robbery forced upon things. Palay is a mitigating circumstance v bigas.
Absolutory Cases (article 6 –attempted stage) – when attempted only
Image on Circumstances
…
Does not preclude defense of relative.
(1) Reason: Defender may be purely prompted by noble, generous sentiment
VI. Article 11, Paragraph 3
A. Defense of Relatives (art. 11, par.3 RPC)
1. Who are deemed strangers (People v Ancehta, et al., 66 Phil 638; People v Valdez, 58 Phil 31; US v
Subingsubing, 31 Phil 376).
2. Basis (US v Aviado, 38 Phil. 10).
3. Requisites.
1. Unlawful Aggression (See discussion under Art. 11, Par. 1, RPC)
2. Reasonable Necessity of Means Employed (See discussions under Art. 11, Par. 1, RPC)
3. Defender not induced by revenge, resentment, or or other evil motive
1. When third requirement not present (People v Cabellon and Gaviola, 51 Phil 851, Acting
under impulse of resentment).
Diminished Freedom or Intelligence + one or more requisites for exemption (Privileged Mitigating Circumstance, e.g. 15-
18 y/o with discernment)
One for of Mistake (Praeter Intentionem) Act was wrong as to that which he intended (People v Cagoco)
Sufficient Provocation preceding the act must be commensurate to act (Self-Defense) Unlawful Aggression
(People v Quiamzon)..effect of provocation on the offender leading to diminution in the exercise of his intelligence.
Vindication of Grave Offense = Diminished Intelligence – Immediately Preceded (Proximate, reasonable interval in
Spanish) by sufficient Provocation or Threat to close relatives
Impulse (Pagdidilim ng Isip) US v Hicks – Shooting of common law wife is not lawful. People v Bello – Old man in the
forest with woman from a well-lighted place. Man kills woman in movie theater. Man was provoked by the promiscuity
of the woman.
Woman pours water on herself. She gets raped. Lawful sentiment as provocation, not bestial instinct.
Disposition of Offender to Reform and Saving the Gov’t the expense and effort in finding offender and prosecute him as
Mitigating Circumstance:
Voluntary Surrender to a person in authority without force.
Admission of Guilt in Court when case is filed prior to presentation of evidence.
Spontaneity is KEY.
Illness of Offender that would diminish willpower of offender without depriving him of his acts.
Aggravating Circumstances-Article 14
Greater Criminal Perversity of the Offender.
Place, Time and other Circumstances.
Generic Aggravating Circumstances
Special Aggravating Circumstances
Certain inapplicable Aggravating Circumstances
Inherent Aggravating Circumstances
Personal to the Offenders.
Qualifying Circumstances
Article 15
Alternative Circumstances.
1. Definition or Concept (Art. 15, RPC)
2. Basis:
A. Nature and effects of crime.
B. Other conditions attending the commission of crime.
3. Specific Circumstance.
A. Relationship.
1. Defined.
2. Relatives Included.
1. Spouse.
2. Ascendant.
3. Descendant.
4. Legitimate,Natural or Adopted Brothers or Sisters
5. Relatives by Affinity within same degrees as the foregoing.
3. Other Relatives Included.
1. Stepparents and stepchildren (People v Bersabal, 48 Phil 439, People v Portento, CA 38 OG 467,
Similar to Ascendants and Descendants).
2. Adopted Parents and Adopted Child.
4. Relatives Excluded.
1. Uncle and Niece (US v Incierto, 15 Phil 358, People v BAlondo, 30 SCRA 155).
5. When Exempting.
1. Theft (Art. 332 -- No criminal but only civil liability shall result from the commission of the
crime of theft, swindling ,ro malicious mischief committeed or caused mutualy by the
following persons:. Parents and siblings up to parents and siblings in-law.)
2. Swindling or Estafa (Art.332)
3. Malicious Mischief (Art. 332)
6. When Mitigating
1. Crimes against Property
1. Robbery (Art. 294-302)
2. Usurpation (Art. 312)
3. Fraudulent Insolvency (Art. 314)
4. Arson (Art 321-322, Art 325-326)
2. Mitigation in Trespass to Dwelling (US v Ostrea, et al 2 Phil 93).
7. When Aggravating
1. Crimes against persons.
1. Offended party is of higher degree.
2. Offended party and offender are relatives of same level.
1. Brother (People v Alisub, 69 Phil 362)
2. Brother-in-law, People v Mercado, 51 Phil 99, People v Mendova et al, 100 Phil
811, However in People v Causi, GR No L-16498, June 19, 1963, Proof that
deceased was brother-in-law of accused was held not aggravating because
relationship by affinity only aggravates where offended party is of higher degree,
on the other hand, see US v Ancheta, 1 Phil 30, where relationship was
appreciated as mitigating because accused killed his brother-in-law in view of
conduct pursued by the latter in contracting adulterous relations with wife of
accused; Also v Velarde, 39 Phil 991, where accused clubbed his brother-in-law
who was suffering from an attack of insanity, and where such relationship was
held mitigating: cause of maltreatment held to be the desire to render service to a
relative
3. Half-brother
4. Adopted brother
5. Offended party is of lower degree
6. Serious physical injuries, except when inflicted by parent upon his child by
excessive chastisement.
7. Less or slight physical injuries: ordinary rule applies.
8. In homicide or mrder: always aggravating.
9. Crimes against chastity: always aggravating.
1. Appreciated as aggravating in rape by stepfather of his stepdaughter, rape
by father of his daughter.
8. When neither mitigating, aggravating nor exempting.
1. When an element of crime.
1. Parricide.
2. Adultery.
3. Concubinage.
B. Intoxication.
1. Defined.
2. Reason why intoxication affect criminal liability (People v Amenamen, CA 37 OG 2324), when
mitigating, because of impairment of will-power, when aggravating, because it is intentional, lessens
individual resistance to eveil thoughts and undermines the will power making himself a potential
evil-doer).
3. Reason why intoxication modifies criminal liability (People v Amenamen).
4. When Mitigating.
1. Not habitual.
1. Presumption in favor of non-habitual character of intoxication (US v Fitzgerald, 2 Phil
419, People v Dungka, 64 Phil 423, Intoxication once proved is presumed accidental; see
also People v Dacanay, GR No L-11568, Mar 30, 1959).
When Intoxication found habitual (People v Amenamen, defining habitual drunkard as
one given to intoxication by excessive use of intoxicating drinks, US v McMann, 4 Phil 561,
Accused seen drunk twelve times or more).
2. Not subsequent to plan to commit felony (People v Hernandez et al, 91 Phil 334).
3. Proven by satisfactory evidence (People v Noble 77 Phil 93; People v Apduhan, Jr. 24 SCRA
798).
1. Intoxication not proved in (People v Noble, 77 Phil 93, People v Pardo, 79 Phil 568).
4. But not appreciated separately when concurring with obfuscation and lack of instruction
(People v Baterna, 49 Phil 997).
5. When Aggravating
1. Habitual (People v Ponciano, GR No. 86453, Dec. 5, 1991, accused admitted abit of drinking
and taking prohibited drugs while drinking liquor).
2. Intentional (Subsequent to plan to commit felony).
C. Degree of instruction and education.
1. When mitigating.
1. Low Degree of Education.
1. Exceptions.
1. In crimes against property (US v Pascual 9 Phil 491, People v de la Cruz, et al 77
Phil 444, People v Melendrez, 59 Phil 154; But see US v Maqui, 27 Phil 97,
Mitigating in theft of large cattle, accused beign member of uncivilized tribe of
igorots, People v Patricio, 79 Phil 227, People v Mantawar, 80 Phil 817, Robbery
with homicide. Contra: People v Enot et al, GR L-17530, Oct. 30, 1962.
2. In crimes against chastity (Molesa v Director, 59 Phil 406, US v Borjal, 9 Phil 140).
3. In Treason (People v Lansanas)
4. In murder or homicide (People v Mutya)
5. Lacking education but highly and exceptionally intelligent and mentally alert as
to realize the full significance of his acts not entitled to this mitigating
circumstance (People v ORbista et al, 95 Phil 63, People v Geronimo 53 SCRA
246).
2. Who are illiterate.
1. Accused who only finished caton (basic alphabet and numbers up to grade 1,
People v Marasigan, 85 Phil 427).
2. Accused who did not even finish first grade of elementary school (People v
Limaco, 88 Phil 35).
3. Who are literate.
1. Accused who studied up to 6th grade (people v Pujilino 27 SCRA 1185).
2. Accused who finished grade two and usually answered in tagalog questions
propounded in english.
3. City Resident hwo knows hhow to sign his name.
4. But see people v Orbista where it was conceded that a person able to sign his
name may still be so densely ignorant and of such low intelligence that he does
not fully realize the consequences of his act.
2. When aggravating.
1. High degree of education
1. Being a lawyer not aggravating in case of physical injuries, he not having taken
advantage of his high degree of education. (People v Sulit CA-GR No. 21102-R,
Sep. 29, 1959).
ARTICLE 19.
1. Accessories Defined (Art. 19, RPC)
2. Distinguished from Principal and Accomplice.
3. Requisites.
a. Knowledge of Crime.
i. Mere possession of stolen property not enough: proof of knowledge of commission of crime required
(People v Racimo, CA 40 OG 279).
ii. Entertaining suspicion that crime was committed not equivalent to knowledge (People v Batuampo, et al,
CA 62 OG 6269).
1. Crime committed by principal mustb e proved beyond reasonable doubt (People v Pardito, GRN o
L_3234, Mar 1, 1951).
iii. But knowledge may be acquired subsequent to acquisition of stolen property (US v Montano, 3 Phil 110).
iv. How knowledge is proved (People v Dalena, et al, CA-GR Nos 11387-R and 11388-R, Oct. 25, 1954).
1. Circumstantial evidence may suffice.
v. …
4. Nature of Liability.
a. Subordinate and subsequent (US v Mendoza)
i. When accessory may be convicted even if principal is acquitted( US v Villaluz and Palermo, 32 Phil 377).
b. But apprehension and conviction of principal unnecessary for holding accessory criminally liable (People v
Billon, CA 48 OG 1391, But not if, after trial, court declares that no crime was committed, People v Custorio, GR
No L-35578, Apr 8, 1932)
i. When arraignment, trial and conviction of accessory during pendency of separate case against principal
null and void (People v Gaw Lin, CA 63 OG 3821).
c. Accessories after conviction of principal.
5. Classes of accessories.
a. Those profiting themselves or assisting offender in profiting from effects of crime (People v Tanchoco, 76 Phil
463, US v Empelnado, 9 Phil 613, Distinguished from reward, People v Yatco, et al, CA 51 OG 260).
i. Accessory should not take property without principal’s consent: Stealing stolen property.
ii. But profiting by effects of crime may constitute act of principle under Art 307 RPC.
b. Assisting offenders to benefit from the effects of the crime
c. Concealing or destroying body of crime to prevent its discovery
i. Body of crime: corpus delicti
ii. Destruction of body of crime
1. Includes destruction or concealment of effects or instruments of crime (US v Villaluz and Palermo)
d. Harboring, concealing, or assisting in escape of principal of crime
i. Public officers as accessories: harboring, concealing or assisting escape of principal with abuse of public
functions
1. Mayor who refused to prosecute offender
ii. Private persons as accessories: harboring, concealing, or assisting escape of author of crime who is guilty
of treason, parricide, murder, attempt against life of president, or known to be habitually guilty of other
crime.
6. PD 1829 penalizes obstruction of apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders. (Even relatives)
7. PD 1612 Anti-Fencing Law of 1979
Article 20.
1. Accessories who are exempt from criminal Liability
a. Spouse
b. Ascendants
c. Descendants
PENALTIES IN GENERAL
Constitutional Provisions Relating to Penalties (Art 3, Sec 18-22, Art. 8, Sec. 4(2), 5, 1987 Const).
Provisions of the RPC of Constitutional Significance (Art 3,5,21,22, RPC)
Art. 21
1. Penalties that may be imposed: Non-retroactivity of Penal Statutes (Art. 5 & 21, RPC; US v Parrone, 24 Phil 29,
People v Carballo, 62 Phil 651)
a. Penalty, Defined (Cuello Calon, Codigo Penal)
b. Characteristics: Juridical Conditions.
i. Judicial and legal.
1. Imposed by virtue of judgment
a. What judgment of conviction must show
2. Prescribed by law
ii. Certain or definite.
1. Inescapability of effects.
2. Not imposed in alternative
iii. Commensurate or proportionate.
1. Extent measured by gravity of crime.
iv. Perasonal
1. No one may assume the criminal punishment of another.
2. No one should be punished for the crime of another.
v. Equal or uniform.
1. Applies indiscriminately to all transgressors of the law.
2. Power to punish crime and jurisdiction to impose penalties (People v Purisima, 69 SCRA 341).
3. Justification of punishment.
a. Prevention (People v de la cruz, 76 Phil 169)
b. Reformation (People v Ducosin, 59 Phil 108).
c. Exemplary (People v de la cruz, 76 Phil 169, People v Ubaldo, 24 SCRA 735, Exemplarity in the imposition of
death penalty)
d. Self-Defense (People v Carillo and Raqueno, 85 Phil 611, People v Molo, 88 SCRA 22, In particular, by means
of the death penalty)
e. Justice (People v Sabenorio, 91 SCRA 47).
4. System Penalties: Both rigid and elastic (People v Mape, 77 Phil 809)
5. Classification
a. Quantity.
i. Single (Art. 249 Homicide: Reclusion Temporal)
ii. Alternative (Imprisonment or fine).
iii. Compound (art. 316 [2], Estafa: People v Crisostomo, 5 SCRA 1048, Arresto Mayor, and fine; (Art.
315[3], Estafa, Tadeo v Visperas, 23 SCRA 669, Arresto Mayor in its maximum perod to prision
correccional in its minimum period).
iv. Complex (Art. 114, (3) , Treason by resident alien; Reclusion temporal to death).
v. Multiple (People v Peralta, 25 SCRA 759, Multiple penalties for multiple felonies).
b. Quality or relation (Art. 25 (RPC)
i. Principal
ii. Accessory
c. Gravity (Art. 25 RPC)
i. Capital
ii. Afflictive
iii. Correctional
iv. Light or common
d. Divisibility
i. Divisible (Art. 64 RPC)
ii. Indivisible (Art. 63, RPC)
e. Effects
i. Death
ii. Deprivation of Liberty
1. Imprisonment
a. Reclusion
i. Perpetua
ii. Temporal
b. Prision
i. Mayor
ii. Correccional
c. Arresto
i. Mayor
ii. Menor
d. Banishment (destierro)
iii. Deprivation of rights.
1. Disqualification
a. Perpetual
b. Temporary
c. Absolute
d. SPECIAL
2. Suspension
a. Public Office
b. Right to vote and be voted for
c. Profession or calling
3. Civil Interdiction
4. Fine
5. Confiscation or forfeiture
a. Instruments
b. Proceeds
6. Public Censure
7. Indemnification
8. Bond to keep the peace.
9. Payment of costs.
A finding of guilt must precede punishment (de Peralta v Campos, Jr. 61 SCRA 206 If accused is not found guilty, no court
can mete out punishment, see also, Abanto v Director of Prisons, 76 Phil 754, Reyes v Director of Prisons, 76 Phil 561,
People v Jose (Santos), 75 Phil 612).
Article 22.
1. Retroactive effect of penal laws (Art. 22 RPC, Escalante v Santos, 56 Phil 483, Rodriguez v Director of Prisons, 57
Phil 133).
a. Exception to rule on non-retroactivity (Art 22, RPC)
b. Exception to exception: Non-Retroactive even if favorable (People v Moran, 44 Phil 387, Tavera v Valdez, 1
Phil 468).
Article 23.
1. Effect of Pardon by Offended Party (Art. 23&344, RPC, Generally, not extinguishing Criminal Action: Arts.
2034,1306,1352, and 1409, New Civil Code).
a. Criminal Action Extinguished only by Pardon by offended party under Art. 344 (Art. 23 RPC, Balite v
People, 18 SCRA 280, Otherwise, pardon does not extinguish the criminal act).
i. Criminal Action distinguished from civil liability on interest of injured party (Art. 23, RPC, Rule
111[1] 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, Expressly allowing waiver of Civil Liability. See US v
Bertucio, GR No. L-299, Oct. 29, 1901, US v Heery, GR L-8634, Oct. 22, 1913, US v Guy-sayco, 13 Phil
292, Tan v Standard Vacuum Oil Co. 91 Phil 672, See also art. 112 RPC)
ii. Waiver of right to prosecute is contrary to public policy (US v De Guzman, 1 Phil 138, Parties cannot
change the nature of criminal causes, which are public in character, by converting them into civil
actions; see also (US v Leano and Gonzales, 6 Phil 368, As to the effect of agreement or compromise,
as to civil liability, on criminal liability (US v Mendezona, 2 Phil 375).
1. But provisional dismissal with the consent of the offended party, may now preclude the filing
of another criminal action or revival of the case, after the lapse of the periods prescribed in sec.
8, Rule 117, 2000 revised rules of crim procedure (Thereby qualifying the rule laid down in
People v Chang, 92 Phil 1084, to the contrary, see also, Acebedo v Sarmiento et al, GR No. L-
28025, Dec. 16, 1970).
iii. Payment after commission of crime does not prevent prosecution (Javier v People, 70 Phil 550).
iv. Extinction of civil action does not extinguish criminal liability (Art. 112 [extinction of civil action
arising from crimes, governed by civil law] and Title Four Book One [Extinction of Criminal Liability:
Art 89-99, RPC, People v Tierra, 12 SCRA 666, Prescription of Tax Liability does not extinguish
Criminal Liability, but see People v MAgdaluyo, 1 SCRA 991, Extinguishment of criminal liability
through payment of tax by compromise , made prior to criminal prosecution, a tax case being one
expressly allowed by law to be compromised).
v. Compromise or novation does not affect criminal liability (People v Benitez, 108 Phil 920).
b. Pardon by Offended PAry under Art. 344 distinguished from pardon by president under art. 36 RPC (Art
344 RPC)
Article 24.
1. Measures of prevention or safety not considered as penalties (Art. 24 RPC, Bayot v Sandiganbayan, 128 SCRA 383).
a. Detention fro commission of Crime (Art. 24 [1] and 124, [2], RPC, see Rule 113 [ARREST} and 114 [BAIL]
Article 25.
Article 26.
When Fine is afflictive, correctional or light penalty (Art. 26, RPC, See also Art. 75 RPC for graduation of fines).
1. Afflictive
a. Exceeding P6,000
2. Correctional
a. From P200 to P6000 (Samson v Court of Appeals, 103 Pihl 277).
3. Light
a. Less than P200 (See Art. 9 RPC, where P200 fine is classified as light felony, albeit same is a correctional
penalty under this article, People v Canson Jr (101 Phil 537).
i. Art. 9, Not. Art 26 should prevail as to prescription of crime, as Art. 90 leaves it to Art. 9 to fix the
meaning of light offenses, whereas Art. 26 merely classifies fines and does not relate to definition of
offesnes (People v Yu Hai, 99 Phil 725, People v Canson, Jr et al 99 Phil 725).
4. When no minimum is fixed, determination of fine is discretionary upon the court, provided maximum is not
exceeded (People v Quinto, 60 Phil 351).
For purposes of prescription, fine should not be converted into subsidiary imprisonment (People v Basalo, 101 Phil 57,
People v Crisostomo, 116 Phil 200).
Fine is not an accessory penalty, but as much a principal penalty as imprisonment (See Art. 25, not listing fine among
accessory penalties, People v Ignacio 13 SCRA 153, citing People v Crisostomo, 5 SCRA 1048).
Art. 28.
1. Computation of Penalties (Art. 28, RPC)
a. If offender in prison (Art. 28 RPC)
i. Term of duration of temporary penalties: Computed from day on which judgment of conviction shall
have become final (Art. 28 RPC, (7), Rule 120, 2000 Revised Rules of criminal Procedure; Wagan v
Tiangco, 72 SCRA 294, Judgment becomes final after accused starts serving sentence).
1. If the accused appealed, service of sentence commences from date of promulgation of
appellate decision (GR No. L-30603, 1969, Alvarado v Director of Prisions, 87 Phil 157).
b. If offender not in prision (Art. 28, RPC)
i. Term of Duration of penalty consisting of deprivation of liberty: computed from day that offender is
placed at disposal of authorities for enforcement of penalty
ii. Term of duration of other penalties: computed only from day on which defendant commences to
serve sentence (Art. 28 RPC)
Art. 29
1. Deduction of period of preventive imprisonment from term of imprisonment (Art. 29 RPC)
a. Requisites.
i. Offender has undergone preventive imprisonment (Art. 29, RPC)
ii. Sentence consists of deprivation of liberty (Art. 29, RPC, People v Magonawal, 63 SCRA 106,
Destierro is a penalty consisting of deprivation of liberty , People v Bastasa, et al, 88 SCRA 184).
1. Even one sentenced to reclusion perpetua is, unless otherwise disqualified, entitled to credit
for preventive imprisonment (US v Ortencio, 38 Phil 341).
iii. Offender agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted
prisoners (Art. 29 RPC)
1. Refusal by dentention prisoner to abide by same disciplinary rules as are imposed on
convicted prisoners: credit limited to 4/5 of time in preventive imprisonment.
2. Exception: those not entitled to deduction for period of preventive imprisonment.
a. Recidivists (People v Gona GR No. L-47177, Nov. 4, 1940).
b. Convicted previously twice or more times of any crime (Evangelista v Dir. Of Prisons)
Art. 30.
1. Effects of penalties of perpetual of temporary absolute disqualification for Public Office (Art. 30 RPC)
a. Deprivation of public offices or employments, even if conferred by popular election
b. Deprivation of right to vote and be elected in elections for populat elective office.
c. Disqualification from office or public employment and for exercise of rights mentioned.
d. Loss of rights to retirement pay or pension.
2. If absolute disqualification is temporary, disqualification comprised in Par. 2 and 3 of Art. 30 lasts only during term
of sentence. (Lacuna v Abes)
Art. 31
Art. 32
Art. 33
Art. 34
1. Rights Deprived under civil interdiction (Art. 34, 40, 41 RPC)
a. Parental Authority of guardianship, either as to person or property of ward.
b. Marital authority
c. Right to manage property by any act or conveyance inter vivos (see also, Arts. 38, 1323, New Civ. Code, on
effect of civil interdiction on civil law capacity to act and, therefore, to validly give consent to contracts; see
however, Cruz v Court of Appeals, 93 Phil 619, Limitation on capacity to act does not exempt from
obligation arising from one’s acts or property relations).
i. Disposition by will (Art. 783, New Civ. Code) or donation mortis cause (Art. 728 New Civ. Code Not
affected by Civil Interdiction.
Art. 35
1. Effects of bond to keep peace: duty of person sentenced to give bond (Art. 35 RPC)
a. Present two sufficient sureties to make undertaking:
i. That such person will not commit offense sought to be prevented.
ii. That in case offense will be committed, sureties will pay amount determined by court in judgment.
iii. Or, deposit amount determined by court in judgment to guarantee undertaking.
b. Period of duration of bond: as determined by court, accdg. To its discretion.
c. Effect of failure to give bond required (Art. 35 (3) RPC, detention not exceeding 6 months [grave or less
grave felony] or 30 days [light felony]; but see Art. 284, RPC, which ddiffers from this aricle in terms of the
effect of failure to give bond for good behavior (destierro).
Art. 36
1. Effects of pardon (Art. 36 and 113, RPC, People v Albofera, 159 SCRA 523, Civil liability unaffected. See also
Pelobello v Palatino, 72 Phil 441, Absolute pardon restores enjoyment of full civil and political rights; Cristobal v
Labrador, 71 Phil 34, Absolute Pardon removes consequences of conviction, Pendon v Diasnes, 91 Phil 441; Lacuna
v Abes, 24 SCRA 780, Plenary pardon removes disqualification under criminal and electoral codes).
a. No restoration of right to hold public office or right of suffrage.
i. Exception: when right to hold public office (Art. 30, 31, 36, RPC), or right of suffrage (Art. 32,
36RPC),expressly restored by terms of pardon.
1. Accused, whose monthly pension was stopped after he committed robbery, is entitled to
resumption thereof by reason of pardon (Alimon, chief of Constabulary, 60 Phil 456, Padon
resotres all his rights and relieves him of accessory penalties attaching to conviction).
ii. No exemption from payment of civil indemnity.
iii. May be absolute (Art. 89 [4] RPC) or Conditional (Art. 94[1] RPC)
1. Need for compliance with conditions of pardon (Art. 95 RPC), violation of which is penalized
under Art. 159 RPC.
Art. 37.
1. What costs include (Art. 37)
a. Fees and indemnities in course of judicial proceedigns.
i. Fixed
ii. Unalterable amounts previously determined by law or regulations in force (Rule 142, Revised Ruels
of Court.
iii. Amounts not subject to schedule.
2. No subsidiary imprisonment for failure to pay costs.
Art. 38.
i. Pecuniary liabilities and their order of payment when property of offender not sufficient for all (Art 38 RPC).
a. Reparation of damage caused.
b. Indemnification of consequential damages.
c. Fine (Esler v Ledesma, 52 Phil 114, may be satisfied from cash deposit or bail).
d. Costs of proceedigns.
ii. Pecuniary Liabilities (Art. 38, RPC, fine and costs included but restitution excluded) distinguished from civil
liability (Art. 104, RPC includes restitution but excludes fine and costs).
Art. 39.
i. Subsidiary personal liability in case of insolvency to pay fine: one day of each 8 pesos (Art. 39 RPC as amended by
RA 5465, Ramos v Gonong, 72 SCRA 565, People v Fajardo, 65 Phil 539, See People v Moreno 60 Phil 712, Applying
subsidiary liability under special laws, also Copiaco v Luzon Brokerage, 6 Phil 184,
Art. 40
i. Accessory penalties of death penalty, when not executed because of commutation or pardon (Art. 40 and 73, RPC,
Death penalty itself does not carry accessory penalties).
a. Perpetual absolute disqualification (Art. 40 RPC)
b. Civil Interdiction (Art. 40 RPC), 30 years from date of sentence, but see Art. 41, where civil interdiction is for
life or during the period of the sentence)
ii. Accessory penalties effective during 30 years following date of sentence (Art. 40 RPC).
a. Exception: when pardon expressly remits accessory penalties (Art. 40 RPC).
Art. 41
i. Accessory penalties of reclusion perpetua and reclusion perpetual (Art. 41 and 73, RPC)
a. Civil interdiction (Art. 41 RPC)
i. For life or during period of sentence (Art. 41 RPC)
b. Perpetual absolute disqualification (Art. 41 RPC)
Art. 42
i. Pardon as to principal penalty does not extinguish accessory penalties (Art. 42)
a. Exception: when pardon expressly remits accessory penalties
Art. 43
i. Accessory penalties of prision correccional (Art. 43 and
Art. 44
Pendon v Diasnes
Art. 45
i. Confiscation and forfeiture of proceeds or instruments of crime (Art. 45 General Forfeiture Provision), 25 (As
accessory penalty, therefore, included in every penalty imposed for the commission of crime) and 186 Special
Forefeiture Provision RPC, Arts. 1411 and 1770 New Civil Code, Confiscation of effects and instruments related to
illegal contracts, RA 1379, Sec. 20 and 23, the Dangerous drugs act of 1972).
a. Carried by imposition of penalty for commission of felony (Art. 45 +25 RPC)
i. No forfeiture when no criminal case, proving guilt for commission of crime
ii. Where no forfeiture has been ordered by the corut, gov’t cannot appeal and ask for forfeiture
without placing accused in double jeopardy, same being an additional penalty (People v Paet, 100
Phil 357, People v Sanchez, 101 Phil 745, People v Revil, 104 Phil 1043).
b. Art. 45 has been applied to special penal statutes
i. When art. 45 not applicable to special laws:
1. When special law does not itself provide for confiscation or forfeiture.
ii. No confiscation where property not in possession of court or any parties to the action.
iii. No confiscation of property belonging to third persons not liable for the offense (People v Jose, 37 Phil 450, Car
registered in the name of accused’s mother, who is not herself liable for the offense).
iv. Confiscation of proceeds or insturments of crime made in favor of gov’t, but stolen property must be restored to
complainant (People v Vales 15 SCRA 26. Ramirez v Yatco) while articles not subject of lawful commerce are to be
destroyed (Art. 45 RPC)
Art. 46
i. Penalty to be imposed upon principals in general (Art. 46 RPC)
a. Penalty prescribed by law for commission of felony
i. When judgment fails to specify whether accused is convicted as principal, accomplice or accessory, it
is understood that he is being penalized as principal.
b. When law prescribed penalty in general terms
i. Understood as applicable to consummated felony
ii. Exceptions (Art 60)
1. Law provides that penalty is for principal at attempted Stage (Art .121)
2. Law provides that penalty is also intended for accomplice (Art. 346 RPC)
Art. 47
i. Cases when death penalty shall not be imposed (Sec. 19 [1] Art. 3 1987 Const; Art. 47 RPC)
a. Crime not classified as heinous for compelling reasons
b. Guilty persons is more than 70 years of age.
c. Lack of necessary votes on appeal or revision of case before SC.
d. When guilty Person is below 18 y/o at time of commission of crime.
ii. Cases when death penalty is imposable (RA 7659, Sec. 19[1] Art 3 1987 Const. See People v Echegaray, 267 SCRA
682, upholding the constitutionality of RA 7659).
iii. Penalty imposable in cases where death penalty cannot be imposed: reclusion perpetua (Art. 47 RPC as amended
by Sec. 22 RA 7659).
Art. 48
Complex Crimes
i. Penalty for complex crimes: penalty for most serious crime, applied in maximum period (People v Gonzales, 73
Phil 549).
a. Single act constituting two or more grave or less grave felonies (Art. 48 RPC, People v Pineda, 20 SCRA 748).
i. Compound crime (Delito compuesto): Case of ideal Plurality People v Buyco, 80 Phil 58 (Murder with
homicide); People v Balotol, 84 SCRA 289, People v Guillen, 85 SCRA 307 [Grenade-throwing], People
v Tayo, 141 SCRA 393 [killing by explosion], People v Francisco 94 Phil 975[Dynamite-throwing];
People v Largo, 99 Phil 1061 [Bombing an airplane], People v Anquilano, 149 SCRA 442 [murder with
less serious physical injuries], people v PAculba 124 SCRA 383 (Murder with frustrated urder, People
v Lojo 52 Phil 390 (Homicide with direct assault), People v Gadiano, 115 SCRA 654 Homicide with
direct assault, People v Renegado, 57 SCRA 275 (Murder with direct assault), People v Basbanio et al
7 SCRA 647 (Murder with direct assault, People v Jaranilla et al, 55 SCRA 563, (Direct assault with
homicide, People v Oliva, 95 Phil 962 (Unreported, arbitrary detention
ii. Complex crime in strict sense (Delito complejo)
a. Abduction with rape (People v Ablaza, 30 SCRA 173, People v Bulaong 106 SCRA 344, People v Babasa, 97
SCRA 672 (six rapes), but See People v Jose 37 SCRA 450, People v Bernal, 131 SCRA 1 Illegal detention not a
necessary means to commission of rape).
i. Distinguished from kidnapping with serious illegal detention, with rape committed during illegal
detention (People v Ablaza, 330 SCRA 173).
ii. Distinguished from case where succeeding rapes cannot be considered as complexing one forcible
abduction with rape (People v Bohos, 98 SCRA 353).
b. Kidnapping with Murder (People v Ty Sui Wong, 83 SCRA 125, PArulan v Rodas, 78 Phil 855).
i. Murder Absorbed Kidnapping (People v Ong, 62 SCRA 174, People v Camo and Manzanido 91 Phil
240).
c. Malversation through falsification (People v Barbas, 60 Phil 241, People v Silvallana, 61 Phil 636, People v
Pamati-an, 69 Phil 463).
d. Estafa through falsification (US v Ferrer, 34 Phil 277).
i. But no complex crime of estafa through falsification of private document (People v Dizon, CA 48 OG
168 (Falisfication of Private Document only), People v Reyes, 56 Phil 286(Falsifcation of private
document only).
e. Seduction through usurpation of public functions (US v Hernandez et al 29 Phil 109).
f. Incriminatory machination through unlawful arrest (People v Alagao, et al 16 SCRA 879).
iii. Separate liabilities for separate acts (People v Bakang, 26 SCRA 840, People v Macaso, 85 Phil 819).
a. No complex crime where one offense found not to be a necessary means to commit another.
i. Robbery not a means to commit attempted rape (People v Cariaga, CA 54 OG 4307).
ii. Illegal detention not a necessary means to commit rape (People v Bernal, 131 SCRA 1).
iii. Falsification not a necessary means to commit malversation (Regis v People, 67 Phil 43).
b. No complex crime where an offense is used to conceal another.
i. Falsification to conceal estafa (People v Benito, 57 Phil 587).
ii. Falsification to conceal (US v Geta, 43 Phil 1009, People v Cid 66 Phil 354).
c. Arson to conceal homicide (People v Bersabal, 48 Phil 439).
iv. Successive acts distinctly unrelated or independent.
a. Frustrated coercion followed by murder (People v Ang Cho Kio, 95 Phil 475).
b. Attempted rape and theft (People v Buena CA 52 OG 4698).
c. Four separate discharges of firearm (People v Buyco, 80 Phil 58).
d. Distinct or separate acts of murder (People v Duco et al, 86 Phil 176, People v Mones, 86 Phil 331, People v
Daligdig, 89 Phil 598, People v Pineda, 20 SCRA 748, People v Bakang, 26 Phil 840, People v Remollino, 109
Phil 607, People v Pantoj, 25 SCRA 468, People v Ordonio, 82 Phil 324, People v Noveloso, 96 SCRA 78,
People v Layos, 60 Phil 224, People v Pardo et al, 79 Phil 568, People v Tamani, 55 SCRA 153).
i. Killings resulting from single impulse, exceptionally considered a single crime of multiple homicide
(People v Lawas, 97 Phil 95, explained as exceptional in people v Remollino, 109 Phil 607, which
found six separate acts of murder, in relation to victims killed one after another on same occasion, see
also, People v Garcia, 96 SCRA 497).
1. Prison riot cases: People v de los santos, 14 SCRA 702; People v Abella, et al, 93 SCRA 25).
2. Defamation against three victims with common surname, uttered on single occasion
constitutes only one offense (People v Aquino, 99 Phil 713, But see People v del Rosario et al,
86 Phil 163, inclusion of several persons in libel or slander cannot be the product of one act).
e. Acts committed on different occasions, not within one continuousperiod nor with only one criminal intent
(People v Dichupa, 3 SCRA 327).
f. Daily abstractions and diversions of sums of money collected on different dates constitutes separate acts of
estafa (Gamboa et al, v CA, 68 SCRA 308).
g. Theft of firearm and illegal possession thereof constitute two distinct crimes (People v Remerata, 98 Phil 998,
besides, one is present penalized under the RPC, while the other, under the Special Penal Statute; hence no
complex crime under Art. 48, RPC).
v. Light Offense cannot be complexed (Lontok v Gorgonio, 89 SCRA 632, People v Turla, 50 Phil 1001, People v
Estipona, GR No. L-46978, Nov. 14, 1940, People v Benitez, 73 Phil 671, citing People v Acierto, 57 Phil 671).
vi. Concept of complex crime applies to criminal negligence or quasi-offenses (People v Lara, 75 Phil 786, People v
Agito, 103 Phil 526, Castillo v Donato, 137 SCRA 210, Lapuz v CA et al, 94 Phil 710, Angeles v Jose, 96 Phil 151,
People v Narvas, 107 Phil 737).
vii. Rebellion cannot be complexed with common crimes (People v Hernandez, 99 Phil 515, People v Santos et al, 104
Phil 551, People v Lava, 28 SCRA 72, People Romagosa, 103 Phil 20, People v Rodriguez, 107 Phil 659, People v
Nana et al, 106 Phil 966, Ponce Enrile v Amin, 189 SCRA 573.
a. When Rebellion does not absorb common crimes (US v Alfont, 1 Phil 114, No necessary or indispensable to
object and purposes of rebellion, People v Buco, 21 SCRA 5, Murder committed after charge of rebellion was
filed).
b. Same rules applied in treason (People v Labra, 81 Phil 377, People v Adlawan, 83 Phil 194, Guinto v Veluz,
77 Phil 801, People v Suralta, 85 Phil 714, People v Navea, 87 Phil 1, People v Barrameda, 85 Phil 789), But
not in sedition cases (People v Cabrera, 43 Phil 64).
viii. Continuous Crime (Gamboa v CA, 68 SCRA 308, People v Ledesma, 73 SCRA 77, Phil People v de Leon, 49 Phil
437, People v Tumlos, 67 Phil 320, People v Jaranilla, 55 SCRA 563).
a. Distinguished from continuing crime or transitory offense (Gamboa v CA, 68 SCRA 308, Tuazon v Cruz, GR
No. L- 27410, Aug. 28, 1875).
b. Applied to prosecution under Special Penal Statutes.
i. Several Violations of Sec. 3(e) of the anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act, RA 3019, As Amended, as
delito continuado (Santiago v Garchitorena, 228 SCRA 214).
c. Only one prosecution possible for continuous crime (Crisologo v People, 94 Phil 477).
ix. Singularity of Criminal Act and Singularity of Criminal Intent (People v Lawas,
Art. 50-57
Stage of Execution / Degree of Participation.