August, 13, 2018  To constitute insanity, there must be a total deprivation of
freedom and will. No intelligence.
 Penalties in grave, less grave and light felonies. Art. 25.
 Offenses under special laws not applicable to RPC.
Exception: Can be applied supplementary if it can be
legally done.
 Subsidiary imprisonment because of insolvency.
(Bouncing Check Law) RPC is applied supplementary.
 Illegal gambling, all the instruments are confiscated by
the Court.
 Aggression is an act against another. Maybe through
words, actions. And it must be unlawful.
 Nature of the aggression? Must be bodily harm. Putting
life ang limb in risk.
 There must be a necessity of your actions overcoming the
aggression.
 Not enough that you are threatened. Your life and limb
are not in danger.
 There must be a positive threat. Must be imminent (real).
 Reasonable necessity – same degree of weapon. If
overpowered, you become the aggressor.
 Policeman who exceeded his authority is an aggressor.
No power to confiscate.
 Any public officer doing an act exceeding authority is an
aggressor. If there is some kind of violence.
 Lack of sufficient provocation – provocation (any that stirs
up anger.) Provocation must always be immediate to
your defense.
 Allowed to defend your rights, there must be physical
aggression that threatens your life and limb.
 Not allowed for some time to lapse.
 If it was the son who provoked, the father has no part in it.
A son encounters a fight, there was an aggressor.
Aggressor had a weapon. Father saw his son was attack
and rescue. Didn’t know his son was undisciplined. In
order to claim justifying circumstances of a defense of a
relative, he should not be a part of the provocation of the
original attacker.
 Supposing the attacker dies, the father is justified.
The son is liable whatever is inflicted on the
deceased, his act. But if the son also inflicted mortal
wound, the son would be convicted of homicide.
But the father is justified.
 Stranger – anyone that is not part of par. 2.
 Art. 429 of Civil Code.
 If a policeman makes a warrantless arrest, as long as he
confines himself in the rules of court, then he cannot be
charged of any unlawful act. He is performing an official
duty.
 Functions of officials – familiarize.
 Determine whether the order of superior is lawful.
August 14, 2018
 Justifying means there was no unlawful act. Exempting,
there was an unlawful act but exempted from liabilities.
 No child below 18 shall be put in prison.
 Schizophrenia is insanity.
 What if a person is performing a self-defense? What if the
person defending himself, with the use of bolo, attacker
was also armed with a knife. In the commotion, he hit the
spectators. Can he claim exemption based on this? Or
would he claim self-defense?
 A person even performing his right with due care
that you do not injure or cause damage to another.
 Right is not license.
 Whatever crime is committed, you are liable on the
spectator.
 If you performed an act with due care yet
something happened. If foreseeable, you are
negligent.
 Par. 5 – Irresistible Force, cannot claim if there was a
chance for you to escape. There is no way out.
 If you also have a weapon, you are expected to fight
back. Cannot invoke par. 5.
 Forced to steal because you are the only who has
access. You are already inside.
 Par. 6 – Uncontrollable Fear, intimidation or threat, fear of
greater injury.
 Love one is kidnap, he will not be release. Fear is instilled
so ordinarily you have to succumb. There was a use of
force. Disturbed your emotions and feelings and you
become helpless.
 Mun. treasurer was charged of malversation. Together
with him, clerk was also charged. Was the clerk exempt
for criminal prosecution? Defense was under instruction
by the boss. Do you think good faith can be a good
defense? Might lose her job if she does not obey.
 Maybe a good claim because of greater injury.
(Clerk)
 Treasurer was investigated by the Ombudsman. Her
reason is: Who can go against his Chief Executive?
Under the instruction of mayor.
 It could be (uncontrollable fear). Mayor exercises
ascendency over all his constituents. He has the
power.
 Was not dismissed.
 Absolutory cases (Entrapment vs. Instigation) -
Entrapment when the person has already been in that
act even before the police came. Instigation is a person,
standby is not engaged in any business and the police
called him up, and asked by police to buy a drug. Did
not make anything bad but was made to do it. Police
can be held liable.
 Mitigating circumstances – decreases the penalty.
 Ordinary and privilege mitigating circumstances.
 Ordinary normally applies to where the elements are not
complete. One element is lacking.
 Privilege they cover those where the offender is a minor
who acted with discernment.
 Ordinary – period; Privilege – degree (two periods)
 If you have the majority of elements, two periods lower.
Ordinary is only one.
 August 15, 2018
 If you exceeded the authority, you are no longer on the
bounds of legal. (par. 5, Art. 11)
 Reclusion perpetua is indivisible penalty.
 Over 70, ordinary privilege mitigating.
 It’s only when the offender committed Praeter
Intentionem to claim mitigating circumstances. (Par. 3,
Art. 13)
 If you pull off a prank and he died, will you be
responsible? Yes, without the cause, he couldn’t have
died.
 Par. 5 is a defense of relatives.
 With vengeance, under Par. 5, mitigating. Without
vengeance, justified.
 Par. 6, any unjust act is caused by which it triggers the
person. Must there be no time element in between.
Impulse just stays for a moment.
 Pars. 3-5 speak of unjust act. Par. 5 is the provocation.
 Slapping is a grave offense.
 Whether or not a warrant of arrest had been issued
against the offender is immaterial and irrelevant. The
criterion is whether or not the offender had gone into
hiding or had the opportunity to go into hiding and the
law enforcers do not know of his whereabouts. If he
would give up, his act of surrendering under such
circumstance indicates that he is willing to accept the
consequences of the wrong he has done and also
thereby saves the government the effort, the time and
the expenses to be incurred in looking for him.
 Voluntary must be spontaneous.
 Voluntary of plea of guilt during arraignment.
 Arraignment is important. Accused’s conscience is
targeted.
 Plea bargaining, he cannot enjoy mitigating
circumstance.
 You can claim both.
August 16, 2018
 Mitigating can be offset by aggravating. Privilege cannot
be offset by aggravating.
 Taking advantage of his public position. (Par. 1, Art. 14)
 Public authorities are persons in authority.
 A person with rank is accorded with respect.
 Is it necessary that the person of old age, be a victim?
 LGBT, aggravated on the part of the accused?
 You kill a person inside his dwelling. Aggravating.
 Confidence is a relationship of trust. If a person trusted
you, meaning he has put his reliance on you.
 If the body is not found, you cannot prove your case.
 In a band, there is always a conspiracy.
 Recidivist (robbery and theft) PLEASE READ.
 Recidivist – previously convicted (has not yet started to
serve the sentence.) While Par. 10 was previously
punished.
August 17, 2018
 Two malefactors in par. 11. The one who offers and the
one who receives.
 Par. 11, Art. 14 is related to Art. 8 (Proposal)
 The one who proposed committed the crime. Principal by
inducement and principal by direct participation.
 If somebody has been ordered to commit a crime. Gun
for hire. Penalty will be increased.
 Does instigation fall under par. 11? In case of instigation,
police officer and the person both committed a crime.
 Par. 12 – the very important word is means. The crime be
committed by means of fire or inundation.
 Supposing a person wanted to kill another. He used fire.
Burned the dwelling house. His purpose is to kill. Fire is a
means of killing. They committed a crime by means of
fire. But what if he burned the house not knowing a
person is there. This paragraph does not apply.
Committed arson.
 Premeditation is planning. Evident is deliberate.
 Mere threats without the act does not constitute evident
premeditation.
 Distinguishing fraud or disguise. If the person use trick, that
is craft. Fraud is misleading people by words. Disguise,
trick so that you will not be recognized, you use fictitious
name.
 Par. 16 – treachery (lipot) – MEMORIZE TREACHERY.
 Treachery refers to the employment of means, method
and form in the commission of the crime which tend
directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to
himself arising from the defense which the offended party
might make.
 Not necessary that the means employed accomplished
the crime. If it is accomplished, there is no frustrated
stage.
 Treachery qualifies killing in murder.
 Treachery absorbs some of the aggravating
circumstances. Par. 6, 8, 15, 14, 3.
 When the info alleged that he committed treachery, all
these other aggravating circumstance is already absorb.
 Cannot defend himself – treachery.
 Requisites of treachery.
 All of these aggravating circumstances are deliberately
chosen by the offender. Committed by means of dolo.
 No warning on the mode of the attack – still treachery.
 Two people killers, gun for hire. Should treachery be
appreciated against both of them? Only one who
executed the act. Not part of the conspiracy.
 Par. 17 – ignominy
 Ignominy refers to the moral effect of a crime and it
pertains to the moral order, whether or not the victim is
dead or alive. Cruelty pertains to physical suffering of the
victim so the victim has to be alive. In plain language,
ignominy is adding insult to injury. A clear example is a
married woman being raped before the eyes of her
husband.
 August 22, 2018  The one who acted in the indispensable cooperation
would be acting in negligence.
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
August 23, 2018
 Mitigating: (1) Crimes against property, (2) Less Serious
Physical Injuries (if victim is of lower rank), (3) Slight ACCOMPLICE (Art. 18)
Physical Injuries (if victim is of lower rank). Aggravating: (1)
Crimes against persons (infanticide, parricide, murder,  All connected in conspiracy except in accomplice.
homicide), (2) Serious Physical Injuries, (3) Less Serious  Accomplice – got knowledge (informed, saw the act)
Physical Injuries (if victim is of higher rank), (4) Slight after the conspiracy in a previous or simultaneous act.
Physical Injuries (if victim is of higher rank).  Moral support – not that of principal by DP
 Not indispensable
ART. 16 PERSONS WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE
ACCESSORIES (Art. 19)
Grave Less Grave Light
PRINCIPAL     With knowledge. (When: only after the commission)
ACCOMPLICES     Any person caught in possession of a stolen thing is
ACCESSORIES   presumed to be a thief.
 Can also be charged under the Rules of Evidence
 Punishable even if they are only in the attempted or  If the victim’s body is not found, no crime will be charged.
frustrated stage. (Art. 7)  Seeing his enemy being maltreated, approached the
fight and inflicted injury. Didn’t know the intent. Was not
PRINCIPALS part of the conspiracy. (Ans: Separate Individual Liability –
whatever he inflicted, he is liable.)
 Direct Participation, Induction, Indispensable  Q: An accomplice inflicted the injury that resulted into an
Cooperation offense which he did not intend to commit. Yes, he is
 All of them are principals of direct participation if they are liable. Art. 4.
in conspiracy. Agreed and decided (determined by overt
acts) to commit the crime. Act of one is the act of all.
Penalized by same penalties.
 Principal by direct participation – material execution of
the crime.
 Principal by indispensable cooperation – another act;
indispensable
 By inducement – by prize, reward or promise
 Conspiracy should be present when the fatal wound is
inflicted or at the time of the consummation.
 Purposely went there to show moral support. Criminally
liable. Lending moral support.
 No common design. Not in conspiracy.
 Always go back to the elements of conspiracy.
AGREEMENT AND DECISION.
 Q: Two people planned to inflict serious physical injuries.
But one killed the victim. (Killing is not part of the
conspiracy. One who killed is only liable for homicide.)
 Conspiracy can also cover by inducement and DP.
 Conspiracy cannot be applied in inducement because
the person did not agree to the inducer. (direct force and
uncontrollable fear)
 Conspiracy is available in inducement through words.
(price, reward, promise)
 To appreciate price, reward and promise, only factor that
moved in committing the crime. If there is personal
grudge, this will not apply.
 Indispensable Cooperation – crime would not have been
fully consummated without this.
 IC by conspiracy – agreed to perform the act in the
fulfillment of the common design.