b) Exempting circumstances

✓ Article 12 par. 1
An imbecile or an insane person, unless he has acted during a lucid interval.

▪ Imbecility

Q:What is the basis of par 1?

A:
Q:What is imbecility?
A:

* People vs. Butiong, G.R. No. 168932, October 19, 2011

Idiot 0-19 2 yrs old

Imbecile 20-49 7 yrs old
Moron/Feebleminded 50-69 12 yrs old
Borderline 70-89

* People vs. Bayrante, G.R. No. 188978, June 13, 2012

*People vs. Nunez, G.R. No. 112429-30, July 23, 1997

* People vs. Formigones, G.R. No. L-3246, November 29, 1950

What is insanity?

How manifested?

What is the presumption?

 PEOPLE vs. DUNGO
In case of doubt as to the mental capacity of the accused, the doubt is to be
resolved in favor of sanity. In other words, sanity is presumed. It is
for the accused to prove the defense of insanity clearly and
convincingly.

Presumption: EVERY MAN IS SANE. One who pleads insanity has the burden of proof of
proving it.
* People vs. Pambid, G.R. No. 124453, March 15, 2000

Under foreign jurisdictions there are 3 major criteria in determining the existence of insanity:

1. Delusion Test

2. Irresistible Impulse Test

3. Right and Wrong Test

* People vs. Domingo, G.R. No. 184343, March 2, 2009

* People vs. Tibon, G.R. No. 188320, June 29, 2010

o 2 Tests of Insanity:
1. Test of Cognition

* People vs. Bulagao, G.R. No. 184757, October 05, 2011

* People vs. Alipio, G.R. No. 185285, October 5. 2009

 *People vs. Puno, G.R. No. L-33211, June 29, 1981

2. Test of Volition

*People vs. Rafanan, Jr. November 21, 1991, G.R. No. 54135, November
21, 1991

*People vs. Opuran, G.R. Nos. 147674-75, March 17, 2004

*People vs. Medina, G.R. No. 113691, February 6, 1998

*People vs. Pascual, G.R. No. 95029, March 24, 1993

PEOPLE vs. NIANCAO

49 Phil. 887

Epilepsy is not insanity from the medical point of view. He cannot distinguish what is
right from wrong, because the condition of the mind is not the same.

PEOPLE vs. TANEDO

58 Phil. 251

A somnambulist or sleepwalker is covered by the term 'insanity' because at the time

he committed the crime, he lacked intelligence.

PEOPLE vs. PAMBID

G.R. No. 124453 (March 15, 2000)

Anyone who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of
proving it.
 Effects of Insanity of the Accused:
At the Time of the During Trial After judgment/ While
Commission serving sentence

Can the trial court determine whether or not an accused is insane?

No.

✓ Article 12 par. 2-3

Republic Act No. 9344 otherwise known as the “Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006”
• Section 5-6 of R.A. No. 10630; R.A. No. 9344

Section 5. Determination of Age. - The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the presumption
of minority and shall enjoy all the rights of a child in conflict with the law until proven to be
eighteen years old or older at the time of the commission of the offense. The age of the child
shall be determined according to the following rules:

(1) The best evidence to prove the age of a child is an original or certified true copy of the
certificate of live birth;
(2) In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal
certificates and school records or any pertinent document that shows the date of birth of the
child;
(3) In the absence of the documents under paragraphs 1 and 2 of this section due to loss,
destruction or unavailability, the testimony of the child, the testimony of a member of the family
related to the child by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting
pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the child pursuant to Sec.40, Rule 130 of the
Rules on Evidence, the testimonies of the other persons, the physical appearance of the child
and other relevant evidence, shall suffice.

Section 6. Burden of Proof of Age. - Any person alleging the age of the child in conflict with the
law has the burden of proving the age of such child.

Section 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. – A child fifteen (15) years of age or under
at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However,
the child shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be
exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program unless he/she has
acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate
proceedings in accordance with this Act.
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption
from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws

15 or below EXEMPT Released

age
Without
Over 15 below

With discernment Diversion

Who are minors?
a.) Children at risk
b.) Children in conflict of the law (CICL
*People vs. Roxas, G.R. No. 200793, June 04, 2014

*Guevarra vs. Almodovar G.R. No. 75256 January 26, 1989

*People vs. Cortezano, G.R. No. 123140, September 23, 2003

*People vs. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March 16, 2011

▪ When is Minority Appreciated?

*People vs. Ancajas, G.R.No. 199270, October 21, 2015

▪ Effects of Minority
• Sections 5-6 of AM 02-1-18-SC dated November 24, 2009
• Section 6- 23; 33-38; 40; 51; 67-68 of R.A. No. 10630; R.A. No. 9344

SEC. 67. Children Who Reach the Age of Eighteen (18) Years Pending Diversion and Court
Proceedings. - If a child reaches the age of eighteen (18) years pending diversion and court
proceedings, the appropriate diversion authority in consultation with the local social welfare
and development officer or the Family Court in consultation with the Social Services and
Counseling Division (SSCD) of the Supreme Court, as the case may be, shall determine the
appropriate disposition. In case the appropriate court executes the judgment of conviction, and
unless the child in conflict the law has already availed of probation under Presidential Decree
No. 603 or other similar laws, the child may apply for probation if qualified under the provisions
of the Probation Law.

SEC. 68. Children Who Have Been Convicted and are Serving Sentence.- Persons who have
been convicted and are serving sentence at the time of the effectivity of this Act, and who were
below the age of eighteen (18) years at the time the commission of the offense for which
they were convicted and are serving sentence, shall likewise benefit from the retroactive
application of this Act. They shall be entitled to appropriate dispositions provided under this
Act and their sentences shall be adjusted accordingly. They shall be immediately released if
they are so qualified under this Act or other applicable law.

o Minority and Probation

• Section 42 of R.A. No. 9344 c.f. Section 4 of PD No. 968 or Probation Law

Padua vs. People, G.R. No. 168546, July 23, 2008

o Minority and Service of Sentence

• Section 51 of RA No. 9344
SEC. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps and other Training
Facilities. - A childin conflict with the law may, after conviction and upon order of the court, be
made to serve his/her sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution, in an
agricultural camp and other training facilities that may be established, maintained, supervised
and controlled by the BUCOR, in coordination with the DSWD.

Automatic suspension of sentence

SEC. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence. - Once the child who is under eighteen (18) years
of age at the time of the commission of the offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the
court shall determine and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from the offense
committed. However, instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court shall place
the child in conflict with the law under suspended sentence, without need of application:
Provided, however, That suspension of sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile is
already eighteen years (18) of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt.

Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the various circumstances of the child, the
court shall impose the appropriate disposition measures as provided in the Supreme Court Rule
on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law.

*People vs. Arpon, G.R. No. 183563, December 14, 2011

*People vs. Gambao, GR No. 172707, October 01, 2013

*Hubilla vs. People, G.R. No. 176102, November 26,2014

o Minority and Preventive Imprisonment

GR:A convict is entitled to a full or 4/5 credit of his preventive imprisonment

XPN: The child shall be credited in full for the time spent in actual commitment and detention.

• Section 41, RA 9344

SEC. 41. Credit in Service of Sentence. - The child in conflict with the law shall be credited in
the services of his/her sentence with the full time spent in actual commitment and detention
under this Act.

*Atizado vs. People, G.R. No. 173822, October 13, 2010

o Status Offenses
Section 57. Status Offenses. --- Any conduct not considered an offense or not penalized if
committed by an adult shall not be considered an offense and shall not be punished if
committed by a child.

There are offenses not applicable to persons below 18

1.
2.
3.
✓ Article 12 par. 4
Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care causes an injury by mere
accident without fault or intention of causing it.

Elements:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Performance of a lawful act

The person performing a lawful act must do so with due care without fault or negligence

The injury is caused by mere accident

Accident is

US vs. Tañedo
15 Phil. 196

Without fault or intention of causing it

1. Repeated blows negate claim of wounding by accident.
2. Accidental shooting is negated by threatening words.
What is the basis for exemption from criminal liability for accident?

✓ Article 12 par. 5
Any person who acts under the compulsion of irresistible force
Elements:
1.
2.
3.
A more complete list of elements.
a.
b.
c.
What is essential for duress to be a valid defense?

People vs. Fernando,33 SCRA 149

The irresistible force must be physical and must come from a 3rd person. It
cannot spring primarily from the offender himself.

People vs. Salvatierra

Duress is unavailing where the accused had every opportunity to run away if he had wanted to
or to resist any possible aggression because he was so alarmed.

Nature of force required

*People vs. Loreno, G.R. No. L-54414, July 9, 1984

Basis of Paragra[ph 5
✓
Article 12 par. 6
Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater
injury

Elements

1.
2.

Distinctions:
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
 *People vs. Fronda, GR. Nos. 102361-62, May 14, 1993

*People vs. Bandian, G.R. No. 45186 (September 30, 1936)

Uncontrollable fear is more common.

In order to avail of this, there must be a demonstration that:

1.
2.
3.
The threatened harm must be real, and not imaginary.
PEOPLE vs. MORENO
77 SCRA .549

✓ Article 12 par. 7

Any person who fails to perform an act required by law when prevented by some lawful or
insuperable cause
Elements

1.
2.
3.
Article 125, RPC. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial
authorities.
The penalties…xxxx… shall be imposed upon the public officer or employee who shall
detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the
proper judicial authorities within the period of:
1. 12 hours for crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent
2. 18 hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their
equivalent, and
3. 36 hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or
their equivalent
In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the cause of his detention and
shall be allowed upon request, to communicate and confer at any time with his attorney
or counsel.
Effect of an Exempting Circumstance in General
1. The offender is exempt from criminal liability
2. With regard to civil liability
a. Offender is civilly liable under Art. 12, par:

b. Offender is EXEMPT from civil liability under Art. 12, par:

a) Mitigating circumstances

Rationale

▪ Kinds of Mitigating Circumstances

a. Ordinary

b. Privileged

c. Specific

Specific (examples)
1.
2.
3.

Special Privileged Mitigating Circumstance (examples)

1.
2.
3.

Distinguish ordinary from privileged mitigating circumstances

ORDINARY PRIVILEGED
As to offsetting
Effect on penalty
As to consideration
Who can claim the mitigating circumstance?

Effects when attendant with other circumstances (Article 64)

✓ Article 13 par. 1

Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify the
act or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant.
INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING or INCOMPLETE EXEMPTING circumstances
Examples:

✓ Article 13 par. 2
That the offender is under 18 or over 70.

AGE DESCRIPTION EFFECTS

15 years old &
below*
Over 15 under
18*
16 to 17 years old
18 to 70 years old
Over 70 years old
*As amended by RA 9344

Q: Is a baptismal certificate admissible in evidence to prove the minority of all accused?

A:

PEOPLE vs. TISNIO

204 SCRA 535

DECLARADOR vs. GUBATON

GR No. 159208 (August 18, 2006)

✓ Article 13 par. 3
That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
 *People vs. Ural, G.R. No. L-30801, March 27, 1974

*People vs. Regato, G.R. No. L-36750, January 31, 1984

✓ Article 13 par. 4
That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately
preceded the act
There are actually two circumstances here:
1.
2.
Elements
1.
2.
3.
Sufficient Provocation

US vs. Carrero, 9 Phil 544, 545-546

People vs. Marquez, 53 Phil. 260

Sufficient Threat

✓ Article 13 par. 5
That the act was committed in immediate vindication of a grave offense to:
1. the one committing the felony,
2. his spouse
 3. ascendants
4. descendants
5. legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or
6. relatives by affinity within the same degree.

US vs. Amparo, 37 Phil. 201

There is a difference between the word “immediate” in par 4 and the word “immediate” in par 5.
1. In par 4 -
2. In par 5 –

People vs. Parana, 64 PHIL 331 (1937)

✓ Article 13 par. 6
That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or
obfuscation
Passion or Obfuscation

Principle:
The passion or obfuscation must arise from LAWFUL SENTIMENTS

US vs. Hicks, 14 Phil. 217

People vs. Engay, CA 47 OG 4306

*People vs. Muit, 117 SCRA 696 (1982)

*People vs. Aquino, G.R. No. 128887 (JAN. 2000)

How further should the act that produces passion or obfuscation be from the commission of the
crime?

Compare sufficient provocation, immediate vindication of a grave offense and passion or

obfuscation.

✓ Article 13 par. 7
That the offender had:
1. voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in
authority or his agents, or
2. voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court
prior to the presentation of the evidence for
the prosecution

▪ Voluntary Surrender

Requisites:
(a)
(b)
(c)

Rationale of the circumstance

(a) the accused has not been actually arrested;

People vs. Lee,204 SCRA 900

People vs. Pagsanjan, 221 SCRA 735

People vs. Estanislao, 249 SCRA 309

People vs. Rabanillo, 307 SCRA 0 13

Estrella vs. Sandiganbayan, 183 SCRA 12

 People vs.Dulos, 237 SCRA 141 (1994)

*People vs MELANIO DEL CASTILLO, G.R. No. 169084, January 18, 2012

▪ To whom should the accused surrender?

o Article 152 (RPC)
Article 152 RPC. Person in authority and agents of person in authority. Who shall be deemed
as such.
xxx… any person directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or
as a member of some court or government corporation, board, or commission,
shall be deemed a person in authority. A barrio captain and a barangay
chairman shall also be deemed person in authority.
A person who by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by
competent authority is charged with the maintenance of public order and the
protection and security of life and property, such as a barrio, captain, barrio
councilman, barrio policeman and barangay leader and any person who comes
to the aid of persons in. authority, shall be deemed an agent of a person in
authority.
xxx… teachers, professors and persons charged with the supervision of public
or duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities, shall be deemed
persons in authority.

• PD No. 299, Sept. 19, 1973 and Batas Pambansa Blg. 873, June 12, 1985

Q: How should you surrender?

A:

What determines whether the surrender is voluntary?

▪ Voluntary Confession

REQUISITES:
1.
2.
3.

People vs. Dela Cruz , 63 Phil. 174

 People vs. Magallanes, 275 SCRA 222

People vs. Crisostomo, 160 SCRA 47 (1998)

*People vs. Montinola, G.R. No. 131856-57, July 9, 2001

Rationale

What is the effect of an improvident plea of guilt?

May voluntary plea of guilt and voluntary surrender be both considered in one case?

Is plea bargaining a mitigating circumstance?

✓ Article 13 par. 8
That the offender is:
1. deaf and dumb;
2. blind; or
3. otherwise suffering some physical defect
which thus restricts his means of
action, defense, or communication with
his fellow beings.

✓ Article 13 par. 9
Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender
without however depriving him of consciousness of his acts.

People vs. Rafanan, 204 SCRA 65

 Article 13 par. 10
Any other circumstance of a similar nature analogous to those above-mentioned

Is extreme poverty an analogous mitigating circumstance?

What are examples?

b) Aggravating circumstances

Q: Why? What is the reason?

A: Because the offender has shown a greater perversity or moral depravity as manifested by the
following:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

What are the different kinds of aggravating circumstance?

1. Generic aggravating circumstances which:

2. Qualifying circumstances which:

3. Special or specific aggravating circumstances

4. Inherent circumstance

▪ Must be alleged and proved

* Sombilon, Jr. vs. People, G.R. No. 175528, September 30, 2009
 ✓ Article 14 par. 1 c.f. Article 62 of RPC
[1]
That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.

Principles:

1. FIRST:
2. SECOND:

Article 62.Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of habitual

delinquency. - Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken
into account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity with the
following rules:

1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by

law or which are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor
shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty.

2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime
to such a degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission thereof.

3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the moral attributes of the
offender, or from his private relations with the offended party, or from any other personal
cause, shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices and
accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant.

4. The circumstances which consist in the material execution of the act, or in the means
employed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons
only who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation
therein.

US vs. Torrida, 23 Phil. 189

*People vs. Villa, G.R. No. 129899, April 27, 2000

US vs. Dacuycuy, 9 Phil 84

 Art. 62[1a] RPC

When in the commission of the crime, advantage was taken by the offender of his
public office, the penalty to be imposed shall be in its maximum regardless of
mitigating circumstances.

✓ Article 14 par. 2

[2]
That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities.

People vs. Rodil, 109 SCRA 308

✓ Article 14 par. 3

[3]
That the act be committed:
1. with insult or in disregard of the respect due to the offended
party on account of his rank, age, or sex; or
2. in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not
given provocation.

Rank

Age

People vs. Padilla, 301 SCRA 265

*People vs. Hernandez, G.R. No. 139697. June 15, 2004 citing People vs Collado
SEX

Dwelling

When Dwelling Does NOT Apply as an Aggravating Circumstance

1.

2.

3.

If the offended party has given provocation.

If it is an integral part or inherent in the crime

If both the offender and the offended party live in the same house

✓ Article 14 par. 4
[4]

That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.

That the Act is Committed with (2 Situations):

1.

2.

Abuse de confianza

People vs. Brocal, CA 46 OG 6163

People vs. Crumb, CA 46 OG 6163

Obvious Ungratefulness
 People vs. Mandolado, 123 SCRA 128 (1983)

✓ Article 14 par. 5
[5]
That the crime be committed:
1. in the palace of the chief executive; or
2. in his presence; or
3. where public authorities are engaged in the
discharge of their duties; or
4. in a place dedicated to religious worship.

What makes the crime aggravated is the place where it was committed.

4 Separate Circumstances

1.

2.

3.

4.

Q: How do you compare the 3rd instance of par. 5 with par. 2 (that the crime be committed in
contempt of or with insult to the public authorities)?

A: Distinctions:

Par. 2 Par. 5

Crime is Committed in Contempt of or with Crime is Committed Where Public Authorities

Insult to Public Authorities are Engaged in the Discharge of their Duties

✓ Article 14 par. 6

[6]
That the crime be committed:
1. in the night time, or
2. in an uninhabited place,
3. by a band
4. whenever such circumstances may
facilitate the commission of the offense.

3 Circumstances:

1.

2.

3.
Nighttime
Nocturnidad
Q: What do you mean by nighttime?

A:

Two Tests to Determine W/N the Crime Committed at Night is Aggravating

1. Subjective test
2. Objective test

*People vs. Boquilla, G.R. No. 136145. March 8, 2002

* People vs. Banhaon, G.R. No. 131117, June 15, 2004

* People vs.Ventura and Ventura, G.R. No. 148145-46, July 5, 2004

* People vs. Demante, G.R. No. 132310, January 20, 2004

People vs. Marra, 236 SCRA 565 (1994)

Uninhabited Place

Despoblado

People vs. Desalisa, 299 SCRA 35 (1994)

Band
Quadrilla

People vs. Manlolo, 169 SCRA 394

✓ Article 14 par. 7

[7]
That the crime be committed on the occasion of a:
1. Conflagration;
2. Shipwreck;
3. Earthquake;
4. Epidemic; or
5. Other calamity or misfortune.

What misfortune? That the motor launch was left just floating out there in the sea? When the
case reached the SC, the SC rejected the application of the aggravating circumstance because the
misfortune contemplated by the law is not that which will affect only a small number of people in
the motor launch. It should be big in magnitude. When we say shipwreck, earthquake, it involves
a lot of people in a wider area rather than the people who were stuck in the motor launch.

✓ Article 14 par. 8
[8]
That the crime be committed with the aid of:
1. armed men or
2. persons who insure or afford impunity.

PEOPLE vs. BUELA

✓ Article 14 par. 9-10

[9]
That the accused is a recidivist

[10]
That the offender has been previously punished:
1. for an offense to which the law attached an equal or
greater penalty or
2. for 2 or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty
 ▪ 4 Types of Criminal Repetition in the Revised Penal Code

4 Types of Criminal Repetition in the REVISED PENAL CODE: (Meaning the offender is not
committing the crime for the first time).

1.
2.
3.
4.

Reincidencia
Q: Who is a recidivist?

A:

*People vs. Lacao, G.R. No. 95320 September 4, 1991

What is required for recidivism to be appreciated?

Habituality or (reiteracion) (Article 14, par. 10 of RPC)

Reiteracion

Distinctions:
RECIDIVISM REITERACION
1. Antecedent

2. Offenses

3. Penalty

Habitual delinquency (multi-recidivism)

Habitual Delinquency

Habitual Delinquent
A person is a habitual delinquent if:

1.

2.
 3.

Effect of Habitual Delinquency

Effect on Penalty if One is a Recidivist and an HD at the Same Time

1. Recidivism - penalty for present crime will have to be imposed in the maximum period
2. Habitual Delinquency - additional bonus penalty under Art. 62

Distinctions:

RECIDIVISM HABITUAL DELINQUENCY

Crimes covered

Convictions

Prescription

Penalty

Nature

Quasi-recidivism (Article 160 RPC)

Article 160. Any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final
judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be
punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony.

✓ Article 14 par. 11

[11]
That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward or promise

People vs. Alincastre, 40 SCRA 391

 ✓ Article 14 par. 12

[12]
That the crime be committed by means of:
1. Inundation;
2. Fire;
3. Poison;
4. Explosion;
5. stranding of a vessel or intentional damage thereto;
6. derailment of a locomotive; or
7. by the use of any other any other artifice
involving great waste and ruin.

✓ Article 14 par. 13
That the act be committed with evident premeditation

Evident premeditation WILL NOT APPLY in error in personae

People vs. Camilet, G.R. No. 70392, June 30, 1986

People vs. Trinidad, G.R. NO. L-38930, June 28, 1988

People vs. Mabug-at, 51 Phil., 967

People vs. Enriquez, 58 Phil. 536

✓ Article 14 par. 14
[14]
That craft, fraud or disguise be employed.

Spanish Terms
Craft – ASTUTIA

Fraud – FRAUDE

Disguise – DISFRAZ
 People vs. Empacis, 222 SCRA 59

PEOPLE vs. SONSONA

People vs. Cabato, 160 SCRA 98

*People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 118649. March 9, 1998

✓ Article 14 par. 15
[15]
That:
1. advantage be taken of superior strength, or
2. means be employed to weaken the defense.

That means be employed to weaken the defense

*People vs MELANIO DEL CASTILLO, G.R. No. 169084, January 18, 2012

✓ Article 14 par. 16
✓ [16]
✓ That the act be committed with treachery

In Spanish, this is the aggravating circumstance of ALEVOSIA.

Treachery
There is treachery:
1.
2.

Rules Regarding Treachery:

1.
2.
3.

Requisites of Treachery
The offender must:
1.
2.

There is no treachery when the attack is a result of a quarrel.

*People vs. Del Castillo, Sr.,G.R. No. L-32995, April 30, 1984

*People vs. Mabug-at, G.R. No. 25459, August 10, 1926

*People vs. Cagoco, G.R. No. 38511, October 6, 1933

People vs. Cañete, 44 Phil. 478

Q: Is treachery applicable in crimes committed through error in personam?

A: YES
 People vs. Lug-aw, G.R. No. 85735, January 18, 1994

People vs. Verchez, 233 SCRA 174 (1994)

What is the essence of treachery?

When is treachery not appreciated?

How about when there is chance encounter?

What if the victim was warned of the danger? Can treachery be appreciated?

At what stage in the attack must treachery exist?

People vs. Peran, G.R. No. 95259, October 26 1992

US vs. Baluyot, G.R. No. L-14476, November 6, 1919

When will a frontal attack constitute treachery?

✓ Article 14 par. 17
[17]
That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy
to the natural effect of the act

✓ Article 14 par. 18

That the crime, be committed after an unlawful entry

*People vs. Baello, G.R. No. 101314 (July 1, 1993)

Rationale
One who acts, not respecting the walls erected by men to guard their property and provide for
their personal safety, shows a greater perversity.

✓ Article 14 par. 19
✓ [19]

That as a means to the commission of the crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or
window be broken.

✓ Article 14 par. 20
[20]
That the crime be committed:
1. with the aid of persons under 15 years old; or
2. by means of a motor vehicle, motorized watercraft,
airships or other similar means.
That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under 15 years old

That the crime is, committed by means of motor vehicle, motorized watercraft, airships, or
other similar means

Article 14 par. 21
✓ That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately
augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission.

Distinctions:
ENSAÑAMIENTO (CRUELTY) ESCALAMIENTO (UNLAWFUL ENTRY)

Distinctions:
ENSAÑAMIENTO (CRUELTY) IGNOMINY
to injury

Is the number of wounds automatically considered as the aggravating circumstance of cruelty.

People vs. Ilaoa, G.R. No. 94308 (June 16, 1994)
 e) Alternative circumstances

✓ Article 15

3 Alternative Circumstances:

1. relationship
2. intoxication
3. degree of instruction and education

Relationship

*People vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. 176060, October 5, 2007

Reyes: Other relatives included

Intoxication

Art. 13(9)

Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the
offender without however depriving him of consciousness of his acts.

PEOPLE vs. RENEJANE

G.R. No. 76954-55 (February 26, 1988)

PEOPLE VS. CAMANO

115 SCRA 258 (1982)
 • Section 27 of RA 9262 and RA 9165

SECTION 27. Prohibited Defense. – Being under the influence of alcohol, any illicit drug, or any
other mind-altering substance shall not be a defense under this Act.

Section 25. Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances in the Commission of a Crime by an Offender

Under the Influence of Dangerous Drugs. – Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the
contrary, a positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs shall be a qualifying aggravating
circumstance in the commission of a crime by an offender, and the application of the penalty
provided for in the Revised Penal Code shall be applicable.

Degree of Instruction and Education

PEOPLE vs. TABIAN

126 SCRA 571

3. Persons Liable and Degree of Participation

a) Principals, accomplices, and accessories
✓ Article 16

The following are criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies:
1. Principals;
2. Accomplices;
3. Accessories

The following are criminally liable for light felonies:

1. Principals
2. Accomplices
Art. 16 immediately gives us the principle:
1. For grave and less grave felonies -
2. For light felonies -

Conclusion: Accessories are EXEMPT from criminal liability in light felonies.

Rules relative to light felonies
1.

2.

3.

4.

✓ Article 17
Principals.
The following are considered principals:
1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act
2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which
would not have been accomplished.
 o Types of Principals

1. Principals by DIRECT PARTICIPATION

2. Principals by INDUCEMENT or INDUCTION
3. Principals by INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION

1. Principal by Direct Participation

Requisites for Persons Committing a Felony to be classified as Principals by Direct

Participation:
1.
2.

1st Requisite: They ALL participated in the Criminal Resolution

Principle:

People vs. Federico, 247 SCRA 246

People vs Ortiz, 55 Phil 995

Principles:

1.
2.
People vs. Dela Cerna, 21 SCRA 569 (1967)

2nd Requisite: They PERSONALLY Carried Out the Resolution by Performing Acts Which Tend to
Accomplish the Objective

People vs. delos Reyes, 215 SCRA 680

 2. Principal by Inducement

How does One Become a Principal by Inducement

1.

2.

Force or Inducing

People vs. dela Cruz, 97 SCRA 385 (1980)

Requisites to be Classified as a PBI

1.

2.

1st Requisite: That the inducement was made with the intention of procuring

Proposal

2nd Requisite: Without such inducement, the PDP would not have committed the crime.

1.

2.

People vs. Omine, 61 Phil. 611

Distinctions:

PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT PROPOSAL TO COMMIT A FELONY

Distinctions:

PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT PROPOSAL TO COMMIT A FELONY

 3. Principal by Indispensable Cooperation

People vs. Lim Buanco, 14 Phil. 184

People vs. Montealegre, 161 SCRA 700 (1988)

✓ Article 18
Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in Article 17, cooperate in the
execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.

Distinctions:
PRINCIPAL BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION ACCOMPLICE

Distinctions:

PRINCIPAL ACCOMPLICE

Different Kinds of Liability:

1.

2.

3.
 People vs. Doctolero, 193 SCRA 632 (1991)

✓ Article 19

Distinction:

PRINCIPALS OR ACCOMPLICES ACCESSORIES

Requisites in to Incur Liability as an ACCESSORY

1.

2.

3.

How an Accessory May Take Part in the Commission of a Crime

1.

2.

3.

ACTS OF THE ACCESSORY

1st: By “profiting by the effects of the crime”

Fencing

Elements of Fencing:

1.

2.
3.

4.

NOTE:

Prior to the passage of the Anti-Fencing Law, the liabilities for those acts were considered
as those of accessories.

Distinctions:
ACCESSORY (Art. 19 RPC) FENCE (PD 1612)

* Vino vs. People, G.R. No. 84163, October 19, 1989

* People vs. Bayabos, G.R. No. 171222, February18, 2015

• PD 1612 (The Anti-Fencing Law of the Philippines)

(a) "Fencing" is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall
buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any
other manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should
be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.

(b) "Fence" includes any person, firm, association corporation or partnership or other
organization who/which commits the act of fencing.

* Ong vs. People, GR No. 190475, April 10, 2013

* Dimat vs. People, G.R. No.181184, January 25, 2012

Presumption of Fencing [Sec. 5 PD 1612]

2nd: By “concealing or destroying the body or effects of the crime”

Concealing or Destroying

1. the body of the crime –

2. the effects of the crime –

3rd: By “harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime”

How HARBORING, CONCEALING or ASSISTING the Escape of the Principal is Committed:

Who is the Accessory? Special Circumstance

1 Public Official a.

b.

2 Private Person a. The principal is guilty of:

b.

• PD 1829 (Obstruction of Justice)

Section 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period, or a fine ranging from
1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who knowingly or willfully
obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation
and prosecution of criminal cases by committing any of the following acts:

(a) preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceeding or from reporting the
commission of any offense or the identity of any offender/s by means of bribery,
misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, force or threats;

(b) altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record, document, or object,
with intent to impair its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability, or admissibility as evidence
in any investigation of or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or to be used in the
investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases;

(c) harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or has
reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has committed any offense under existing penal
laws in order to prevent his arrest prosecution and conviction;

(d) publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime, evading prosecution
or the execution of a judgment, or concealing his true name and other personal
circumstances for the same purpose or purposes;

(e) delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service of process or court
orders or disturbing proceedings in the fiscal's offices, in Tanodbayan, or in the courts;
(f) making, presenting or using any record, document, paper or object with knowledge of its
falsity and with intent to affect the course or outcome of the investigation of, or official
proceedings in, criminal cases;

(g) soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any benefit in consideration of abstaining from,
discounting, or impeding the prosecution of a criminal offender;

(h) threatening directly or indirectly another with the infliction of any wrong upon his person,
honor or property or that of any immediate member or members of his family in order to
prevent such person from appearing in the investigation of, or official proceedings in,
criminal cases, or imposing a condition, whether lawful or unlawful, in order to prevent a
person from appearing in the investigation of or in official proceedings in, criminal cases;

(i) giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the law enforcement
agencies from apprehending the offender or from protecting the life or property of the
victim; or fabricating information from the data gathered in confidence by investigating
authorities for purposes of background information and not for publication and publishing or
disseminating the same to mislead the investigator or to the court.

If any of the acts mentioned herein is penalized by any other law with a higher penalty, the
higher penalty shall be imposed.

Section 2. If any of the foregoing acts is committed by a public official or employee, he shall
in addition to the penalties provided thereunder, suffer perpetual disqualification from
holding public office.

* Angeles vs. Gaite, G.R No. 165276, November 25, 2009

* People vs. Devaras, G.R. Nos.100938-39, December 15, 1993

Article 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability.

The penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with
respect to their spouses, ascendant, descendants, legitimate, natural and adopted brothers and
sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degree with the single exception of accessories
falling within the provisions of Article. 19[1].

Requisites for Accessories to be Exempt From Criminal Liability:

1. The principal who committed the crime is related to the accessory as:

2. The accessory:

3. The accessory did NOT profit or assist the principal to profit by the effects of the crime