CRIMINAL LAW

Definition
- That branch or division of law which DEFINES crimes, TREATS OF THEIR NATURE, and
provides for their Punishment.
Construction
- Strictly against the government and liberally in favor of the accused
- Prospective in nature. CANNOT MAKE AN ACT PUNISHABLE IN A MANNER IN WHICH IS WAS
NOT PUNISHABLE WHEN COMMITTED (Ex Post Facto Law)
o However, if the law is FAVORABLE TO THE ACCUSED, it can be applied retroactively.
PROVIDED further, that the new law does not prohibit retroactivity and that he is
not a habitual delinquent

PRINCIPLE OF GENERALITY IN CRIMINAL LAW*

As a general rule, criminal laws are binding on all persons who live or sojourn in the
Philippines
Exceptions:
1. Treaty Stipulations
2. Warship rule- warship of other country docketed in phil is considered an extension of
that country
3. Public international law- those exempted, usually diplomatic persons
4. LAWS OF PREFERENTIAL APPLICATION- Exempt from arrest and imprisonment are the
following:
a. AMBASSADORS and PUBLIC MINISTERS of foreign state
b. DOMESTIC SERVANTS OF Ambassadors and Public Ministers (example driver)
Example: driver of Ambassador killed a pedestrian while en route to the
embassy, does the immunity extend to him? In the performance of his duties,
yes.

PRINCIPLE OF TERRITORITALITY
- Penal laws of the Philippines are enforceable only within its territory
EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE: Principle of EXTRATERRITORIALITY
1. Crimes committed in a Philippine ship or airship- even if abroad or in high seas
as long as ship is registered in the phil
2. Forging or counterfeiting an coin or currenvy note of the Philippines or
obligations and securities issued by the government of the phil
3. Introduction to these islands the obligations and securities mentioned
4. Public officers or employees who commit an offense in the exercise of their
functions
Problem: A, a Mayor together with his secretary B, attended an official
conference in Korea. On the first night of the conference, Mayor called B in his
hotel room and raped her. Is the crime triable in the Philippines?

-NO, since the crime of rape was not committed in the performance of his public
duties.

5. Commission of asny crime against national security and the law of nations
Problem: can conspiracy to commit coup detat, if committed abroad be
prosecuted in the Philippines?
- NO, conspiracy to commit coupdetat is not a crime against national security and the law of
nations.It is a crime against public order.
 BILL OF ATTAINDER
- Legislative act which inflicts punishment to an act without trial. Bill of attainder is
unconstitutional.

EX POST FACTO LAW

That which makes an act criminal and punishable before the passing of the law , and which was
innocent when done; aggravates a crime or makes it greater that it was when committed;
deprives a person of protection to which he was entitlked before the passing of the law. It must
be prejudicial to the accused.

MALA IN SE vs MALA PROHIBITA

1. As to nature
MS: INHERENTLY WRONG amnd ESSENTIALLY EVIL; immoral in nature
MP: NOT INHERENTLY IMMORAL but becomes so because it is by LAW.
2. As to LAWS violated
MS: Revised Penal Code
MP: Special Law
3. As to intent
MS: Criminal intent is necessary. (In RPC usually intent is necessary)
MP: Criminal intent to Commit is not necessary, the mere intent to perpetrate an act
prohibited by law is sufficient (example in election gun ban, bringing of guns is considered
mala prohobita, mere intent to perpetrate)

4. As to defense of MISTAKE OF FACT

MS: Yes, it is a defense
MP: NOT a defense.
5. As to defense of GOOD FAITH
MS: Good faith is valid defense unless crime is result of culpa (negligence)
MP: Not a defense
6. As to STAGES
MS: attempted, frustrated, and consummated
MP: No stages
7. As to penalties
MS: degrees and periods; considers if there is a principal, accomplice or accessory
MP: penalties are speicifc in terms, penalties of offenders are the same, no degrees
8. As to appreciation of MITIGATING OR AGGRAVATING circumstances
MS: M or A circumstances are taken into account
MP: Not taken into account

FELONIES- acts or omissions punishable by law.

Elements
1. There must be an ACT/OMISSION
2. The act/omission must be punishable by RPC
3. The act is performed or the omission is incurred by means of dolo (malice or deliberate
intent) or culpa (fault, without malice)
Classifications
Grave felonies
Less grave felonies
Light felonies
 Attempted
Frustrated
Consummated

MISTAKE OF FACT
Misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to another
- Act would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be

(Important) Landmark case: Problem: A is a janitor in a school. He is very superstitious and is very
afraid of bad elements. One evening while cleaning in the storage room, he placed a chair in the
door to prevent anyone from entering. His co-worker B, tried to scare A by knocking loudly on the
door. A shouted twice “who is there?” but received no answer. Fearing that the intruder was a
robber, A held his pocket knife and shouted “if you enter this room I will kill you!”. B kicked the door
hitting A in the head which caused A to panic and attack B with the knife. B died. Can A be held
criminally liable?

- No, A cannot be held criminally liable as there was mistake of fact on the part of A. There
was no criminal intent. Had the facts been as A believed them to be (that B was indeed a
robber), then his act of killing B would have been justified for self-defense.

Proximate cause
- The natural and contitnuous sequence, UNBROKEN BY ANY EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE,
which produces injury and without which the result would not have occurred.
Efficient Intervening Cause
- Active force that INTERVENED between the felony committed and the resulting injury.

Effect: if there is efficient intervening cause, it will affect the determination of the liability of the
accused. In a commission of a crime, dapat the act constituting the felony must be the proximate
cause of the injury or death, if may efficient intervening cause na mag intervene in between, then
the accused’s liability would be determined only based on the act which resulted to the direct injury
before the efficient intervening cause.

Example: A stabbed B in the stomach but B did not die. Thw wound was not mortal. B was rushed to
the hospital but refused to have medication. He instead called a quack doctor (unskillful and
incompetent) to treat his wounds. Then later, his wounds became infected and later died.

- Here A cannot be held liable to the death of B. while the general rule is that he who inflicts
injury is not relieved of responsibility if the wound inflicted is dangerous, or calculated to
destroy or endanger life, even if the immediate cause of death was the erroneous or
unskillful medical or surgical treatment. However, is the wound is not mortal but the victim
died due to unskillful or incompetent medical treatment, then the accused cannot be held
liable for the death of the victim.

Article 4(1)
Criminal liability, how is it incurred?
1. By any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended;
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offnse against persons or property,
were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the
employment of adequate or ineffectual means.
If the wrongful act done is different from which he intended, he would still be criminally liable.
Instances:
1. ERROR IN PERSONAE- mistake in the identity of the victim (accused stabbed a victim
which he thought is his enemy but later found that it was a stranger)
2. ABERRATIO ICTUS- mistake in the blow (there is mistake in the execution of the act
causing injury to another)
Sample: A hit B with a bat. B dodged, so the bat hit C in the head.
3. PRAETER INTENTIONEM- the injurious result is greater than that intended. IT IS
CONSIDERED AS A MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE.

IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
Elements:
1. Act would be an offense against persons of property
2. Done with evil intent
3. Its ACCOMPLISHMENT IS INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBLE and that the MEANS EMPLOYED IS
INADEQUATE OR INEFFECTUAL
4. Act should not constitute a violation of another provision in the RPC
Problem: A was hired to kill B. A went to the house of B and fired his armalite towards the room of B.
However, there was no one on the house of B. What crime was committed?
-Impossible crime as there was physical impossibility in the accomplishment of killing of B.

Raping of a dead corpse. Impossible crime.

CONSPIRACY (general rule not punishable as this is a mere preparatory act. It becomes punishable if
the perpetrator has committed an overt act to commit such felony conspired upon)
Elements:
1. There are TWO OR MORE PERSONS who come into an AGREEMENT
2. the agreement pertains to the COMMISSION OF A FELONY
3. The EXECUTION of the felony was decided upon. (decide to commit it)

Recidivist
- 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 RPC
Quasi Recidivist
- Commits a felony after having been convicted by final judgment of another crime, befiore
serving such sentence. The SECOND CRIME NEEDS TO BE A FELONY PUNISHED UNDER RPC.
Reiteracion
- Habitual offender
- The offender must have served his sentence for the first offense then committed another
offense
- Old and new offense need not be under the same code (RPC)

Sample: A who was out on bail, was convicted of theft by final judgment of a crime punished under
RPC. Before his arrest due to the judgment, he was caught carrying marijuana. Is he a quasi
recidivist?
NO. crime of possessing marijuana is punished under the Dangerous Drugs Act which is a
special law. To become a recidivist, two felonies must be under the RPC or that if one is a special
law, the second offense must be the one punished under RPC.
Sample. A was convicted of crime for selling drugs (special law). While serving his sentence, he
stabbed B’s arm with a fork. Is he a quasi recidivist?

YES. It makes no difference whether the crime for which the accused is serving sentence, at the time
of commission of the felony charged, is punished under the RPC or a special law. The second crime is
the only one required to be a felony (under RPC)

ACCOMPLICE vs CONSPIRATOR, distinctions:

The distinction between an accomplice and a conspirator are:

1. An accomplice incurs criminal liability by MERELY COOPERATING in the execution of the crime
without participating as a principal, by prior or simultaneous acts; whereas a conspirator
PARTICIPATES in the commission of a crime as a co-principal.

2. An accomplice incurs criminal liability in an individual capacity BY HIS ACT ALONE of cooperating in
the execution of the crime; while a conspirator incurs criminal liability not only for his individual acts
in the execution of the crime but also FOR THE ACTS OF THE OTHER PARTICIPANTS in the
commission of the crime collectively. The acts of the other participants in the execution of the crime
are considered also as acts of a conspirator for purposes of collective criminal responsibility.

3. An accomplice participates in the execution of a crime WHEN THE CRIMINAL DESIGN OR PLAN IS
ALREADY IN PLACE; whereas a conspirator PARTICIPATES IN THE ADOPTION OR MAKING OF THE
CRIMINAL DESIGN.

4. An accomplice is subjected to a penalty ONE DEGREE LOWER than that of a principal;

whereas a conspirator incurs the PENALTY OF A PRINCIPAL.

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
- Act which are said to be in accordance with law such that the person is deemed not to have
transgressed the law hence is free from incurring criminal liability

What are justifying circumstances?

1. Self Defense
2. Defense of Relatives
3. Defense of Stranger
4. Avoidance of greater evil or injury
Sample: driving car, then an old woman suddenly crossed street. In order to avoid
hitting the pedestrian crossing, he swerved the other way hitting another pedestrian
passing by. Here, this is considered as a justifying circumstance to avoid a greater
evil or injury.
5. Fulfilment of duty or lawful exercise of right or office
6. Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose

DEFENSE OF STRANGER (important)

Article 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; (SELF -DEFENSE) (U.R.L)
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.

3. 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. (DEFENSE OF RELATIVES)
Note: if beyond the fourth civil degree, considered as defense of stranger)

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 Article are present and that the
person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.

Elements:
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
3. The person defending was not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive.

Notes:
● A stranger is any person not included in the enumeration of relatives under par. 2 of Art. 11.

● If the person being defended is a second cousin, it will be defense of stranger.

● In self-defense and defense of strangers, unlawful aggression is a primordial element, a condition

sine qua non. If no unlawful aggression attributed to the victim is established, self-defense and
defense of strangers are unavailing, because there would be nothing to repel. (People vs. Del
Castillo, G.R. No. 169084, January 18, 2012)

● Basis: What one may do in his defense, another may do for him. The ordinary man would not
stand idly by and see his companion killed without attempting to save his life.

● The first and crucial requisite for defense of strangers to prosper is absent in this case. Unlawful
aggression presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger on the life or
limb of a person. The mere cocking of the M-14 rifle by the victim (Cbl. Salabao) without aiming the
firearm at any particular target, is not sufficient to conclude that the life of the Vice-Governor,
Herrera or even of Amora was in imminent danger. A threatening or intimidating attitude per se
does not constitute unlawful aggression. 11 Even a mysterious whisper poses no danger. There is
nothing from the act of the victim in trying to stand up, from which the Court may infer that the life
of the person (the Vice Governor) whom petitioner was allegedly protecting, was under actual threat
or attack from the victim. (Almeda vs. CA, G.R. No. 120853, March 13, 1997)

● If one who defends a third person under the conditions and with the requisites the penal law lays
down for exempting him from responsibility should be acquitted of the charge in a case prosecuted
against him, then when a person who did nothing more than furnish a weapon to one whom he saw
in peril and in great need of defending himself and repelling a serious assault, as Juan Subingsubing
was doing and where the person assaulted made lawful and reasonable use of the weapon furnished
him and he has been declared exempt from responsibility, it is illogical and unjust to deny to said
assistant the same exemption from responsibility and the exoneration granted the slayer on the
grounds of self-defense, as was held in the same judgment to be lawful and right. (People vs. Subing-
Subing, G.R. No. L-10736, August 31, 1915)

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.
-One single fact cannot be made the basis of more than one mitigating circumstance. Hence, a
mitigating circumstance arising from a single fact, absorbs all the other mitigating circumstances
arising from the same fact.

BASIS: Diminution of either freedom of action, intelligence, or intent, or on the lesser perversity of
the offender.

CLASSES:
ORDINARY
PRIVILEGED

Par 1. INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING OR EXEMPTING CIRUMSTANCES

- Applies, when all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability are
NOT attendant.
- It is considered a privileged mitigating circumstance, provided, majority of the elements required
to justify or exempt are present.
- But in the case of “incomplete self-defense, defense of relatives, and defense of a stranger,”
unlawful aggression must be present, it being an indispensable requisite.

Par 2. UNDER 18 OR OVER 70 YEARS OLD

-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 trial is immaterial.

LEGAL EFFECTS OF VARIOUS AGES OF OFFENDER

15 and below – exempting

Privileged mitigating circumstance
Above 15 but under 18 – exempting unless acted with discernment – But even with discernment,
penalty is reduced by one (1) degree lower than that imposed. (Art 68, par 2, amended by RA 9344)
Minor delinquent under 18 years of age – sentence suspended (Art 192, PD 603 as amended by PD
1179, referred to as Children in Conflict with the Law under RA 9344).
Child in Conflict with the Law – refers to a child who is alleged as, accused of, or being adjudged as,
having committed an offense under Philippine laws.
18 years or over – full criminal responsibility
70 years or over – mitigating, no imposition of death penalty if already imposed execution of death
penalty is suspended and committed
BASIS: Diminution of intelligence

Par 3. NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG (Praeter Intentionem)

-Offender did not intend to commit so grave a wrong

-Disproportion of the means employed to execute the crime and the consequences produced

Rule for the application:

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.
> Intention may be ascertained by considering:
(a) The weapon used
(b) The part of the body injured
(c) The injury inflicted
(d) The manner it is inflicted
- Not applicable to felonies by negligence.
- Not applicable to felonies where intention is immaterial.
-Not appreciated in murder qualified by treachery (Reyes).

BASIS: Lack or diminution of intent

Par 4. PROVOCATION OR THREAT

PROVOCATION is understood as any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party,
capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating any one.

REQUISITES:
(1) The provocation must be sufficient.
> Sufficient means adequate to excite a person to commit the wrong and must accordingly
be proportionate to its gravity (People vs. Nabora, 73 Phil 434, 435)
> Depends on:
(a) The act constituting the provocation
(b) The social standing of the person provoked
(c) The place and time when the provocation is made
(2) It must originate from the offended party.
(3) The provocation must be personal and directed at the accused.
(4) The provocation must be immediate to the commission of the crime by the person who is
provoked.
- The threat should not be offensive and positively strong. Otherwise, the threat to inflict
real injury is an unlawful aggression, which may give rise to self-defense.

BASIS: Diminution of intelligence and intent

Par 5. IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF RELATIVES OR HIMSELF or VINDICATION OF GRAVE OFFENSE

REQUISITES:
(1) That there must 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 degrees.
(2) That the felony is committed in immediate vindication of such grave offense.
- “Immediate” allows a lapse of time unlike in sufficient provocation, as long as the offender
is still suffering from the mental agony brought by the offense to him.

To determine whether the personal offense is grave, the following must be considered:
(1) Social standing of the person
(2) Time when the insult was made
(3) Place where the insult was made
(4) Sometimes, even the age is considered

BASIS: Diminution of the conditions of voluntariness

Par 6. PASSION OR OBFUSCATION

- The infliction of injury must be immediate from the act that caused passion or obfuscation.

ELEMENTS:
(1) The accused acted upon an impulse.
(2) The impulse must be so powerful that it naturally produced passion or obfuscation.

REQUISITES:
(1) That here be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of mind
(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.
(3) The act causing such obfuscation was committed by the victim himself.
- The passion or obfuscation should arise from lawful sentiments in order to be mitigating.
- May lawfully arise from causes existing only in the honest belief of the offender.

BASIS: Loss of reasoning and self-control, thereby diminishing the exercise of his willpower.

Passion or Obfuscation is NOT mitigating when committed:

(1) In the spirit of lawlessness
(2) In the spirit of revenge

Passion or obfuscation cannot CO-EXIST with:

(1) Vindication of grave offense
(2) Treachery
Par 7. SURRENDER AND CONFESSION OF GUILT

TWO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:

(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.
- If both are present in the same case they have the effect of two independent circumstances
(People vs. Fontalba, 61 Phil 589) and in the absence of aggravating circumstances, they will reduce
divisible penalties by one degree (Art 64[5]).
REQUISITES OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER:
(1) That the offender had not been actually arrested
(2) That the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latter’s agents
- Person in authority is one directly vested with jurisdiction which is the power to govern and
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 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 comes to the aid of persons in
authority (Art 152 as amended by RA 1978).
(3) That the surrender was voluntary.
A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to
submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, either because:
(1) He acknowledges his guilt.
(2) He wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in the search and
capture.

REQUISITES FOR VOLUNTARY PLEA OF GUILTY:

(1) That the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt.
(2) That the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before the competent court
that is to try the case.
(3) That the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the
prosecution.
- Even after arraignment, voluntary confession can still be mitigating, when with the
consent of the public prosecutor, there is an amendment in the information.
-Voluntary confession is usually done during the arraignment.
-What has been admitted need not be proven by evidence; judgment can already be
rendered but both sides can still present evidence to prove aggravating or mitigating
circumstances.
- During arraignment, charges must be read to the accused in open court in a
language known to him; if the charges are read in a language not known to him, the
arraignment or plea is void. It is the duty of courts to read charges in a language known to
him.
- Promulgation is physical and actual reading of the sentence to the accused. It can
be limited to just the dispositive portion or “wherefore” clause. If there is an acquittal, the
decision is final and executory and not appealable because of the risk of double jeopardy
(People vs. Ang Cho Kio, 95 Phil 475). If there is a conviction, the accused has 15 days to avail
of legal remedies, if not availed after the said period, the conviction becomes final and
executor.
REASON: Plea of guilty is an act of repentance and respect for law; it indicates a moral disposition in
the accused, favorable to his reform.
BASIS: Lesser perversity of the offender

Par 8. PHYSICAL DEFECT OF THE OFFENDER

- When the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering from some physical defect,
restricting his means of action, defense or communication with other
- The physical defect must relate to the offense committed. E.g. blindness does not mitigate estafa
BASIS: Offender does not have complete freedom of action; diminution of freedom and
voluntariness

Par 9. ILLNESS OF THE OFFENDER

REQUISITES:
(1) That the illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of his willpower.
(2) That such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts.
> Includes illness of the mind not amounting to insanity.

BASIS: Diminution of intelligence and intent

Par 10. SIMILAR ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCES

EXAMPLES:
(1) Impulse of jealousy, similar to passion and obfuscation.
(2) Testifying for the prosecution, analogous to plea of guilty.
(3) Over 60 years old will failing sight, similar to over 70 years of age under par 2.

ARTICLE 48 Complex Crimes

- There is a complex crime when a SINGLE ACT constitutes TWO OR MORE GRAVE or LESS
GRAVE felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other.
- The penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed.
- Althpugh there are two crimes, it is considered as one crime by law
Sample: Having been trained as a marksman and with intent to kill, A aimed his sniper rifle at X. A
pulled the trigger but the bullet hit a huge boulder and ricocheted, hitting X and a bystander S, killing
both of them. Information for two counts of murder was filed against A. Is the information correct?

-NO. A is liable for the complex crime of murder. There was only a single act which p[roduced two
crimes resulting in a compound crime wherein a single act caused two or more grave or less grave
felonies.

RECLUSION PERPETUA vs. LIFE IMPRISONMENT

1. Reclusion perpetua is prescribed on crimes punishable by the REVISED PENAL CODE, while
Life imprisonment is imposed on offenses punishable by SPECIAL LAWS.

2. Reclusion perpetuacarries accessory penalty,

life imprisonment does not.

3. Reclusion perpetua entails a minimum imprisonment of 30 years after which a convict becomes
eligible for pardon, but the maximum period for imprisonment may not exceed 40 years.
-Life imprisonment, however, does not have any definite extent or duration of imprisonment.

4.Unlike life imprisonment, reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty and has no minimum,
medium or maximum periods. It is imposed in its entirety regardless of any attendant aggravating or
mitigating circumstances
(Important) INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (ISLAW)
The Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatory in all cases, EXCEPT if the accused will fall in any of
the following exceptions:

1. if sentenced with a penalty of death or life imprisonment

2. if convicted of treason, conspiracy, proposal to commit treason
3. if convicted of misprision of treason, sedition, rebellion or espionage
4. if convicted of piracy
5. if the offender is a habitual delinquent
6. those who escaped from prison or evaded sentence
7. those who violated the terms of conditional pardon of the chief executive
8. where the maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed 1 year (important!)
9. if convicted by final judgement at the time of the effectivity of Act No. 4103
10. if penalized with suspension or distierro

If accused fall in any of the foregoing exceptions. DO NOT APPLY ISLAW!

ISLAW applies to offenses punished by Special Law and Revised Penal Code.

Why is ISLAW mandatory?

In the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law the judge will get the maximum penalty and
likewise the minimum penalty. If the accused was already able to serve the minimum term of his
indeterminate sentence and upon the approval of the Board, the accused now becomes eligible for
parole. ISLAW is favorable to the accused.

If the accused was granted parole and violated some conditions of the parole, What will happen?

A warrant of arrest will be issued by the court and the accused will be made to serve the rest of the
remaining or unexpired portion of his sentence. (But in probation you go back to number 1, serving
of sentence will be from the beginning)

Application of ISLAW:

How to get maximum and minimum penalty in Special Law:

1. The maximum penalty should NOT exceed the maximum provided for by that law.
2. The minimum penalty should NOT fall below the minimum provided by the law.

How to get maximum and minimum penalty in Revised Penal Code:

Example: In the crime of homicide, under the Revised Penal Code, the offender is sentenced to
reclusion temporal.

The maximum penalty under the Indeterminate Sentence Law is reclusion temporal. But reclusion
temporal is a divisible penalty consisting of maximum, medium and minimum periods. Which period
will we place the maximum term of the Indeterminate Sentence?

Guide for determining the maximum penalty:

1. Determine the entire range of the penalty
2. Determine if there is mitigating or aggravating circumstance

Which period will the maximum penalty be placed?

In pursuant to art 64, when there is no mitigating and no aggravating circumstance, it should be
placed at the medium period. Thus, the maximum penalty for the example above is reclusion
temporal in the medium period.

What is the minimum penalty now?

In getting the minimum penalty, the rule is to simply get the penalty one (1) degree lower from the
maximum penalty without taking into account the mitigating and aggravating circumstance. Thus,
the penalty one degree lower from reclusion temporal, without taking into account any mitigating or
aggravating circumstance, is prision mayor. Prision mayor is now the minimum penalty for our
example.

Important: If your maximum penalty is wrong, it follows that the minimum penalty will also be
wrong.

Again, prision mayor is a divisible penalty. Which period can it be placed?

Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, it would depend upon the discretion of the court on which
period to place it. Thus, the minimum penalty is prision mayor in any of its period.

Factors that could affect the imposition of minimum penalty:

1. Age
2. Conduct during trial
3. Mental or physical condition

Suppose in the example above, 1 aggravating circumstance was proven. What is now the maximum
penalty?
It would still be reclusion temporal, but it shall be placed in the maximum period because of the
presence of 1 aggravating circumstance.

How about the minimum penalty?

It would still be 1 degree lower from reclusion temporal, which is prision mayor. In which period? It
shall be discretionary upon the court.

(More examples)

1 mitigating but NO aggravating

maximum penalty: reclusion temporal in the minimum period
minimum penalty: prision mayor in any period

2 mitigating, NO aggravating (privileged mitigating)

maximum penalty: prision mayor in the medium period
minimum penalty: prision correctional any period

The preceding example is an exception to the rule. If there is a privileged mitigating circumstance,
we take it into account first in order to obtain the proper maximum penalty. Then, from that
maximum penalty, we obtain the proper minimum penalty by getting the penalty 1 degree lower.
Same rule applies as to the period of the minimum penalty.

Remember: It will never become a privileged mitigating circumstance if there is an aggravating

circumstance present. 8 mitigating and 1 aggravating will never become privileged mitigating
circumstance.
3 mitigating, NO aggravating
maximum penalty: prision mayor in the minimum period
minimum penalty: prision correctional any period

In the preceding example, there are 3 mitigating circumstance present and no aggravating
circumstance. The first two mitigating circumstance shall be a privileged mitigating circumstance.
Thus, the penalty will be reduced by 1 degree from reclusion temporal to prision mayor. The 3rd
mitigating circumstance shall place the penalty in the minimum period.

4 mitigating, NO aggravating
maximum penalty: prision correctional in the medium period (2 privileged circumstance. Thus we
lower by 2 degrees)
minimum penalty: arresto mayor any period

5 mitigating, NO aggravating
maximum penalty: prision correctional in the minimum period
minimum penalty: arresto mayor any period

At most we can only lower by 2 degrees. Thus, if there are 6 mitigating circumstance and NO
aggravating:
maximum penalty: prision correctional in the minimum period
minimum penalty: arresto mayor any period

How is Indeterminate Sentence Law applied in complex crimes (Article 48)?

A complex crime is punished by the most serious offense and shall be imposed in its maximum
period.

Example: Estafa through falsification of public documents.

Under the Revised Penal Code, falsification of public documents (Article 171) is a more serious
offense punished by prision mayor than estafa (Article 315), punished only by prision correctional.

Thus, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum penalty for estafa through
falsification of public documents shall be prision mayor in the maximum period. Minimum penalty
shall be prision correctional, any period.

Suppose there was 1 mitigating circumstance proven. Maximum penalty would still be prision mayor
in the maximum period. In pursuant to Article 48, even if there is a mitigating circumstance present,
it should still be imposed at the maximum period.

How about if there are 2 mitigating circumstance and no aggravating?

The rule is, if it is a privileged mitigating circumstance, we lower by the penalty by one degree but
still place it at the maximum period. Thus, the maximum penalty shall be prision correctional in the
maximum period.

4 mitigating, NO aggravating
maximum penalty: arresto mayor in its maximum period

PRESCRIPTIVE PERIODS OF CRIMES

1. Those punishable by DEATH, RECLUSION PERPETUA, RECLUSION TEMPORAL - 20 years
2. Those punishable by other AFFLICTIVE PENALTIES -10 years
3. Those punishable by ARRESTO MAYOR - 5 years
4. LIBEL OR OTHER SIMILAR OFFENSES - 2 years
5. ORAL DEFAMATION OR SLANDER BY DEED - 1 year
6. LIGHT OFFENSES - 6 months

(Important) Problem:
If the last day in the period of prescription of a felony falls on a Sunday or legal holiday, may the
information be filed on the next working day?

NO. Where the sixtieth and last day to file an information falls on a Sunday or legal holiday, the
sixty-day period cannot be extended up to the next working day. Prescription has automatically set
in. The remedy is for the fiscal or prosecution to file the information on the last working day before
the criminal offense prescribes. (case of Rafael Yapdiangco vs. Hon Buencamino, GR No. L-28841,
June 24, 2983)

SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE IN RE: JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ACT RA 9344

Automatic Suspension of Sentence; Duration; Appropriate Disposition after the Lapse of the Period of
Suspension of Sentence

-Republic Act No. 9344 warrants the suspension of sentence of a child in conflict with the law
notwithstanding that he/she has reached the age of majority at the time the judgment of conviction
is pronounced. Thus:

SEC. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence. –

1. Once the child who is UNDER EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS OF AGE AT THE TIME OF THE COMMISSION
OF THE OFFENSE
2. is found GUILTY of the offense charged,
3. the court shall determine and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from the
offense committed.
4. 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:
5. Provided, however, That suspension of sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile is
already eighteen (18) years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her
guilt.

Note: until 21 years of age lang. suspension will be lifted na after reaching age of 21.
What will happen during suspension:
The child in conflict will be placed under DSWD, or other social agencies recommended by the
government.

ELEMENTS

A. ELEMENTS OF PARRICIDE: (246)

1. That a person is killed.
2. That the deceased is killed by the accused.
 3. That the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a
legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused.
Notes:
1. The relationship of the offender with the victim is the essential element of the felony
2. Parents and children are not included in the term “ascendants” or “descendants”
3. The other ascendant or descendant must be legitimate. On the other hand, the father,
mother or child may be legitimate or illegitimate
4. The child should not be less than 3 days old. Otherwise, the offense is infanticide
5. Relationship must be alleged
6. A stranger who cooperates in committing parricide is liable for murder or homicide
7. Even if the offender did not know that the person he had killed is his son, he is still liable for
parricide because the law does not require knowledge of the relationship
C. ELEMENTS OF MURDER: (248)
1. That a person was killed.
2. That the accused killed him.
3. That the killing was attended by any of the following qualifying circumstances
1. with treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid or armed men, or
employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford
impunity
2. in consideration of price, reward or promise
3. by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of vessel,
derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of airship, by means of
motor vehicles or with the use of any other means involving great waste or ruin
4. on occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an
earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or any other public
calamity
5. with evident premeditation
6. with cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanely augmenting the suffering of the victim or
outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse
4. The killing is not parricide or infanticide.
D. ELEMENTS OF HOMICIDE: (249)
1. That a person was killed.
2. That the accused killed him without any justifying circumstances.
3. That the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed.
4. That the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that
of parricide or infanticide.
J. ELEMENTS OF INFANTICIDE: (255)
1. That a child was killed.
2. That the deceased child was less than three days (72 hours) of age.
3. That the accused killed the said child.
Notes:
1. When the offender is the father, mother or legitimate ascendant, he shall suffer the penalty
prescribed for parricide. If the offender is any other person, the penalty is that for murder. In
either case, the proper qualification for the offense is infanticide
2. When infanticide is committed by the mother or maternal grandmother in order to conceal
the dishonor, such fact is only mitigating
 3. The delinquent mother who claims that she committed the offense to conceal the dishonor
must be of good reputation. Hence, if she is a prostitute, she is not entitled to a lesser penalty
because she has no honor to conceal
4. There is no infanticide when the child was born dead, or although born alive it could not
sustain an independent life when it was killed.

II. PHYSICAL INJURIES

B. SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES: (263)
How Committed
1. Wounding
2. Beating
3. Assaulting
4. Administering injurious substances
What are serious physical injuries:
1. Injured person becomes insane, imbecile, impotent or blind
2. Injured person –
1. loses the use of speech or the power to hear or to smell, loses an eye, a hand, foot,
arm or leg
2. loses the use of any such member
3. becomes incapacitated for the work in which he had been habitually engaged
3. Injured person –
1. becomes deformed
2. loses any other member of his body
3. loses the use thereof
4. becomes ill or incapacitated for the performance of the work in which he had been
habitually engaged in for more than 90 days
1. Injured person becomes ill or incapacitated for labor for more than 30 days (but
not more than 90 days)
D. ELEMENTS OF LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES: (265)
1. That the offended party is incapacitated for labor for 10 days or more (but not more
than 30 days), or needs medical attendance for the same period of time
2. That the physical injuries must not be those described in the preceding articles
E. SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES: (266)
3 Kinds:
1. That which incapacitated the offended party for labor from 1-9 days or required medical
attendance during the same period
2. That which did not prevent the offended party from engaging in his habitual work or which
did not require medical attendance (ex. Black-eye)
3. Ill-treatment of another by deed without causing any injury (ex. slapping but without causing
dishonor)
F. RAPE (ART 355)
The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (RA 8353) now classified the crime of rape as Crime Against
Persons incorporated into Title 8 of the RPC to be known as Chapter 3
Elements: Rape is committed
1. By a man who have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
1. through force, threat or intimidation
2. when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious
 3. by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority
4. when the offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented, even though none of
the circumstances mentioned above be present
5. By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in par 1 hereof, shall
commit an ac of sexual assault by inserting
1. his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or
2. any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person

I. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY

A. ELEMENTS OF ROBBERY IN GENERAL: (293)
1. That there be personal property belonging to another.
2. That there is unlawful taking of that property.
3. That the taking must be with intent to gain, and
4. That there is violence against or intimidation of any person, or force upon anything.

A. ELEMENTS OF THEFT: (308)

1. That there be taking of personal property.
2. That said property belongs to another.
3. That the taking be done with intent to gain.
4. That the taking be done without the consent of the owner.
5. That the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of
persons or force upon things.

A. ELEMENTS OF MALICIOUS MISCHIEF: (326)

1. That the offender deliberately caused damage to the property of another.
2. That such act does not constitute arson or other crimes involving destruction.
3. That the act damaging another’s property be committed merely for the sake of damaging it.

ELEMENTS OF QUALIFIED THEFT: (310)

1. Committed by domestic servant, or
2. With grave abuse of confidence,

ILLEGAL DETENTION vs ARBITRARY DETENTION

Illegal detention- usually kidnapping; done by private individual; depriving one of his liberty
Arbitrary detention- an arrest committed by a public officer against an individual without due
process of law and without legal grounds