1

LAW 114: Criminal Law 1

First Semester, SY 2019-2020
University of San Carlos, School of Law and Governance
Assistant Law Professor: Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap

ARTICLES, CASES TO READ

1. Criminal Law, crimes, common law crimes, Criminology, Criminalistics defined

2. Sources of Criminal Law
3. The Classical Theory and the Positivist Theory of Criminal Law (The basic
postulate of the classical penal system is that humans are rational and
calculating beings who guide their actions with reference to the principles of
pleasures and pain. They refrain from criminal acts if threatened with
punishment sufficient to cancel the hope of possible gain or advantage in
committing the crime. Villareal v. People, 664 SCRA 519)
4. Power to define and punish crimes
5. Characteristics of criminal law
6. Preliminary Title, Date of Effectiveness and Application of the Penal Code
7. Article 1 on the time when the Revised Code took effect
8. Generality (Slander case against Chinese national Jeffrey Liang, at the time
an economist at the Asian Development Bank, Jan 28, 2000, where the
Supreme Court said that the Department of Foreign Affairs’ (DFA) grant of
diplomatic immunity had “no binding effect on the courts”.)
9. The territoriality principle. The national territory under Article I of the 1987
Constitution and the Baselines Law, Magallona, et. al. v. Ermita, et. al., G.R.
No. 187167, August 16, 2011
10. The French Rule and the English Rule on jurisdiction over crimes committed on
board foreign merchant ships and airships
11. See US vs. Bull, 15 Phil 7; US vs. Look Chaw, 18 Phil 573; US vs. Ah Sing, 36
Phil 978; US vs. Wong Cheng, 46 Phil 729
12. Prospective character of criminal law
13. Cases to read: Tavera vs. Valdez, 1 Phil 463; US vs. Cuna, 12 Phil 241; PP vs.
Sindiong Pastor, 77 Phil 1000; PP vs. Baesa, C.A. 56 O.G. 5466
14. Rules in the construction of penal laws
15. Cases to read: PP vs. Tamayo, 61 Phil 225; PP vs. Gatchalian, 104 Phil 664; US
vs. Abad Santos, 36 Phil 243, PP Manaba, 58 Phil 665; PP vs Mangulabnan, 99
Phil 992

B. Title One- Felonies and Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability- 4 hours
1. Articles 3 -5, Revised Penal Code
2. Elements of felony, motive, requisites of dolo and culpa
3. Definition of felony, dolo, culpa, mens rea, malice, criminal intent, general
intent, specific intent, intent to perpetrate, discernment
4. Cases to read- PP vs. Silvestre & Atienza, 56 Phil 353; US vs. Divino, 12 Phil
175; PP vs. Sia Teb Ban, 54 Phil 52; US vs. Catolico, 18 Phil 504; PP vs.
Taneo, 58 Phil 58 Phil 255; PP v. Eutiquia Carmen @ Mother Perpetuala,
et. al., G.R. No. 137268, March 26, 2001
5. RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE (SENIT V. PEOPLE, GR NO. 192914, JAN
11, 2016)
6. Classes of crimes, mala en se and mala prohibita crimes, offenses
7. Cases to read: US vs. Catangay, 28 Phil 490; PP vs. Ramirez, 48 Phil 206; PP
vs. Bayona, 61 Phil 181; US vs. Siy Cong Bieng, et. al., 30 Phil 577; John
Eric Loney, et. al. vs. PP, G.R. 152644, February 10, 2006; PP vs. Sunico, et.
al., 50 O.G. 5880
8. THE MERE ACT OF REBROADCASTING WITHOUT AUTHORITY
CREATES PROBABLE CAUSE TO FIND THAT GMA 7 VIOLATED
RA 8293. THEY KNEW THAT THERE WOULD BE CONSEQUENCES
 2

IN CARRYING OUT THE FOOTAGE AS THEY IMMEDIATELY CUT

THE FEED UPON SEEING ABS-CBN’S LOGO. TO ADMIT A
DIFFERENT TREATMENT FOR BROADCASTS WOULD MEAN
ABANDONMENT OF A BROADCASTING ORGANIZATION’S
MINIMUM RIGHTS. IT IS THE ACT OF INFRINGEMENT, NOT
INTENT, WHICH CAUSES DAMAGE. CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
FOR SUCH INFRINGEMENT IS NOT NEGATED BY GOOD FAITH.
(ABS-CBN CORPORATION VS. FELIPE GOZON, ET. AL.; ABS-CBN
VS. GOZON, ET. AL., GR NOS. 195956, MARCH 11, 2015, LEONEN, J)
9. Mistake of fact (A misapprehension of a fact which if true, would have
justified the act or omission which is the subject of prosecution. Yapjuco v.
Sandiganbayan, 674 SCRA 420)
10. Cases to read: US vs. Ah Chong, 15 Phil 488; PP vs. Oanis, 74 Phil 257; US
vs. Penalosa, 1 Phil 109; PP vs. Beronilla, 96 Phil 566; PP vs. De Fernando,
49 Phil 75; PP vs. Guillen, 85 Phil 307
11. The meaning and rationale of Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal
Code (Villareal v. People, 664 SCRA 519)
12. Requirements of paragraph 1, e.g., the wrong done must be the direct, natural
and logical consequence of felonious act.
13. Cases to read: US vs. Villanueva, 31 Phil 412; US vs. Divino, 12 Phil 175; PP
vs. Bindoy, 56 Phil 15; PP vs. Salinas, C.A. 62 OG 3186; PP vs. Toling, 62
SCRA 17; US vs. Valdez, 41 Phil 497; PP vs. Quianson, 62 Phil 162; PP vs.
Ilustre, 54 Phil 594; PP vs. Rodriguez, 23 Phil 22; US vs. Marasigan, 27 Phil
504; US vs. Bayotas, 31 Phil 584, PP vs. Cornel, 78 Phil 418; PP vs.
Quianson, 62 Phil 162; PP vs. Reloj, 43 SCRA 526
14. Causes producing different results- mistake in the identity of the victim (error
en personae), mistake in the blow (aberratio ictus) and injurious result is
greater than that intended (praeter intentionem)
15. TREACHERY IN ABERRATIO ICTUS (PEOPLE V. ROLLY
ADRIANO, ET. AL., GR NO. 205228, JULY 15, 2015)
16. Cases to read- PP vs. Oanis, supra; PP vs. Mabugat, 51 Phil 967; PP vs.
Cagoco, 58 Phil 524; PP vs. Tomotorgo, 136 SCRA 238; PP vs. Monleon, 74
SCRA 263
17. Proximate cause of the injury, efficient intervening causes, active force,
supervening cause
18. Cases to read: Vda. De Bataclan, et. al. vs. Medina, 102 Phil 181; PP vs.
Luces, C.A. - G.R. 13011-R, July 15, 1955; PP vs. Piamonte, et. al., 94 Phil
293
19. Presumption that death is the natural consequence of the physical injuries
inflicted
20. Cases to read: PP vs. Tammang, 5 C.A. Rep. 145, US vs. Rockwell, 39 Mich.
503; US vs. De los Santos, G.R. No. 13309; PP vs. Palalon, 49 Phil 177; US
vs. Embate, 3 Phil 640; Urbano vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 10; US vs. Monasterial,
14 Phil 391; US vs. Navarro, 7 Phil 713; PP vs. Petilla, 92 Phil 395
21. The meaning of impossible crimes under Article 4, paragraph 2, Revised
Penal Code, requisites and penalty
22. Case to read: Sulpicio Intod vs. Honorable Court of Appeals and PP, 215
SCRA 52
23. Duties of the court under Article 5, Revised Penal Code
24. Application of the second paragraph of Article 5
25. Cases to read: PP vs. Jesus Salazar, L-7490, January 21, 1958; PP vs. Estoista,
93 Phil 654-655
26. Includes graded recitation

C. Article 6, Revised Penal Code

1. Article 6, Revised Penal Code onb the stages of material crimes
 3

2. Development of crime, internal acts, external acts, preparatory acts, acts of

execution, overt acts, phases of crimes
3. Distinguishing preparatory acts from overt acts
4. Cases to read: PP vs. Tabago, et. al., C.A. O.G. 3419; PP vs. Lamahang, 61
Phil 707
5. Elements of attempted felony, distinguishing it from indeterminate offense
6. NEW: THE INCLUSION OF THE PHRASE “NOT NECESSARILY
MORTAL” IN THE INFORMATION DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS
ABSENCE OF INTENT TO KILL ON THEIR PART, NEGATING
ATTEMPT TO MURDER. INTENT TO KILL IS A STATE OF MIND
THAT CAN BE DISCERNED ONLY THROUGH EXTERNAL
MANIFESTATIONS. (FANTASTICO AND VILLANUEVA VS.
MALICSE, SR., AND PEOPLE, GR NO. 190912, JAN 12, 2015,
PERALTA, J.)
7. Cases to read: Araneta, Jr. vs. CA, 187 SCRA 123, US vs. Bien, 20 Phil 354;
PP vs. Kalalo, et. al., 59 Phil 715; PP vs. Domingo, CA-G.R. No. 14222-R,
April 11, 1956; PP vs. Somera, et. al., 52 OG 3973; Rodolfo Velasco v.
People, G.R. No. 166479, February 28, 2006; Rivera vs. PP, G.R. No.
166326, January 25, 2006; People v. Figueroa, 669 SCRA 391; People v.
Camat, 677 SCRA 640)
8. Elements of frustrated felony, i.e., that the cause which prevented the
consummation of the offense be independent of the will of the perpetrator
9. Cases to read: People v. Adallom, 667 SCRA 652; PP vs. Honrada, 62 Phil
112; PP v s. Mercado, 51 Phil 99; PP vs. David, 60 Phil 93
10. Distinguishing frustrated felony from attempted felony (see Epifanio vs. PP,
G.R. No. 157057, June 26, 2007;; from impossible crime
11. Elements of consummated felony
12. Manner of determining the stages of felony: by the nature of the offense, e.g.
arson; by the elements of the felony, e.g., theft and estafa and the manner of
committing it, e.g., material crimes and formal crimes, etc.
13. Cases to read: PP vs. Hernandez, 54 Phil 122; US vs. Valdes, 39 Phil 240; PP
vs. Go Kay,
14. When not all elements of a felony is proved, e.g., homicide, estafa, robbery,
forcible abduction
15. There is no frustrated theft. Ruling in PP vs. Dino, CA 45 OG 3446
abandoned. Read Valenzuela y Natividad vs. PP & Honorable Court of
Appeals (En Banc, GR Mo. 16088, June 21, 2007)
16. Cases to read: PP vs. Espiritu, et. al., CA-GR No. 2107-R, May 31, 1949, PP
vs. De la Cruz, CA, 43 OG 3202; US vs. Dominguez, 41 Phil 408; PP vs. De
la Cruz, CA, 43 OG 3202; US vs. Villanueva, 1 Phil 370; PP vs. Gutierrez,
CA, 40 OG, Supp. 4; PP vs. Castillo, CA, 65 OG 1065; PP vs. Del Rosario,
CA, 46 OG 4332; US vs. Joven, 44 Phil 796; US vs. Maghirang, 28 Phil 655;
Mondragon vs. PP, 17 SCRA 476
17. There is no frustrated rape. (see PP vs. Orita, 184 SCRA 114; PP vs. Salinas,
232 SCRA 275)
18. There are no attempted and frustrated impossible crimes.

D. Articles 7-9, Revised Penal Code

1. Classification of felonies based on gravity under Article 9, Revised Penal
Code; Classes of penalties under Article 25, Revised Penal Code; When light
felonies are punished under Article 7, Revised Penal Code
2. The concept of conspiracy and proposal to commit felony, requisites; The
general rule on conspiracy and proposal to commit felony and the exception
under Article 8, Revised Penal Code; Crimes in which conspiracy and
proposal are punishable are against the security of the State (Articles 115, 136,
141 of the Revised Penal Code) or economic security (Article 186 of the RPC)
 4

3. Distinguishing conspiracy as a felony from conspiracy as a manner of

incurring criminal liability People v. Eddie Agacer, et. al., G.R. No. 177751,
December 14, 2011; People v. Restituato Carandang, et. al., G.R. No.
175926, July 6, 2011; People v. Gilberto Villarico, Sr., @ Berting, et. al.,
G.R. No. 158362, April 4, 2011; Salvador Atizado and Salvador Monreal
v. People, G.R. No. 173822, October 13, 2010; Pat. Edgardo Herrera y
Baltoribio and Pat. Redentor Mariano y Antonio v. Hon. Sandiganbayan
and People, G.R. No. 119660-61, February 13, 2009; People v. Domingo
Alpapara, et. al., G.R. No. 180421, October 30, 2009; People v. Avelino
Galgo, et. al., G.R. No. 133887, May 28, 2002; People v. Alberto Antonio,
et. al., G.R. No. 128900, July 14, 2000
4. Cases to read: PP vs. Geronimo, 53 SCRA 246; PP vs. Cantuba, 183 SCRA
289; PP vs. Hernandez, 182 SCRA 794; PP vs. Dorico, 54 SCRA 172; PP vs.
Pugay. 167 SCRA 439; Territory vs. Goto, 27 Hawaii 65 (1923) cited in
Serapio
5. NEW: THERE IS NO PROOF OF BENITO’S DIRECT
PARTICIPATION IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME. NEITHER
IS THERE PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF HER
CONSPIRACY WITH AGBULOS. THE FACT THAT BENITO
ACCOMPANIED AGBULOS IN GOING TO ABADILLA’S
RESIDENCE DOES NOT PROVE THAT BENITO RECEIVED ANY
JEWELRY FROM ABADILLA. (BENITO V. PEOPLE, GR NO. 204644,
FEB 11, 2015, LEONEN, J.)
6. NEW: CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER (PEOPLE V. VILLAR,
GR NO. 202708, APRIL 13, 2015, DEL CASTILLO, J.)
7. NEW: CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT ROBBERY; ACTS OF
INTRODUCING HERSELF AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE POEA
IN ORDER TO GAIN ACCESS INTO THE HOUSE, DISTRACTING
THE COMPLAINANT TO HAVE HER COHORTS ENTER THE
HOUSE, AND PEEPING INSIDE THE BEDROOM WHEN HER CO-
ACCUSED WERE TYING COMPLAINANT UP TO ENABLE
THEMSELVES TO TAKE AWAY JEWELRY AND OTHER
VALUABLES WITHOUT HINDRANCE. (FRANSDILLA VS. PEOPLE,
GR NO. 197562, APRIL 20, 2015, BERSAMIN, J.)
8. NEW: CONSPIRACY; QUANTUM OF PROOF; ACCUSED,
VAULTS/RECORD KEEPER OF THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS DID
NOT ACT IN CONSPIRACY WITH THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS IN
CAUSING THE REMOVAL OR DISAPPEARANCE OF A TCT AND
THE SUBSEQUENT ISSUANCE OF A DERIVATIVE TITLE, IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 3€, RA 3019 AND ART. 226 OF THE RPC. TO
HOLD AN ACCUSED GUILTY AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR, HE MUST
HAVE PERFORMED AN OVERT ACT IN PURSUANCE OF THE
COMPLICITY. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO SHOW
THAT RAYMUNDO WAS THE ONE WHO ACTUALLY WITHDREW
THE ORIGINAL COPY OF THE TCT FROM THE VAULT. (ZAPANTA
VS. PEOPLE, GR NOS. 192698-99, APRIL 22, 2015; MENDOZA, J.)
9. NEW: CONSPIRACY (PEOPLE V. OCTA, GR NO. 195196, JULY 13,
2015)
10. Proposal as an overt act in the crime of corruption of public officer (Article
212, Revised Penal Code)
11. Rules to remember on conspiracy (Conspiracy need not be proven by direct
evidence. Conspiracy maybe implied if it is proved that two or more
persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same
unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though
apparently independent of each other were, in fact, connected and
cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a
 5

concurrence of sentiment. Yapyuco v. Sandiganbayan, 674 SCRA 420,

People v. Nelmida, 680 SCRA 386; People v. Nazareno, 684 SCRA 604)
12. NEW: Macapagal-Arroyo v. People and SB, GR No. 220598 and Benigno
Aguas v. SB, GR No. 220953, 11/19/2016 (J. Bersamin) RE;
CONSPIRACY; The law on plunder requires that a particular public officer
must be identified as the one who amassed, acquired or accumulated ill-gotten
wealth because it plainly states that plunder is committed by any public officer
who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by
affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons
amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount or
total value of at least P 50,000.00 through a combination or series of overt acts
as described in Sec. 1(d).
13. Article 10; Two clauses on primary application and supplemental application;
Offenses under special laws do not have attempted and frustrated stages
(Article 6). The penalties under the Revised Penal Code cannot be applied to
offenses (Article 64 and Article 71; Article 10 does not apply to an accomplice
and accessories under the special law. Also to the circumstances modifying
criminal liability (Article 13, Article 14 and Article 15)
14. Cases to read: US vs. Lopez Basa, 8 Phil 89; Navarra vs. PP, 96 Phil 851
15. Applicability of RPC provisions to special laws, i.e., indemnity and subsidiary
imprisonment, civil liability, minority; Cases to read: PP vs. Macatanda, 109
SCRA 35; PP vs. Simon, 243 SCRA 255

E. Article 11, Revised Penal Code

1. Justifying circumstances
2. Imputability distinguished from responsibility, guilt
3. Basis for the justifying circumstances, burden of proof
4. The 6 justifying circumstances (paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,and 6)
5. The 3 requisites of self- defense, defense of relatives, defense of strangers
(paragraphs 1,2 and 3)
6. NEW: SELF-DEFENSE; HOMICIDE; ACCUSED FAILED TO PROVE
THE REQUISITES FOR SELF-DEFENSE TO PROSPER; AUTOPSY
REPORT DISPROVES ACCUSED’S CLAIM THAT HE FIRED THE
SHOTS WHILE LEANING BACKWARD AFTER THE VICTIM
TRIED TO STAB HIM (PO1 OCAMPO V. PEOPLE, GR NO 194129,
JUNE 15, 2015)

NEW: THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO PREVENT OR REPEL THE

SUPPOSED UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION WAS BEYOND WHAT’S
REASONABLY NECESSARY. THE NUMBER, NATURE, AND
GRAVITY OF THE WOUNDS SUSTAINED BY BINAOBRA REVEAL
A DETERMINED EFFORT TO KILL, NEGATING SELF-DEFENSE.
(PEOPLE VS. ROSITO, GR NO. 209346, JAN 12, 2015, CARPIO, J.)

NEW: SELF-DEFENSE; FLIGHT AS INDICATION OF GUILT

(PEOPLE V. CRISTINA SAMSON, GR NO. 214883, SEPT. 2, 2015)

NEW: THE ACCUSED FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE REQUISITES

OF SELF-DEFENSE. ONLY HE HIMSELF TESTIFIED REGARDING
HIS ALLEGATION. THE TRIAL COURT GAVE GREAT WEIGHT
AND RESPECT TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESS
DETAILING WHO, WHEN, WHERE AND HOW THE CRIME WAS
COMMITTED. (PEOPLE V. NESTOR ROXAS, GR NO. 218396, FEB.
10, 2016)

7. First requisite of unlawful aggression is indispensable.

 6

8. Unlawful aggression is assault or threatened assault of an immediate or

imminent kind
9. Unlawful aggression requires an actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or
imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating
attitude. The act of the (deceased) of allegedly drawing a gun from his
waist cannot be categorized as unlawful aggression. People v. Malicdem,
685 SCRA 193
10. Peril to one’s life could be actual or imminent, Danger to life or danger only to
limb
11. NEW: SELF-DEFENSE; MURDER ATTENDED BY TREACHERY
(PEOPLE V. ERNIE INCIONG, GR NO. 213383, JUNE 22, 2015)
12. Belief of the accused may be considered in determining the existence of
unlawful aggression
13. Cases to read: US vs. Jose Laurel, 22 Phil 252; PP vs. Cabungcal, 51 Phil 803;
US vs. Carrero, 9 Phil 544; PP vs. Yuman; PP vs. Sabio, G.R. No. L-23734,
April 27, 1967; PP vs. Roxas, 58 Phil 733; PP vs. Sabio, 19 SCRA 901; PP vs.
Riduca, 55 SCRA 190; US vs. Ah Chong, 15 Phil 502; US vs. Guy-sayco, 13
Phil 292
14. Retaliation is not the same as self-defense. In retaliation, the aggression
that was begun by the injured party already ceased when the accused
attacked him, while in self-defense the aggression still existed when the
aggressor was injured by the accused. Belbis Jr. v. People, 685 SCRA 518;
(see also PP vs. Alconga, et. al., 78 Phil 366; PP vs. Jovito Callado, et. al., GR
No. 94643, February 21, 1992
15. NEW: SELF-DEFENSE AS COMPARED TO RETALIATION (PEOPLE
V. DULIN, GR NO. 171284, JUNE 29, 2015)
16. Unlawful aggressor is the person attacked by the accused; No appreciable
interval of time between the unlawful aggression and the attack in self-
defense; Nature, character, location and extent of the wound of the accused
may belie his claim of self-defense; Cases to read: PP vs. Mediavilla, 52 Phil
94; PP vs. Batas, 176 SCRA 46; PP vs. Ganut, 118 SCRA 35; PP vs.
Marciales, 166 SCRA 436; PP vs. Labis, 21 SCRA 875; PP vs. Panganiban, 22
SCRA 817; PP vs. Tolentino, 54 Phil 77
17. Physical fact may determine whether accused acted in self-defense; Cases to
read: PP vs. Dorico, 54 SCRA 172; PP vs. Perez, 56 SCRA 603; PP vs.
Aquino, 54 SCRA 409
18. No unlawful aggression in concerted fight, rationale for the rule; When there
is agreement to fight; Aggression which is ahead of the stipulated time and
place is unlawful; Cases to read: PP vs. Gondayao, 30 SCRA 226; PP vs.
Monteroso, 51 Phil 815; How to determine the unlawful aggressor; Cases to
read: US vs. Laurel, 22 Phil 252; PP v. Berio, 59 Phil 533
19. Unlawful aggression in defense of other rights, i.e., right to chastity; see PP
vs. Jaurigue, 76 Phil 174
20. Defense of property, defense of home; Cases to read: PP vs. Apolinar, CA,38
OG 2870; PP vs. Goya, CA-GR No. 16373-R, September 29, 1956
21. The second requisite of reasonable necessity to prevent or repel the unlawful
aggression; Circumstances affecting the reasonableness of the necessity;
Cases to read: US vs. Molina, 19 Phil 227; PP vs. Ocana, CA, 67 OG 3313;
US vs. Ah Chong, 15 Phil 501; PP vs. Lara, 48 Phil 153; US vs. Rivera, 41
Phil 472; PP vs. Narvaez, 121 SCRA 402; PP vs. Rabandaban, 85 Phil 636
22. There is self-defense if mortal wounds were inflicted at the time the requisites
of self defense were present, even if minor physical injuries were inflicted
after unlawful aggression ceased.; Case to read: PP vs. Del Pilar, C.A. 44 O.G.
596
23. The person defending is not expected to control his blow viz in repelling or
preventing the aggression defendant must aim at his assailant and not
indiscriminately fire his deadly weapon; Cases to read: US vs. Macasaet, 35
 7

Phil 229; US vs. Mack, 8 Phil 701; US vs. Domen, 37 Phil 57; PP vs.
Galacgac, CA, 54 OG 1027; Necessity of the means used; Cases to read: PP
vs. Jaurigue, 76 Phil 174; PP vs. Montalbo, 56 Phil 443; US vs. Apego, 23
Phil 391; Test of reasonableness of the means used, nature and quality of
weapons, physical condition, character and size, other circumstances; Cases to
read: PP vs. Padua, CA, 40 OG 998; PP vs. Encomienda, 46 SCRA 522, PP
vs. Lara, 48 Phil 153; PP vs. Paras, 9 Phil 367; PP vs. Padua, CA, 40 OG 998;
US vs. Laurel, 22 Phil 252; PP vs. Romero, CA, 34 OG 2046; PP vs. Onas, 6
SCRA 688; PP vs Ramilo, CA, 44 OG 1255; PP vs. Aguilario, CA, 56 OG
757; US vs. Mack, 8 Phil 701; PP vs. Montalbo, 56 Phil 443; PP vs. Ignacio,
58 Phil 858; PP vs. Sumicad, 56 Phil 643; US vs. Batungbacal, 37 Phil 382;
Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel unlawful
aggression liberally construed in favor of law- abiding citizens; Case to read:
PP vs. So, 5 CAR [2s] 671
24. NEW: REASONABLE NECESSITY IN SELF-DEFENSE; THIS STATE
OF INTOXICATION WHILE NOT CRITICALLY MATERIAL TO THE
STABBING THAT TRANSPIRED IS STILL MATERIAL FOR
PURPOSES OF DEFINING ITS SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES,
PARTICULARLY THE FACT THAT A BELT BUCKLE AND A PIECE
OF WOOD MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN A POTENT WEAPON IN THE
HANDS OF A DRUNK WIELDER. (RAFAEL NADYHAN V. PEOPLE,
GR NO. 193134, MARCH 2, 2016)
25. Rule on reasonableness of the necessity of the means employed when the
defendant is a police officer; Cases to read: US vs. Mojica, 42 Phil 784; US
vs. Mendoza, 2 Phil 109; PP vs. Caina, 14 CAR [2s] 93; PP vs. Uy, Jr., 20
CAR [2s]850
26. A different third requisite for self defense, defense of relative and defense of
stranger; Cases where third requisite (lack of sufficient provocation on the part
of the person defending himself) is present
27. Defense of strangers (People v. Del Castillo, 663 SCRA 226)
28. How to determine sufficiency of provocation. It must be proximate and
immediate to the aggression; Cases to read: PP vs. Alconga, 78 Phil 366; US
vs. Mc Cray, 2 Phil 545; PP vs. Valencia, 133 SCRA 82; PP vs. Sotelo, 55 Phil
403; PP vs. Dolfo, CA, 46 OG 1621; US vs. Laurel, supra
29. The Battered Woman/Wife Syndrome as a defense (see PP vs. Marivic
Genosa, GR No. 13598, January 15, 2004)
30. Defense of Relative, relatives that can be defended, basis for justification
31. Cases to read: PP vs. Ammalun, CA, 51 OG 6250; US vs. Rivera, 26
Philippines 138
32. Defense of stranger, who are strangers, basis for justification
33. Cases to read: PP vs. Valdez, 58 Phil 31; US vs. Subingsubing, 31 Phil 376
34. Paragraph 4; To successfully invoke avoidance of greater evil as a
justifying circumstance, the following requisites should be complied with:
1) the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; 2) the injury feared be
greater than that done to avoid it; and that 3) there be no other practical
and less harmful means of preventing it. (People v. Punzalan, Jr. 687
SCRA 687); Cases to read: PP vs. Norma Hernandez, CA, 55 OG 8465, PP
vs. Ricohermoso, et. al., 56 SCRA 431; Tan vs. Standard Vacuum Oil Co., 91
Phil 672; Civil liability under this paragraph only (see Article 101)
35. Paragraph 5, Revised Penal Code, Fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of
right or office, requisites; Cases to read: PP vs. Oanis, supra, PP vs. Felipe
Delima, 46 Phil 738; Valcorza vs. PP, 30 SCRA 148; PP vs. Lagata, 83 Phil
159US vs. Magno, et. al., 8 Phil 314; Shooting by the chief of police of the
offender who refused to surrender would have been justified. (PP vs.
Gayrama, 60 Phil 796; But shooting by a security guard of a thief who refused
to be arrested is not justified (see PP vs. Bentres, CA, 49 OG 4919)
 8

36. A law enforcer in the performance of duty is justified in using such force
as is reasonably necessary to secure and detain the offender, overcome his
resistance, prevent his escape, recapture him if he escapes, and protect
himself from bodily harm. He is however, never justified in using
unnecessary force or in treating the offender with wanton violence, or in
resorting to dangerous means when the arrest could be effected
otherwise. Yapyuco v. Sandiganbayan, 674 SCRA 420)
37. Distinguishing self defense from fulfillment of duty
38. Lawful exercise of right or office
39. Doctrine of self- help, application (see PP vs. Depante, Ca, 58 OG 926)
40. Paragraph 6, Revised Penal Code, Obedience to an order issued for some
lawful purpose, requisites
41. Cases to read: PP vs. Wilson and Dolores, 52 Phil 919; PP vs. Barroga, 54 Phil
247; PP vs. Margen, et. al., 85 Phil 839
42. Includes graded recitation

F. Article 12, Revised Penal Code

1. The 7 exempting circumstances; Distinguishing justifying circumstances from
exempting circumstances; Definition of exempting circumstances, basis of the
rule and burden of proof
2. Paragraph 1- Definition of imbecility and insanity unless during a lucid interval;
Presumption of sanity, evidence necessary to overthrow presumption; Evidence of
insanity with regard to time; Presumption of sanity during lucid intervals; The
defense of insanity may be accepted as an exempting circumstance on the test
of cognition, which requires a complete deprivation of intelligence, not only
of the will, in committing the criminal act. People v. Isla, 686 SCRA 267.
3. Cases to read: PP v. Anacito Opuran, GR Nos. 147674-75, March 17, 2004; PP
vs. Bascos, 44 Phil 204; PP vs. Bonoan, 64 Phil 93; PP vs. Renegado, 57 SCRA
275; PP vs. Ambal, 100 SCRA 325; PP vs. Magallano, 100 SCRA 570; PP vs.
Puno, 105 SCRA 151; PP vs. Aquino, 186 SCRA 851
4. Examples of insanity: dementia praecox, i.e., irresistible homicidal impulse (PP
vs. Bonoan, supra), kleptomania (not settled in the Philippines); epilepsy;
committing a crime while in a dream (PP vs. Taneo, 58 Phil 255), somnambulism
or sleep-walking (PP vs. Gimena,55 Phil 604; PP vs. Odicta, 4 Phil 309),
hypnotism or artificial somnambulism (debatable according to Albert), malignant
malaria (PP vs. Lacena, 69 Phil 350
5. NEW: INSANITY AS A DEFENSE AND RELATED CIVIL LIABILITY; AN
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE, BY ITS NATURE, ADMITS THAT
CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LIABILITIES EXISTS. THUS, VERDADERO IS
STILL LIABLE FOR DAMAGES INSPITE OF HIS EXONERATION.
(SOLOMON VERDADERO V. PEOPLE, GR NO. 216021, MARCH 2, 2016)
6. Paragraph 2- minority, basis of the rule
7. Paragraph 3- minority without discernment
8. Cases to read: Madali v. People, 668 SCRA 114 (Rizal v. Naredo); Bergonia v.
CA, 664 SCRA 322 (Rizal v. Naredo?) Alvin Jose vs. PP, GR No. 162052,
January 13, 2005; John Philip Guevarra vs. Hon. Ignacio Almodovar, 169 SCRA
476
9. Section 6, R.A. 9344 (The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act) amending
exemptions in paragraphs 2, 3 of Article 12: a) child 15 years of age or under at
the time of the commission of the offense is exempt; b) child above 15 years but
below 18 also exempt from criminal responsibility but subjected to intervention
program unless he/she acted with discernment
10. Definition of discernment
11. Section 20, Title IV (Treatment of Children Below the Age of Criminal
Responsibility)
12. Paragraph 4- Definition of accident
13. Elements, Basis of exemption
 9

14. Distinguish accident from negligence (see PP vs. Nocum, 77 Phil 1018
15. Examples of accident (see Roweno Pomoy v. People, G.R. No. 150647,
September 29, 2004, US vs. Tanedo, 15 Phil 196; US vs. Tayongtong, 21 Phil
476; US vs. Knight, 26 Phil 216; PP vs. Ayaya, 52 Phil 354)
16. Self-defense and accidental shooting cannot be raised at the same time (see PP vs.
Floroque, 360 SCRA 587)
17. No civil liability
18. Paragraph 5- compulsion of an irresistible force
19. Elements, Basis of exemption
20. Cases to read: US vs. Caballeros, et. al., 4 Phil 350; PP vs. Sarip, 88 SCRA 666;
PP vs. Loreno, 130 SCRA 311
21. Paragraph 6- impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury
22. Elements (see US vs. Elicanal, 35 Phil 209; PP vs. Petenia, 143 SCRA 361; US
vs. Exaltacion, 3 Phil 339), Basis of exemption
23. Duress should be based on real, imminent or reasonable fear for one’s life or limb
not speculative, fanciful or remote fear (see PP vs. Borja, 91 SCRA 340; PP vs.
Quilloy, 88 Phil 53; PP vs. Rogado, et. al., 106 Phil 816; PP vs. Regala, et. al., GR
No. L-1751, May 28, 1951; PP vs. Moreno, 77 Phil 549)
24. In treason, nothing will excuse that act of joining an enemy but the fear of
immediate death. (see PP vs. Bagalawin, 78 Phil 174)
25. Distinction between irresistible force and uncontrollable fear
26. Paragraph 7- lawful or insuperable cause
27. Elements (see US Vicentillo, 19 Phil 118; PP vs. Bandian, 63 Phil 530), Basis for
exemption
28. No civil liability
29. Definition of absolutory causes and examples
30. Instigation as an absolutory cause (see US vs. Phelps, 16 Phil 440; PP vs. Yutuc,
188 SCRA 1; Chang & San Mateo vs. PP, GR No. 165111, July 21, 2006), basis
for exemption
31. NEW: “ENTRAPMENT” AND “INSTIGATION”, DISTINGUISHED
(PEOPLE V. CASIO, 744 SCRA 113)
32. Instigation must be made by public officers or private detectives (see PP vs.
Valmores, et. al., June 24, 1983)
33. Effect if a private individual instigated the commission of the crime
34. Complete defenses in criminal cases
35. Includes graded recitation

G. Article 13- Circumstances that modify criminal liability or the 10 mitigating

circumstances
1. Definition and basis
2. Classes, distinctions
3. Circumstances that are neither exempting nor mitigating such as mistake in the
blow, mistake in the identity of the victim, entrapment, adult accused,
performance of righteous action (PP vs. Victoria, 78 Phil 122)
4. Paragraph 1- incomplete justifying and incomplete exempting circumstances
5. Examples: US vs. Rivera, 41 Phil 472 (incomplete defense); PP VS. De Jesus, 118
SCRA 616 (incomplete self-defense); PP vs. Toring, 191 SCRA 38 (incomplete
defense of relative); PP vs. Oanis, supra (incomplete fulfillment of duty); PP vs.
Bernal, et. al., 91 Phil 619 (incomplete obedience to an order)
6. Incomplete exempting circumstance of minority; of accident; of uncontrollable
fear (PP vs. Magpantay, CA 46 OG 1655
7. Paragraph 2- minority as a privileged mitigating circumstance. See Section 6,
R.A. 9344 (The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act regarding child above 15 years
but below 18 who acted with discernment)
8. Also under paragraph 2, Article 13, Revised Penal Code, if accused is over 70
years of age, an ordinary mitigating circumstance
9. Legal effects of age of offender
 10

10. Paragraph 3- lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong

11. Meaning explained in US vs. Reyes, 36 Phil 904, basis of application
12. Applicability only to physical injuries or crimes involving material harm
13. State of mind of accused not on the circumstances such as evident premeditation
or treachery, qualifying the crime of murder (see PP vs. Enriquez, 58 Phil 536 and
PP vs. Pugay, 167 SCRA 439)
14. But see PP vs. Pajenado, 69 SCRA where lack of intention to commit so grave a
wrong was not appreciated in murder qualified by treachery
15. Intention of offender at the moment when he commits the criminal act (robbery
with homicide) not to his intention during the planning stage (PP vs. Boyles, et.
al., 11 SCRA 88; PP vs. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1037)
16. But see PP vs. Abueg, 145 SCRA 622, where there was lack of intention to
commit so grave a wrong was mitigating in robbery with homicide.
17. Examples: PP vs. Rabao, 67 Phil 255; US vs. Bertucio, 1 Phil 47; PP vs. Ural, 56
SCRA 138
18. Weapon used, injured part, injury inflicted and the manner it is inflicted may show
that accused intended the wrong he committed (see PP vs. Flores, 50 Phil 548; PP
vs. Reyes, 61 Phil 341; PP vs. Banlos, GR No. L-3412, December 29, 1950; PP
vs. Reyes, 69 SCRA 474; PP vs. Bautista, 28 SCRA 184; PP vs. Espejo, 36 SCRA
400
19. Not mitigating: in physical injuries (PP vs. Galacgac, CA, 54 OG 1207; in
culpable felonies (PP vs. Medina, CA, 40 OG 4196); in felonies where intention is
immaterial such as unintentional abortion (PP vs. Cristobal, CA, GR No. 8739,
October 31, 1942 but see PP vs. Flameno, CA, 58 OG 4060 where mitigating
circumstance was appreciated because the intention was only to maltreat
complainant)
20. Paragraph 4- sufficient provocation
21. Definition and requisites
22. Cases to read: US vs. Carrero, 9 Phil 544; US vs. Firmo, 37 Phil 133; PP vs.
Marquez, 53 Phil 260; PP vs. Manansala, Jr., 31 SCRA 401; PP vs. Macariola,
120 SCRA 92
23. Provocation must be immediate to the commission of the crime, no interval (PP
vs. Benito, 62 SCRA 351 and PP vs. De Guia, GR No. L-3731, April 20, 1951)
24. Paragraph 5- immediate vindication of a grave offense
25. Requisites, i.e. particular relatives included (PP Libria, 95 Phil 398; PP vs.
Doniega, 9 SCRA 541)
26. Grave offense directed to the accused
27. Distinguish provocation from vindication
28. A lapse of time is allowed between the grave offense and the vindication (PP vs.
Parana, 64 Phil 331; PP vs. Diokno, 63 Phil 601)
29. Determine the gravity of offense in vindication (US vs. Ampar, 37 Phil 201; PP
vs. Rosel, 66 Phil 323; PP vs. Luna, 76 Phil 101)
30. Paragraph 6- passion or obfuscation
31. Rule for the application of circumstance
32. Actual cause/origin producing passion or obfuscation is the offended party (US
vs. Esmedia, et. al., 17 Phil 260; PP vs. Lao, CA, 64 OG 7873) or in the honest
belief of the offender (US vs. Ferrer, 1 Phil 56; US vs. Macalintal, 2 Phil 448)
33. Distinguishing passion or obfuscation from irresistible force, from provocation
34. NEW: PASSION AND OBFUSCATION NEED NOT BE FELT ONLY IN
THE SECONDS BEFORE THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME. IT MAY
BUILD UP AND STRENGTHEN OVER TIME UNTIL IT CAAN NO
LONGER BE REPRESSED AND WILL UNTIMATELY MOTIVATE THE
COMMISSION OF THE CRIME. (PEOPLE VS. OLOVERIO, GR NO.
211159, MARCH 18, 2015, LEONEN, J.)
35. Rule that it is mitigating only when it arose from lawful sentiments and legitimate
feelings (US vs. Hicks, 14 Phil 217; PP vs. Gravino, 122 SCRA 123); under the
impulse of special motives (PP vs. Mil, 92 SCRA 89)
 11

36. But see cases of US vs. De la Cruz, 22 Phil 429; PP vs. Engay, CA 47 OG 4306;
PP vs Yuman, 61 Phil 786; PP vs. Bello, 10 SCRA 298
37. Not mitigating when act was done in a spirit of lawlessness (PP vs. Sanico, 46 OG
98); in a spirit of revenge (PP vs. Caliso, 58 Phil 283)
38. Obfuscation arising from jealousy, mitigating in PP vs. Marasigan, 70 Phil 583;
PP vs. Macabangon, 63 Phil 1062)
39. Rule that provocation and obfuscation from the same cause should be treated only
as one aggravating circumstance (PP vs. Pagal, 79 SCRA 570)
40. Rule that vindication of a grave offense cannot co-exist with passion and
obfuscation (CA, 43 OG 4142) except where there are other facts closely
connected (PP vs. Diokno, 63 Phil 601)
41. Rule that passion or obfuscation is incompatible with lack of intention to commit
so grave a wrong (PP vs. Cabel, 5 CAR [2s] 507, 515)
42. Incompatible with treachery (PP vs. Wong, 18 CAR [2s] 934
43. Paragraph 7- voluntary surrender and plea of guilt
44. Requisites of voluntary surrender- voluntariness (PP vs. Gervacio, 24 SCRA 960)
45. When is surrender voluntary? (PP vs. Lagrana, 147 SCRA 281)
46. Read cases (PP vs. Tenorio, 4 SCRA 700; PP vs. Dayrit, 108 Phil 100; PP vs.
Benito 62 SCRA 351; PP vs. Magpantay, 12 SCRA 389; PP vs. Torres, 3 CAR
[2s] 43; PP vs. Radomes, 141 SCRA 548; PP vs. Jereza, 189 SCRA 690; PP vs.
Babiera, CA, 45 OG Supp. 5; PP vs. Parana, 64 Phil 331; PP vs. Brana, 30 SCRA
308
47. Requisite that surrender must be made to a person in authority (Article 152,
Revised Penal Code) or to an agent of a person in authority (Article 152)
48. Non-flight is not voluntary surrender (PP vs. Canoy, 90 Phil 633; PP vs. Rubinal,
GR No. L-12275, November 29, 1960).
49. Time and place of surrender (PP vs. Brana, supra)
50. Requisites of plea of guilty (PP vs. Crisostomo, 160 SCRA 47)
51. Reason for the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilt, basis
52. Plea of guilty on appeal is not mitigating (PP vs. Hermino, 64 Phil 403).
53. Philosophy behind the rule (PP vs. Oandasan, 25 SCRA 277)
54. Plea of guilt is not mitigating in culpable felonies (PP vs. Agito, 103 Phil 526) and
in special laws.
55. Plea of guilty to amended information (PP vs. Ortiz, 15 SCRA 352)
56. But see plea of guilty to lesser offense than that charged (PP vs. Noble, 77 Phil
93; PP vs. Intal, 101 Phil 308)
57. Plea of guilt was qualified, aggravating circumstance was erroneously alleged in
the information (PP vs. Yturriaga, 86 Phil 534; PP vs. Ong, 62 SCRA 174
58. Necessity of receiving evidence when accused pleads guilty to a grave offense (PP
vs. Lacson, 55 SCRA 589; PP vs. Logarto, 196 SCRA 611)
59. Paragraph 8- being deaf, dumb, blind and other physical defects
60. Paragraph 9- on illness diminishing will power
61. Complete loss of will-power is (not mitigating but) exempting. (PP vs. Bonoan,
64 Phil 95
62. Consists of illness of the body, mind, nerves or moral faculty (PP vs. Francisco,
78 Phil 694; PP vs. Amit, 82 Phil 820; PP vs. Carpenter, CA, GR No. 4168, April
22, 1940), feeblemindedness (PP vs. Formigones, 87 Phil 658)
63. Mistaken belief of the accused (PP vs. Balneg, et. al., 79 Phil 805)
64. Paragraph 10- on similar and analogous mitigating circumstance
65. Examples: over 60 years old with failing eyesight similar to over 70 years of age
(PP vs. Reantillo and Ruiz, CA, GR No. 301, July 27, 1938; outraged feeling of
owner of animal taken for ransom analogous to vindication of a grave offense (PP
vs. Monaga, 118 SCRA 466; PP vs. Merenillo, CA, 36 OG 2283; impulse of
jealous feeling similar to passion and obfuscation (PP vs. Ubengen, CA, 36 OG
763, esprit de corps similar to passion and obfuscation (PP vs. Villamora, 86 Phil
287), voluntary restitution of stolen property similar to voluntary surrender (PP
vs. Luntao, CA, 50 OG 1182), testifying for the prosecution without previous
 12

discharge similar to voluntary plea obbbf guilt (PP vs. Navasca, 76 SCRA 72),
extreme poverty and necessity similar to incomplete state of necessity (PP vs.
Macbul, 74 Phil 436)
66. What are not analogous mitigating circumstances?
67. Mitigating circumstances personal to the offenders: moral attributes of the
offender, private relations of offender with offended party, or from any personal
cause serve to mitigate liability of principals, accomplices and accessories as to
whom the circumstances are attendant (Article 62, paragraph 3 of the Revised
Penal Code)
68. Includes graded recitation

H. Article 14- 21 aggravating circumstances under Article 14, Revised Penal Code
(Power Point Presentation)
Cases re treachery- SPO1 Armando Lozano @ Amid, et. al., G.R. Nos. 137370-71,
September 29, 2003; PP v. Inocencio Gonzalez, Jr., G.R. No. 139542, June 21,
2001; People v. Alberto Antonio, et. al., G.R. No. 128900, July 14, 2000; People v.
Castor Batin, G.R. No. 177223, November 28, 2007; People v. Jarandilla, 339
SCRA 381 (2000); People v. Delmo, et. al., G.R. Nos. 130078-82, October 4, 2002
SCRA Annotations on Treachery (20 SCRA 30), The Aggravating Circumstance
of Treachery (97 SCRA 558), When to Appreciate the Aggravating Circumstance
of Cruelty (124 SCRA 603)

NEW: TREACHERY IN ABERRATIO ICTUS (PEOPLE V. ROLLY

ADRIANO, ET. AL., GR NO. 205228, JULY 15, 2015)

NEW: TREACHERY AS AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE, (PEOPLE V.

EDANO, GR NO. 206970, JULY 29, 2015; PEOPLE V. LLOBERA, GR NO.
203066, AUG 5, 2015)

NEW: TREACHERY PRESENT. THE ATTACK ON THE UNSUSPECTING

VICTIM, WHO WAS MERELY SEATED ON A BENCH AND TALKING
WITH HIS FRIENDS WAS VERY SUDDEN, DEPRIVING THE VICTIM OF
ANY CHANCE TO DEFEND HIMSELF OR TO REPEL THE AGGRESSION,
THUS INSURING ITS COMMISSION WITHOUT RISK TO THE
AGGRESSOR AND WITHOUT ANY PROVOCATION ON THE PART OF
THE VICTIM. (PEOPLE VS. SEVILLANO, GR NO. 200800, FEB 9, 2015,
PEREZ, J.)

NEW: MURDER; QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TAKING

ADVANTAGE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH (PEOPLE V. ROMEO DE
CASTRO AND RANDOLF PABANIL, GR NO. 205316, JUNE 29, 2015)

NEW: MURDER; TREACHERY AS QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING

CIRCUMSTANCE (PEOPLE V. PARBA, GR NO. 214506, OCT. 19, 2015;
PEOPLE V. ZABALA, ET. AL., GR NO. 203087, NOV. 23, 2015)

NEW: MURDER; TREACHERY AND UNLICENSED FIREARM AS

QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE; PEOPLE V. SALIBAD,
GR NO.210616, NOV. 25, 2015)

NEW: THE FATAL SHOOTING OF ATTY. SEGUNDO WAS ATTENDED BY

TREACHERY BECAUSE APPELLANT SHOT THE SAID VICTIM
SUDDENLY AND WITHOUT WARNING WITH A DEADLY WEAPON.
(PEOPLE V. SALAHUDDIN AND THREE OTHER UNIDENTIFIED
COMPANIONS, GR NO. 206291, JANUARY 18, 2016)
 13

NEW: TREACHERY IN MURDER; WHAT WAS DECISIVE IS THAT THE

EXECUTION OF THE ATTACK MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE
VICTIMS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES OR TO RETALIATE. (PEOPLE V.
MARIANO OANDASAN, JR., GR NO. 194605, JUNE 14, 2016)

I. Article 15- alternative circumstances of relationship, intoxication and degree of

instruction and education
1. Alternative circumstances whether mitigating or aggravating depend upon the
nature and effects of the crime, and other conditions (US vs. Ancheta, 1 Phil 30).
2. Neither mitigating nor aggravating if relationship is an element of the crime.
3. Relatives mentioned in relationship, other relatives included
4. Relationship is exempting in crimes against property but with civil liability (see
Articles 332, Revised Penal Code) and mitigating in crimes of robbery (Articles
294-302, Revised Penal Code), usurpation (Article 312, Revised Penal Code),
fraudulent insolvency (Article 314, Revised Penal Code) and arson (Article 321-
322, 235-236, Revised Penal Code), in trespass to dwelling which is a crime
against security (US vs. Ostrea, 2 Phil 93)
5. Relationship is aggravating in crimes against persons where the offended party is
a relative of a higher degree, when the offender and the offended party are
relatives of the same degree (PP vs. Alisub, 69 Phil 362) or a brother-in-law (PP
vs. Mercado, 51 Phil 99), or a half-brother (PP vs. Nargatan, 48 Phil 470) or
adopted brother (PP vs. Macabangon, 63 Phil 1061)
6. Exception: serious physical injuries (Article 263, Revised Penal Code)
7. Relationship always aggravating in crimes against chastity.
8. Intoxication (drunkenness), when mitigating or aggravating
9. Reasons for the alternative circumstance of intoxication
10. Evidence for intoxication to be aggravating
11. Habitual intoxication (PP vs. Amenamen, CA, 37 OG 2324, PP vs. Mabilangan,
111 SCRA 398
12. Presumption that intoxication is habitual not habitual (US vs. Fitzgerald, 2 Phil
419, PP vs. Dacanay, 105 Phil 1265, PP vs. Dungka, 64 Phil 421)
13. Degree of instruction and education of the offender, when it is mitigating (PP vs.
Mangsat, 65 Phil 548, PP vs. Limaco, 88 Phil 35) or aggravating (PP vs. Luna, 58
SCRA 198, PP vs. Pujinio, 27 SCRA 1185)
14. Rule on illiteracy (PP vs. Ripas, 95 Phil 63, PP vs. Geronimo, 53 SCRA 246)
15. Rule that lack of instruction cannot be raised for the first time on appeal (PP vs.
Diaz, 55 SCRA 178, PP vs. Manuel, 29 SCRA 337)
16. Low degree/ lack of instruction mitigating in all crimes such as robbery with
homicide (US vs. Reguera, 41 Phil 506, PP vs. Patricio, 79 Phil 227, PP vs.
Mantawar, 80 Phil 817 but see PP vs. San Pedro, 95 SCRA 306 and PP vs.
Condemena, 23 SCRA 910, where it was not mitigating); murder (PP vs. Talok,
65 Phil 696), homicide (PP vs. Hubero, 61 Phil 64)
17. Exceptions: not mitigating in crimes against property such as theft (US vs. Maqui,
27 Phil 97, PP vs. Macatanda, 109 SCRA 35), in treason (PP vs. Lansanas, 82 Phil
193; PP vs. Cruz, 88 Phil 684 but see PP vs. Marasigan, 85 Phil 427), in murder
(PP vs. Mutya, GR Nos. L- 11255-56, September 30, 1959)
18. Degree of instruction when aggravating (PP vs. Sulit, GR No. 21102-R,
September 29, 1959).
19. Includes graded recitation

J. Title Two- Persons Criminally Liable for Felonies

1. Group Assignments for Articles 16-20, Revised Penal Code, Presidential Decree
No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law of 1979)
2. Cases to read: Ernesto Francisco y Spenocilla vs. PP, GR No. 146584, July 12,
2004; PP vs. Butchoy De La Torre, et. al., GR Nos. 121213 and 121216-23,
January 13, 2004; PP vs. Saba, 319 SCRA 36; PP vs. Villamola, 78 SCRA 146
 14

3. PP vs. Ronald a.k.a. “Roland” Garcia y Flores, et. al., G.R. No 133489,
143970, January 15, 2002
4. P v. De Vera, G.R. No. 128966, 18 August 1999, 312 SCRA 640
5. PP vs. Eddie Agacer, et. al., G.R. No. 177751, December 14, 2011
6. PP vs. Restituto Carandang, et. al. , G.Rr. No. 175926, July 6, 2011
7. PP vs. Gilberto Villarico, Sr., @ “Berting”, et. al., G.R. No. 158362, April 4, 2011
8. Salvador Atizado and Salvador Monreal, G.R. No. 173822, October 13, 2010
9. Pat. Edgardo Herrera y Baltoribio and Pat. Redentor Mariano Y Antonio vs. Hon.
Sandiganbayan and People, G.R. Nos. 119660-61, February 13, 2009
10. PP vs. Domingo Alpapara, et. al., G.R. No. 180421, October 30, 2009
11. PP vs. Avelino Galgo, et. al., G.R. No. 133887, May 28, 2002
12. PP vs. Alberto S. Antonio, et. al., G.R. No. 128900, July 14, 2000
13. NEW: HAZING BY INDUCEMENT INCLUDED IN HAZING BY ACTUAL
PARTICIPATIO; GENERALLY MERE PRESENCE IN THE CRIME
SCENE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CONSPIRACY EXCEPT THAT
UNDER RA NO. 8049, PARTICIPATION OF THE OFFENDERS IN THE
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY CAN BE PROVEN BY THE PRIMA FACIE
EVIDENCE DUE TO THEIR PRESENCE DURING THE HAZING,
UNLESS THEY PREVENTED COMMISSION OF THE ACTS. (DANDY L.
DUNGO AND GREGORIA A. SIBAL V. PEOPLE, GR NO. 209464, JULY 1,
2015)
14. NEW: CONVICTION AS PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT (AMBANGAN,
JR. V. PEOPLE, GR NO. 2044481-82, OCT. 14, 2015)
15. NEW: LIABILITY OF ACCOMPLICES WHEN THE CASE IS
DISMISSED AGAINST THE PRINCIPALS; THOSE CHARGED AS
ACCOMPLICES ARE NOT IPSO FACTO DISMISSED IN THE
DISMISSAL OF THE CASE AGAINST THE PRINCIPALS. AS LONG AS
THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME CAN BE PROVEN, THE TRIAL
AGAINST THE ACCOMPLICES CAN PROCEED INDEPENDENTLY.
THE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES MERELY PRESENTED THE ORDER OF
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. THE ORDER DOES NOT MENTION THAT
THE CASE WAS DISMISSED AGAINST THE ALLEGED PRINCIPALS,
BECAUSE NO CRIME HAD BEEN COMMITTED. (PEOPLE VS. LTSG
BARABOS, ET. AL., GR NOS. 174786 & 171222, FEB 18, 2015, SERENO, J)

K. Title Three- Penalties in General

1. Meaning, concept, juridical conditions of penalty; An offense as a general rule
causes two classes of injuries: the first is the social injury produced by the
criminal act which is sought to be repaired through the imposition of the
corresponding penalty, and the second is the personal injury caused to the
victim of the crime, which injury is sought to be compensated through
indemnity, which is civil in nature. Umipig v. People, 677 SCRA 53
2. Three- fold purpose, theories justifying penalty, constitutional restrictions
3. Article 21- policy of the State on punishing crimes, reason, what penalty may be
imposed for the commission of the felony
4. Case to read: US vs. Macasaet (11 Phil 447)
5. Article 22- retroactive effect of penal laws, relate with paragraph 2 of Article 10
6. Rule applied to special laws (US vs. Soliman, 36 Phil 5)
7. NEW: ACCUSED CAN BE INDICTED FOR FALSIFICATION IF HE
SUBSEQUENTLY RE-ACQUIRES HIS FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP BY
VIRTUE OF RA 9225. ALTHOUGH AFTER FILING THE
MISCELLANEOUS LEASE APPLICATION WITH THE DENR,
ACCUSED RE-ACQUIRED HIS FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP UNDER PAR.
1, SEC. 3, RA 9225, THE FALSIFICATION WAS ALREADY
CONSUMMATED. THE SAID PROVISION HAVING NO
RETROACTIVE EFFECT INSOFAR AS HIS CITIZENSHIP STATUS IS
CONCERNED. FURTHER, UNDER PAR. 1, ART. 172, RPC, IT IS NOT
 15

NECESSARY THAT THE IDEA OF GAIN OR INTENT TO INJURE A

THIRD PERSON BE PRESENT. ( DAVID V. AGBAY, ET. AL., GR NO.
199113, MARCH 18, 2015, VILLARAMA, JR., J.)
8. General rule on prospectivity (PP vs. Changco, CA, 54 OG 6749)
9. Exceptions: reason (PP vs. Moran, 44 Phil 387), when favorable to the accused
(Lapuz vs. CA, 94 Phil 710); prescription of crime (PP vs. Parel, 44 Phil 437);
even if the accused was serving sentence (Escalante vs. Santos, 86 Phil 483)
10. Exception to the exception: civil liability, new law increasing civil liability, new
law expressly made inapplicable, jurisdiction (PP vs. Pegarum, 58 Phil 715)
11. Comparing Article 22 with Article 366, Revised Penal Code
12. Cases to read: Lagrimas vs. Director of Prisons, 57 Phil 249, PP vs. Tamayo, 61
Phil 226
13. Absolute repeal obliterates criminal liability in the former law
14. Exceptions: reenacted statutes, implied repeal, saving clause (US vs. Cuna, 12
Phil 241)
15. What penalty may be imposed for the commission of the felony: see Articles 21,
22 and 366 (under the laws in force at the time of the commission)
16. Article 23- effect of pardon of the offended party, reason
17. Relate it with Article 89, Revised Penal Code
18. Exception: Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, when pardon is effective in
extinguishing criminal liability
19. Article 24- measures of prevention or safety, which are not penalties
20. Chapter Two, Classification of Penalties
21. Article 25- Scale of Principal Penalties in Article 25, revisit Article 9, accessory
penalties
22. Penalties that are either principal or accessory see Articles 236 (Anticipation of
duties of public office), Articles 226, 227, 228 (Infidelity of public officers),
Revised Penal Code
23. Reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, cadena perpetua
24. Classification of penalties according to divisibility, to subject matter, to gravity
25. Cases to read: PP vs. Meneses, PP vs. Abellera, 74 Phil 119
26. Chapter Three, Duration and Effect of Penalties, Section One
27. Article 26- classification of fine
28. Rule that penalties cannot be imposed in the alternative (PP vs. Mercadejas, CA,
54 OG 5707; PP vs. Tabije, 59 OG 1922)
29. Article 26 is not a definition of light felony
30. Article 27- Duration of Penalties
31. Article 28- Rules for Computation of Penalties
32. Case to read: PP vs. Enriquez, 107 Phil 201
33. Temporary penalties, rules in cases of temporary penalties
34. Rules in case of penalties consisting of deprivation of liberty
35. Article 29- period of preventive detention deducted from term of imprisonment
36. Offenders not entitled to the application of Article 29
37. Relate it to Section 6, Rule 114, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
38. Includes graded recitation

L. Section 2- Effects of penalties according to their respective nature, Article 30,

Revised Penal Code
1. Article 30- effects of perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification for
public office
2. Article 31- effects of perpetual or temporary special disqualification for public
office, profession or calling
3. Article 32- effects of perpetual or temporary special disqualification for
exercise of right of suffrage
4. Article 33- effects of suspension from public office, profession, calling and
exercise of right of suffrage
5. Article 34- effects of civil interdiction
 16

6. Effectivity of perpetual absolute disqualification and temporary absolute

disqualification (with exceptions)
7. Distinguishing bond to keep the peace or for good behavior from bail bond
8. Different duration between perpetual special disqualification and temporary
special disqualification
9. Article 36- effects of pardon by the President
10. Limitations upon the exercise of pardoning power
11. Effect if principal penalty is remitted by pardon- Principal penalty is
extinguished but not accessory penalties attached to it. Exceptions (Cristobal
vs. Labrador, 71 Phil 34)
12. Distinguishing pardon by the President from pardon by the offended party
13. Article 37- what are included as costs, payment is discretionary.
14. Article 38- order of payment of pecuniary liability: reparation of the damage
caused, indemnification of the consequential damages, fine and costs of the
proceedings (RIFC)
15. Article 39- subsidiary penalty
16. Meaning of subsidiary penalty. It is not an accessory penalty. (PP vs. Fajardo,
65 Phil 539)
17. Rules in the imposition of subsidiary penalty, examples
18. Subsidiary imprisonment in special laws
19. Subsidiary imprisonment, like accessory penalties, is not essential in
determining jurisdiction. What determines jurisdiction is the extent if the
penalty which the law imposes for the crime charged in the information. (PP
vs. Fajardo, 49 Phil 206)
20. The return of usurious interest is a civil liability and is not part of the penalty
provided for the offense. (PP vs. Caldito, 72 Phil 262)

M. Section Three- Penalties in which other accessory penalties are inherent

1. Article 40- accessory penalties of death
2. Article 41- accessory penalties of reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal
3. Article 42 -accessory penalties of prision mayor
4. Article 43- accessory penalties of prision correccional
5. Article 44- accessory penalties of arresto
6. Outline of accessory penalties inherent in principal penalties
7. No accessory penalty for destierro
8. Rule that accessory penalties need not be expressly imposed. They are deemed
imposed.
9. Reiterating the rule that accessory penalties do not determine jurisdiction. (PP vs.
Fajardo, supra and PP vs. Caldito, supra)
10. Article 45- confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of the crime
11. Outline of the article
12. Confiscation and forfeiture are additional penalties (US vs. Hart, 24 Phil 578; PP
vs. Alejandro Paet, 100 Phil 357)
13. No forfeiture of the slot machines where there was no criminal case filed yet.
(Philips vs. Municipal Mayor, 105 Phil 1344 [Unrep], L-9183, May 30, 1959)
14. Confiscation can be ordered only if the property is submitted in evidence or
placed at the disposal of the court. (US vs. Filart, 30 Phil 80)
15. When order of forfeiture is already final, articles which are (subsequently)
forfeited cannot be returned even in case of an acquittal. (Com. Of Customs vs.
Encarnacion)
16. On appeal, confiscation and forfeiture not ordered by the trial court may be
imposed. (PP vs. Exconde, 101 Phil 1125)
17. Question: Are forfeiture and confiscation of the instruments and proceeds of the
offense as accessory penalties not deemed imposed?
18. Chapter Four, Application of Penalties, Section One- Rules for the Application of
penalties to the persons criminally liable and for the graduation of the same
19. Article 46 on the penalty to be imposed upon the principals
 17

20. General rule and exception

21. Section 47 on cases when death penalty shall not be imposed, automatic review of
death penalty cases

N. Article 48- complex crimes and penalty

1. Plurality of crimes defined; Kinds of plurality of crimes; Article 48 under the
Formal or ideal type of plurality of crimes; Different crimes in law and in the
conscience of the offender in real or material plurality. Offender shall be punished
for each and every offense that he committed; Formal or ideal type includes
complex crimes, special complex crimes and continued crimes; Kinds of complex
crimes: compound crime, complex crime proper
2. Examples of compound crime (see PP vs. Guillen, 85 Phil 307, PP vs. Largo, 99
Phil 1061)
3. Rule that there were several acts as there were several deaths caused by the single
act of pressing the trigger of a sub-machine gun (PP vs. Desierto, CA, 45 OG
4542)
4. Compound crime speaks of a single act. Examples of compound crime ( see PP
vs. Pama, CA, OG 3339; US vs. Montiel, 9 Phil 162; PP vs. Bersamin, GR No. L-
3098, March 5, 1951)
5. Rule that there is only a single offense/ single criminal impulse where several
accused, in obedience to an order, shot many persons, without evidence how
many each killed. (PP vs. Lawas, 97 Phil 975 [Unrep.]; PP vs. Abella, 93 SCRA
25
6. “single-criminal-impulse”, “same motive”, “single-purpose” theory
7. No complex crime of arson with homicide under Article 48
8. Article 48 applicable to culpable felonies.
9. No complex crime of grave/less grave felony and crime under special law (illegal
possession of firearm)
10. Requisites of complex crime proper (when an offense is a necessary means of
committing the other)
11. Requisites
12. Examples: PP vs. Barbas, 60 Phil 241; PP vs. Ong, 62 SCRA 174; PP vs. Ty Sui
Wong, 83 SCRA 125; US vs. Norma Hernandez, 29 Phil 109; PP vs. Manguiat, 51
Phil 406
13. Subsequent acts of intercourse after forcible abduction with rape (PP vs. Bohos,
98 SCRA 353; PP vs. Jose, 37 SCRA 450)
14. Jurisdiction of the court of higher jurisdiction if the two crimes produced by a
single act fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of two courts of different
jurisdiction. (Angeles vs. Jose, 96 Phil 151; PP vs. Cano, GR No. L- 19660, May
24, 1966; PP vs. Pena, 80 SCRA 589)
15. Penalty for complex crime
16. NEW: THE RPC PROVIDES THAT WHEN A SINGLE ACT
CONSTITUTES TWO OR MORE GRAVE FELONIES, OR WHEN AN
OFFENSE IS A NECESSARY MEANS FOR COMMITTING THE OTHER,
THE PENALTY FOR THE MOST SERIOUS CRIME, RECKLESS
IMPRUDENCE RESULTING TO HOMICIDE, SHALL BE IMPOSED, IN
ITS MAXIMUM PERIOD. THE PENALTY IMPOSED IN RECKLESS
IMPRUDENCE RESULTING TO HOMICIDE WITH DOUBLE SERIOUS
PHYSICAL INJURIES AND DAMAGE TO PROPERTY, 4 YEARS, 2
MONTHS OF PRISION CORRECCIONAL MAXIMUM AS MINIMUM
TO 8 YEARS AND ONE DAY OF PRISION MAYOR MEDIUM AS
MAXIMUM, IS CORRECT. (GONZAGA V. PEOPLE, GR NO. 195671, JAN
21, 2015, PERLAS-BERNABE,J)
17. Accused can be convicted of the other offense in a complex crime. (PP vs.
Maribung, 149 SCRA 292)
18. Meaning of continued, continuous, continuing crime.
 18

19. When two acts are deemed distinct from one another, i.e., uttering defamatory
words and assaulting offended party, although proceeding from the same criminal
impulse (PP vs. Ramos, 59 OG 4052)
20. Continued crime is not a complex crime.
21. Examples of continued crimes: Regis vs. PP, 67 Phil 43; PP vs. De Leon, 49 Phil
437; PP vs. Jaranilla, 55 SCRA 563; PP vs. De la Cruz, GR No. L-1745, May 23,
1950; PP vs. Emit, CA-GR No. 13477-R, January 31, 1956
22. Robbery in band in three separate informations (PP vs. Enguero, 100 Phil 1001)
23. Distinguishing continued crime from transitory crime
24. Distinguishing continued crime from real or material plurality
25. Composite Crimes and Complex Crimes Distinguished. In a complex crime,
two or more crimes are actually committed, however, in the eyes of the law
and in the conscience of the offender they constitute only one crime, thus only
one penalty is imposed. People v. Nelmida, 680 SCRA 386)
26. NEW: WHEN SEVERAL GUNMEN, INDISCRIMINATELY FIRE A
SERIES OF SHOTS AT A GROUP OF PEOPLE, IT SHOWS THEIR
INTENTION TO KILL SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS. HENCE, THEY ARE
COMMITTING NOT ONLY ONE CRIME AND CANNOT BE
CLASSIFIED AS A COMPLEX CRIME BECAUSE “EACH ACT BY
EACH GUNMAN PULLING THE TRIGGER OF THEIR RESPECTIVE
FIREARMS, AIMING EACH PARTICULAR MOMENT AT DIFFERENT
PERSONS CONSTITUTE DISTINCT AND INDIVIDUAL ACTS WHICH
CANNOT GIVE RISE TO A COMPLEX CRIME.” (PEOPLE V. JUGUETA,
GR NO. 202124, APRIL 5, 2016)
O. Articles 49- 61
1. Article 49- Rules as to the penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the
crime committed is different from that intended
2. Reference to paragraph 1, Article 4, re- mistake in the identity of the victim
3. Applicable when the intended crime and the crime committed are punished with
different penalties
4. Distinguishing Article 49 from Article 48
5. Rule No. 3, Article 49 unnecessary
6. Article 50- penalty imposed upon principals of a frustrated crime
7. Article 51- penalty imposed upon principals of attempted crime
8. Article 52- penalty imposed upon accomplices in a consummated crime
9. Article 53- penalty imposed upon accessories in a consummated crime
10. Article 54- penalty imposed upon accomplices in a frustrated crime
11. Article 55- penalty imposed upon accessories of a frustrated crime
12. Article 56- penalty imposed upon accomplices in an attempted crime
13. Article 57- penalty imposed upon accessories of an attempted crime
14. Diagram of the application of Articles 50- 57, Revised Penal Code
15. Article 60- exceptions to the rules in Articles 50-57 , i.e., where the law expressly
prescribes the penalty for a frustrated or attempted felony, or to be imposed upon
accomplices or accessories
16. Also Article 250 on the penalty for frustrated parricide, murder, or homicide
which may be two degrees lower; and the penalty for attempted parricide, murder,
or homicide may be 3 degrees lower
17. Bases for determining extent of penalty to be imposed under the Revised Penal
Code
18. Distinguishing degree from penalty, from period
19. When a period of a divisible penalty is in itself a degree
20. Article 58- additional penalty imposed upon certain accessories (public officers
who help the author of the crime by misusing their office/duties) under paragraph
3, Article 19
21. Article 59- penalty to be imposed on impossible crimes
22. Article 61- Rules for graduating penalties: when the penalty is single and
indivisible; when the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties; when the
 19

penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties and the maximum period of a

divisible penalty; when the penalty is composed of several periods; by analogy
when penalty is not especially provided in the preceding rules
23. Use of the graduated scale in Article 71
24. Includes graded recitation

P. Section Two- Rules for the application of penalties with regard to the mitigating
and aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency
1. Article 62, paragraph 1- Aggravating circumstances which in themselves
constitute a crime especially punished by law or which are included by law in
defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefore are not to be taken into
account to increase the penalty
2. Organized/syndicated crime group
3. Paragraph 2- Aggravating circumstances inherent in the crime
4. Paragraph 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 serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of the
principals, accomplices and accessories as to whom such circumstances are
attendant
5. Paragraph 4- 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 only those who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of
the act or their cooperation therein
6. Paragraph 5- Who is a habitual delinquent, requisites
7. Constitutionality of the additional penalty imposed in habitual delinquency (PP
vs. Montera, 55 Phil 933)
8. Habitual delinquency distinguished from recidivism
9. Rulings on habitual delinquency- PP vs. Lacsamana, 70 Phil 517; PP vs. Rama, 55
Phil 981; PP vs. Morales, 61 Phil 222; PP vs. Santiago, 55 Phil 266; PP vs. Kaw
Liong, 57 Phil 839; PP vs. Abuyen, 52 Phil 722; PP vs. San Juan, 69 Phil 347; PP
vs. Ortezuela, 51 Phil 857; PP vs. Espina, 62 Phil 607;
10. Article 63- Rules for application of indivisible penalties
11. Rule that when the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties, the ppenalty
cannot be lowered by one degree, no matter how many mitigating circumstances
are present (US vs. Relador, 60 Phil 593)
12. Exception: a privileged mitigating circumstance under Article 68 or Article 69 (PP
vs. Galang, 174 SCRA 454)
13. Article 64- Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods
14. Article 64- not applicable when the penalty is indivisible or prescribed by special
law or is fine
15. Article 65- Rules when penalty is not composed of three periods
16. Article 66- Imposition of fines
17. Wealth or means of the culprit is the main consideration in fine. Position and
standing of accused considered aggravating in gambling. (US vs. Salaveria, 39
Phil 102; US vs. Mercader, 41 Phil 930)
18. Courts are not bound to divide the fine into 3 equal portions.
19. Sound discretion of the court required in determining amount of fine to be
imposed when the minimum is not fixed by the law.
20. Article 67- penalty to be imposed when not all the requisites of exemption of
accident are present
21. Article 68- penalty to be imposed upon a person under 18 years of age, provides
for a privileged mitigating circumstance
22. Article 68, paragraph 1 is affected/ amended by reason of Section 21, RA 9344
which lowers the age of criminal responsibility to over 15 years of age and below
18 years of age and acting with discernment
23. Application of paragraph 2 with emphasis on the requirement of discernment
 20

24. Article 69- penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not wholly
excusable, referring to a privileged mitigating circumstance

Q. Indeterminate Sentence Law or Act 4103 as amended by Act No. 4225

SCRA Annotation on Application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (78 SCRA 54)
1. Indeterminate penalty on a crime punished by special law
2. Indeterminate penalty on a crime punished by the Code
3. Application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is based on the penalty actually
imposed
4. Purpose
5. The maximum term is determined according to the rules of the Revised Penal
Code while the rules of the Revised Penal Code are not applicable in fixing the
minimum term.
6. Reason for fixing the minimum and maximum penalties in the indeterminate
sentence
7. Factors taken into consideration in fixing the minimum penalty
8. Illustrations of the indeterminate penalty applying Articles 48, 61, 64, 68, 69 of
the Revised Penal Code
9. Use of Article 71- graduated scales
10. Instances when the Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable
11. Includes graded recitation

R. Probation Law of 1976 or PD 968 as amended by BP Blg. 76 and PD 1990; SCRA

Annotations on Salient Features of the Probation Law of 1976 (92 SCRA 732),
Criteria for Placing an Offender on Probation (121 SCRA 98); Section 38 and
Section 42 of R.A. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006) on automatic
suspension of sentence
1. Meaning and Purpose of Probation Law
2. Effect of probation on the criminal aspect only
3. Probation granted in a sentence of fine with subsidiary imprisonment
4. Time to file, purpose and effect and where to file
5. Application for probation excludes the remedy of appeal
6. Nature of order granting probation
7. Criteria for placing an offender on probation
8. When probation shall be denied
9. Who are disqualified from probation
10. Conditions of probation
11. Discretion of the court
12. Effect of probation on accessory penalties
13. Effects of violation of probation and Suspension of Sentence
14. Length of time of probation
15. Arrest of probationer
16. Termination of probation and effects of termination
17. Section 38, R.A. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006) on automatic
suspension of sentence and Section 42 thereof on probation as an alternative to
imprisonment
18. A.M. No. 07-8-2-SC, RCCRA 9165, 5 November 2007
19. Cases to read: Declarador vs. Hon. Judge Gubaton, 499 SCRA 341; PP vs.
Medina, Sr., 272 SCRA 248; Padua vs. People, GR No. 168546, July 23, 2008;
Joemar Ortega vs. People, GR No. 151085, 20 August 2008; PP v. Diadid, 236
SCRA 45; Tupaz IV vs. CA, 475 SCRA 398
20. Article 70- General Rule is successive service of sentence
21. Exception- simultaneous service of sentence
22. Penalties which can be simultaneously served
23. Three- fold rule applied in connection with the service of sentences imposed
(Dulpo vs. Sandiganbayan, 150 SCRA 138)
 21

24. Indemnity is a penalty although pecuniary in character. Article 70 does not

distinguish between principal penalty and subsidiary imprisonment. (Arlinda vs.
Director of Prisons, GR No. 47326)
25. Different systems of penalty- material accumulation system, juridical
accumulation system, absorption system
26. Article 72- order of preference in the payment of civil liabilities

S. Section Three- Common Provisions, Chapter Five, Execution and Service of

Penalties, Section One- General Provisions, Section Two- Execution of Principal
Penalties
1. Article 73- presumption on the imposition of accessory penalties
2. Subsidiary imprisonment, not an accessory penalty. The judgment must expressly
state that the offender suffer the subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
(PP vs. Fajardo, 65 Phil 539)
3. Article 74- penalty higher than reclusion perpetua in certain cases
4. Article 75- increasing or reducing the penalty of fine by one or more degrees
5. Article 76- legal period of duration of divisible penalties
6. Article 77- complex penalty composed of three distinct penalties
7. Examples: Article 114, paragraph 3 (Alien committing treason), Article 294, par.2
(Robbery with physical injuries)
8. Article 78- when and how a penalty is to be executed
9. Article 79- suspension of execution and service of penalties in case of insanity
10. Article 80- suspension of sentence of minor delinquents (see Section 38, RA
9344) to be taken up together with the Probation Law
11. Articles 81 to 87; RA 9346 prohibits the imposition of death penalty in
criminal cases. People v. Colorado, 685 SCRA 660; In view of the passage of
RA 9346 proscribing the imposition of death penalty, the proper penalty
imposable on appellant in lieu of death and pursuant to Sec. 2 thereof, is
reclusion perpetua. People v. Ending, 685 SCRA 180
12. Entering the prohibited area is evasion of service of sentence
13. Article 88- service of arresto menor
14. Arresto menor may be served in the house of the defendant upon condition that
the court states it in the decision and that it should be under the surveillance of an
officer of law
15. Includes graded recitation

T. Title Four, Extinction of Criminal Liability, Chapter One- Total Extinction of

Criminal Liability
1. Article 89- how criminal liability is totally extinguished
2. Extinction of criminal liability does not automatically extinguish civil liability
(Petralba vs. Sandiganbayan, 200 SCRA 644)
3. Distinguishing causes of extinction of criminal liability from causes of
justification or exemption
4. Extinction of criminal liability is a ground for a motion to quash
5. Death of convict before and after final judgment extinguishes criminal liability
6. Final judgment defined (PP vs. Bayotas, GR 152007, September 2, 1994)
7. Effect of death of accused pending appeal.
8. NEW:THE DEATH OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT PENDING APPEAL,
EXTINGUISHES HIS CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITIES, PURSUANT
TO ART. 89 (1) OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE. HOWEVER, THERE
EXISTS NO CIVIL LIABILITY IN VIOLATIONS OF RA 9165. THUS,
THERE IS NO CIVIL LIABILITY TO EXTINGUISH. (PEOPLE V.
MORALES, GR NO. 206832, JAN 21, 2015, PEREZ, J.)
9. NEW: EXTINGUISHMENT OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY; ACCUSED –
APPELLANT RENATO’S DEATH ON 6/10/2014 TRANSPIRED BEFORE
THE PROMULGATION OF THE SC’S AFFIRMANCE OF THE
CONVICTION FOR RAPE 7/23/14; RENATO’S DEATH EXTINGUISHED
 22

HIS CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LIABILITY EX DELICTO. (PEOPLE V.

DIONALDO, ET. AL., GR NO. 207949, SEPT. 9, 2015)
10. NEW: EFFECT OF EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY ON CIVIL
LIABILITY (DIAZ V. PEOPLE AND ARCILLA, GR NO. 208113, DEC. 2,
2015, GR NO. 208113, DEC. 2, 2015)
11. General Rule is that death of accused pending appeal extinguishes criminal as
well as civil liability
12. Exception: If civil liability may also be predicated on a source of obligation other
than delict such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts and quasi-delicts (PP vs.
Bayotas, supra)
13. Death of the offended party does not extinguish criminal liability.(PP vs. Misola,
87 Phil 830)
14. Service of Sentence
15. Amnesty defined
16. Absolute Pardon Atty. Alicia Risos- Vidal (Petitioner), Alfredo S. Lim
(Petitioner-Intervenor) v. COMELEC, Joseph Ejercito Estrada, G.R. No.
20666, January 21, 2015
17. Kinds of Pardon
18. Distinguishing amnesty from pardon
19. Prescription of crime defined
20. Prescription of penalty defined, conditions
21. Article 90- prescription of crimes
22. Rules in computing period of prescription
23. When interrupted
24. Prescription as a defense can be raised during the trial or during the appeal
25. Prescription is a ground for acquittal. It does not divest the court of jurisdiction.
26. Accused cannot be convicted of an offense lesser than that charged if the lesser
offense had already prescribed at the time the information was filed. (PP vs.
Rarang, CA, 62 OG 6458)
27. Article 91- computation of prescription
28. Discovery of crime not discovery of the offender when period of prescription of
crime commences to run. (PP vs. Joson, 46 Phil 380)
29. Prescription period of continuing crime never runs. (Arches vs. Bellasillo, 81 Phil
190)
30. Interruption of the period of prescription
31. Effect of filing amended complaint or information upon period of prescription
32. The filing of the information in the Batangas court even if erroneous because of
lack of territorial jurisdiction tolls the running of the prescriptive period of the
crime. Jurisdiction is determined in criminal cases by the allegations of the
complaint or information and not by the result of proof. (PP vs. Galano, 75 SCRA
193)
33. Prescription does not run when the offender is absent from the Philippines.
34. Suppletory application of Article 91 when the special law though providing a
prescriptive period does not prescribe any rule for its application (PP vs. Tamayo,
CA, 40 OG 2313)
35. Article 92- when and how penalties prescribe
36. Penalties imposed by final sentence
37. In prescription of penalties, it is the penalty imposed that should be considered
38. Fine as light penalty
39. Article 93- computation of the prescription of penalties, an outline
40. Elements
41. Period of prescription that ran during the time of evasion of service of sentence is
not forfeited upon capture of convict
42. Evasion of service of sentence is not committing a crime before the expiration of
the period of prescription of penalties
43. Acceptance of conditional pardon interrupts prescriptive period
 23

44. Reason why evasion of service of sentence is taken in favor of the convict in
prescription of penalties
45. Chapter Two- Partial Extinction of Criminal Liability
46. Article 94- grounds of partial extinction, should include parole
47. Mere commission of any crime is sufficient to revoke parole, warrant the arrest of
the parolee
48. Distinguishing conditional pardon from parole
49. Article 95- obligation by a person granted conditional pardon
50. Article 96- effect of commutation of sentence
51. Article 97- allowances of good conduct, application
52. Article 98- special time for loyalty (see Article 158, Revised Penal Code)
53. Article 99- who grants time allowance
54. Includes graded recitation

U. Title Five- Civil Liability, Chapter One- Persons Civilly Liable for Felonies,
Chapter Two- What Civil Liability Includes: Restitution, reparation and
indemnification, Chapter Three- Extinction and Survival of Civil Liability
1. Article 100- civil liability of a person guilty of felony, basis of civil liability
2. Damages that may be recovered in criminal cases, crimes against property and
crimes against persons, damages for loss or impairment of earning capacity in
cases of temporary or permanent personal injury (Article 2205, Civil Code),
moral damages, exemplary damages, death indemnity now P 50,000 (PP vs.
Ravelo, 202 SCRA 655 People v. Jose Pepito Combate aka “Peping”, G.R.
No. 189301, December 15, 2010
3. Civil liability may exist although the accused is not held criminally liable. (Article
29, Article 2177, Articles 31-34 of the Civil Code; Maximo vs. Gerochi, Jr., 144
SCRA 326; Article 101, Revised Penal Code; De Guzman, 51 OG 1311
4. see Sections 2 [a] and 3[b], Rule 111, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
5. Commencement of criminal action not a condition precedent to the filing and
prosecution of civil action arising from crime
6. Civil liability may be added within the 15-day period even if the convict has
started serving sentence (PP vs. Rodriguez, 97 Phil 349
7. When the final judgment in a criminal case does not state “that the fact from
which the civil might arise did not exist,” extinction of the penal action does not
carry with it extinction of the civil. (Faraon vs. Priela, 24 SCRA 582)
8. Prejudicial question defined
9. Elements and Venue
10. When to plead
11. Examples of prejudicial question (De leon vs. Mabanag, 70 Phil 202; PP vs.
Aragon, 94 Phil 357; Donato vs. Luna, 160 SCRA 441; Aleria vs. Mendoza, 83
Phil 427)
12. Article 101- rules regarding civil liability in certain cases
13. General rule under Article 101- Exemption from criminal liability does not
include exemptions from civil liability
14. Exceptions- Paragraph 4 and Paragraph 7, Article 12 (by deduction of the
enumeration in Article 101)
15. Who are civilly liable for the acts of the insane or minor exempt from criminal
liability? Of a minor who acted with discernment?
16. Article 102- subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors
17. Elements in paragraph 1
18. Elements in paragraph 2
19. Article 103- subsidiary liability of other persons
20. Elements
21. “Industry” defined
22. Hospital not engaged in industry. Nurses not servants. (Clemente vs. Foreign
Mission Sisters, CA, 38 OG 1594)
 24

23. Subsidiary liability of employer is not determined in the criminal case against the
employee. (Phil Railway Co., vs. Jalandoni, CA, 40 OG 19 Supp. 11)
24. Employer has the right to take part in the defense of his employee
25. No defense of diligence of a good father of a family
26. Summary of persons civilly liable in the absence of those who are criminally
liable
27. Distinguishing civil liabilities from pecuniary liabilities
28. Article 105- how restitution is made.
29. The convict cannot by way of restitution five a similar thing of the same amount,
kind or species and quality. (PP vs. Mostasesa, 94 Phil 243)
30. The general rule that the owner of the property illegally taken by the offender can
recover it from whomsoever is in possession thereof. (US vs. Sotelo, 28 Phil 147;
Gacula vs. Martinez, 88 Phil 142)
31. Exception: When the third person acquired the thing in the manner and the
requirements which by law bar an action for its recovery such as purchase of
property under the Torrens Title;
32. Is restitution limited to crimes against property?
33. Court has authority to order the reinstatement of the accused acquitted of a crime
punished with perpetual or temporary disqualification. (PP vs. Consigna, GR No.
L-18087, August 31, 1965)
34. Article 106- reparation
35. What reparation includes
36. Payment of insurance company does not relieve the offender of his obligation to
repair the damage caused
37. Article 107- indemnification
38. Indemnification includes actual and moral damages. (De las Penas vs. Royal Bus
Co. Inc., CA 56 OG 4052)
39. Actual damages must be proved.
40. NEW: SUPREME COURT GRANTED TEMPERATE DAMAGES OF
P25,000 IN LIEU OF ACTUAL DAMAGES NOTWITHSTANDING THAT
THE AMOUNT OF THE ACTUAL DAMAGES (P15,000) IS LESS THAN
THE GRANT OF THE TEMPERATE DAMAGES. (PEOPLE VS. DILIA,
GR NO. 200333, JAN 21, 2015, DEL CASTILLO,J)
41. NEW: EVERY PERSON CRIMINALLY LIABLE IS ALSO CIVILLY
LIABLE. THE ACQUITTAL OF AN ACCUSED OF THE CRIME
CHARGED DOES NOT NECESSARILY EXTINGUISH HIS CIVIL
LIABILITY. (DALURAYA V. OLIVA, 744 SCRA 193)
42. NEW: PEOPLE V. JUGUETAGR NO. 202124, APRIL 5, 2016 RE
AMOUNTS AWARDED AS DAMAGES
43. Indemnity for crimes against persons while reparation for crimes against property
44. Examples of damages caused the injured party, damages suffered by family
(Copiaco vs. Luzon Brokerage Co. Inc, 66 Phil 184)
45. Contributory negligence reduces the civil liability (PP vs. De Guia, CA, GR No.
11769-R, August 29, 1955)
46. Civil liability may be increased on appeal. (Heirs of Rillorta vs. Firme, 157 SCRA
518)
47. Damages recoverable in cases of death
48. Cases to read: Keiruf vs. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 433; PP vs. Jason
Navarro, Solomon Navarro, Roberto Olila, GR No. 137597, October 24, 2003; PP
vs. Taperla, GR No. 142860, January 16, 2003; PP vs. Esperida, GR Nos. 13937-
38, January 22, 2007; PP vs. Patalin, Jr., 311 SCRA 186; PP vs. Reyes, 245 SCRA
785; Robles- Francisco & Realty Development Corp. vs. CFI, 96 SCRA 59
49. Attorney’s fees recovered only in separate civil action to recover civil liability
arising from crimes. (PP vs. Biador, 55 OG 6384)
50. Civil liability not part of punishment (US vs. Henry, 25 Phil 600)
51. Article 108- obligation to make restoration, reparation for damages or
indemnification for consequential damages and action to demand the same.
 25

52. Article 109- share of each person civilly liable

53. Article 110- several and subsidiary liability of principals, accomplices and
accessories of felony
54. Article 111- obligation to make restitution in a certain case
55. Person is not criminally liable. He must not be an accessory.
56. Person is innocent of the crime but participated in the proceeds of the felony
through the liberality of the offender.
57. Article 112- Grounds of extinguishing civil liability
58. Offender is civilly liable even if stolen property is lost by reason of force majeure.
(US vs. Mambang, 36 Phil 348)
59. Article 113- obligation to satisfy civil liability even if sentence has been served or
the offender was granted amnesty, pardon, commutation of sentence. (US vs.
Madlangbayan, 2 Phil 436) or probation (Budlong vs. Apalisok, 122 SCRA 935)
60. SCRA Annotation on Civil Liability (371 SCRA 679)