Criminal Law REVIEW (2018) 5 : Garcia Notes

- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES 5
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
REVIEW [2018]

CRIMINAL LAW – branch of division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature and provides for their punishment.
CRIME – act committed or omitted in violation of the law. 2 injuries are committed;
1. Injury committed against a person;
2. Injury committed against the state;
Injury committed against a person

Personal injury against the private offended party. Civil indemnity is awarded to the offended party on the heirs.
Injury committed against the state - Punishment is imprisonment.

Social injury against the state for the disturbance of peace.
Note: for every crime committed, it is more of an offense against the state rather than against the private offended party.
Example:
A hit B. B sustained a fatal wound but he survived. Thereafter, B filed frustrated homicide. The fiscal found probable cause. In the
information filed by the fiscal, the title is People of the Philippines vs
A. The trial continued and the judge found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The first penalty of the judge is imprisonment due
to social injury. Aside from this, B will pay a civil indemnity.
Definition of Terms
There are three kinds of Crime;
1. Felony – Acts or omissions punished by the Revised Penal Code (RPC);
2. Offense – punished by a special law;
3. Acts/Infractions – punished by ordinances, local legislation;
*Note that all three are under the umbrella term of Crime.
Q: Who has the power to enact Penal Laws?

A: As a general Rule the Legislative Department has the power to enact Laws. However, in case of emergency, president may issue a
Penal Issuance Order provided that there is a law granting it to the president.
Q: Is the power of Congress absolute?

A: No, there are limitations.
Limitations to the Power of Congress to enact Penal Laws:

1. Penal law must be General in application otherwise it would be violative of the Equal Protection Clause;
2. Must not partake the nature of an ex post facto law – ex post facto law makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law
and which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act;
3. Not a Bill of Attainder – A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial;
4. Cannot impose cruel or excessive penalties or punishments
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES 5
- e.g. congress cannot amend article 308-309 death, by saying that henceforth that any who commit theft will be given death.
This is unusual punishment so it is prohibited.
REVIEW [2018]
Characteristics of Penal Laws
The following are the characteristics of penal laws;
1. Generality - Persons to whom criminal law shall apply;
2. Territoriality - Place where penal law shall be applied;
3. Prospectivity - Time when it shall apply
GENERALITY
➢ Penal laws shall be applied to all persons on being within the Philippine territory whether they are Filipino Citizens or foreigners
regardless of any of their personal circumstances;
➢ Applicable to all so long as within the Philippines;
➢ Applies to non-citizens since while they are within the Philippines, they are given protection in the same way that the government
protects its own citizen;
➢ Article 14 of the Civil Code – penal laws shall be binding on all those who live or sojourn in the Philippines whether citizen or not;
Exceptions to the GENERALITY characteristic:

1. Generally Accepted Principles of International Law;
2. Laws of Preferential Application;
Generally Accepted Principles of PIL;

Heads of state, chief of state and other diplomatic heads such as ambassadors and public ministers enjoys blanket immunity from the
criminal jurisdiction of the country where they are assigned. Since they are immune, they cannot be arrested, prosecuted or punished.
(Diplomatic Immunity from Suit);
Laws of Preferential Application;

Laws which exempt certain individuals from criminal prosecution such as members of Congress are immune from libel, slander and
defamation for every speech made in the House of Congress during a regular or special session.
Example;
X, the head of state Japan, went to the Philippines for a working visit. X was summoned to Malacañang. However, the driver of X was
not feeling well so instead, X drove himself to Malacañang. X drove the vehicle in a reckless manner. As a result, he hit and killed an
innocent pedestrian.
Q: May X be prosecuted?
A: No. As a head of state, X enjoys blanket immunity from prosecution.
*Consuls – not among those who enjoy the diplomatic immunity from suit

Generally, consuls are subject to penal laws of the country where they are assigned unless there is a treaty or an agreement between the
home country of the consul and the country where he is designated stating that the consul is immune from the criminal jurisdiction of the
host country.
Example;
A is an employee in ADB, a foreigner economist. A Filipino filed an oral defamation against the foreigner economist. The DFA issued a
letter and protocol to the court which states that ADB and PH has an agreement that the ADB economist is immune from suit. The SC
held that it was erroneous that there was a decision immediately to dismiss the case without adducing any evidence, without informing
the fiscal. SC ruled that diplomatic immunity is only applied in the exercise of one’s function, but in this defamation case, it immunity will
not lie. Evidence first must be gathered to determine if the act was done in the exercise of one’s functions. (Liang v. People, G.R. No.
125865. January 28, 2000)
TERRITORIALITY
Penal laws shall be applicable only within the Philippine jurisdiction including its atmosphere, internal waters, etc;
General Rule
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES
Crimes committed outside the Philippine jurisdiction cannot be under Philippine courts. 5
REVIEW [2018]
Exception;
Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides situations where the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Revised Penal Code may be applied.
PROSPECTIVITY
Penal laws Penal laws shall only be applied from the time of effectivity. It be given retroactive application unless;
1. If penal laws are favorable to the accused provided that the is not a habitual criminal; and
2. If the penal laws allow retroactivity;
Philosophies under the Criminal Law System
1. Classical/ Juristic Philosophy;

2. Positivist/ Realistic Philosophy;
3. Mixed/Eclectic;
CLASSICAL/JURISTIC PHILOSOPHY
3.1 Basis of criminal activity is human free will;
➢ Man is a moral creature which understands right from wrong;
➢ When he commits a wrong, he voluntarily does the same, therefore, he shall be ready for the consequences of his acts
1.2 Purpose of penalty is Retribution;

➢ Evolves from the maxim “an eye for an eye.” therefore, for every crime committed, there is a corresponding penalty based on the
injury inflicted on the victim;
1.3. Determination of penalty is done mechanically;

➢ Done mechanically since the punishment is proportionate to the severity sustained by the victim;
1.4. Emphasis is on the crime and not on the criminal;

➢ …on the offense and not on the offender
POSITIVIST/REALISTIC PHILOSOPHY
2.1 Basis of criminal liability is man’s social environment;

➢ “All men are born good, they only become evil due to the influence of the community.”
➢ Crimes are a social phenomenon;
2.2. Purpose of penalty is for purposes of rehabilitation;

➢ Offender is a socially sick individual who need to be corrected not to be punished;
2.3. Determination of penalty is done on the case to case basis
2.4. Emphasis of the law is on the offender and not to the offense;
➢ ...on the criminal not on the crime;
➢ great regard to the human element of the crime;
➢ takes into consideration why the offender committed the crime;
CLASSICAL POSITIVIST
PHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHY
Basis of criminal activity is Basis of criminal liability is
human free will; man’s social environment;
Purpose of p Purpose of penalty is for
purposes of rehabilitation;
enalty is
Retribution;
Determination of penalty is Determination of penalty is
done mechanically; done on the case to case
basis;
Emphasis is on the crime and Emphasis of the law is on the
not on the criminal; offender and not to the
offense;
GARCIA NOTES - CRIMINAL LAW

4. MIXED/ECCLECTIC PHILOSOPHY 5
REVIEW [2018]
➢ Crimes which are heinous/obnoxious in nature-classical
➢ Crimes which are social/economic – positivist
* The Revised Penal Code adheres to Classical philosophy;

➢ Merely copied from Spanish...French espoused classical;
Although RPC is molded with classical philosophy, the amendments are geared toward the positivist philosophy;
Example;
➢ Indeterminate Sentence Law – once served the minimum of his penalty, eligible for parole (rehabilitation);
➢ Probation Law – 6 years and below, probation report to probation officer;
➢ RA 9346 –abolished death penalty;
THEORIES/RULES CONCERNING CRIMINAL LAW;

The following are the theories concerned with Criminal Law;
1. Utilitarian. Protective theory;
2. Doctrine of Pro Reo;
3. Lenity Rule;
4. Equipoise Rule;
Utilitarian/ Protective Theory;

Purpose of punishment is to protect the society from actual/potential wrong doing;
Even in violation of special penal laws, wherein intent does not matter, courts should see to it that punishment shall only be imposed to
actual/potential wrongdoers;
Magno v. CA (G.R. No. 96132)

Potential wrongdoer was not Magno rather it was Mrs. Teng. She should not have deposited the check upon withdrawing the machineries.
She was the one who acted in bad faith.
Q: Should Magno should be convicted of violation of B.P. 22?

A: NO. If Magno will be the one to be punished, then it will bring about opportunism. Magno was acquitted on the ground of good faith.
Doctrine of Pro Reo

Penal laws should always be construed liberally in favor of the accused and strictly against the state.
Lenity Rule
Whenever a penal law or a provision of penal law is susceptible of 2 interpretations, the one lenient to the accused which will bring about
acquittal and the other one strictly against the accused which will bring about conviction, the lenient interpretation shall prevail.
Maxim: In case of doubt, rule always for the accused;
Constitution: Unless proven guilty, deemed innocent. “Guilt must be proven.”
Equipoise Rule
Whenever the evidence of the prosecution is equally balanced with the evidence of the defense, the scales of justice shall be titled
towards the accused;
Reason: Presumption of innocence;
Prosecution has the burden of proving conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction based on the strength of the evidence of the
GARCIA NOTES
accused. - CRIMINAL LAW 5
REVIEW
Example;
[2018]
Police officers received a tip from a credible source that a person wearing white shirt and blue shorts will arrive at bus terminal in Cubao at
10pm carrying shabu. Acting thereon, the police officers arrived at the bus station and waited. When a man wearing white shirt and blue
shorts came out of the bus, the police immediately frisked and searched the man. A white crystalline substance was found in his
possession which was identified as shabu by the crime lab. During the trial, the defense presented two witnesses who were passengers of
the same bus with the accused, and seated beside him. The witnesses said that they did not see the police officer frisked and searched
the accused. Furthermore, they did not see any drugs apprehended from the accused. How should the judge rule the case?
The Judge should rule in favor of the accused. Under the equipoise rule, when the evidence of the prosecution and the defense is equally
balanced, justice should be tilted in favor of the accused.
Q: What if what has performed was a perverted/immoral act but there is no law which punishes the said act. Can the person be
prosecuted in court?
A: No, “nullem crimen nulla poena sine lege” there is no crime when there is no law which punishes it.
Q: Are there common law crimes in the Philippines?

A: NO. Common law crimes are principles, usages and use of action which the community considers as condemnable even if there’s no
law that punishes it;
There are no common law crimes in the Philippines since the Philippines is a civil law country. Penal laws are enacted. They do not
evolve through time;
--xXx--
Article 1. Time when Act takes effect. — This Code shall take effect on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-
two.
RPC took effect on January 1, 1932 passed into law on December 8, 1930.
--xXx--
Article 2.Application of its provisions. - Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application, the
provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior
waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the
Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in
the presiding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this
Code.
Art. 2 of the RPC has 2 scopes of application ;
1. Intraterritorial application – Intraterritorial application provides that the RPC shall enforced within the Philippine archipelago,
including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone;
2. Extraterritorial application;
Q: What does the phrase ‘Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application’ mean?
A: This phrase means treaties entered with other countries, laws of preferential palliation takes preference over the provision of the
RPC.
➢ Therefore, if there is any conflict between any agreements entered into by the Philippines with another country, if it is in conflict with
any provisions of the RPC, the said agreement shall prevail over the provision of RPC.
*Remember the Larranaga case, based on the RPC, a person who is convicted of a crime shall serve his sentence in the New Bilibid
prison, that is the national penitentiary. However, the Philippines entered into an agreement with Spain. This agreement was ratified by
the Senate. As a result thereof, after Larranaga has been convicted of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape and homicide,
considering that he has 2 citizenship – both Filipino and Spanish. He was brought to Spain, and there he is serving his sentence.
Because based on that agreement, Spanish citizens who are serving their sentence in the Philippines can be brought to Spain and they
are to serve their sentence there. Larranaga took advantage because definitely, the facilities perhaps are better than prison facilities
here.

Example;
Many heads of state arrived here for the 2017 Ms. Universe. Among these was Pres. X, of X state. He found Ms Portugal very attractive
and invited her to a date in a hotel. Afterwards, Pres. X raped her.
Q: Can Pres. X be prosecuted for rape?

A: YES. Immunity is NOT absolute, limited only to official functions. As rape is outside of the functions of the head of state, Pres. X may
be prosecuted here.
Example;
Pres. X was driving his car on his way to the pageant, and he hit a pedestrian, who died.
Q: May Pres. X be prosecuted?

A: No. This time he is performing official functions, thus he cannot be prosecuted in Philippine courts.
EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION:
There are 5 instances where the Revised Penal Code shall take effect outside the Philippine Territory;
1st: Those who should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship.
Q: When is it a Philippine ship or airship?

A: If it’s registered in the Philippines and under the Philippine laws. Even if totally or wholly owned by a Filipino citizen, if it is not registered
in the Philippines it cannot be considered as a Philippine ship/airship. It is only upon registration that this aircraft/vessel can fly the
Philippine flag. Therefore, it is registration which is the operative act which makes it a Philippine ship/airship.
This is a situation where a crime is committed on board a Philippine vessel while it is outside Philippine territory but not in the territory of
another country.
Q: If a Philippine vessel is on waters of the Philippines, and a crime was committed on board. What country will have
jurisdiction?
A: Obviously, the Philippines.
Q: What if that Philippine Vessel is on the high seas or international waters and a crime was committed on board the said
Philippine Vessel. What country will have jurisdiction over the said crime?
A: Still the Philippines. Because of the extraterritorial application of the RPC. It is the situation referred to as the 1st circumstance under
paragraph 2 of Art. 2. It is the situation where the Philippine ship is outside the Philippine territory but not in the territory of another country.
Q: What if the Philippine Vessel is on the waters on Malaysia and a crime was committed on board. What country will have
jurisdiction? A: Malaysian courts will have the jurisdiction because of the territoriality characteristic of criminal law.
Exceptions;
If the vessel is a Philippine war vessel or warship or it is a Philippine warplane. A Philippine warship or war aircraft is considered an
extension of the Philippine sovereignty.
Wherever they may be, when a crime is committed on board a Philippine war vessel or warplane, the Philippines will always have
jurisdiction and the reason is the 1st paragraph of Art. 2 of the RPC –
that is the Intraterritorial application of the RPC because it is as the crime is committed within the Philippine territory;
Jurisdictional Rules for Merchant Vessels

There are two jurisdictional rules for merchant vessels;
1. French Rule;
2. British Rule;
French Rule
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES
The French Rule states that crimes committed on board while the foreign vessel is on the water of another country is within the 1
jurisdiction of the flag country. That is the country where the country is registered;
REVIEW [2018] 5
Exception;
when the crime committed affects the public order, the peace and security of the host country, then the host country will have jurisdiction
over the said crime. Therefore, the French Rule recognizes the jurisdiction of the country where the vessel is registered.
French Rule = flag country
English Rule
The English Rule states that when a crime is committed on board a foreign merchant vessel while on the waters of another country it is
the host country which will have jurisdiction over the said crime;
Exception;
When the crime merely affects the internal management of the vessel, then it is the flag country which will have jurisdiction. In effect, the
English Rule is territorial in nature.
*Philippines adhere to the English Rule which is strictly territorial in nature.
Example;
A foreign merchant vessel is on Manila Bay. A crime was committed on board, the Philippines will have jurisdiction over the said crime
and criminal because we follow the English Rule.
2nd: Those who should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the
Government of the Philippine Islands.
3rd: Those who should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in
the presiding number.
Example;
So X was in Japan. He counterfeited Philippine coins. He then introduced these coins in to the Philippine Islands. Although the crime
has been committed in Japan, he can be held liable before Philippine courts. This is necessary in order to maintain and preserve the
financial circulation and financial stability of the Philippines. Otherwise, no other country would be interested in prosecuting him except
the Philippines because it is only the Philippines will be affected by the said counterfeiting of coins.
4th: Those who while being public officers or employees should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions.

This refers to public officers or employees who are working in another country, while they are working, they committed a crime. The crime
committed by this public officers or employees must be in connection with the exercise of their functions.
If the crime they committed is not connected with the exercise of their functions, then they should be prosecuted in the courts of the
country where they are assigned;
Example;
OFW who lost his passport, he went to the Philippine Embassy in Japan applying for a new passport. He has been going there back and
forth that it has not it was not yet approved or it was not yet released. On his way out, he saw the approving authority (AA). He talked to
AA requesting and begging him that it be immediately approved and released. He was invited to a coffee shop, while having coffee, AA
asked $500 from him and promised on that same afternoon, his passport would be released. So the poor OFW gave the $500.
Q: Where may this AA be prosecuted? Before Philippine courts or before the courts of Japan?
A: AA may be prosecuted before the Philippine courts. He did not commit in effect a crime in approving the said passport because it his
obligation to approve the said passport. However, he would not perform his obligation without a bribe. He would not perform his function
without the money given by the said OFW. So in effect, he committed bribery in its 2nd form – he performs an act not constituting a crime
- CRIMINAL LAW
in connection with the exercise of his function in consideration of the bribe money. So here, he committed bribery, he can be prosecuted
GARCIA NOTES
before Philippine courts. His act is in connection with the exercise of his functions. 1
REVIEW [2018] 5
What if instead of the AA, here comes a Filipino filing clerk (FC) inside the Philippine Embassy. The FC followed the OFW, the FC told him
that he can facilitate the release of his passport if he will him $50. Desperate, the OFW gave him the money. However, that afternoon, the
passport was still not released. He wanted to file a case against the FC.
Q: Where can he file a case? Before courts of Japan or Philippines? A: It should be filed before the courts of Japan because the act
performed by FC has nothing to do with the exercise of his official functions. In effect, what he has committed is estafa because he made
this OFW believe that he has the authority to facilitate the release of the said passport but he did not have such qualification. He
committed estafa under Art.315 (2)(a). Therefore, he should be prosecuted before the courts of Japan.
Example;
There is this Philippine consul (PC). The PC told his secretary to work overtime. So S followed PC. In the evening, PC gave coffee to S.
Unknown to S, there was something mixed in the coffee to make her unconscious. So after drinking the coffee, she became unconscious
and she was raped by PC. S now wanted to file a case against PC.
Q: Where may she file the case?

A: The act of rape committed has nothing to do with the exercise of PC’s functions. Therefore, it should be filed before the courts of
Japan. However, it was committed inside the Philippine Embassy.
The Philippine Embassy which is considered an extension of the Philippine sovereignty, then it is as if the crime was committed within
the Philippine territory. Therefore, S should file the case before the Philippine courts because it is as if the crime was committed within
the Philippine archipelago. The reason for this is the Intraterritorial application of the RPC. But if the rape was committed at any other
place outside the Philippine Embassy, then PC should be prosecuted before the courts of Japan because rape is in no way connected
with the exercise of his functions and a consul does not enjoy diplomatic immunity.
5th: Those who should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of
this Code.
Crimes against National Security includes the following;

1. Treason;
2. Conspiracy/proposal to commit treason;
3. Misprision of treason;
4. Espionage;
5. enticing to war or giving motives for reprisals;
If any of this crime is committed, even if it is done outside the Philippine archipelago the offender can be prosecuted before the
Philippine courts.
Crime committed against the Law of Nations include the following;

1. Piracy;
2. Qualified piracy;
3. Mutiny; and
4. Qualified mutiny
Likewise, if the crime committed is against the Law of Nations the said offender can also be prosecuted before the Philippine courts;
Example;
A, B, C, D, and E are in America. They decided to over throw the government of the Philippines. In preparation for their plan, they
bought guns, ammos, and grenades. However, before they can proceed with their plan, thy got caught.
Q: Can A, B, C, D, and E be tried in the Philippines?

A: NO. Their crime is conspiracy to commit rebellion which is a crime against public order, Title Three of the Revised Penal Code, thus
they are outside the scope of extra-territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines under Article 2 of the RPC.
Example;
Accused A, B, C, D, and E were in America. At that time, America is at war with the Philippines. The accused decided to over throw the
government of the Philippines. However, before they can overthrow the government, all the accused were caught.
Q: Can A, B, C, D, and E be tried in the Philippines?

A: YES. All the accused committed conspiracy to commit treason which is penalized under Title One, Book two of the Revised Penal
Code. Thus, it is within the scope of extra-territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines under Article 2 of the RPC.
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES 1
REVIEW [2018] --xXx--
5
Article 3. Definitions. - Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
GARCIA NOTES - CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW [2018]

Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there is fault when the wrongful act results from
imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
Felonies
Felonies are acts or omissions punishable by the RPC. When the law says ‘by law’, it means the RPC.
Acts
Acts refer to any body movement which has a direct connection to the felony intended to be committed.
It is an external act, an overt act in connection with the felony intended to be committed. Internal acts or mere criminal thoughts will never
give rise to a crime;
Example;
A lust for his neighbor. Whenever the neighbor would pass by going to work, A would always look at the neighbor. And for the whole day,
he would think of the neighbor with nothing but lust. No matter how criminal his thoughts are it will never give rise to a crime because it is
merely an internal unless he performs an external act or an overt act related to acts of lasciviousness or attempted rape or rape. The law
requires an act.
Omission
Omission is the failure of a person to perform an act or to do a duty which is required by law.
Example;
If a person found, any personal property on the street or on any place and he failed to deliver the same to the owner or to the local
authorities. Under Art.308 he becomes liable for theft. Or if a person was driving his vehicle, then he bumped and hit another person. And
instead of helping that person, he increased his speed and left. It is a hit-and-run situation. Such fact that he failed to lend help and
assistance to that victim will aggravate his criminal liability under Art.
365. So here, for failing to perform an act which is required by law to be done. He commits a felony. So felonies are acts or omissions
punishable by the RPC.
Kinds of Felonies
2 kinds of felonies that are may be committed under Art. 3;

1. Deceit (dolo);
2. Fault;
DECEIT (DOLO)
Deceit (Dolo) or intentional felony exist when the act is done with deliberate intent;
Elements:
1. Criminal intent on the part of the offender;
2. Freedom of action in doing the act on the part of the offender;
3. Intelligence of the offender;
An intentional felony is a voluntary act because it is committed by means of deliberate intent.
FAULT (CULPA)
Fault (culpa) or culpable felony exist when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill;
GARCIA NOTES - CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW
Elements; [2018] 5
1. Criminal negligence;
2. Freedom of action;
3. Intelligence;
Under Art. 365, a culpable felony is defined as one wherein the offender, although without malice or deliberate intent caused an injury to
another by the means of negligence or imprudence. Therefore, even a culpable felony is a voluntary act;
Voluntariness
In so far as criminal law is concerned, voluntariness is actually the concurrence of the 3 elements of intentional felony and the
concurrence of the 3 elements of culpable felony;
In other words, in so far as voluntariness of intentional felony is concerned, it is the concurrence of criminal intent, freedom of action and
intelligence;
Therefore, without voluntariness, there can neither be an intentional felony nor a culpable felony;
Freedom
There is freedom of action when the offender performs the act on his own free will, without force, duress, uncontrollable fear.
So note if the offender performs the criminal act but he did the act because there was this compulsion and irresistible fear or under the
impulse of an uncontrollable fear. There is no criminal liability. They are exempting circumstances under Art. 12 of the RPC because
there is no freedom of action, an element of voluntariness. There is neither an intentional felony nor culpable felony because there is
wanting of freedom of action, an element of voluntariness.
Intelligence
Intelligence is the mental capacity of a person to know wrong from right and to appreciate the consequences of one’s act.
If the person acted without intelligence, there is no criminal liability. So if the criminal act has been committed by an insane, an imbecile
or a minor, the said offender is said to be exempted from criminal liability.
Under Art. 12, they are exempting circumstances, he is free of both intentional and culpable felony because he acted without
intelligence, an element of voluntariness.
INTENT
Intent is the use of a particular means to achieve the desired result;
* You cannot see intent. It is an internal state of the mind;
Factors to Determine Intent

In the case of Rivera v. People (G.R. No. 166326, January 25, 2006), Court declared that evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes
against persons may consist of the following;
1. The means used by the malefactors;

2. The nature, location, and number of wounds sustained by the victim;
3. The conduct of the malefactors before, during, or immediately after the killing of the victim; and
4. The circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the accused;
Example;
A was walking. Then here comes B with a lead pipe and hit the head of A with it. B hit it hard and thereafter ran away. A went to the
hospital, however, based on the medical certificate no injury whatsoever was sustained by the head of A. So there was no injury.
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES
Nevertheless, A filed a case for attempted homicide against B. Therefore, intent to kill is incumbent to be proven by the prosecution 1
because the case filed is attempted homicide.
REVIEW [2018] 5
Q: Will B be held liable for attempted homicide? Was there intent to kill?
A: There was NO intent to kill. Let us apply in this case the factors to determine whether intent is present;
Q: Was there motive?

A: NO. In the problem, there was no motive.
Q: What was the nature and number of weapon used?

A: B used a lead pipe.
Q: What is the nature, number and location of wound inflicted on the victim?
A: The victim did not sustain any wound despite the fact that it was hit with a lead pipe.
Q: What was the manner of committing the crime?

A: After hitting A once, B ran away. If he had intended to kill the victim, he would have hit A several times.
Q: What were the act, deeds and words made by the offender before, during or after the commission of the crime?
A: He just saw the victim, hit the victim thereafter ran away. All of these would show there was no intent to kill on the part of said offender.
Therefore, B should not be convicted of attempted homicide.
Example;
The use of a lethal weapon would show intent to kill on the part of the offender although death did not arise. Taking the personal property
of another without the consent of the owner would show intent to gain on the part of the offender.
Kinds of Intent
There are 2 kinds of intent:
1. General Criminal Intent (GCI);
2. Specific Criminal Intent (SCI);
GENERAL CRIMINAL SPECIFIC CRIMINAL

INTENT INTENT
Specific Criminal Intent is
General Criminal Intent is just like an element, an
conclusively presumed by ingredient of the
law by the mere doing of an commission of the crime;
act;
Therefore, it must be
The prosecution does not
proven by the prosecution
have the burden to prove it;
beyond reasonable doubt;
Example;
Intent to kill must be proven in frustrated/attempted homicide. A and B were fighting. A was losing and so A shot B. B was hit on the left
arm. He was brought to the hospital. Thereafter, after B’s release from the hospital, he filed a case against A for attempted homicide.
Since the case filed is attempted homicide. The prosecution has the burden of proving intent to kill on the part of A when he shot B and
hit him on the left arm. Otherwise, if the prosecution failed to prove intent to kill on the part of A. Then A can only be convicted of
serious/less serious/slight physical injuries depending on the date required for medical intervention or he should be acquitted of the
crime. Intent to kill must be proven.
But what if in the course of their fight, A was losing and so A took out his pistol and he shot B. B was shot on the heart, a fatal wound, a
mortal wound was sustained because it was a vital organ which was hit. A immediately bought B to the hospital. However, upon arrival,
he was pronounced dead. Therefore, the heirs of B filed a case for homicide against A. A’s defense, I have no intention to kill B.
According to him, he only intended to threaten B because they were fighting.
Q: Will A’s defense stand in court?

A: NO. A’s defense that he has not intent to kill B will not lie. The reason is since the victim died, intent to kill becomes a General
Criminal Intent which is presumed by law. Prosecution need not prove intent to kill in homicide, parricide, murder, infanticide because
the victim died. It is only in the attempted and frustrated stages of the HPMI wherein intent to kill is considered an element.
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES 1
Q: Why is it only in the consummated stage of Homicide, Patricide, Murder, Infacnticide that intent to kill is presumed?
REVIEW [2018]
A: Because the best evidence to prove intent to kill is that the victim died. So it is presumed by law. 5
Q: Is there a defense to negate criminal intent?
A: YES. The accused may plead mistake of fact
MOTIVE
Motive is the moving power which impels a person to do an act to achieve the desired result
General Rule: Motive is not material in determining the criminal liability of the offender is identified, admits to the commission to the
crime, if the prosecution has direct evidence or eyewitness to the commission of the crime, if crime committed is a culpable felony,
crime committed is not a special penal law.
Exceptions;
Motive becomes material in determining the criminal liability of the offender;
1. When the act of the offender would result to variant crimes (to know what crime should be charged);
2. When the identity of the offender is doubtful;
3. When the prosecution only has circumstantial evidence to prove the commission of the crime;

Example;
City mayor (CM) was jogging near the seashore. Here comes X who went to CM and him. CM was not in the performance of his official
duty when he was shot. Therefore, the act of X in killing and shooting CM may result to variant crimes depending on the motive,
depending on the reason of X of killing. If the reason is a personal grudge/vendetta, murder is committed. But if the reason is because of
CM’s past performance of his duty, then the crime committed is direct assault with homicide.
Example;
There are so many suspects, A, B, C, D and E. There’s doubt as to who among the committed the crime. Then motive will become
material in determining the criminal liability of the offender.
Example;
Who was the last person seen together with the victim before he was killed? Why was he with the victim at that time? What could be the
motive behind the kill? All of these must be taken into consideration because there was no eyewitness, no direct evidence in the
commission of the crime.
*Motive alone, however strong, will never bring about conviction. But motive and circumstantial evidence, or motive and supporting
evidence is necessary for conviction.
People v. Mapalo (G.R. No.172608, February 6, 2007)

SC convicted him only of ill treatment of another by deed, a form of slight physical injury. Ill treatment of another by deed is the
circumstance wherein a person was hit or there was injury caused to the person but there was no intent.
Q: How do you prove Motive?

A: Motive is proved by the testimony of the witnesses as to the acts or statements made by the accused before or immediately after the
Example;
Before the killing of A, a witness saw B threatening to kill A. Therefore, B would have the motive because of his acts prior to the
commission of the crime. Or right after the killing of A, a witness saw B running away from the scene of the crime laughing saying “finally, I
have my revenge” there is the motive.
So here motive is established by the acts or statements made by the accused prior to or after the commission of the crime but NOT
DURING because in motive, there is no direct evidence. The witness did not see how the crime was committed.
INTENT MOTIVE
It is the moving power which 1
REVIEW
Use [2018] specific act to achieve the
of a particular means
impels a person to do a
5
to achieve a desired desired result, therefore, it is
result; the
reason behind intent;
A material element in Immaterial to determine the
determining the criminal criminal liability of the
liability of the accused; offender;
Established/proven by the Established by the
overt act of the offender or acts/statements made by
by the means employed; the accused prior to or
immediately after the

commission of the crime;
MISTAKE OF FACT
Mistake of Fact is the misapprehension of facts on the person who caused injury to another.
If a person acted under mistake of fact, he is absolved of criminal liability because he acted without criminal intent. That is, had the facts
been as he believed them to be, his act done would have been lawful and justifiable.
Elements of Mistake of Fact

Before one may be absolved of criminal liability for having acted under mistake of fact, the following are elements:
1. That the act done would have been lawful and justifiable had the facts been what the accused believed them to be - Had it
been as he believed, the act performed would’ve amounted to a justifying or exempting circumstance;
2. That the intention of the accused in doing the act must be lawful - The must be ignited by a noble or lawful or justifiable intent
3. That the mistake must be without fault, negligence, careless on the part of the offender - The offender cannot be negligent in
ascertaining the true facts of the case and at the same time invoke mistake of fact;
Q: Can a mistake of fact be used as a defense against culpable felony?

A: NO. One of the elements of Mistake of Fact is that the intent must be lawful. Since intent is not an element in culpable felonies, then
mistake of fact cannot be used as a efense.
US v. Ah Chong (G.R. No. L-5272 March 19, 1910.)

Ah Chong was acquitted because he acted under mistake of fact. [M’Garcia: BUT that was because the case was decided a long time
ago. If the case is decided now, I doubt if there will be an acquittal. Let’s go by the elements: 2nd and 3rd elements are present.
However, the 1st element is wanting - that the act done would have been lawful and justifiable had the facts been as the accused
believed them to be - the victim was only trying to enter.
Q: Will that act already constitute unlawful aggression?
A: NO. There is no unlawful aggression because there was no imminent or immediate danger on the life and property of the said
offender. 1st element is wanting.]
Example;
The police officers A, B and C were dining in a restaurant when they noticed a group of men who are so noisy. And so A looked at them
and noticed that one of them, X had a gun tucked on his waist. So A went on the back of X and told him “I can see that you have a gun
tucked on your waist. Do you have a license? I’m a police officer.” X said “Yes sir, I have a license.” And A said “Show me your license.”
So X stood up and he tried to get his wallet from his pocket in order to show his license as requested by A. As he was picking his wallet,
he was turning around to look at A. The moment he faced A, A shot him. X died. Prosecuted for homicide, A said he acted under
mistake of facts. He thought, what X was picking was his gun and that he would be shot by X. Therefore, in self-defense he shot X first.

Q: Will his defense of mistake of facts lie in his favor?
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES 1
A: NO. The 1st element is wanting. Granting for argument that what X was picking was the gun, it will not constitute unlawful aggression
because the gun was not yet pointed at A. it will not yet bring an immediate danger on the life of A. Also, the 3rd element is wanting. A was
REVIEW [2018]
negligent, there was fault or carelessness on his part in ascertaining the true facts of the case. He was asking for the license and X said
he has one. Definitely, what would be shown to him would be the license not the gun. 5
Yapyucu v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 120744-46, June 25, 2012) Yapyucu were members of the Police stationed in Pampanga. They
received a tip that NPA were spotted near their vicinity. Thus, Yapyucu and his men convened in a nearby road to wait for the alleged
vehicle of the NPA. Upon seeing a Tamaraw Jeep reportedly containing NPA soldiers, Yapyucu and his men immediately open shot the
jeep. As a result, Licup, one of the passengers of the jeep, died, and another one, Villanueva, was injured. Upon closer inspection of the
jeep, it was later found out that the passengers were not members of the NPA, and that they were not armed. An information for homicide
was filed against Yapyuco. Yapyucu on the other hand, pleaded mistake of facts. He argued that had the passengers been members of
the NPA, he would have been justified in firing at them.
Q: Is the contention Yapyucu justified?

A: NO. The 1st element of Mistake of fact is that the act done would have been lawful had they been what the offender believed them to
be. In this case, even if the passengers were members of the NPA, the accused was not justified in firing at them absent of any reason to
believe that their lives were in danger. Also, the 3rd element of Mistake of fact is that the mistake must be without fault, negligence, or
carelessness of the offender. In this case, the accused could have been more prudent in the exercise of his functions. He could have
stopped the jeep to ascertain the passengers. Likewise, even if the jeep did not stop, they could have pursued the jeep seeing as they
have an available car and the jeep was moving in a slow speed due to the potholes in the road.
The Supreme Court convicted the accused of homicide and denied their defense of mistake of fact.
Q: Can a crime be committed without criminal intent?

A: YES. There are 2 instances wherein intent is not an essential element of a crime;
1. Culpable Felony
2. When the crime is in violation of special penal laws (Acts
Mala prohibita)
ACTS MALA PROHIBITA

Acts mala prohibita are acts which are only wrong because there is a law that prohibits and penalizes it;
They are not inherently wrong;
Example;
Illegal possession of unlicensed firearms;
ACTS MALA IN SE
Acts mala in se are acts which are inherently evil or wrong per se, even if there’s not law, it is evil;
Example;
Killing another, taking the thing of another;
MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA

Inherently evil, wrong per se; Not inherently evil
or wrong;
Criminal liability is based on Criminal liability is based on
the intent or morality of the the mere doing of the
offender; prohibited
act;
Good faith or lack of criminal Good faith or lack of criminal
intent is a valid defense; intent is not a valid defense;
Modifying circumstances Modifying circumstances
such as mitigating and such as mitigating and
aggravating are considered aggravating are NOT
by the court in the imposition considered by the court in
of penalty; the imposition of penalty
UNLESS otherwise
provided by Special Penal
Law;
Degree of participation of the Degree of participation by
offender (principal, the offender is NOT
accomplice, or accessory) is considered. All perpetrators
considered in the imposition of the act are equally
of the penalty; punished UNLESS
otherwise provided by the
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES Special Penal Law; 1
REVIEW [2018]
Stage (attempted, frustrated,
or consummated) is taken
The only stage considered is
the consummated stage. No 5
into consideration in the attempted or frustrated stage
imposition of the penalty; UNLESS otherwise provided
by
the Special Penal Law;
**Not all acts punishable by special penal laws are mala prohibita!! There are some special penal laws which punish acts mala in se,
e.g. plunder is a special penal law yet the SC said plunder is malum in se. criminal intent matters.
Garcia v. CA (G.R. No. 157171 March 14, 2006)

Garcia was the head of the board of canvassers. The number of votes of Sen. Pimentel was decreased. In decreasing the number of
votes, the said votes were not added to any candidate. So it did not favor any candidate. So according to him, he acted in good faith, no
criminal intent. But according to the other side, it is a special penal law, therefore they should be held criminally liable.
Q: Should Garcia’s defense of good faith be appreciated in violation of the Omnibus Election Code (Special Law)?
A: YES. The act of decreasing or increasing a candidate’s vote although punished by special penal law is a malum in se. it is inherently
evil or wrong.
What about in this case, it is a malum in se. And Garcia and company said, they acted in good faith, they were already so tired,
because of the counting. So how come they were still convicted?
According to the SC: They should exercise extraordinary diligence in the counting of the votes. Hence, they are still held criminally
liable. The defense of good faith would not lie in their favor as board of canvassers.
Q: Can an act mala in se absorb an act mala prohibita? And vice versa?

A: NO. In the case of Loney v. People the Supreme Court held that intent is a material element in acts mala prohibita, on the other hand
intent is immaterial in acts mala prohibita.
Lonely v. People (G.R. No. 152644, February 10, 2006)

Lonely and company, the head of marcopper company were charged 4 cases – violation of the water code of the Philippines, violation of
the Philippine mining act, violation of national pollution control degree – all three are acts mala prohibita and one act malum in se – that is
violation of Art.365 reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property. Their contention was that the 3 other information involving
violation of special penal law should already be quashed because they are absorb by Art. 365. Anyway, the incident resulted from the
same act of polluting.
Q: Should reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code absorb the
violation of special penal laws?
A: NO. Acts mala in se cannot absorb acts mala prohibita. What makes an act malum in se is the presence of intent, deceit or dolo or fault
or culpa. On the other hand, what makes an act malum prohibitum is the fact that it’s in violation of a special penal law. Therefore, one
cannot absorb the other. So they have to be prosecuted on all 4 cases.
Example;
X killed B with the use of motor vehicle. X hit and bumped B. X was charged with murder. So the information charges an intentional felony
of murder. Trial on merits ensued, after the prosecution presented evidence, the defense presented evidence. The defense was able to
show, to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the reason for the said act of killing B was because X lost control of his brake. Therefore,
according to them, there was only imprudence and so X should only be held liable for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The
judge believed the defense. So in an information for an intentional felony of murder, the said court convicted X only of reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide, a culpable felony.
Q: Is the judge correct? Can the judge convict a person of a culpable felony in an information that charges him of intentional
felony?
A: Yes. The reason is that a culpable felony is necessarily included in an intentional felony because a culpable felony is of lesser offense
than that of intentional felony.
*A malum prohibitum is not necessarily included in malum in se. Therefore, one cannot absorb the other.
--xXx--
Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be

incurred:
By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
Proximate Cause Doctrine

Proximate Cause Doctrine states that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful
act done be different from that which he intended.
Proximate Cause - Proximate cause is the cause that sets in to motion all other causes and which unbroken by efficient intervening
cause produces the felony without which the felony would have not been committed.
For one to be criminally liable under the Proximate Cause doctrine, it is necessary that the felonious act and the resulting felony must
not be broken by any efficient intervening cause.
No efficient or supervening intervening cause must have broken the causal connection between the felonious act of the offender and
the resulting felony.
Elements;
In the case of Garcia v. People (G.R. No. 171951, August 28, 2009), The Supreme Court enumerated the following elements of
proximate cause:
1. The intended act is a felonious act;
2. The resulting act is a felony;
3. The resulting act is the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felonious act of the offender;
Therefore, for one to be criminally liable under the Proximate Cause doctrine, it is necessary that the offender is performing a felonious
act and since he is performing a felonious act, he becomes liable for all the resulting crime although different from that which he
intended. Provided that the resulting felony is the direct, natural and logical consequence of his felonious act. Otherwise stated, his
felonious act must be the proximate cause of the resulting felony.
For one to be criminally liable under the Proximate Cause doctrine, it is not necessary that the offender should have even touch the
body of the victim. It suffices that the felonious act performed by the offender has generated in the mind of the victim, fear for his life. By
reason of that fear for his life the victim performed acts, made risk that injured himself. The accused will become criminally liable.
Example;
B and G were boyfriend and girlfriend respectively. During their relationship, B promised G that he would marry her. One day, B told G
that she should wait for him outside the church at 7pm that night so they could get married. However, instead of showing up, B sent G a
letter saying that he couldn’t marry her because B already has a wife and children. G was so heartbroken. She couldn’t live with the
pain so she ended her life and committed suicide.
Q: Is B liable for the death of G through the Proximate Cause Doctrine?

A: No. The first element of Proximate Cause is absent. Under the Family Code, breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong.
Thus, although the death of G is considered a felony, the intention of B is not a felonious act.
Example;
B and G were boyfriend and girlfriend respectively. B promised G that he will marry her. However, B changed his mind. G was so
heartbroken, she went to the top floor of the nearest building. At the top, G jumped over the ledge and committed suicide. G died. On
her way down, G landed over a pedestrian. The pedestrian was squashed by G resulting to the death of the pedestrian.

Q: Is G liable for the death of the pedestrian by virtue of the proximate cause?
A: NO. Under the Revised Penal Code, committing suicide is not considered a felony.
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES
EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE (EIC) 2
REVIEW [2018]
Efficient Intervening Force is an active force which is a distinct act absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the offender.
6
In order that an act is considered an Efficient Intervening Cause, it is necessary that it is totally foreign from the felonious act that is
performed by the offender;
Proximate Cause is not always the immediate cause. At times it may be a remote cause;
Example;
A was driving his car along SLEX followed by B, by C, by D, by E. When A reached the tollgate, he stopped to pay the toll, so B stopped
as well as C and D. E however was very sleepy, he did not put to stop so he hit D, D hit C, C hit B, B hit A. Because of the impact the car
of A sustained serious damage.
Q: What is the proximate cause of the damage sustained by the car of A?

A: The Proximate Cause was E because it was the car of E which sets into motion all other cars to bump each other. It was not the
immediate cause because the immediate cause was the car of B because it is the car of B which hit the car of A. So a PC is not always
the immediate cause, at times it may be the remote cause.
Example;
A bus was going to Quezon, suddenly 4 men boarded a bus, 2 man seated at front seats and the other 2 seated at back. While they were
traversing a zigzag portion on the road, the 4 men stood up and announced a hold up. One passenger was so afraid of the robber as he
had a previous experience of robbers. He was so afraid that he opened a window and he jumped out of a window, he fell on a cliff and he
died.
Q: Are the robbers liable for the death of the passenger?

A: Yes. The robbers in announcing a holdup are committing a felonious act.
The resulting act was a felony, the resulting felony was the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felonious act of the offenders.
Were it not for the robbers announcing a hold up, there would be no fear on the mind of the passenger. But because of the announcement,
there was fear on the mind of passenger and by reason of that fear, he made risk that caused his death. The robbers are liable for robbery
with homicide because they are liable for the death of the passenger.
Example;
X was having a siesta on the terrace of their house on a rocking chair. Suddenly he was awakened by the noise of the children. He found
out that it was coming from the backyard of their house, saw 4 boys harvesting his mango tree. So he told the boys to come down the
tree, otherwise, he will be calling the police and let them be arrested. The boys hurriedly went down the tree. One boy from the top most
portion of the tree jumped down and his head hit a big stone. He suffered hemorrhage, thereafter he died.
Q: Is X criminally liable for the death of the boy?

A: YES. First element, the intended act is a felonious act. He was not committing a felonious act. He was just acting his right when he
said he will call the police considering that the boys were taking his mangoes, they were committing theft. Therefore, he was just acting
within his right. Since X was not committing a felonious act, he cannot be held criminally liable for the resulting felony.
* So if you are given a problem, the first thing you should do is to determine if the person is committing a felonious act. If not, a person
cannot be held liable for the resulting felony. If he is, then he is liable for the resulting felony.
Example;
In the same case, X told the boys, if you will not come down I have here my shotgun, I will shoot each one of you and he fired shots in
the air. The boys were so afraid and hurriedly went down, one of them jumped, fell and suffered serious physical injuries because of his
broken legs.
Q: Is X criminally liable for the injuries sustained by the boy?

A: NO. Because this time he was committing a felonious act. He was threatening to shoot the children. It is a felonious act amounting to
grave threats. Therefore, this time he is criminally liable for the resulting felony although different from that which he intended.
* For one to be criminally liable under the Proximate Cause Doctrine, it is necessary that there is no efficient intervening cause that has
broken the chain between the felonious act and the resulting felony.
Example;
A and B, they are boyfriend and girlfriend respectively. The A promised to marry B that night. B waited in vain, however, A did not arrive.
Instead B received a text message saying that A would not be able to come, and could not marry B because A is already a married man
with 5 children. So B became so sad. Frustrated, she began crying terribly and went out of the house, walked on the streets, not on her
own rightful self. She fell on a canal and she died.
REVIEW
Q: [2018]
Is A the boyfriend, liable for the death of B? 6
A: NO. It is a settled rule that breach of promise to marry is not a felonious act. Since B was not committing a felony, therefore, he
cannot be liable for the death of A.
Example;
In the same problem, when the girl learned that the man could not marry her. She went on the top most portion of the building, decided
to commit suicide to take her own life. She jumped. However, as she was falling, she fell on a child. The girl survived but the child was
pinned down and died.
Q: Is A, the boyfriend, liable for the death of the child?

A: NO. Again, breach of promise to is not a felony. Since A was not performing a felonious act, he is not liable for any resulting felony.
Q: is B, the girlfriend, liable for the death of the baby?

A: NO. Committing suicide is not a felony either the RPC or any special Penal law in PH jurisdiction. It is not a felonious act. However,
in performing said lawful act, she did not do so with due care. Since she did not do so with due care, she becomes liable for a
CULPABLE FELONY. So here there is a simple negligence on the part of the said

woman, therefore, the said woman may be held liable for simple negligence resulting to homicide for the death of the said child.
People vs. Villacorta (G.R. No. 186412, August 28, 2009)

January 23, 2002, there was a stabbing incident. Cruz was stabbed by Villacorta on the left side of his body with a sharpened bamboo
stick. He was brought to the Tondo Medical Center. He was released on the very same day as out patient because his wound was not
fatal. February 14, 2002 he was brought to San Lazaro Hospital. He was already suffering from tetanus infection. A day after February 15
he died. The cause of his death was tetanus infection. Villacorta was prosecuted for the crime of homicide for the death of Cruz. The
lower court convicted him.
Q: Is the accused liable for homicide?

A: NO. Supreme Court: Citing Urbano case, he cannot be convicted of the crime of homicide. Based on the expert testimony of the doctor,
the incubation period of the tetanus virus is within 14 days. In the case, it took the victim 22 days before he died. Therefore the stab
wound was without tetanus virus. Cruz may have performed acts which brought about the tetanus virus. The stabbing was only a remote
cause and the tetanus infection was the proximate infection which brought about the death of the victim.
So Villacorta was only convicted of slight physical injuries because they were not able to prove intent to kill. First, no evidence of motif.
Second nature and number of weapon used. A sharpened bamboo stick, not even a little weapon made of metal. Third, the nature,
number and location of wound. It was only on the left side of the body. Fourth, manner of committing the crime. After one stabbing, there
was no more. So from homicide, he was only convicted of slight physical injury punished by the lowest penalty arresto menor, 1- 30days
or fine of not more than P200.
Urbano vs. IAC (G.R. NO. 72964, September 7, 2011)

Javier was hacked by Urbano on his right palm. Javier suffered an incised wound and brought to the hospital. There was settlement.
Thereafter he was released. However, after 22 days he was brought to the hospital, he was already suffering from tetanus poisoning. The
next day he died.
Q: Is the accused liable for homicide?

A: NO. SC: same reasoning by the SC. The act committed by Javier after he was released from the hospital, the fishing, going to the farm
was considered as the proximate cause that brought about the tetanus virus on his incised wound. Therefore he was not convicted of the
crime of homicide but only physical injuries.
Example;
A and B were fighting. A stabbed B. B sustained a less serious physical injuries. B was brought to the hospital, it was not a serious
wound, however, because of the negligence or careless treatment of the doctor, this not serious wound became a very serious wound
which later on caused the death of B. The relatives of B filed a case of homicide against A.
Q: Is A liable of homicide for the death of B? Or would you consider the careless treatment of the doctor as an EIC?
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES
A: A is liable for the death of B. The negligence or careless treatment of the doctor cannot be considered as an EIC. The negligent 2
treatment of the doctor was an active force but it is not a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the offender.
REVIEW [2018]
Because 6
precisely he needed medical intervention, he needed treatment of the doctor because he sustained a stab wound from A. Therefore,
there is a connection between the felonious act and the medical treatment. It there for cannot be considered as an EIC. The doctors
negligence would only make him liable administratively but not criminally.
Example;
A and B were friends. After farming while they were having a drinking spree, they had a political discussion, A was pro Pnoy and B was
pro GMA. Their agreement heated, B stood up and broke a bottle of beer, stabbed A. A was wounded. They parted ways. A was on his
way home when suddenly it rained. After it rained there was lightning and A was hit by lightning. A died. The heirs of A filed a case of
homicide against B.
Q: Is B criminally liable for the death of A?

A: NO. Under the proximate cause doctrine, B is not criminally liable for the death of A because there was an EIC that is the lightning.
The lightning was an active force which is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the offender which was the
stabbing of the victim. Therefore he cannot be held liable for the death of A but only physical injuries sustained by the victim.
3 SITUATIONS WHEREIN A PERSON BECOMES CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR THE RESULTING FELONY ALTHOUGH DIFFERENT
FROM THAT WHICH HE INTENDED:
1. Abberatio Ictus (Mistake in the blow)

2. Error in Personae (Mistake in the identity);
3. Praeter intentionem;
ABERRATIO ICTUS
Aberratio Ictus is a situation wherein the offender directed a blow at his intended victim but because of poor aim, the blow landed on
another victim.
Example;
X and Y had a fist fight. X lost. However, X vowed to Y that he will have his revenge. One day, X saw Y riding in a tricycle. In that
instance, X pulled out his gun and with intent to kill, shot Y. However, due to poor aim, X hit the tricycle driver instead. The tricycle driver
died.
Q: What crime may X be convicted in so far as Y is concerned?

A: In so far as Y is concerned, X is liable for attempted murder because he intended to kill Y. He already performed an overt act when
he fired the gun with intent to kill against B. There was treachery because the victim was totally defenseless. However, because of poor
aim, it was the tricycle driver who died.
Q: What crime may X be convicted in so far as the tricycle driver is concer?

In so far as the tricycle driver is concerned, X is liable for murder. In the case of People v. Flora (G.R. No. 125909, June 23, 2000), the
Supreme Court held that treachery is appreciated in Aberratio Ictus. The Flora doctrine was likewise adopted by the court in People v.
Adrian (G.R. No. 205228, July 15, 2015).
Q: Therefore, of what crime will you charge and convict X?

A: There are two crimes committed. Against Y attempted murder, against the tricycle driver is murder. But since this 2 crimes were
brought about by a single act, it will give rise to a complex crime under Art. 48. Under Art. 48 when a single act constitutes two or more
grave

or less grave felonies, we have compound crime or a complex crime. Thus, the crime committed by X is Murder with attempted murder
because it results from the single act of the crime.
CONPIRACY PROPOSAL
Q: In the same case as mentioned above, the tricycle driver survived A but sustained
bilateral act –athere
mortal wound. What crime may be charged
must
- CRIMINAL LAW
to X? A: As to Y, X is liable for attempted murder. As to the tricycle driver, be
GARCIA NOTES
intent to kill on his part.
X isatliable
leastfor
twoserious
who agreed to the
personsPhysical injuries onlyact
Unilateral – only one
because
person who decide to
there is no
2
commit a felony is
REVIEW [2018] commission of
the crime;
sufficient; 6
Q: What if when the tricycle driver was hit by the bullet, he only sustained a slight physical injury which is a light felony, are you
going to complex?
A: NO. This time you cannot complex because under Art. 48, you can only complex grave and less grave felonies. You cannot complex a
light felony. Therefore, there would be 2 cases filed separately. Attempted murder in so far as B is concerned. Slight physical injury in so
far as C is concerned. So 2 informations, 2 cases must be filed in the court.
People v. Flora (G.R. No. 125909, June 23, 2000).

Hermogenes Flora and his brother Edwin Flora were in a party. In that party, they saw Ireneo Gallarte, the uncle of their enemy Villanueva.
As a revenge against Villanueva, the brothers shot Gallarte, but because of poor aim, they hit Flor Espinas and killed Emerita Roma.
However, the brothers succeeded in killing Gallarte.
Q: What is the liability of the brothers to the deceased Gallarte and Roma?
A: As to Gallarte and Roma, the Supreme Court held that the brothers were guilty of murder because the killing was qualified by treachery.
Treachery is present when the deceased was not given a chance to defend themselves. Since neither Gallarte and Roma were given a
chance to defend themselves, both accused were guilty of murder.
Q: What is the liability of the brothers to the Espinas?

A: As to Flor Espinas, the brothers were guilty of attempted murder.
People v. Adriano (G.R. 205228, July 15, 2015)

Police Officers Garabiles and Santos were on patrolling the streets of Pampanga when they saw a Toyota Corolla overtook them. The
Corolla reached alongside a SUV. The Corolla cut the lane of the SUV leading the latter to swerve and fall into a canal. 4 men alighted the
Corolla and thereafter peppered the SUV with gunshots resulting to the death of the driver. A stray bullet hit a bystander identified as
Bulanan. Further investigation showed that the accused Cabiedes was one of those men who participated in the killing of the driver of the
SUV.
Q: What is the liability of the accused to the driver of the SUV?

A: As to the driver of the SUV, the accused is guilty of murder because the killing was coupled by treachery. The accused ambushed the
SUV giving the driver no chance to defend himself.
Q: What is the liability of the accused to Bulanan?

A: As to Bulanan, the accused is likewise guilty of murder. The Court held that treachery is appreciated in aberration ictus applying the
Flora doctrine.
ERROR IN PERSONAE
Error in Personae is a situation wherein the victim actually received the bullet but he was mistaken to be the intended victim. The
intended victim was not at the scene of the crime.
Effects
The effect of error in personae depends on the variance between the intended crime and the actual crime committed;
Mitigating - If there is variance between the penalty of the intended crime and the penalty of the actual crime committed, the lesser
penalty between the two shall apply;
If there is no variance between the penalty of the intended crime and the crime actually committed, then it will not affect the criminal
liability of the offender;
Example;
A and B were fighting. A punched B so hard, he fell on the ground, his face facing the ground. A left the scene of the crime. At that
precise moment when A left, here comes the father of B who saw his poor son boxed by A so he came to the rescue of his son and
went near him. To retaliate, B took out his balisong and stabbed the person next to him thinking that it was still his opponent A but in
truth it was already his father. Let's say the father died.
Q: What was the intended crime committed by B?

A: B intended to commit homicide because he intended to kill A, the person who boxed him.
Q: What crime did B actually commit?

A: B actually committedparricide because he killed his own father.
Q: Of what crime will you prosecute B?

- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES
A: B should be prosecuted for Parricide because that is the crime he
actually committed. 2
REVIEW [2018] 6
Let's say that he is now charged of parricide. Trial on the merits proceeded. The Judge found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
parricide.
Q: What penalty as a Judge would you impose on him?

A: The judge should impose the penalty for homicide. The penalty for parricide under Art. 246 is reclusion perpetua to death whereas
the penalty for homicide under Art. 249 is reclusion temporal. Although he committed parricide. You have to impose upon him the
penalty which is lesser and that is reclusion temporal but in its maximum period.
Under Art. 49, in case of Error in Personae or Mistake in the Identity, when there is a variance between the intended crime and the
actual crime committed, you have to compare the 2. Whichever has a lesser penalty, that penalty has to be imposed.
In the case the intended felony is homicide but the actual felony is parricide. Compare the penalty of the 2, although B should be
convicted of the crime of parricide, the penalty will be that of the crime with a lesser penalty. That is reclusion temporal for homicide.
Example;
In the same problem, instead of the father coming to the rescue of B, it was the friend of B who came to his rescue. So when A left, the

friend of B arrived and was the one stabbed by B and died. Therefore, B killed his own best friend. The crime committed is homicide.
Q: What was B’s intended crime?

A: B intended to commit homicide.
Q: What crime did B actually commit?

A: B actually committed homicide because he killed his own best friend.
Q: What crime would you charge him of?

A: B should be charged of Homicide because that was his actual crime.
Q: After trial on the merits what penalty will you impose?

A: The penalty to be imposed against B is the penalty for homicide because there is no variance between the intended felony and the
felony actually committed. In this case, Error in Personae will not mitigate the liability of the offender. Art. 49 will not apply.
PRATER INTENTIONEM
Praeter intentionem occurs when the consequence went beyond the intention or when the injurious result is greater than that intended.
Praeter Intetionem is a situation wherein the offender directed the blow at his actual victim, the victim received the blow. However, the
injurious result is far greater than what is intended by the victim.
Effect
Praeter Interionem it is always a mitigating circumstance because of Art. 13 of the Revised Penal Code;
The offender has no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
Elements;
1. That the offender committed a Felony;
2. There must be a notable or notorious disparity between the means employed by the offender and the result of the felony;
For Praeter intentionem to be considered as a mitigating circumstance, the prime element or requisite is that there must be a notable
disparity between the means employed by the offender and the resulting felony.
*REVIEW
Out of the means[2018]
employed by the offender, no one could have anticipated or foreseen that injurious result. 6
Example;
H arrived home and asked W what was their dinner and the W answered that she has not yet cooked because she was watching
teleserye. Since the H was so tired, he got mad and elbowed the W. The W fell on floor and her head hit the edge of the table and so she
suffered hemorrhage. Thereafter, she died. H said he had no intention of killing his W, he only elbowed her. However, since death is the
result, it is a general criminal intent which is presumed by law.
Q: What crime should H be prosecuted?

A: H should be prosecuted for the crime of Parricide
Q: Should H be given the benefit of Praeter intentionem?
A: YES. because no one could have foreseen that the mere act of elbowing the W, death would result. There was a notable disparity
between the means employed, the act of elbowing the W, and the resulting felony which is death or parricide. Therefore, he should be
given the benefit of mitigating circumstance.
Garcia vs. People (G.R. No. 171951)

Accused Garcia was having a karaoke with his friends late at night when deceased Chy requested the accused to quiet down.
Thereafter, accused vowed to kill Chy one day. On one instance, the accused saw the deceased in a sari-sari store. Suddenly, the
accused hit the victim in the nape with a bottle of beer and thereafter mauled him. The deceased was able to escape and called his wife
to call for police. When his wife returned, the Chy was already lying in the floor lifeless. Autopsy report concludes that Chy died from a
heart attack brought about by emotional stress. The accused was charged with the crime of homicide.
Q: Should the accused be convicted for the crime of homicide?

A: YES. His act of mauling him was the proximate cause of his heart attack. However, he was given the benefit of Praeter intentionem.
Who would have anticipated that the mere act of mauling or boxing him, death would result. Therefore, there was Praeter intentionem.
People vs. Noel Sales (G.R. No. 177218).

The accused Noel Sales beat his sons because they went out of the house for two days without permission. The accused tied one of his
sons to a coconut tree and thereafter hit him with a thick piece of wood. Thereafter, the son experienced a difficulty in breathing, and his
eyes were moving up and down. The son collapsed, and died. Autopsy report suggest that the son died. According to the accused, he
cannot be held liable for parricide. He claimed that he has no intention to kill the child, he only intended to discipline his children.
However, since the victim died, death is considered a general criminal intent which is presumed by law. Therefore, he should be held
liable of parricide.
Q: Does the Proximate Cause Doctrine Apply?

A: Yes. The father in beating the son with a thick piece of wood while the child was tied on a coconut tree was already a felonious act.
Therefore the father should be liable for the resulting felony although different from that which he intended.
Q: Should the father be given the benefit of Praeter intentionem? A: No. According to the SC, there was no notable disparity
between the act of the father hitting the said son with a thick piece of wood while being tied on a coconut tree and the resulting felony
which is death. Considering the age of the child, such act of the father would produce and indeed produce the death of the child.
Therefore it cannot b said that there is no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME DOCTRINE

Impossible Crime is committed by any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for
the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
It is not really a crime in the legal sense of the word because a crime requires a substantive change in the outside world. Here the act
dis not ripen into a crime. It was not accomplished into a crime because of its inherent impossibility.

The offender is being punished because of his criminality and dangerousness. So although objectively, no crime is committed, still the
offender shall be punished that is why he is convicted only of Impossible Crime.

The penalty of IC is only arresto mayor or a fine of P200-P500 depending on the criminality or dangerousness of the offender. 2
REVIEW [2018] 6
Elements;
For a person to be liable of Impossible Crime, the following requisites must concur;
1. That the act done would have been an offense against
persons or property;
2. That the act was done with evil intent;
3. That the act was not accomplished because of its inherent impossibility or the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means;
4. That the act done should not constitute any other violation of the Revised Penal Code;
CRIMES AGAINST PERSON OR PROPERTY

Under the Revised Penal Code, crimes against person includes the following;
1. Parricide;
2. Murder;
3. Homicide;
4. Abortion;
5. Infanticide;
6. Duel;
7. Physical injuries;
8. Rape;
Under the Revised Penal Code, crimes against property include;

1. Robbery;
2. Brigandage;
3. Theft;
4. Usurpation or occupation of real property;
5. Estafa or swindling;
6. Malicious mischief;
7. Arson.
*Only crimes against persons and property would an IC
Example;
H and W were lawfully married. During the subsistence of their marriage, H caught W having sexual intercourse with another man. As a
result, H filed a complaint of adultery against W. As a defense, W argued that she cannot be held liable for adultery because she was born
a man and merely changed her sexual organ.
Q: Is W liable for an impossible crime of adultery?

A: NO. For a person to be held liable for impossible crime, the act committed would have been a crime against person or property were it
not for the inherent impossibility of the crime or the inadequate and ineffective means employed. In this case, adultery is a crime against
chastity. Thus, the first requisite of an impossible crime is absent.
INTENT
It is necessary that the offender in doing the act must be incited by an evil intent.
KINDS OF INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBILITY

According to jurisprudence, there are two kinds of inherent impossibility;
1. Legal Impossibility;
2. Physical Impossibility;
Legal Impossibility
There is legal impossibility when all the intended acts even if committed would not have amounted to a crime.
Example;
X saw his enemy Y lying on a bench. He went to Y and stabbed Y 10 times not knowing that Y had already long been dead for 2 hours
due to a heart attack. Even if X performed all the acts amounting to murder, still murder would not arise which is a crime against
persons because the victim is already deceased. He is no longer a person in the eyes of criminal law. Therefore there is Impossible
Cime and what we have is legal impossibility.
Physical Impossibility
Physical or Factual Impossibility exist when an extraneous circumstance unknown to the offender prevented the consignation of the
crime. Here, there are circumstances unknown to the offender, the inadequate control of the offender which prevented the consignation
of the crime.
Example;
A person placed his hands inside the pocket of the polo of another, intended to get the wallet of the said person but the pocket was
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES
empty. It is an IC. Extraneous Circumstances unknown to the offender prevented the consignation of the crime. Unknown to him the
2
wallet was not inside his pocket. S it is an IC because it would have amounted to theft, a crime against property.
REVIEW [2018] 6
MUST NOT CONSTITUTE ANY OTHER VIOLATION OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE
It is necessary that the act done must not be a violation of any crime under the RPC otherwise that person would be held liable of that
crime and not of an Impossible crime.
Intod vs. CA (G.R. No. 103119 October 21, 1992)
Intod, accompanied by other men, wanted to kill Palampangan. Thus, the accused peppered Palampangan’s room with bullets.
However, the intended victim was not there. Only the son-in-law and children were present but they were not hit. Intod and his company
were charged with the crime of attempted murder up to the CA.
Q: Should Intod be convicted for attempted murder?

A: NO. The Supreme Court held that an impossible crime was committed. It was unknown to the offenders that the intended victim was
not at the scene of the crime. It could have amounted to a crime against persons which is murder. But it was inherently impossible
because the victim was not there.
This decision of the SC were criticized because under the 4th element, the act must not constitute any other violation of the RPC. When
this accused peppered the house of Palampangan with bullets, they did peppered the house with bullets. So they said, they should be
liable with malicious mischief because damage was done to the house and not IC. SC retained its decision that it is an IC and this case
of Intod vs. CA was cited in the case of Jacinto vs. People.
GARCIA NOTES - CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW [2018] 1

Jacinto vs. People (G.R. No. 162540. July 13, 2009)
A check which was supposed to be remitted was not remitted by the offender to Megafoam. Instead the check was depositedto her own
account. Since the check was not remitted, Megafoam filed a case of qualified theft against the employee. She was convicted before the
lower court up to the CA.
Q: Should the accused be convicted of theft if the check she stole was dishonored due to lack of funds?
A: NO. The Supreme Court held that the crime committed was an Impossible Crime citing the case of Intod vs. CA. The act amounted to
qualified theft. However, unknown to the said offender the check was not funded. Therefore, she was not able to get the face value of the
said check. Hence, physical circumstances unknown to the offender prevented the consummation of the crime. We have physical or
factual impossibility.
Q: What about the fact that the check was taken and was not remitted to Megafoam?
A: According to the Supreme Court, theft has been defined under Art. 308 as the taking of a property with intent to gain the personal
property of another. Therefore it is necessary that the property taken must have value because the taking must be with intent to gain. The
mere taking of a check without value would not amount to theft because the check without value is a worthless check. Hence, the SC said
that the crime committed is only an IC.
--xXx--
Art. 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in
cases of excessive penalties. — Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress and which is
not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of
Justice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of legislation.
In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, such statement as
may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this
Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury
caused by the offense.
There are no common law crimes in the Philippines.
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES 2
--xXx--
REVIEW [2018] 6
Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies.
— Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; and it is
frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly or over acts, and does not
perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason
of some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance.
2 Phases in the Commission of the crime

There are always 2 phases in the commission of the crime;
1. Subjective phase;
2. Objective phase;
Subjective Phase
The subjective phase is the portion in the commission of the act wherein the offender commences the commission of the crime after the
time that he still has control over his acts.
He may or may not proceed in the commission of the crime. He still has control over his acts
Objective Phase
From the moment the offender loses control over his acts, it is already in the objective phase of the commission of the crime.
Stages in the Development of the Crime

The following are the stages in the development of a crime;
1. Internal Acts;
2. External Act;
Internal Acts
Internal acts are not punishable. Mere criminal thoughts will never give rise to criminal liability. There must be an external act.
External Act
External Act are acts which includes preparatory acts and acts of execution. As a rule, preparatory Acts are not yet punishable because
they are not yet connected to a particular felony.
Example;
Conspiracy to commit a crime, proposal to commit a crime -> merely preparatory acts. Hence, as a rule they are not punishable
ACTS OF EXECUTION
Acts of Execution is the actual act of committing the crime. We have 3 stages;
1. Attempted;
2. Frustrated; and
3. Consummated;
ATTEMPTED STAGE
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly or over acts, and does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance.
The offender is still in the subjective phase, the offender has still control over his acts, he may proceed in the commission of the crime
or he may desist.
The moment he desist on his own spontaneous desistance then he will no longer be held criminally liable.
Elements;
The following are the elements of attempted felony;
1. The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt act;

2. That he does not perform all acts of execution that would have produced the felony;
3. That his act was not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance;
4. That he was not able to perform all acts of execution by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance;
Overt Act
Overt Act refers to any external act which if allowed to continue will naturally and logically ripen into a crime.
What the law requires is that the overt act must be directly connected to the intended felony. The offender commences the commission of
the crime directly by overt act.
Directly By Overt Acts

Directly by Overt Acts means that the Overt Acts performed by the offender must be directly connected to the intended felony.
The attempted felony that is punished by law is one which is directly connected to the overt act performed by the offender although he has
admitted the crime.
Example;
X won the lottery. X put the lottery money in a safe in his house. Y wanted to steal the lottery money in X’s house. On that night, Y went to
the house of X. In order to enter the house, Y removed the jalousies of the window of X’s house. When Y was about to enter the house of
X, a barangay tanod saw Y. Thereafter, Y was apprehended by the barangay tanod before he could enter X’s house. Y was charged with
attempted robbery.
Q: Should X be convicted of attempted robbery?

A: NO. The act of Y in removing the jalousie window of X is not directly connected to the act of robbery. The act of removing the jalousies
of the window will not necessarily ripen in to the crime of robbery because once inside, Y may rape, may kill, may rob, etc.
Q: What is the liability of X, if any?

A: X is liable only for attempted trespass to dwelling. Removing the jalousie of the window is an overt act directly connected to trespass to
dwelling. It will necessarily ripen into the crime of trespass to dwelling. However, because the barangay tanod apprehended Y before he
could enter the house of X, he did not perform all the acts of execution by reason or some accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance.
Poeple vs. Lamahag (G.R. No. L-43530, August 3, 1935)

A person intending to rob a store made an opening on the wall of the store sufficient for his body to enter. His intention was to rob. Before
he could enter he was already apprehended.
Q: Can he be liable of attempted robbery?

A: NO. Because his OA of making an opening on the wall of the store is not an overt act directly connected to robbery. It is only an overt
act directly connected to trespassing. Hence, he can only be held liable for attempted trespassing.
Although his intention was to commit robbery, once inside he may rob, he may rape, he may kill, he may injure the owner of the store.
Therefore, it is not an act directly connected to robbery.
Baleros vs. People (G.R. No. 138033, February 22, 2006)

The woman was awakened by a man pressing a cloth soaked with chemical on her face. The man was on top of her, she struggled, she
was able to kick the man, the man jumped out of the window. She called on the guard and then everyone came up to her. The case filed
against the man was attempted rape. The man was convicted up to the CA of attempted rape.
Q: Was there attempted rape?

A: NO. The Supreme Court held that the overt act of pressing a cloth soaked with chemical on the face of a woman is not an overt act
directly connected to rape. The obvious intent was to make the woman unconscious but once the woman is made unconscious, the
man may rape, may touch the private parts of the woman, or he may injure the woman, or may rob the property of the woman.
Therefore he cannot be held liable for attempted rape.
GARCIA NOTES - CRIMINAL LAW 3an

When the overt act of a person is ambiguous in so far as the intended felony is committed, what we have is an attempt to commit
REVIEW [2018]
indeterminate offense which is a juridical standpoint insofar as the RPC is concerned
5
Indeterminate Offense
In indeterminate offense, the overt act of a person in relation to the intended felony is ambiguous. It is necessary that the overt act must
be necessarily connected to the felony. Only then he will be punished of the said attempted felony.
Rivera vs. People (G.R. No. 166326, January 25, 2006)

The victim was mauled, hit with hollow blocks, Rivera brothers were able to pin him down on the ground. Suddenly there was the siren
of the police, so the Rivera brothers fled. The medical certificate showed that the victim only suffered superficial injuries, only slight
physical injuries, yet they were charged of attempted murder.
Q: What is the criminal liability of the Rivera brother, if any?

A: The Rivera Brothers are liable for attempted murder. The first element was present, they boxed the victim, they mauled him, their
intention was to kill him. Second, they were not able to perform all acts of execution because of the arrival of the police. Therefore, the
non-consummation of the crime was because of a cause or accident other than the accused's own spontaneous desistance.
Q: Why attempted murder? Why not slight physical injuries?

A: Because there was intent to kill.
Determining Intent to Kill

The following are the factors to determine whether or not there is intent to kill;
1. Evidence of motive;
2. The nature and number of weapons used by the offender;
3. The nature, number and location of the wounds inflicted on the victim;
4. Manner of committing the crime;
5. Acts and statements made by the offender before, during and after the commission of the crime;
Example;
X and Y were fighting. In the course of the fight, X pulled out a gun. Upon seeing this, Y ran away from X. With intent to kill, X aimed the
gun towards Y and pulled the trigger. At the last minute, Y evaded the bullet.

Q: Is X liable for any crime?
A: YES. The crime committed was attempted homicide or murder as the case may be. Even if the victim was not hit, since the act of
discharging the firearm was with intent to kill the victim, it was already in the attempted stage. Such act of firing the fire arm was already
an OA directly connected to the act of homicide or murder as the case may be.
Example;
In the same problem, X aimed the gun towards Y and pulled the trigger. Y was hit in the right shoulder. Y safely got away. Upon medical
examination, the doctor said that Y’s wound will heal within 5 days.
Q: What crime was committed by X against Y?

A: X is liable for attempted homicide or murder as the case may be. The wound sustained was not fatal or not mortal. It requires another
act for the crime to be consummated. No one would die by a non- mortal or non-fatal wound.
Example;
A shot B with intent to kill. B was hit on a vital organ. So he sustained a fatal, mortal wound. However, he survived due to immediate
medical intervention.
Q: What crime was committed by A against B?

A: It is already frustrated homicide or murder as the case may be.
People v. Labiaga (G.R. No. 02867, July 15, 2013)

Accused Labiaga was in the house of Gregorio Conde when suddenly he shot Gregorio in the forearm. Gregorio shouted for help. One of
his daughters, Judy Conde, came to his rescue. However, the accused shot Judy to the stomach. Accused was charged with murder and
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES
frustrated murder. 3
REVIEW [2018] 5
Q: Whether or not the accused is guilty of frustrated murder against Gregorio Conde?
A: NO. Gregorio Conde failed to present prove that the wound he sustained was fatal. If the wound sustained by the victim is a not fatal or
not mortal, the crime is only in the attempted stage. The reason is that it is only when the wound sustained is mortal or fatal that it can be
said that the said offender has already performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony. However, the felony was not
produced by reason of a cause independent of his will that is the immediate medical intervention.
Example;
X and Y are enemies. In one instance, X saw Y outside his house. Angered, X took his father’s gun. The gun was not used for a long time.
Thereafter, X took aim and, with intent to kill, pulled the trigger of the gun. However, the gun did not fire the shot. X pulled the trigger four
times, yet no bullet came out. The gun was jammed.
Q: What is the liability of X, if any?

A: X is liable for homicide. The overt act of pointing the gun to Y is directly connected to the crime of homicide. However, the gun jammed.
X was prevented from performing all the acts of execution by some reason or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
Example;
X and Y are enemies. In one instance, X saw Y walking in the streets. X took out his gun from his house with the purpose of killing Y. X
aimed the gun at Y. At that very moment, Y’s son ran towards Y. Upon seeing the son, X did not shoot Y.
Q: What crime did X commit, if any?

A: Nothing. Although X commenced the commission of killing Y through overt acts, X did not perform all the acts of execution which
should produce the felony. Upon seeing the son of Y ran towards him, he voluntary and spontaneously desisted.
Attempted Felony v. Impossible Crime

ATTEMPTED FELONY IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
In attempted felony, the crime In impossible crime, the
may be accomplished; felony
cannot be accomplishment;
It is inherently impossible, or
It is not accomplished
the means employed is
by spontaneous
inadequate or ineffective;
desistance;
Example;
X and Y are enemies. In one instance, X saw Y outside his house. Angered, X took his gun out of his house. X took aim at Y and pulled
the trigger of the gun. However, the gun did not fire the shot. X pulled the trigger again, yet no bullet came out. Upon inspection, X found
out that the gun was not loaded with bullets.
Q: What crime did X commit, if any?

A: X is liable for an impossible crime. Had the gun been loaded with bullets, X would have committed the crime of murder. However,
because the gun had no bullets, it is inherently impossible to commit the crime of murder in any circumstance.
FRUSTRATED STAGE
There is frustrated felony when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but
which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
Elements:
In the case of People v. Badriago (G.R. No. 183566, May 8, 2009) the Supreme Court gave the elements of frustrated homicide;
1. The offender performs all the acts of executions;
2. All the acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence;
3. Felony is not produced;
4. By reason of cause or accident other than the will of the perpetrator;
Example;
A wanted to kill his own father to get his inheritance immediately and wanted to be rich. Went to drug store and bought poison. Before
going home, he went to the house of his friend and told his friend "tonight I will be rich, I will be poisoning my father, I will be a
millionaire." After telling that to his friend, A ran to his house. Upon reaching his house, he took the poison out of the plastic. Meanwhile,
the friend went to the police and told plan of A to kill the father. The friend and the police went to the house of A and the father. Upon
reaching the house, they saw A in the act of taking out the said poison from the plastic bag. A was arrested.
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES 3
REVIEW [2018] 5

Q: Is A liable of attempted parricide?
A: NO. He is not yet liable of attempted parricide. The act of buying poison, taking out of the plastic are only preparatory act. It is not yet
an overt act directly connected to parricide. He may use the poison not really to kill the father, he may use it to kill insects or pests.
Therefore, he cannot be liable of attempted parricide.
Example;
A mixed the poison to the juice of the father and then he gave it to his father. The father was about to drink the juice with poison.
However, since the father was clumsy, the glass fell from the hands of the father.

A: YES. He already liable. The moment he poured the poison in the juice of the father and he gave it to the father for him to drink, he
already performed an overt act directly connected to parricide. However, parricide was not consummated and he was not able to perform
all the acts of execution by reason of an accident. It was purely accidental because the father was clumsy and the glass slipped from his
hands.
Example;
In the same problem, after mixing the poison in the juice, he gave it to his father. The father was about to drink the juice with a poison
when A took pity on his father and had a change of heart. He immediately grabbed the juice and threw it on the garden.

A: NO. He is not liable of attempted parricide. The act of mixing of the poison with the juice is an overt act directly connected to parricide,
however, he was not able to perform all acts of execution by reason of his own spontaneous desistance. Therefore, he is absolved of
criminal liability. Because for one to be liable in the attempted stage, the reason for the non-consummation of the crime must not be his
own spontaneous desistance.
Example;
In the same problem, A mixed the poison with a juice and gave it to his father. The father drank the juice and was poisoned. Suddenly, he
was already showing signs of being poisoned, he was chilling. Upon seeing his father in that condition, A immediately administered an
antidote to his father, after that he immediately rushed his father to the hospital. The father survived. The doctor said, were it not for the
antidote given by the son, the father would have died.
Q: Is the son liable of attempted parricide?

A: NO. The moment the father drank the juice, all the acts for the performance of the crime has already been done. The offender has
already performed all acts of execution necessary to consummate the crime. However, the crime was not consummated.
Q: Is the son liable of frustrated parricide?

A: NO. In frustrated parricide although the offender has already performed all the acts of execution, the reason for the non- consummation
of the crime must be a cause independent of his will. The reason for the non-consummation of the crime is the own will of the son.
Therefore, the son is not liable of frustrated homicide.
Q: What is the liability of the son?
A: The son is liable of physical injuries depending on the required medical intervention. 1-9 days slight physical injuries. 10-30 days less
serious physical injuries, more than 30 days serious physical injuries.
NO FRSUTRATED THEFT
In the case of People vs. Valenzuela (G.R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007) the Supreme Court held that there is no such thing as frustrated
theft. Under Art. 308, theft is committed when the person takes the personal property of another with intent to gain without violence,
force or intimidation upon persons or things without the consent of the owner.
Theft can admit only either an attempted and consummated stage because the moment the offender gains possession of the personal
property of another, unlawful taking is already committed.
Even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the property and the moment the unlawful taking is complete, theft is already consummated.
Hence, there can be no instance of frustrated theft.
Example;
A woman went to Rustans and bought perfume. While she was sitting and the saleslady was taking the perfume in the counter, she saw
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES
a new line of lipsticks on a glass shelf. She went there but it was locked. Saw the key on the table and opened it, took one and slipped 3
in inside her bag, closed the glass, placed the key back on the table. The saleslady arrived and gave her the perfume. She was about to
REVIEW [2018]
leave Rustans when suddenly this certain device detected and made a sound, so the unpaid lipstick was discovered. 5
Q: What crime was committed by the woman?
A: The woman committed consummated Theft. Even if she has not yet left Rustans, the moment she took the lipstick from the glass
shelf, taking is already complete, theft is already consummated.
In the same problem, woman took a lipstick and slipped it inside her bag. Suddenly she has a change of heart. She took the lipstick
from her back and placed it back on the glass shelf and the closed the glass and locked it.
Q: Did the woman commit any crime?

A: YES. She is already liable of consummated theft. The moment she took the lipstick from the glass shelf and placed it inside her bag,
taking is already complete, therefore, theft is already consummated. Her change of heart would not amount to desistance. Too late.
Desistance will only lie in the attempted stage but never in the consummated nor in the frustrated stage.
Q: What is the effect of returning back the lipstick?

A: There will only be NO civil liability. She will not be made to pay the lipstick because she returned it but nevertheless, she is already
liable for consummated theft because unlawful taking is already committed.
Example;
In the same case, the woman opened the glass shelf. She was about to take the lipstick when suddenly there was this hand placed on
top of her hand before she could even get the lipstick. Unknown to her, her acts were being seen on a CCTV camera and the head of
the administrative office immediately went to her upon seeing that she was about to take the lipstick.

Q: Is the woman liable of any crime?
A: Yes. She is already liable of attempted theft. A note was posted on the glass shelf saying, do not open, ask for assistance. The moment
she opened it with use of the key, it shows her intent to gain. It is on the attempted stage because she has not yet taken possession of the
personal property of another.
NO FRUSTRATED RAPE
In the case of People v. Pareja (G.R. No. 188979, September 5, 2012) the Supreme Court held that rape is consummated by the slightest
penile penetration of the labia majora or pudendum of the female organ. Without any showing of such penetration, there can be no
consummated rape; at most, it can only be attempted rape or acts of lasciviousness.”
Example;
A woman was raped. She filed a case of rape against the man. In her open court testimony, she said she was not sure if the penetration
was complete. Likewise in the medical certificate it shows that her hymen was not lacerated, it was intact.
Q: Can the said man be liable of consummated rape?

A: YES. According to the Supreme Court, rape does not admit of any frustrated stage. Rape is consummated the moment the penis has
touched the lips or the labia of the pudendum of a woman's genitalia. It is not necessary that there is full or complete penetration nor a
hymenal laceration. The hymen may remain intact yet rape can be committed because what is required is the penis must touch lips or the
labia.
People vs. Lizada (G.R. No. 143468-71, January 24, 2003)

The man was still in his shorts. His penis has not yet even touch the genitalia of the girl. He only touched the private parts of the girl.
Q: How come the conviction was for attempted rape and not mere acts of lasciviousness?
A: The Supreme Court convicted the accused of attempted rape taking into consideration the 3 other consummated rape that has been
done by the stepfather on the daughter. Considering that in these 3 former acts rape had been consummated, the obvious intent of the
stepfather is to rape the girl. It just so happen that he saw the son peeping and so he went out of the room. That is the reason given.
* If that is the reason given without the said facts that there has been consummated rape for the past 3 acts, it should only be acts of
lasciviousness or at least attempted rape if there in an intent to lie. In the case, the stepfather was still in his shorts, the penis has not yet
touched even the outer portion of a woman's genitalia. Absent the facts that there were 3 former consummated rape, it should only be
- CRIMINAL LAW
acts of lasciviousness. Because to amount to at least attempted stage, it is necessary that the penis must touch at least the outer portion
GARCIA NOTES 3
to show intent to lie. The man was still in his shorts, how can you know that there was intent to lie. It is only a different ruling because
REVIEW [2018]
there were 3 previous consummated rape and the SC considered all these saying that the obvious intent of the stepfather was also to
rape the daughter. 5
Acts of Lasciviousness v. Attempted Rape
Intent to have carnal

There is no intent to have
knowledge with the girl
carnal knowledge of the
is
girl;
evident;
MATERIAL CRIMES
Material crimes are crimes which admits stages of attempted, frustrated, and consummated.
FORMAL CRIMES
Formal crimes are crimes which does not admit any stages. It only punishes a consummated stage.
The following are considered formal crimes;

1. Physical injuries;
2. Slander;
3. Adultery;
--xXx--
Art. 7. When light felonies are punishable. — Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated,
with the exception of those committed against person or property.
The following are light felonies;

1. Slight Physical Injuries; (Art. 266)
2. Theft; (Art. 309, Par. 7 and 8)
3. Alteration of boundary marks; (Art. 313)
4. Malicious Mischief; (Art. 328, par. 3, Art. 329, par. 3)
5. Intriguing against honor;
As a rule, light felonies are punishable only when they are on their consummated stage. Unless the crime is committed against person
or property
Q: Why are attempted and frustrated felonies not punishable?

A: Light felonies produces such light, such insignificant, moral and material injuries. If they are not consummated, the wrong done is so
slight that there is no need of providing a penalty at all.
Q: What is the reason for the exception?

A: The commission of felonies against persons or property presupposes in the offender moral depravity.
--xXx--
Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. — Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only
in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it.
There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person
or persons.
Conspiracy v. Proposal.

ACTS OF ATTEMPTED RAPE
LASCIVIOUSNESS
Likewise, the penis only
The penis only touched
touched the outer portion
the outer portion of the
of
vagina;
the vagina;

REVIEW [2018] 5

General Rule – not punishable as an act;
Exception – unless the law especially provides for their
penalty;
CONSPIRACY AS A CRIME
If conspiracy or proposal to commit a crime are provided in penalties by law, it is not necessary that there be an overt act committed. The
mere act of conspiring or proposing will already give rise to a crime.
The following are conspiracies as a crime;

1. Conspiracy to commit treason;
2. Conspiracy to commit rebellion;
3. Conspiracy to commit sedition;
4. Conspiracy to commit terrorism; (Special Penal Laws)
It is not necessary that there be overt acts. They are punishable acts by themselves.
Example;
A, B, C, D, and E come to an agreement to take up arms and overthrow the government and stir public uprising. They already bought
guns and other pieces of equipment. However, before they could execute their plan, they were apprehended.
Q: Are A, B, C, D, and E criminally liable?

A: YES. They were liable for the crime of conspiracy to commit rebellion. Even though they were not able to execute their plan, conspiring
to overthrow the government is already a felony which makes them criminally liable.
Example;
A, B, C, D, and E come to an agreement to kidnap X and thereafter exchange him for ransom. However, before they could execute their
plan, all of them were arrested.
Q: Did A, B, C, D, and E incur criminal liability?

A: NO. There is no crime of conspiracy to commit kidnapping for ransom. A, B, C, D, and E di not incur criminal liability.
OVERT ACT IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY

1. Active participation in the crime itself;
2. Lending moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the commission of the crime;
3. Exerting moral ascendancy on the other co-conspirators;
CONSPIRACY AS A MEANS OF COMMITTING A CRIME

If conspiracy is only a means of committing a crime it is not yet a punishable act. The mere act of conspiring will make the offenders co-
conspirators but they are not yet punishable, they are not yet criminally liable.
Elements
In the case of People v. Castillo (G.R. No. 132895, March 10, 2004)
conspiracy is established by the presence of two factors;
1. Singularity of intent;
2. Unity in the execution of the unlawful objective;
2 kinds of Conspiracy as a means of committing a crime

1. Direct or express conspiracy;
2. Implied or Inferred Conspiracy;
- CRIMINAL LAW
Direct or Express Conspiracy
GARCIA NOTES
There is direct or express conspiracy when the offenders or conspirators met, planned, agreed, decided to commit a crime. There is a 3
preconceived plan prior to the commission of the crime.
REVIEW [2018] 5
For one to be criminally liable of direct or express conspiracy, the following elements must be present;
1. There is a prior agreement or preconceived plan;
2. Presence at the time of the commission of the crime;
Even if he is part of the agreement if at the time of the commission of the crime he failed to appear, such failure on his part to appear at
the scene of the crime would be construed by law as a desistance. Therefore, even if he part of the agreement he will not be liable as a
conspirator.
Example;
A, B and C decided to kill X on a particular date and time. On the said date and time, A and B arrived and killed X. However, C failed to
appear.
Q: Is C liable for the death of X?

A: NO. Although C was part of the agreement, he cannot be held criminally liable as a conspirator for the crime of murder because he
failed to appear at the scene of the crime. His failure to appear is construed by law as a desistance on his part.
Example;
In the same problem but all were present. A and B were about to kill X but C performed acts preventing A and B from committing the
crime.
Q: Is C criminally liable as a conspirator for the crime of murder?
A: NO. Since C performed acts trying to prevent A and B from committing the crime, he cannot be held criminally liable as a conspirator
for the crime of murder in the said case.
General Rule;
Conspirators are liable only for the crime agreed upon. They are not liable for any crime which is not agreed upon.
Exceptions;
1. When the other crime was committed in the presence of the other conspirators and they did not perform acts to prevent its
commission;
2. When the other crime committed was the natural consequence of the crime agreed upon; and
3. When the resulting crime is a composite crime or a special complex crime or a single indivisible complex crime;
Example;
A, B and C decided to kill X. Went to the place where X will be passing at night time. When they saw X, A B and C surrounded X and
they all stabbed X. When X was lying on the ground, A and B left. C remained and took the valuables of X.
Q: What is or are the criminal liabilities of A, B and C?

A: A, B and C are all liable for the crime of murder as conspirators because it is the crime agreed upon. However, only C will be liable
for the crime of theft. A and B cannot be held liable for the crime of theft because theft was not a crime agreed upon by all of them.

Also, theft was committed in the absence of A and B. There was no opportunity for A and B to stop C in theft. Therefore, only C will be
held liable for theft.
Example;
In the same problem, C took the valuables of X in the presence of A and B. While he was taking them, A said what about the cellphone, B
what about the ring, here take it also.

A: Although theft was not a crime agreed upon, all of them will be held liable of the crime of theft because although theft was not agreed
upon, it was committed in the presence of A and B and they did not perform acts to prevent C from committing theft.
REVIEW
Example; [2018] 5
A, B and C decided to injure X to teach him a lesson. When X arrived, they surrounded him, boxed, punched, hit X. While X was lying on
the ground, seriously wounded, A inflicted a fatal wound by kicking the neck of X. X died.
Q: Who is liable for the death of X?

A:All of them are criminally liable for the death of X. They all agreed to injure X. That was their agreement. The death of X however was
the natural consequence of their agreement to injure X. Therefore, even if it is not their intended act, since it is the natural consequence of
the crime, they are all criminally liable for the death of X.
Example;
A, B and C decided to rob the house of X. They went inside the house of X. They have already taken the valuables. On their way out
however, C pushed a chair. The chair fell on floor and created a noise. The owner of the house was awakened and began shouting upon
seeing A, B and C. C shot the owner of the house. The owner died.

A: The crime agreed upon was robbery. However, by reason or on the occasion of robbery, homicide was committed. Therefore, the
resulting felony is a special complex crime.
Under Art. 294 it is robbery with homicide. Since the resulting felony is a special complex crime, which cannot be separated from each
other, all of them can be held criminally liable of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
People vs. Carandang, Milan and Chua (G.R. No. 175926, July 6, 2011) All of them were charged of 2 counts of murder and 1 count of
frustrated murder. The only participation of Milan was to close the door. It was only Carandang who shot the 3 police officers. Chua
instructed Milan to finish the 3rd police officer and Milan followed him.
Q: Is there conspiracy among the accused?

A: YES. The Supreme Court held that although the participation of Milan was only to close the door, Chua was only to order Milan to
shoot the 3rd police officer, such act of Chua showed that he exercised moral ascendancy over Milan. Therefore, since what is present
here is a prior agreement to kill the police officers, mere exercise of moral ascendancy will already make one a conspirator. It is not
necessary that they actually participate in the execution of the crime. Thus, all of them are held criminally liable.
In People vs. Garchitorena (G.R. No. 131357, August 28, 2009), the Supreme Court held that direct proof is not necessary for one to
become a conspirator because conspiracy can be proven from the acts done or performed prior, during or subsequent to the
Example;
A, B and C alighted in the house of X, they were all armed with armalites. They all went in front of the door. A knocked at the door.
When X opened the door, B fired at X. X fell on the floor. C kicked his body inside and closed the door. All of them left still armed.
Q: Are they all conspirators for the murder of X?

A: YES. It is evident here that there is a pre conceived plan prior to the commission of the crime. Although the only participation of A
was to knock at the door and the only participation of C was to close the door, it was obvious, there was a pre conceived plan. All of the,
arrived at the same time armed with armalites. They went in front of the door, one knocked, one fired, one closed the door, left together
still armed. All of these showed that there was a pre conceived plan to kill X. As such they are all liable as conspirators regardless of the
quantity and quality of their participation.
Implied or Inferred Conspiracy

Implied or inferred conspiracy is deduced from the mode and manner of committing the crime, there is no pre-conceived plan but the
offenders acted simultaneously in a synchronized and coordinated manner, their acts complimenting one another towards a common
criminal objective or design. T
It may happen that the conspirators do not know each other. Since the offenders acted in a synchronized and coordinated manner, a
conspiracy was established instantly, impulsively, at the spur of the moment.
Example;
X was trying to stab Y. Y evaded all the blows. Z saw that X was having a hard time stabbing Y. Z was an enemy of Y. So Z went at the
back of Y and held both hands of Y at the back and told X to stab Y which X did.
Q: Was there conspiracy between Z and X?

A: YES. An implied conspiracy was established, instantly, impulsively, at the spur of the moment. There was no pre conceived plan but
the act of Z of holding the hands of Y is a direct and positive overt act showing that he has the same criminal design as That of X which
is to kill Y.
REVIEW [2018] 5 in
In case of implied conspiracy, for one to be considered as a conspirator, it is necessary that the offender have an active participation
the commission of the crime.
Mere presence at the scene of the crime, mere approval, mere acquiescence, mere knowledge of the commission of the crime will not
make one a conspirator absent any active participation. Because the basis is on the acts performed by the offender. Unlike a
preconceived plan there was a prior agreement, therefore mere presence or exercise of moral ascendancy will make one a conspirator.
In implied the conspiracy is established based on the acts performed. Therefore, if you do not perform an act, if you are merely present
then you cannot be held a conspirator.

Example;
X was trying to stab Y. When Z saw that X was stabbing Y he shouted "sige tirahin mo pa, sa kaliwa sa kanan..." X kept on stabbing Y.
Q: Was there conspiracy between Z and X?

A: NO. Absent any active participation, mere approval, mere acquiescence, mere knowledge of the commission of the crime will not make
one a conspirator in case of implied or inferred conspiracy.
PENALTY BETWEEN CONSPIRATORS

When conspiracy is established whether direct or express, implied or inferred, the act of one is the act of all. Therefore, all the
perpetrators in the crime will have one and the same penalty. The same penalty will be imposed regardless of the quantity and quality of
the participation. The moment conspiracy is established, it is immaterial to determine who inflicted because all of them will have the same
penalty.
If however, conspiracy is not established, the penalty will be individual in nature depending on the act that they performed.
Example;
X and Y were fighting. X punched Y so hard, he fell down. Thereafter, X pulled out a knife with intent to kill Y. However, instead of stabing
Y, X stabbed the ground instead. Afterwards, X left. Not long after, X’s brother came out of nowhere and stabbed Y to death.
Q: Was there conspiracy between X and his brothers?

A: NO. In the problem, there was no prior agreement between X and his brothers. Furthermore, X already left when his brothers appeared
and repeatedly stabbed Y.
Q: What is the criminal liability of X and his brothers?

A: X is guilty of physical injuries because he had no intent to kill Y. However, X’s brothers being conspirators of each other, are equally
guilty for themurder of Y.
People vs. Bokingco (G.R. No. 187356, August 10, 2011)

Bokingco killed Pasyon inside the apartment. At the time that he was killing, Reynante was inside the main house, he was asking the wife
to open the vault of the pawnshop. After killing the husband, Bokingco called Reynante and said "tara na, patay na siya!" They fled at the
same time. They were both charged for the crime of murder. Convicted both of murder in the CA.
Q: Was there conspiracy between Bokingco and Reynante?

A: NO. The Supreme Court held that there was no conspiracy between Bokingco and Reynante in killing the husband. While one is killing
the victim the other was trying to commit another crime. They did not act in a synchronized and coordinated manner. There was no
evidence that there was a pre conceived plan because one was committing another crime different from the other.
They are one in escaping but not in the commission of the crime. Since conspiracy was not established, the most that is established is that
they planned to commit 2 crimes simultaneously at the same time. But the charge was only murder, there was no charge for robbery.
Therefore, Bokingco was convicted, Reynante was acquitted of the crime of murder. So absent any evidence of conspiracy, the liability is
individual.
2
KINDS OF MULTIPLE CONSPIRACY
There are two kinds of multiple conspiracy;
1. Wheel or Circle Conspiracy;
2. Chain Conspiracy;
Wheel or Circle Conspiracy

Wheel or Circle Conspiracy exist when a single person or group of persons known as a hub, deals individually with another person or
group of persons known as the spokes.
Chain Conspiracy
Chain Conspiracy usually involving the distribution of narcotics or other contraband, in which there is successive communication and
cooperation in much the same way as with legitimate business operations between manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler and
retailer, and then retailer and consumer.
In Fernan vs. People (G.R. No. 145927, August 24, 2007) The Supreme Court held that what is present is a wheel or circle conspiracy.
4 persons headed by the chief accountant acted as the hub. They enticed all other 36 employees of the DPWH to be one with them in
committing fraud against the government. They falsified LAA's and would negotiate it at a certain percentage, then one of them would
compute the general voucher, funds then will be issued as if materials will be delivered for the construction. Fernan and Torevillas were
civil engineers of the DPWH, they signed tally sheets, saying that there were deliveries when in fact these were ghost deliveries. No
actual deliveries of the materials.
CONSPIRACY IN SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

Conspiracy may be appreciated in Special Penal Laws if the law specifically provides therein.
Morillo v. People (G.R. No. 189833, February 5, 2014)

Mayor Mitra was traversing a road in his starex when he encountered a check point. He was allowed to pass without undergoing a
checkpoint. Mayor Mitra was followed by an ambulance driven by Morilla. Morilla was flagged down in the checkpoint and upon
inspection, bags of shabu were found in his possession. Morilla said he is with Mayor Mitra. The police officers then pursued the vehicle
of Mayor Mitra and upon inspection, bags of shabu were found in the starex.
Q: Was there a conspiracy between Mayor Mitra and Morilla?

A: YES. The Supreme Court held that the accused Mitra and Morilla committed the crime of transportation of illegal substance through
conspiracy. Morilla himself admitted that he was with Mayor Mitra. This admission was enough to establish conspiracy between them.
Go Tan v. Tan (G.R. No. 168852, September 30, 2008)

Sharica and Steven were lawfully married. However, during their marriage, Sharica filed a temporary protection order against Steven
and her in-laws. She argued that Steven and her in-laws were acting in conspiracy in causing her physical and psychological abuse in
violation of R.A. 9262 known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act. The in-laws argued that they are not proper party
to the case because R.A. 9262 is filed only against the husband, boyfriend, or intimate partner of the woman.
Q: Whether or not R.A. 9262 may be filed against the in-laws?

A: YES. R.A. 9262 allows suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code. Hence. The i-laws may likewise be charged of violation of
R.A. 9262 if they acted in conspiracy with the husband or the man.
--xXx--
Art. 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light felonies.

— Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are
afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of this Code.
Less Grave Felonies

Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with
the above-mentioned Article
Light Felonies
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which a penalty of arrest menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both;
is provided.
REVIEW [2018] 5
3 kinds of felonies according to severity
1. Grave felonies;
2. Less grave felonies;
3. Light felonies;
--xXx--
Art. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code.

— Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This
Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary.
Example;
What if a person convicted of a violation of a SPL? A issued a check to B for payment of an obligation. B deposited but the check
bounced. Notice of dishonor was sent. After the trial on the merits, A was found guilty of the violation of BP 22 beyond reasonable doubt.
Fine and payment of the value of the check. The court said in case of non payment of the fine, the said convict shall suffer subsidiary
imprisonment.
Q: Can a person who violated a SPL and was imposed with fine be made to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of non
payment of fine?
A: YES. There is no provision in B.P. 22 prohibiting the application of the Revised Penal Code, then the RPC shall apply suppletorily or
supplementarily to the provisions of Special Penal Law unless the Special Penal Law provides otherwise.
Example of "unless"
Sec. 98 of RA 9165. It is expressly provided that the provisions of the RPC shall not apply to the violations RA 9165 or the 2002
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. The law uses the word shall.
Exception;
If the offender is a minor. In that case if the minor is penalized with life imprisonment to death, it will be considered as reclusion perpetua
to death and the nomenclature of the penalties in the RPC will now be applied
--xXx--
Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do not incur any criminal liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur;
First. Unlawful aggression.
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural
or adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those consanguinity within the fourth civil
degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the
further requisite, in case the revocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and second requisites
mentioned in the first circumstance of this Article are present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge,
resentment, or other evil motive.
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes damage to another, provided that the
following requisites are present;
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT THE LIABILITY OF THE OFFENDER

The following circumstances affects the criminal liability of the offender;
1. Justifying circumstances; (Art. 11)
2. Exempting circumstances; (Art. 12)
3. Mitigating Circumstances; (Art. 13)
4. Aggravating Circumstances; (Art. 14)
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
Justifying circumstances are those where the acts of the actor are in accordance with the law, thus he incurs no criminal liability. Since
there is no crime, there is no criminal and civil liability.
Effect of Invoking Justifying Circumstance

The moment the offender or the accused invokes any of the acts amounting to justifying circumstance, he is in effect admitting the
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES
commission of the crime. But he wanted to evade criminal liability by invoking justifying circumstances. 4
REVIEW [2018] 5
Example;
A killed B. A case of homicide was filed against A. A pleaded not guilty during the arraignment. During the pre-trial, the counsel of A
invoked self-defense. The moment the counsel said that their defense is self- defense, a kind of justifying circumstance, the procedure
in trial would be inverted.

Inverted Trial
As a rule it is the prosecution that must first present evidence, it is only after the prosecution has presented evidence that the defense
would present evidence.
If however the defense invoke any of the justifying circumstances, the trial will be inverted. It is the defense that must first present
evidence. Because he in effect admits the commission of the crime. He only wanted to avoid liability by saying that his act was justifying.
Burden to Prove Justifying Circumstance

Therefore the burden of evidence is upon the defense to prove all the elements, all the requisites of the justifying circumstance that he is
invoking.
If the defense failed to prove the evidence or requisites of justifying circumstance that he is invoking, that will amount to conviction
because he already admitted to the commission of the crime.
SELF-DEFENSE
Self-defense is not limited to one’s life. The following is the scope of self-defense;
1. Defense of life;
2. Defense of honor or chastity;
3. Defense of property provided that it is coupled with an attack on the person entrusted with the said property;
Elements of Self-defense
The following are the elements of self-defense;
1. Unlawful Aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself;
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
Unlawful Aggression is an attack with physical force or with a weapon as to cause injury or danger to life or personal safety. Unlawful
aggression must come from the victim.
Unlawful aggression I the primordial requisite which must at all times be present. When unlawful aggression is absent, there is no self-
defense whether complete or incomplete.
Elements of unlawful aggression

In the case of People v. Dulin (G.R. No. 171284, June 29, 2015), the Supreme Court provided the elements of unlawful aggression;
1. There must be physical or material attack or assault;
2. The attack or assault must be actual or at least imminent;
3. The attack or assault must be unlawful;
Kinds of Unlawful Aggression

In the case of People v. Fontanilla (G.R. No. 177743, January 25, 2012), the Supreme Court held that there are two kinds of unlawful
aggression;
1. Actual or Material Unlawful Aggression;
2. Imminent Unlawful Aggression;
Actual or material unlawful Aggression means an attack with physical force or with a weapon, an offensive act that positively determines
the intent of the aggressor to cause the injury.
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES
Imminent unlawful aggression means an attack that is impending or at the point of happening; it must not consist in a mere threatening
4
attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary, but must be offensive and positively strong
REVIEW [2018] 5
Test for unlawful aggression
In the same case of People v. Dulin, the Supreme Court held that that the test for unlawful aggression under the circumstance is
whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defending himself. The peril must not be
an imaginary threat.
Example;
X was walking along the street. Suddenly, Y went up to him. Y pointed a gun towards X. Y commanded X to give him his wallet, watch,
and cellphone otherwise he will stab him. X gave his cellphone and his wallet. When X was about to give his watch, he suddenly
grabbed the gun from Y. Now with the possession of the gun, X ordered Y to give him back his cellphone and wallet. Instead of giving X
back his belongings, Y ran away. Thereafter, X fired a shot against Y, hitting Y in his knee. Unable to run, X approached Y and
thereafter took his belongings. X left. Thereafter, X was charged with physical injury. X argued self-defense.
Q: Is X liable for physical injury

A: NO. Although X already gained possession of the gun, the unlawful aggression did not cease. The unlawful aggression continued
because Y still had the property of X. Had X not shot Y in the knee, Y would have gotten away with the property of X.
REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO PREVENT OR REPEL IT.

When you say reasonable necessity, what the law requires is rational equality or rational equivalence as determined by the emergency.
Rational is the means employed. Rationally necessary to prevent or repel it.
Reasonable necessity does not necessarily mean that when the aggressor makes use of a bolo, the person defending must also make
use of a bolo.
Factors of Reasonable Necessity

Factors to be considered in order to be said that the means employed is rationally necessary are the following;
1. Nature and the number of the weapon used by the aggressor;
2. Physical condition, size, weight and other personal circumstances of the aggressor versus that of the person defending himself;
3. Place and location of the assault;
All of these would determine if the means employed of the person defending himself is reasonably necessary to prevent or repel the
aggression.
LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION

There must be lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
Provocation
Provocation refers to any immoral act or conduct, unjustified act or conduct which stirs a person to do wrong.

Sufficient Provocation
Sufficient Provocation refers to an act which is adequate to stir a person to do the wrongful act and when it is proportionate to the gravity
of the act.
No Sufficient Provocation
The following circumstances show that there is no sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself;
1. When no provocation at all was given;
2. When although provocation was given, it was not sufficient;
3. When although the provocation was sufficient, it did come from the person defending himself; and
4. Although provocation came from the person defending himself, it is not immediate or imminent to the aggression;
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES 4
Example;
REVIEW [2018]
A saw his enemy B. B was fast approaching to A with a gun on his hand. Upon seeing that B was about 10 feet away, A immediately 5
pulled out his balisong and he spin B who was hit on the neck and died.
Q: Was there unlawful aggression?

A: NO. There was no unlawful aggression. The mere act of holding a gun will not constitute imminent and immediate danger on the life of
the person unless the said gun is aimed at the said person. Same with bolo or any weapon. If it is just being held by a person, it will not
yet produce any imminent or immediate danger.
For a bolo to produce imminent and immediate danger, it must be held in a hacking position. Only then that it will produce unlawful
aggression.
In the example, B was only walking with a gun on his hand and it was not yet pointed or aimed to the offender. Therefore, there was no
unlawful aggression. Therefore, A should be convicted of homicide. Self-defense would not lie in his favor.
People v. Regalario (G.R. No. 174483, March 31, 2009)

The offended party or the victim, Roland shot allegedly the barangay official Ramon. Ramon hit the back of the head of Roland with an ice
pick and continued hitting him so he would not gain balance. When the accused hit the victim whatever inceptive unlawful aggression has
been started by the victim, it has already ceased to exist. Therefore, the accused has no more right to wound or kill the victim.
The Supreme Court held that the moment the inceptive unlawful aggression cease to exist, the person defending himself must not kill or
wound the aggressor. Retaliation is not a justifying circumstance.
Example;
W and H are husband and wife. One early morning, the husband left the house to go fishing. N, the neighbor, upon seeing that the
husband left, snuck into the house of H and W. N proceeded to the bedroom and found W still sleeping. N proceeded to have carnal
knowledge of W. Thinking that it was the husband, W allowed N to finish. When N finished, he dressedhimself up and he told the W,
"salamat! ". Upon hearing the voice, the W realized that he is not the husband. W immediately jumped out of the bed, took the bolo and
hacked N. N died. W was prosecuted for homicide. She invoked self- defense, particularly defense of honor and chastity.
Q: Was there self-defense?
A: NO. There was no self-defense. The unlawful aggression already ceased to exist because the sexual congress was already finished.
There was no more honor to protect.
Q: If you were the judge, would you convict or acquit the accused? A: YES, I would convict the accused for the crime of homicide,
but I will give the said victim the mitigating circumstances of immediate vindication of a grave offense and sudden impulse of passion
and obfuscation. This to lower the imposable penalty.
Example;
A tried to stab B. B evaded the blow. In the course of said struggle, B gained possession of the bolo or gun and fired at A. A died.
Q: Was there self-defense?

A: NO. Even if the unlawful aggression was started by A, the moment B gained possession of the bolo or gun, the unlawful aggression
has already ceased to exist. There was no more danger on the life of B. so when B fired, it was not an act of retaliation which is
justifying circumstance.
Example;
A woman was on her way home. Suddenly a man appeared, boxed her, dragged her on a portion of a vacant lot, boxed her again,
pinned her down, undressed her. When the man stood up to undressed himself, the woman took the moment to get the balisong in her
bag. When the man placed himself on top of the woman, the woman stabbed the man. The man died. Prosecuted for homicide. The
woman invoked self-defense particularly defense of one’s honor and chastity.
Q: Is there self-defense?
A: YES. There was unlawful aggression since the man boxed the woman, dragged her, undressed her, pinned her down. This is
unlawful aggression sufficient to mean that she would be raped. 2nd, it is reasonably necessary for the woman to make use of the
balisong because although the said man has no arms, you must take into consideration of the personal circumstances of the woman
versus that of the man, the physical circumstances. Likewise, you must take into consideration the place and the occasion. It was 3
o'clock in the morning, nobody could give help to the woman. The only means she could do to help herself and prevent the act of rape
would be to stab the man. Lastly, there was lack sufficient provocation because the woman was merely walking on her way home.
Absolutely there was no sufficient provocation coming from the woman. Therefore, the woman was justified in killing the man. She acted
in self-defense.
GARCIA
Example; - CRIMINAL LAW
NOTES 4
When the father went home, his son was crying. When he was asked by his father why he was crying, he said he was slapped by the
REVIEW [2018]
neighbor. When he was asked why he was slapped, the son did not answer. The father decided to inquire from the neighbor why he 5
slapped his son. Such inquiry angered the neighbor. The neighbor who was at that time was gardening tried to hit the father with a rake
that he was using for gardening. The first blow and the second blow were evaded. The neighbor tried to hit again the father for the third
time, the father saw a pointed stick on the ground, took it and stabbed the neighbor. The neighbor suffered a fatal wound, brought to the
hospital and survived. The father was prosecuted for frustrated homicide. He invoked self-defense.

Q: may the father invoke self-defense in order to be exempt from the criminal liability frustrated homicide?
A: YES. There was unlawful aggression because the neighbor tried to hit him with a rake 3 times. There was an image of danger from his
life. 2nd, the means was reasonable and necessary because tThe father went to the house of the neighbor without any arms and at the
time he was attacked, he just saw a pointed stick. That is the only means that he could avail at the moment to protect himself. Lastly,
there was lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the father. The act of the father inquiring from the neighbor why he slapped his son
was an act within his right. It cannot be considered as sufficient provocation. It is the right of the father to know why his son was hurt or
injured by the neighbor.
Toledo vs. People (G.R. No. 158057, September 24, 2004)

The Supreme Court held that there is no such thing as accidental self- defense. You cannot invoke self-defense and accident at the same
time. Because in self-defense it is direct and positive overt act in the name of self-preservation. The offender killed the victim so as to
preserve his own life. It is direct and positive. It cannot be done out of accident imminence. Therefore, it is inconsistent with accident.
Stand Ground When in the Right

The reason behind self-defense stand ground when in the right. Stand ground in the right means that where the said accused is where he
should be and his assailant is fast approaching, the law does not require him to retreat because the moment he retreats he runs the risk of
being stabbed at the back.
DEFENSE OF A RELATIVE
Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or
sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and
second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the revocation was given
by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.
Elements
The following are the elements of defense of a relative;
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making the defense had no part therein;
Even if the relative, who was defended by the offender, was the one provoked the offended party, the offender should took no part in the
provocation in said situation so as to justify the defense of a relative.
Example;
H and W are husband and wife. C is the first cousin of W. In one instance, H saw C arguing with D. During that argument, D was about to
stab C. Thereafter, H immediately grabbed a stone and approached
D. H hit D with a stone. D sustained a fatal wound however he survived. H was charged with frustrated homicide. H argues defense of
relative.
Q: is H’s argument of defense of relative tenable?

A: NO. The law says that a person may defend the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, or
adopted
brothers and sisters, or relative by affinity within the same degree. Although C is the first cousin of W and thus related to H by affinity, C
is not of the same degree mentioned by the provision. C is neither the ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or
sister of W. Thus, the defense of relative is untenable.
Q: Are there other defenses which H can use?

A: YES. Although, C is not of the same degree as that mentioned by law, H can still argue defense of a stranger since C in this case is
a stranger.
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES 4
REVIEW [2018]
DEFENSE OF A STRANGER
Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and second requisites mentioned in the first 5
circumstance of this Article are present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
Elements
The following are the elements of defense of a stranger;
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack;
3. The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or motive;
The 3rd element requires that the said offender must be disinterested and not induced by any other motive, otherwise, defense of a
stranger will not lie.
Example;
What if one night, A and B were on board a jeepney. Said jeepney was flagged down by X. Upon reaching a dark portion of the street, X
pulled a balisong and declared a hold-up. X poked A with his balisong and said “give me your cellphone”. A did not want to give her
cellphone to X. X was about to stab A when B, upon seeing that the latter was about to stab B, immediately kicked X out of the jeepney.
X, who fell from the jeepney suffered physical injuries. B was prosecuted for serious physical injuries. B invoked defense of a stranger.
Q: Is B be criminally liable for serious physical injuries?

A: NO. The elements of defense of a stranger is present. 1st, there was unlawful aggression because X was about to stab A because A
did not want to give her Cellphone. 2nd, there was reasonable necessity of the means employed because B was unarmed. All that he did
was he kicked X out of the jeepney. It was necessary for him to do said act in order for him to prevent the aggression. Lastly, in the
problem, there was no showing that B knows X, so it cannot be said that B is induced by any motive.
STATE OF NECESSITY
As a rule, it is noted that justifying circumstances are exempt from criminal as well as civil liability. However, this paragraph of Article 11
is an exception when it comes to civil liability. Although he is not criminally liable, he is civilly liable;
Civil liability is born not only by the accused, but all those people who benefitted in this state of emergence. Under Art. 101 of the RPC,
“In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Art 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in
proportion to the benefit which they may have received.

Elements
The following are the elements of state of necessity;
1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
2. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
3. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it;
Example;
A pregnant woman met an accident. She was immediately brought to the hospital. Because of the said dire situation, the doctor who was
in charge of the pregnant woman has to make a decision, that is to save only one life, either the life of the woman or the baby that she is
carrying. The doctor chose to save the life of the woman. Because of that, the fetus died. Prosecuted for abortion, the doctor invoked the
doctrine of state of necessity.
Q: Is the doctor liable for abortion?

A: NO. The elements of state of necessity are all present. The evil sought to be avoided actually exist because the life of the baby and the
mother is in danger. 2nd, The injury (death of the pregnant woman) is greater than that of the death of the fetus. Lastly, there was no other
less practical or harmful means of preventing it. The situation was an emergency. The woman had no relatives with her so the doctor has
to decide immediately—either to save the life of the mother or the fetus. Therefore the doctor should be absolved from criminal liability.
Example;
What if on a taxi a family was on board. Said taxi was traversing ESDA during night time. Suddenly, without any warning, a truck appeared
in front of him. If he would go forward, he would be hitting the buses. If he swerved to the right, he would be hitting bystanders. If he
swerved to the left, he would hit a store. So the taxi driver chose to swerve to the left, hit the store thereby causing damage. Prosecuted
for reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property, the taxi driver invoked the 4th justifying circumstances.
REVIEW
Q: [2018]
Is the taxi criminally liable for reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property?
5
A: NO. The elements are all present. 1st, the evil sought to be avoided actually exist because there was a collision. 2nd , the injury feared
(death) was greater than that done. Lastly, there was no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it. Aside from these 3
requisites stated by the law, it should be added that the necessity must not be due to the negligence or violation of the law by the actor. In
this case, there was a warning to the taxi driver not to enter the street, yet he proceeded. It is through his negligence that caused the state
of necessity, therefore he is criminally and civilly liable.
FULFILMENT OF A DUTY OR IN A LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE

Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
Elements:
The following are the elements of fulfillment of a duty or in a lawful exercise of office;
1. Accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office;
2. Injury caused or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such
right or office;
It is important to note that the injury is the necessary consequence of the lawful exercise of duty.
OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED BY A SUPERIOR FOR SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE.

Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.
Elements
The following are the elements;
1. An order has been issued by a superior;
2. Such order must be for some lawful purpose;
3. Means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful;
Example;
What if a warrant of arrest was issued by the court against X. The chief of police handed the warrant to a group of police and instructed
them to arrest X, and if X would refuse to be arrested, they can immobilize
X. So the group headed by Police Officer Y received an information that X lived in a certain province. Police Officer Y, together with his
group went to said province and was able to verify that X actually lived there. Police Officer Y thereafter went to the location of X. Police
Officer Y, upon seeing X who was at that time was cultivating the soil, immediately fired at X. Thereafter, X dies. Prosecuted for murder,
Police Officer Y invoked two justifying circumstances: lawful duty and acted in obedience to a lawful order.
Q: Can police officer Y invoke the justifying circumstance of lawful exercise of duty?
A: NO. Although the accused acted in the performance of his duty by obeying the orders of his officer to arrest X by the chief of police
by virtue of the warrant of arrest issued by the court, the injury committed was not the necessary consequence of the due performance
of such right because at that time, X was just cultivating his soil.
Q: Can the accused use the defense of obedience to a lawful order? A: NO. Although there was a lawful order by his superior to
was arrest and immobilize X if he refuses to be arrested and the purpose was lawful, the means employed by Police Officer Y, where his
order was arrest and in case of resistance is to immobilize X was not performed. X was merely cultivating his soil and was not resisting
arrest at that time.
Example;
X was convicted by final judgment for the crime of homicide. When X was about to be transferred to a maximum security prison, he
suddenly escaped. Police officer Y was ordered by the jail warden to retrieve X. Y thereafter pursued X. Knowing that he was being
pursued, X went to a market and grabbed a 5 year old child as hostage. X pointed a knife towards the neck of the child, and he told Y
not to pursue him, otherwise he will kill the child. However the child cried. The crying child started to annoy X to the point that he was
about to kill the child. However, sensing that X was about to stab the child. X fired a shot towards X. X suffered a mortal wound and
thereafter died. Y was charged with homicide.
Q: What defenses can Y utilize?

A: Y can make us of the justifying circumstance of performance of fulfillment of a duty or in a lawful exercise of office. As a police
officer, Y acted in the performance of his duty in pursing X, an escaped

4
convict. Likewise, the injury caused to X was the necessary consequence of the fulfillment of Y’s duties, otherwise X will kill the child. Y
REVIEW
can [2018]
also use the justifying circumstance of defense of stranger.
5
BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME
Battered Woman Syndrome refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in
battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse.
Battered Woman
Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (R.A. 9262) defines battered woman as a battered woman has been defined
as a woman who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do
something he wants her to do without concern for her rights.
Battered women include wives or women in any form of intimate relationship with men. Furthermore, in order to be classified as a battered
woman, the couple must go through the battering cycle at least twice.
Cycle of violence
In the case of People v. Genosa (G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004) the Supreme Court held that the battered woman syndrome is
characterized by the so-called cycle of violence, which has three phases;
1. The tension-building phase;
2. The acute battering incident; and
3. The tranquil, loving (or, at least, nonviolent) phase;
Tension Building Phase

During the tension-building phase, minor battering occurs -- it could be verbal or slight physical abuse or another form of hostile behavior.
The woman usually tries to pacify the batterer through a show of kind, nurturing behavior; or by simply staying out of his way.
All the woman wants is to prevent the escalation of the violence exhibited by the batterer. This wish, however, proves to be double- edged,
because her placatory and passive behavior legitimizes his belief that he has the right to abuse her in the first place.
Acute Battering Incident

The acute battering incident is said to be characterized by brutality, destructiveness and, sometimes, death. At this stage, the woman has
a sense of detachment from the attack and the terrible pain, although she may later clearly remember every detail.
Her apparent passivity in the face of acute violence may be rationalized thus: the batterer is almost always much stronger physically, and
she knows from her past painful experience that it is futile to fight back. Acute battering incidents are often very savage and out of control,
such that innocent bystanders or intervenors are likely to get hurt.
Tranquil or Loving Phase

During this tranquil period, the couple experience profound relief. On the one hand, the batterer may show a tender and nurturing behavior
towards his partner. He knows that he has been viciously cruel and tries to make up for it, begging for her forgiveness and promising
never to beat her again.
On the other hand, the battered woman also tries to convince herself that the battery will never happen again; that her partner will
change for the better; and that this good, gentle and caring man is the real person whom she loves.
No Criminal Liability and Civil Liability

Battered Woman Syndrome is akin to akin to justifying. It is even better that self-defense because in self-defense, you have to prove
that the elements are present. However, in battered woman syndrome, what should be proven is that the wife is suffering from battered
woman syndrome. It is through the expert testimony of the psychiatrist who will prove that the wife is suffering from battered woman
syndrome. If this is proven, she is absolved from criminal and civil liability.
--xXx--
Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. — the following are exempt from criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall
order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be
permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court.
2. A person under nine years of age.
3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with discernment, in which case, such
minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80 of this Code.
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in conformably with the provisions of this and
the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody of his family who shall be charged with his surveillance
and education otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some institution or person mentioned in said Article 80.
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.
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES
5. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force. 4
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
REVIEW [2018]
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful insuperable cause. 5
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE
Exempting Circumstance are those grounds for exemption from punishment because there is wanting in the agent of the crime any of
the conditions which makes the act voluntary or negligent.
INSANITY AND IMBECILITY

In this paragraph there are two exempting circumstances;
1. Imbecility;
2. Insanity;
Just like exempting circumstance, imbecility and insanity are both admission and avoidance. In effect, invoking insanity and imbecility is
tantamount to admitting the crime. But in order to avoid criminal liability, he invokes that he is either insane or imbecile

Imbecile
An imbecile is one who is already advanced in age but only have a thinking of a child between 2 and 7. There is no intelligence, an
element of voluntariness.
Imbecility is exempting under any circumstance.
Insanity
Insanity refers to the mental aberrational background or disease of the mind and must completely impair the intelligence of the accused.
Insanity is not exempting under any circumstance. If it can be shown that he committed the crime in lucid interval, he is liable.
Presumption of Sanity
In your civil code, it is presumed that the person is sane. Therefore the burden of evidence is on the defense. Therefore, all the accused
has to do is to prove that he was insane when he committed the crime.
Example;
A killed B and stabbed him many times. A was prosecuted for murder. The defense tried to prove that was he was insane. To prove
insanity, the defense presented the father of A, who testified that his son would go out of their home naked and thereafter return. Second,
his son was in and out of the mental institution. Third, his son would steal the jewelries of his mother and would sell it at an extreme low
price. These were the evidence presented by the defense.
Q: Can the son be acquitted because of insanity?

A: NO. The father’s testimony, instead of proving that A was insane, established otherwise. First, an insane person would not know where
his house is. Second, A was in and out of the mental institution. Third, an insane person would not know that a thing has a value
(considering the evidence that the son sold the jewelries of the mother at a low price)
Example;
A killed B. A stated that a week prior to the killing, he could not sleep and there was a voice that kept nagging him, “Kill B, kill B.” And so
he killed B, so he followed the voice. He pleaded guilty but his defense was insanity.
Q: Will A be acquitted due to insanity?

A: NO. In the case of People v. Antonio (G.R. No. 14426, November 27, 2002) the Supreme Court held that mere mental disturbance,
mere craziness is not the insanity contemplated by the law. It is the insanity which would deprive the offender the capacity to distinguish
right from wrong and the consequences of his act.
In the case of People v. Gimena (G.R. No. L-3387, February 6, 1931), an old case, sleep walking or somnambulism is also considered as
akin to insanity. He did not know what he was doing at that time when he killed the victim. Therefore, there is no criminal liability.
MINORITY
The second and third circumstance was already amended by R.A. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006. This refers to a
child in conflict of the law. A child in conflict with the law is a child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having committed an
offense under Philippine laws.
Criminal Liability
R.A. 9344, if a child committed a felony when he is 15 or below, he is exempted from criminal liability. If he is over 15 but below 18, but
he did not act with discernment, he is exempted from criminal liability. If he is over 15 but below 18 and he acted with discernment, he is
not exempted from criminal liability and he will be prosecuted just like any other criminal.
So, if the offender is 16, therefore he is over 15 but below 18, and he committed a crime and acted with discernment. During the trial, it
was established and proven that he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. There is already a pronouncement of a judgment of civil liability.
Suspension of Sentence
Under Sec. 38 of R.A. 9344, once the child who is under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime was 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 the suspension of the sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile is
already 18 years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his guilt. Therefore, as long as he is 18 years and below at the
time of the commission of the crime, even if he is above 18 at the promulgation of the judgment, he can still benefit from the suspended
sentence.
Under Section 40 of R.A. 9344, if a child is under suspended sentence, the court shall decide to discharge or to extend the sentence for
a specific period of time or until the child attains the maximum age of
21. Although there is automatic suspension, it is tempered by Section
40. Therefore, the maximum limit is 21 years old.
People v. Sarcia (G.R. No. 169641, September 10, 2009)

The accused was convicted of statutory rape. In this case, the SC ruled that the law should be given a retroactive application. Section
36 of the act provided that persons who have been convicted and are serving sentence at the time of the effectivity of the act and who
were below 18 at the time of the commission of the offense for which they were convicted and are serving sentence shall be given a
retroactive application of the act.
The SC also ruled that although the crime committed is a heinous crime, the accused can still be given a suspension of the sentence.
Section 38 does not distinguish the nature of the crime, be it heinous, capital, or light offense, the child is entitled to suspension of
sentence.
However, the SC ruled that considering the age of Sarcia (already 31), he cannot be given anymore the benefit of suspension. Although
he committed the crime when he was 17 years old, the maximum age is 21.
The only benefit that was available to him was that he shall serve his sentence in an agricultural camp and other training facilities.
People v. Mantalaba (G.R. No. 186227, July20, 2011)

The same case was applied in People vs Mantalaba. They have the very same issues. The case is about the sale of illegal drugs
involving minors. In this case, the SC remanded the CA. The CA should have

suspended the sentence because at that time the law was enacted and was on appeal to the CA, the accused was 20 years of age, hence
he is entitled to the automatic suspension of his sentence.
ACT OF DISCERNMENT
In the case of Madali v. People (G.R. No. 180380, August 4, 2009), there is an act of discernment when the minor knows the
consequences and circumstances of his act. Discernment is that mental capacity of a minor to fully appreciate the consequences of his
unlawful act. Such capacity may be known and should be determined by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances.
In this case, the accused who was 16 years old at the time of the commission of the crime, warned the witness not to reveal their hideous
act, otherwise, he (accused) and his co-accused would kill him. Therefore, he knew that killing the victim was a condemnable act and
should be kept in secrecy. He fully appreciated the consequences for his unlawful act.
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES 5
REVIEW [2018]
ACCIDENT
In the case of People v. Del Cruz (G.R. No. 187683, February 11, 2010) An accident is an occurrence that happens outside the sway of 5
our will, and although it comes about through some act of our will, it lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences.
Elements;
1. A person is performing a lawful act;
2. With due care;
3. He causes injury to another by mere accident;
4. Without fault or intention causing it;
Note that although exempting, as a rule, there is no criminal liability but there is civil liability. However, paragraph 4 (accident) is an
exception. There are no criminal liability and civil liability. Accident is akin to justifying circumstance because the offender was performing
a lawful act with due care.
Example;
A is a prisoner. He was about to be investigated and was escorted to the investigation room. Before reaching the investigating room, A
grabbed the service pistol of the officer who was accompanying him to the investigating room. The police tried to get back his pistol, and
in the course of the fight, the pistol was fired accidentally and A was hit. Thereafter, A died. The police officer was prosecuted for
homicide.
Q: Is the officer liable for homicide?

A: YES. The police was performing a lawful act in trying to get back his property, and that is his pistol. He caused an injury by accident. He
was performing an act with due care because there’s no other way to get back the pistol. He causes an injury through accident because
there was no intention on his part to kill A.
Example;
A police officer saw two men fighting on a street. They were hitting each other. The police tried to pacify the two men, but they won’t stop.
So what the police officer did was that he fired shots to pacify the men. However, one of the stray bullets landed on the child.
Unfortunately the child died. The police officer was prosecuted for homicide. As a defense, the police officer invoked accident
Q: Is the police officer liable for homicide?
A: NO. Although the police officer is performing a lawful act in pacifying the two men are fighting on the street, he did not perform it with
due care. Considering that it was a community, he knew that a stray bullet would have landed on any person. He should not have fired
shots. The police officer is liable for reckless imprudence resulting to homicide, a culpable felony.
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.
Elements;
1. There must be Compulsion is by means of physical force;
2. Physical force must be irresistible;
3. Physical force must come from a third person;
In irresistible force, the offender must be reduced as a mere instrument, that he is not acting in his will. Therefore, if he is acting against
his will, voluntariness is absent.
UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
Elements;
1. Existence of an uncontrollable fear;
2. Fear must be real and imminent;
3. Fear of an injury is greater than or equal to that committed;
It is necessary by the means employed by the third person, it would cause a person to suffer uncontrollable fear. Again, he is reduced
as a mere instrument such that he acted against his will. It is necessary that such fear must be of imminence that an ordinary man
cannot stand. When there is an existence of uncontrollable force or fear there is lack of freedom of action—an element of voluntariness.
Therefore, the person totally has no free will.
Even if there was force employed but the person has a choice to do the act or not, this exempting provision will not lie.
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES 5
Example;
REVIEW [2018]
A farmer and his carabao was on his way home. On his way home, he heard gun shots, so he went to the place where he heard the 5
gun shots. He hid behind a tree and saw two men shooting X. X way already lying on the ground. The farmer was so shocked and
afraid that he tried to leave the place. However, when he was about to leave, he stepped on the dried leaves and caused a noise. The
two men saw him. One of the men pointed the gun at the farmer and told him to come near them. Afraid for his life, the farmer obeyed.
The men, pointing the gun at the farmer told him to bury X lying on the ground. The farmer said, “No, I don’t want to.” “If you will not
bury X, we will shoot you”, said one of the men. The farmer was so afraid and so he dug the ground and buried X.
Q: Is the farmer criminally liable together with the two men?

A: YES. There was an uncontrollable fear when the farmer saw that the two men shot X. If the two men can shoot X, they can also
shoot him. Therefore, there was an uncontrollable fear and it was real and imminent. The farmer’s fear is of an injury is greater than or
equal to that committed because his life is more important. Therefore all the elements are present, he is not liable

Example;
I the same problem, the farmer was told that If he will not bury X, they will shoot and kill his carabao. The farmer was so afraid. His
carabao was his only means of living. And so, he buried X.
Q: Is the farmer criminally liable together with the two men?

A: YES. There was an uncontrollable fear and it is real and imminent because the farmer saw that the two men shot X. If the two men can
shoot X, they can also shoot the carabao. However, the third element is wanting. The death of the carabao is not equal to or greater than
the life of the human.
Example;
In the same problem, the two men told the farmer that if the farmer will not bury X, they will go to his house, rape his wife, thereafter kill
her and his children and burn his house. His family is the most important people in his life. Therefore, he was constrained to bury X.
Q: Is the farmer criminally liable?

A: NO. Although there is an existence of an uncontrollable fear because, his wife would be raped, his children would be killed and his
house would be burned, the 2nd element is not present. The fear is not present. It is in the future, speculative. Imagine, the two men
would still have to go to the house of the farmer and look for his wife and children. By that time, the farmer had already gone to his house
and warned his family. He could also have reported the killing of X. So his fear is not real imminent. Imaginative not present.
Ty v. People (G.R. No. 149275, September 27, 2004)

In the case of Vicky Ty, she was accused of issuing bouncing checks. Vicky Ty’s defense was that she feared that her ailing mother who
was confined in the hospital would commit suicide because of the hospital’s ill treatment. So she was compelled to issue unfunded checks
for her mother to be discharged. In this case, yes there is an uncontrollable fear. However, her fear was not real and imminent. It is mere
imaginative, speculative. It is not now, or not present.
Q: How about state of necessity?

A: NO. The threat of the mother does not actually exist because the threat is in the future. Therefore state of necessity is not present. The
Supreme Court ruled that she was not in state of necessity. Because she has several jewelries. She could have sold the jewelries to pay
for the hospital expenses
LAWFUL AND INSUPERABLE CASUE

Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful insuperable cause.
Elements;
1. An act is required by law to be done;
2. A person fails to perform such act;
3. Failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause;
No Civil Liability
Note that it is one of the instances in exempting circumstances that the actor is exempt from both criminal and civil liability. It is akin to a
justifying circumstance because what prevented the offender from performing a lawful act is a lawful cause.

GARCIA NOTES
For example, there is a war in which the Philippines is involved. A, B, and C conspired to commit treason against the government. A, 5
REVIEW [2018]
one of the conspirators went to the priest and confided to the priest that there was conspiracy between B and C to commit treason
against the government. Despite knowledge on the conspiracy to commit treason, the priest did not immediately divulge it to the police. 5
Under Art 116, the priest is criminally liable for misprision of treason, for not divulging the conspiracy to commit treason. However, the
priest failed to perform such act due to a lawful cause. Under your rules on evidence, a confession made to a priest is considered as a
privileged communication. Therefore the priest does not incur any criminal liability.
EXEMPTING V. JUSTIFYING
EXEMPTING JUSTIFYING
The act is legal; The act is criminal;
There is no crime, hence There is a crime, hence there
there is
is no criminal; a criminal;
Since there is a crime, there
Since there is no crime, is criminal liability, although
there is no criminal and civil he is exempted therefrom,
liabilities; and
there are civil liabilities.
The emphasis of the law is on The emphasis of the law is on
the act; i.e. self-defense. the actor;
Cannot be invoked in
Can be invoked in
Quasi- offenses, i.e.
quasi- offenses;
reckless
imprudence;
--xXx--
Article 13.Mitigating circumstances. - The following are mitigating circumstances;

1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal
liability in the respective cases are not attendant.
2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded
against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80.
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act.
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito),
his spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily
confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution;
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his means of
action, defense, or communications with his fellow beings.
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender without however depriving
him of the consciousness of his acts.
10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
Mitigating Circumstances are those circumstances which if present or attendant in the commission of a felony would reduce the imposable
penalty because it shows lesser perversity or criminality of the offender.
Mitigating circumstances need not be alleged in the information in order to be appreciated by the court provided that such circumstance is
shown and proven during the trial.
There is a lesser criminality on the part of the offender because the offender acted with the diminution of any of the elements of
voluntariness.
There is a diminution on the following;

1. Criminal intent;
2. Freedom of action; or
3. Intelligence.
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES 5
REVIEW [2018]
Kinds of mitigating Circumstance
There are 2 kinds of mitigating circumstance; 5
1. Ordinary Mitigating Circumstance;
2. Privilege Mitigating Circumstance;
Ordinary Mitigating Circumstance

An Ordinary Mitigating Circumstance is one which may be offset by a generic aggravating circumstance aggravating circumstance. If an
ordinary mitigating circumstance is not offset by a generic ac it would reduce the imposable penalty to its minimum period.
Privilege Mitigating Circumstance

A Privilege Mitigating Circumstance is one which cannot be offset by any ac and the effect of privilege mitigating circumstance is to reduce
the imposable penalty not only to its period but by one or more degrees
*If in the computation of penalties there’re aggravating circumstances, mitigating circumstances, if there is a privilege mitigating
circumstance, that presence of privilege mitigating circumstance takes preference over all other things. Before you can even the
appropriate penalty, you still have to first consider the presence of the privilege mitigating circumstance. That is how important that is why
it’s privileged.
Ordinary Mitigating v. Privilege Mitigating

ORDINARY MITIGATING PRIVILEGE MITIGATING
Can be offset by generic Cannot be offset by any kind
aggravating circumstance; of
aggravating circumstance;
Lowers the penalty to the
minimum period except when
there are two ordinary
mitigating circumstance in Lowers the penalty by one
which case the penalty is or two degrees;
lowered by one degree only;
Not considered in the
determination of the proper
penalty when the penalty
prescribed by law for the Always considered
single crime is a single regardless of the penalty
indivisible imposed’
penalty;
INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING OR EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE

Incomplete Justifying or exempting circumstances are those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to
justify or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant.
Privilege Mitigating or Ordinary Mitigating

The following are the rules to determine whether an incomplete justifying or incomplete exempting circumstance should be treated as
privilege or ordinary mitigating;
1. If majority of the elements necessary to justify the act or to exempt from liability are present, then it’s treated as privilege
mitigating circumstance;
2. If less than the majority is present, then it is an ordinary mitigating circumstance which can be offset by a generic aggravating
circumstance;
3. If the elements necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability is only 2, the presence of 1 element is already a
privilege mitigating circumstance .
Incomplete Self-Defense
In case of incomplete self-defense, incomplete defense of a relative, incomplete defense of a stranger, there must always be unlawful
aggression in order for the mc to mitigate.
It is only ordinary mitigating if only the element of unlawful aggression is present, the incomplete self-defense should be treated as an
Ordinary.
It is privilege mitigating circumstance if aside from unlawful aggression, another element but not all is present, it is to be treated as a
privilege mitigating circumstance .
Example;
A was running in a subdivision with a bolo, he was hacking all those he passed by. So the residents called for police assistance. The
police arrived headed by police officer X. They called on A to put down his weapon but A instead of laying down his weapon, advanced
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES 5
towards the police with the bolo in his hands in a hacking position in the act of hacking the police officers. So X immediately fired at A.
He hit the hands and legs of A. non-fatal wounds. A slam on the ground face facing the ground. At that particular moment, X went to A,
REVIEW [2018]
got his bolo and then fired shot at the head of A and A died. X was prosecuted for murder, police officer invoked 2 justifying
circumstance. We have self-defense and fulfillment of duty. 5
Q: Is there self-defense or at least incomplete self-defense?
A: NO. There’s no self-defense because at the time X shot the head of A, A was already lying on the ground. Whatever inceptive
unlawful aggression he has commenced, it has ceased to exist from the time the fatal blow was inflicted on him. Therefore, there was
no unlawful aggression. Since unlawful aggression is the element that is wanting. There’s no self-defense, neither is there incomplete
self-defense.
Q: Is there fulfillment of duty?

A: NO. There are only 2 elements in fulfillment of duty, 1stelement - that the accused acted in the due performance of his duty or in
lawful exercise of his proper office. It is present right because the police officer went there because the residents asked for police
assistance. They went there to maintain peace and order. The 1st element is present. The 2nd element – that the injury caused is an
unavoidable consequence of the due performance of a duty. The 2nd element is

absent. The act of X in shooting the head of A is not a necessary consequence of the due performance of his duty. Therefore, based on
the rule that if there are only 2 elements necessary to justify the act and the presence of 1 is already considered as the majority and it is
considered as a privilege mitigating circumstance . Therefore, in this case, there is an incomplete fulfillment of duty which is a privilege
mitigating circumstance which may lower the imposable penalty by degrees not only by period.
MINORITY/SENILITY
That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in
accordance with the provisions of Art. 80.
There are 2 mitigating circumstance here;

1. Minority;
2. Seniority;
Minority
Remember that if minority is not exempting, it is always and always a privilege mitigating circumstance. Never an ordinary mitigating
circumstance
So if the offender is over 15 but below 18, and he acted with discernment, it is not exempting but it is a privilege mitigating circumstance .
Senility
Senility (a person over age70) is generally an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
[Prosecutor Garcia: In your book there are instances wherein seniority shall be considered as a privilege mitigating circumstance , when
the crime committed by the person over 70 year old is punishable by death, death shall not be imposed on him. Or when he has already
been convicted it shall be computed to reclusion perpetua. These provisions of the RPC are no longer applicable at the moment. At the
moment because we have RA 9346 which prohibits the imposition of death penalty on whoever be the offender. Then senility, at the
moment is only an omc. I am emphasizing ‘at the moment’ because at the moment the reign of P.Noy ends, the new president may bring
back death penalty. Then there will now be again a circumstance where seniority will be a privilege mitigating circumstance . But at the
moment, we have no death penalty that may be imposed.]
PRAETER INTENTIONEM
That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
We have already studied this in Art. 4. This is praeter intentionem. Elements;
1. The offender committed a felony;
2. There must be a notable or notorious disparity between the means employed by offender and the result felony.
So for praeter intentionem, for this mitigating circumstance to lie, it is necessary that there must be a notable or notorious disparity
between the means employed and the resulting felony. That is, out of the means employed by the offender, no one could have anticipated
that the resulting felony would come.
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES 5
REVIEW [2018]
Example;
A and B were fighting, A boxed B, B boxed A, A retaliated and boxed B again. When A boxed B, B’s head hit a cemented wall and so 5
he suffered cerebral hemorrhage and thereafter caused his death.
Q: Is A criminally liable for the death of B?

A: YES. When A boxed B, he was committing a felonious act. Therefore he is criminally liable for the resulting felony although it be
different from which he intended.
Q: But can he be given the benefit of praeter intentionem that he has no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed?
A: YES. There was a notable disparity between the means employed by the offender and the resulting felony. Who could have
anticipated that by the mere act of boxing death would result. Therefore, he should be given the benefit of prater intentionem.
Example;
In the same problem A and B were fighting by means of fist, the suddenly, A who was losing pulled out a balisong or a fan knife and
stabbed B on the neck, a fatal wound. B died. A was prosecuted for homicide. He said he had no intention to commit a wrong so grave
as that committed, no intention to kill B.
Q: Can A benefit from praeter intentionem that he has no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed?
A: No, because there was no notable disparity in the between means employed – stabbing on the neck using a balisong or fan knife
resulting to death. In fact, the act of the victim of stabbing would produce, and did produce the death of the victim. Therefore, praeter
intentionem would not lie in favor of the accused.
SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION OR THREAT

That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act.
There must be a sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party and it must immediately precede the commission of the
crime.
The following are the elements of sufficient provocation;

1. The provocation must be sufficient;
2. It must be immediate to the commission of the crime;
3. it must originate from the offended party;
Provocation
Provocation is any unjust or immoral act or conduct on the part of the offended party which is capable of inciting, exciting or inflating(?)
another.
Q: When is provocation is sufficient?

A: For provocation to be sufficient, there must be 2 elements;
1. It must be adequate to stir a person to commit a wrongful act;

2. It must be proportionate to the gravity of the crime;
Immediate
The 2nd element requires that the provocation must be immediate to the commission of the crime.

The word immediate here does not allow a lapse of time. There must be no lapse of time between the provocation and the commission of
the crime.
Example;
There was this long line of evacuees, victims of Pablo who are to be given reliefs. A was 5th on the line, suddenly, X inserted himself in
front of A. This angered A, A told X to place himself at the end of the line but X didn’t want because he was so hungry. This angered A,
and so A pulled out his bolo and hacked X at the back. A was prosecuted for homicide.
REVIEW [2018]
Q: Is the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party justified?
5 is
A: NO. Although the act of X in inserting himself to the line is an act adequate to stir a person to commit a wrongful act, the 2nd element
absent – it is not proportionate to the gravity of the act. The act of killing is not proportionate to the act of X of placing himself in front of A
in a long line. Therefore, sufficient provocation as a mc is not present so as to reduce the imposable penalty.
Urbano v. People (G.R. No. 182750, January 20, 2009)

The victim has always been calling and teasing on the accused Urbano. So there was a confrontation because whenever the victim was
drunk, he would defame Urbano. So there was a verbal confrontation and ensued into a fight. In the said fight, Urbano was losing because
he was just a small man. However, he was able to land one lucky punch on the face of the victim (parangsiPacquiao). Because of the said
lucky punch, the said victim was about to fall unconscious on the ground. However, the other employees were able to prevent him from
falling on the ground. Nevertheless, he became unconscious and later on regained consciousness. In and out of the hospital, later on he
died.
Q: Is Urbano criminally liable for the death of the victim?

A: YES. Under Art. 4, because he was committing a felonious act. Therefore he is criminally liable for the resulting felony although
different from that which he intend.
But there are 2 mitigating circumstance considered by the court to reduce the imposable penalty. 1st according to the court, there was
sufficient provocation. 2nd, that the offender has no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. Who could have anticipated
that out of one lucky punch, death would result. There was a total disparity on the means employed by the offender and the resulting
felony.
Q: How about sufficient provocation, is it present?

A: YES. The provocation was on the part of the victim. He would always call names and defame Urbano. Is it sufficient? Yes, because
what Urbano only did was to confront the victim verbally. That was his first act, later on only did it ensue to a fight.
IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE

That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse,
ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
Elements;
He following are the elements of immediate vindication of a criminal offense.
1.
That there be a grave offense to the one committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, or
adopted brothers or sister, or relatives by affinity within the same degree;
2. It requires that the said act or grave offense must be the proximate cause of the commission of the crime.
It is necessary that the commission of the crime was in immediate vindication of the grave offense done to the one committing the
felony.
Q: Is it necessary that the grave offense need be a punishable act? A: NO. It suffices that it be any act unjust act, immoral act
which cause the offender sleepless nights and move him to vindicate himself.
Immediate
The 2nd element requires that the commission of crime was in immediate vindication of the grave offense. This time the word
immediate allows a lapse of time.
According to the Supreme Court, very funny reasoning, there was an erroneous Spanish translation. Our RPC was copied from the
Spanish Codigo Penal, in there, the word used there was proximate. Yet when it was translated in the RPC, the word used was
immediate. Supreme Court said wrong translation. It is sufficient that the said grave offense must be the proximate cause of the
Immediate allows an interval of time between the commission of the offense and its vindication as long as the offender is still suffering
from the mental agony brought about by the offense.
PASSION OR OBFUSCATION
That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.
In the case of People v. Lobino (G.R. No. 123071, October 28, 1999), the Supreme Court held that there is passion and obfuscation
when the crime was committed due to an uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior unjust or improper acts, or due to a
legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome reason.
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES
Paragraphs 4 and 5 are related to each other. They are collectively known as sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation.
5
REVIEW [2018] 5
Elements;
1. There be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce passion and obfuscation;
2. The act that must produce passion and obfuscation must not be far removed from the commission of the crime by the
considerable length of time during which the offender might have recovered his normal equanimity;
* Passion and obfuscation on the part of the accused must arise from lawful sentiments because an unlawful act was committed against
him.
Immediate
2nd element requires also the immediateness. It is necessary that it must be done immediately because the law says the commission of
the act which produced the passion and obfuscation must not be far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable
length of time.

Example;
What if A attempted on the virtue of the wife of B, B learned about this from a neighbor. When B learned about this, 4 days after, he went
to A and hacked A to death.
Q: Is the mitigating circumstance of sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation and immediate vindication of grave offense
present? A: NO. 4 days had already lapsed. According to the SC, 4 days is already a long time for the said offender to have recovered
from his normal equanimity.
More so in the case of People v. Ignas (G.R. No. 140514-15, September 30, 2003), in this case, from the time of the discovery of the
adultery of the wife, to the time of the killing, 2 weeks had already lapsed, the SC said such 2 weeks is too long a time for such offender
to have recovered already his normal equanimity.
In the case of People v. Romera, the Supreme Court said par.4 - sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party, par.5 - immediate
vindication of grave offense, par.6 – sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation are related to each other such that in the commission of
the crime, all three present, or any 2 are present, if they are based on the same facts and circumstances they should be appreciated only
as 1 mitigating circumstance, not 2 or 3.
Q: Why is this important?

A: It is important because in the computation of the penalties, if you consider them as 3, you will be wrong in the penalties.
*So again note, if 4, 5 and 6 are all present or if any 2 is present and they are all based on the same facts and circumstances, they should
only be treated as 1 mc.
Example;
Husband and wife were about to have dinner. Then someone was calling the name of the husband outside their house. The wife opened
the door, upon opening, the neighbor who was calling the name tried to hack the wife. Good enough, the wife was able to reach and close
the door and the wife was not hacked. The neighbor however with a use of a bolo continuously hacked the wooden or the bamboo door
and walls of the house. And so, considering that his house was being damaged, the husband was forced to go outside to confront the
neighbor. He used the kitchen door. He called the neighbor and asked what was the reason why he was hacking. The neighbor instead of
answering tried to hack the husband. They struggled for the possession of the bolo, and in the course the husband gained possession of
the bolo. Once in the possession of the bolo, the husband hacked the neighbor. The neighbor suffered a fatal wound but was brought to
the hospital by the husband and so he survived. Husband was prosecuted for frustrated homicide, the husband as a defense invoked 2
mitigating circumstance – 1st, there was sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation, 2nd that there was sufficient provocation on the part
of the offended party immediately preceded the action.
Q: Is sufficient provocation present?

- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES
A: YES. Both are present. There is sufficient provocation because of the act of the neighbor trying to hack the wife. And his act of 5
continuously hacking the wooden door and walls of the house – that is sufficient provocation.
REVIEW [2018] 5
Q: Is sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation present?
A: Yes. It is also present. The act of the neighbor trying to hack the wife and his act of continuously hacking the wooden door and walls.
Q; Since both mitigating circumstance are present, should you consider both in the computation of the penalty?
A: NO. Since both mitigating circumstance arises from only one act, you should only consider mitigating circumstance.
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER AND VOLUNTARY PLEA OF GUILT

That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt
before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution;
There are 2 mitigating circumstance here;

1. Voluntary surrender;
2. Voluntary plea of guilt;
If both are present, you have to consider always 2 mitigating circumstance. They have different elements and would always arise from
different set of facts and circumstances. Therefore, they are always separate and distinct from each other.
Voluntary Surrender
The elements of Voluntary surrender are the following;
1. The offender had not actually arrested; T
2. The offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agent; S
3. Such surrender must be voluntary;
So it is necessary that the offender has not yet been arrested. It is necessary that he surrender to a person in authority or his agent.
The surrender must be voluntary.
Q: When is surrender voluntary?

A: Surrender is said to be voluntary when it is done spontaneously and unconditionally either because he has this feeling of remorse
and wanted to admit his guilt or he wanted to save the government that much needed time or effort which will be incurred in looking for
him.
Example;
A case was found against B in the fiscal’s office. A warrant of arrest was requested, the fiscal found probable cause. The information
filed in court, the court agreed with the fiscal, a warrant of arrest was issued. B got a tip from the court employee that a warrant of arrest
was now in possession of the police officers. And so B upon learning that there was already an issued warrant of arrest, immediately
went to the police station and surrendered himself to the authorities. Then trial against him proceeded, and after trial on the merits, he
was convicted. But the judge did not consider voluntary surrender in reducing his imposable penalty.
Q: Is the judge correct?

A: The judge is wrong because voluntary surrender is present as a mitigating circumstance. Although there is already a warrant of
arrest issued. The police officers have not yet gone out looking for him. Therefore, any surrender would still be considered as voluntary
surrender even if there is already a warrant of arrest against the said offender.
In the case of De Vera v. De Vera (G.R. No. 172832, April 7, 2009), the Supreme Court held that mere filing of an information and/or the

issuance of a warrant of arrest will not automatically make the surrender involuntary. The accused may still be entitled to the mitigating
circumstance in case he surrenders, depending on the actual facts surrounding the very fact of giving himself up.
Voluntary Plea of Guilt

The elements of voluntary plea of guilt are the following;
1. That guilt tendered is confessed spontaneously and unconditionally;
2. That he confesses guilt in open court that is before the court tried his case;
3. The confession that was made before the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution;
Example; CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

A was charged with the crime of frustrated murder. During the plea bargaining, with the consent of the judge, the fiscal and the offended
party, he said that he had plead guilty to attempted murder. And so he pleaded guilty to attempted murder. The judge rendered judgment
without considering voluntary plead
PART IIof guilt so as to reduce his penalty.
PENALTIES
A: YES. For said plea of guilty to be considered voluntary, it must be done spontaneously. Spontaneously, it must be the original crime
charged.
Example;
A was charged as a principal in the crime of robbery. He pleaded guilty with the consent of the judge, the fiscal and the offended party to
the crime of robbery but merely as an accomplice. The judge rendered judgment because of the plea of guilt. The judge did not consider
the said plea of guilt as mitigating.

A: Yes, the judge is correct because when he pleaded guilt as an accomplice, his plea of guilt was not done unconditionally.
Example;
A was prosecuted for the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and multiple physical injuries. He was driving his vehicle,
bumped a person and injured several others. During arraignment, he immediately pleaded guilty. The judge rendered judgment. In
rendering judgment, the judge did not consider the voluntary plea of guilt as mitigating.

A: YES. In Mariano v. People (G.R. No. 178145, July 7, 2014) the Supreme Court held that in the case of a culpable felony, in case of
quasi-offenses, under Art. 365 the judge may or may not consider these mitigating circumstance in the imposition of penalty. If the judge
consider it or if the judge did not consider it, that is the decision of the judge. Under Art. 365, the court is not mandated to consider the
rules, the decision is based on the sound discretion whether or not to consider the mitigating circumstance.
Q: May the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilt be appreciated in confessions before the media?
A: NO. Confessions before the media are considered extra-judicial confessions. For voluntary plea of guilt be appreciated, the confession
must be made before the court.
Q: If the offender voluntary confessed his guilt to a court which has no jurisdiction and later on pleaded guilty before the
proper court, will the voluntary plea of guilt still be appreciated?
A: YES. Since the proceedings before the former court was void, the voluntary plea of guilt may still be appreciated in the court with
proper jurisdiction.
PHYSICAL DEFECT
That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense,
or communications with his fellow beings.
For this mitigating circumstance to lie in favor of the accused, it is necessary that there must be a connection, a relation between the
physical defect and the crime committed. It is necessary that the said physical defect must have restricted his use of action, defense or
communication with his fellow being.
Example;
A is a cripple, he has no legs, he always position himself near the Quiapo church. He was on board a skateboard. So he often stays
there, and his work was to snatch the handbags of any churchgoers. And so one time, he snatched the handbag of a churchgoer and
thereafter, he sped away on board his skateboard. He was thereafter arrested.
Q: Will his physical defect of being crippled, a man with no legs, be mitigating?
A: NO. His physical defect has no relation at all to the crime he has committed.
Example;
A is a blind man, blind beggar, near the Quiapo church. One time he was begging for alms, suddenly, he was scraped on his head with
a wound, it was so strong that he fell on the ground wounded. Angry, he stood up, took his cane and retaliated by hitting the person next
to him, not knowing that it was not the person but an innocent passerby. The innocent passerby suffered less physical injuries. So the
blind beggar was prosecuted for less serious physical injuries.
Q: Is the mitigating circumstance of physical defect present so as to reduce the imposable penalty?
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES
A: YES. His being blind restricted his means of action, defense or communication with his fellow being. His intention was to hit the
person who scraped him with the wound. But because of he could not see, he hit an innocent passerby. There was a relation between 6
REVIEW [2018]
the physical defect and the crime committed. Therefore, it will mitigate his criminal liability.
0
ILLNESS
Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will- power of the offender without however depriving him of the
consciousness of his acts.
So this is illness. It is necessary that the said illness must diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender. But it must not deprive
him of his consciousness of his act because if it will deprive him of consciousness of his act, then it is exempting not merely mitigating.
Example;
A is a kleptomaniac, he has this urge to steal. Now, his urge is to steal diamonds. So one time he was in a party, he was talking to a
lady with

diamond earrings, diamond necklace, diamond watch, diamond bracelet. Then after the conversation, the lady went to the restroom. Upon
looking at the mirror, she shouted, she was shocked, the diamond earring, necklace, watch and bracelet were all gone. It was already
taken by the said accused. A was prosecuted for theft.
Q: Will his illness mitigate his criminal liability?

A: Yes. It diminishes his exercise of his will-power without however depriving him of consciousness. He knew that he was committing
theft, he knew that he was taking the personal property of another but he cannot control, he has a diminished self-control to prevent the
commission of the crime. It will only mitigate, reduce the imposable penalty but it will not exempt from criminal liability.
ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCE
And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned.
Any other circumstance which is similar in nature from the 1st to the 9th paragraph, then it is also considered as a mc.
Example;
A public officer who has malversed public funds, voluntarily, voluntary returned the public funds, it is akin to voluntary surrender. Or what if
a person is already of 65 years of age, sickly, suffering from a disease it can be said to be akin or similar to seniority. It will mitigate his
criminal liability.
--xXx--
Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following are aggravating circumstances:
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.
2. That the crime be committed in contempt or with insult to the public authorities.
3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank, age, or
sex, or that is be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation.
4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.
5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive or in his presence, or where public authorities are
engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship.
6. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such circumstances
may facilitate the commission of the offense.
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an offense, it shall be deemed
to have been committed by a band.
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or
misfortune.
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity.
9. That the accused is a recidivist.
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of
another crime embraced in the same title of this Code.
10.
That the offender has been previously punished by an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two
BOND
or more TO KEEP
crimes THE it attaches
to which BOND FOR GOOD
a lighter penalty.
PEACE
11. That the crime be committedBEHAVIOR
in consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
May - CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES
12.beThat thetocrime
applied be committed
all cases; by only
Applicable
damage thereto, derailment of agrave
means
locomotive,
of inundation,
to cases
or by
threats and
of fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or international
the use of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin.
light 6
REVIEW [2018]
13. That the act be committed
Failure to post a bond to
with evidence premeditation.
threats;
14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed.
If a person fails to post a
0
15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken the defense.
keep the peace results to bond for good behavior ,
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
imprisonment either for six he shall be sentenced to
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms
(6) months or thirty (30) destierro;
in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the
days depending on whether
defense which the offended party might make.
the felony committed is
17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act.
grave or less grave on one
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry. There is an unlawful entry when an entrance of a crime a wall,
hand, or a
roof, floor, door, or window be broken.
light felony on the other;
19. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age or by means of motor vehicles,
motorized watercraft, airships, or other similar means. (As amended by RA 5438).
20. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary
for its commissions.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
Aggravating Circumstance are those which, if attendant in the commission of the crime, serve to increase the penalty without, however,
exceeding the maximum of the penalty provided by law for the offense.
Kinds of aggravating Circumstances:

1. Generic Aggravating;
2. Specific Aggravating;
3. Inherent Aggravating;
4. Qualifying Aggravating;
5. Special Aggravating;
In order for aggravating circumstance to be appreciated, all the aggravating circumstance must be alleged in the information and must
be proven during the trial.
Unlike justifying, exempting and mitigating circumstances, which are not stated or alleged in the information, aggravating circumstances
must be alleged in the information. Even if they are proven in trial but they are not alleged in the information, they cannot be considered
against the person. They must be both alleged and likewise proven during trial, so as not to deprive the accused of right to know the
nature of the accusation against him.
Generic Aggravating Circumstance

Generic Aggravating Circumstance are those that applies generally to all crimes.

Example:
Nos. 1,2,3,4,5,6,9,10,14,18,19, and 20 of the Revised Penal Code; Nightime - it can be applied to crimes against persons, crimes against
property, crimes against chastity and applied to all other crimes; Recidivism.
Specific Aggravating Circumstance

Specific Aggravating Circumstance are those that apply only to certain or particular crimes.
Example:
Treachery (Par.16 Art. 14) can only be considered or appreciated in crimes against persons.
Inherent Aggravating Circumstance
Inherent Aggravating Circumstance are those which of necessity follow the commission of the crime because they are considered as
elements in the commission of the crime, therefore they are considered inherent in the commission of the crime.
If inherent aggravating circumstance are present in the commission of the crime, they are no longer considered so as to increase the
penalty because they are considered as elements
Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance

- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES
Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance are those which either change the nature of the crime to bring about a more serious for a higher
6
penalty or even without changing the nature of the crime it would impose a higher penalty.
REVIEW [2018] 0
Example:
In Art. 248 of the RPC, the circumstances therein present would qualify the killing of a person from homicide to murder. The presence of
treachery, evident premeditation, cruelty in killing would make a crime not of homicide but would be qualified to murder
Special Aggravating Circumstance

In the case of People of the Philippines v. De Leon (G.R. No. 179943, June 26, 2009) the Supreme Court defined Special Aggravating
Circumstances as circumstances which arise under special conditions to increase the penalty for the offense to its maximum period, but
the same cannot increase the penalty to the next higher degree.
In the case of special aggravating circumstance, it CANNOT be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
Example;
The following are examples of Special Aggravating Circumstance;
1. Quasi-recidivism under Article 60 of the Revised Penal Code;
2. Complex Crimes under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code; and
3. When homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm under P.D. 1866 as amended by R.A. 8294;
4. When in the omission of the crime, advantage was taken by the offender of his public position under Article 62 of the RPC;
Effect of more than one Qualifying Circumstance

If there are more than one qualifying aggravating circumstance as for example, homicide qualified to murder, only one will qualify the
felony to murder and the others shall be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance.
Example;
In case of qualifying aggravating circumstance, for example, A killed B there was treachery, it was done in consideration of a price,
reward or promise, there was also cruelty, so there are three qualifying aggravating circumstances present. Only one of them will qualify
the killing to murder. So if treachery is already proven, the crime committed is already murder. Cruelty and the other circumstance of in
consideration of a price, reward or promise shall only be considered as generic aggravating circumstances.
THAT ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN BY THE OFFENDER OF HIS PUBLIC POSITION.

This aggravating circumstance can be applied only if the offender is a public officer.
Taking Advantage of Public Position

Taking advantage of public position means that the offender use the prestige, influence or ascendency of his office in the commission of
the crime or to facilitate the commission of the crime.
Example;
Police officer A was having a drinking spree with his friends outside his house. In the course thereof, they were discussing about the
alleged shoot out in Quezon. According to the police officer, since he was a police officer, it was a shoot out. But according to his friend
it was a rub-out. They were arguing, exchanging views until the police officer got mad. At that time, he had with him his pistol. He used
his service pistol and shot his friend who thereafter died.
Q: Is the said act of killing done by taking advantage of his public position?
A: NO. The said offender, public officer, did not use or misuse his public office. He did not use the influence, the ascendency or the
prestige of his office in order to commit the crime. Even not being a public officer he could have killed his friend in the same situation .
He could even have used another weapon, not necessarily his service pistol.

Under Art. 14, taking advantage of his public position is a generic aggravating circumstance. However, under Art. 62 (as amended by
RA 7659), the fact the crime was committed by taking advantage of his public position is a special aggravating circumstance because
the maximum penalty prescribed by law shall be the one imposed.
Example;
Police officer X was assigned as a traffic enforcer. X was always demanding toll in the amount of fifty pesos from jeepney drivers
otherwise he would not let them enter a certain street. One day, jeepney driver Y got mad at X for extorting toll on him because Y had
no earning that day. He filed a case for robbery against X. the information alleged that in order to perpetrate the crime of robbery, X took
advantage of his public position.
Q: How do we appreciate the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position in this case?
A: taking advantage of public position should be appreciated as a special aggravating circumstance. Article 62 of the RPC states that
the maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offender took advantage of
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES 0
REVIEW [2018]

his public position as a means to facilitate the commission of the crime.
Example;
W is a woman who drives a jeepney for a living. While she was driving her route, police officer X flagged her down and demanded for her
to pay a toll in the amount of fifty pesos. However W refused to give money to X. Thus, X arrested W and brought her to the police
station. W was detained in the investigation room. Thereafter, X entered in the investigation room. While there, X had carnal knowledge of
W. an information for rape was filed with the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position.
Q: How do we appreciate the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position in this case?
A: Taking advantage of public position should be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance in this case. Article 266-B (3) of the Revised
Penal Code states that Death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed when the victim is under the custody of the police
or the military or any law enforcement or penal institution. In this case, the charge against X should qualified rape. Since death penalty is
suspended, X shall suffer the penalty of Reclusion perpetua.
CONTEMPT OF OR WITH INSULT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES.

This is based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by his lack of respect for the public authorities.
Elements:
1. That the public officer or public authority is engaged in the exercise of his function;
2. That the public authority is not the person against whom the crime is committed;
3. That the offender knows him to be a public authority;
4. That the presence of the public authority did not prevent the offender from the commission of the crime.
That the public officer or public authority is engaged in the exercise of his function.
Public authority refers to Justice of the peace, persons in authority, or any person directly vested with jurisdiction whether an individual or
some members of court or governmental commissioner. It is necessary that he has the duty to govern and execute the laws.
Example;
Mayors, barangay chairman police officer is merely an agent of a person in authority.
Agents of public authority are not included. Police officers are agents of public authority.
That the public authority is not the person against whom the crime is committed.
If the offender is the person against whom the crime is committed, such fact that the crime was committed in contempt of the public
authority is an element because the crime committed would be direct assault. In direct assault, in contempt of or with insult to public
authority is an element, no longer an aggravating circumstance.
That the offender knows him to be a public authority.

There must be knowledge on the part of the offender that the said person is a public authority. Otherwise, it cannot be said that he
disrespected the said person as a public authority if he has no knowledge that he is a public authority.
That the presence of the public authority did not prevent the offender from the commission of the crime.
An offense may be said to have been committed in contempt of public authority when his presence, made known to the offender, has
not prevented the latte from committing the criminal act.
Example;
The barangay chairman was in a restaurant having dinner with his wife because it was there wedding anniversary. Suddenly here
comes A, B and C who are constituents of the barangay chairman. Upon seeing the chairman, they greeted him and even congratulated
him and his wife upon learning that they were celebrating their wedding anniversary. They seated next to the table of the chairman and
ordered food. In the giving of the food, there was an argument between A and the waiter. The argument immediately became a heated
one. A took the table knife and stab the waiter. The waiter suffered serious physical injuries. Prosecuted for frustrated homicide.
Q: In the prosecution for said crime, is the aggravating circumstance of in contempt of or with insult to public authority
present? - CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES
A: NO. The first element is absent. The first element is that the public officer or public authority is engaged in the exercise of his 3
REVIEW [2018]
function. At the time of the commission of the crime, yes he was there but he was in a private act. He was not engaged in the exercise
of his function, hence it cannot be said that the said offender insulted the said public authority.
Example;
The public authority was the city mayor who was inside his office. Suddenly he heard commotion on the ground floor. He looked out his
window, he saw his two supporters having an argument. A and B were having an argument over a parking space. The mayor went
down the building and talked to both A and B. He told them to shake hands and forget everything. Then he told A to just allow B to park
his car anyway there was another parking space available. This angered A because he thought that the mayor was siding with B. A took
out his balisong and stabbed the mayor.
Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of in contempt of or with insult to public authority present?
A: YES. It is present but it is not an aggravating circumstance but an element of the crime because the crime committed is direct
assault. It is direct assault because the public authority at the time of the attack was engaged in the performance of his functions. Since
the crime committed was against the public authority himself, the fact that it was committed in contempt of or with insult to the said
public authority is an ingredient of the crime.
Example;
hat if in the same problem instead of stabbing the said mayor, A felt insulted with the mayor’s words that he is giving the parking space
to B so this angered A. A stabbed B. B died.
Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of in contempt of or with insult to public authority present?

A: YES. The mayor’s act of pacifying A and B was engaged in his official functions. He was not the person against whom the crime was
committed. A was a supporter, therefore he knew mayor was a person in authority. Yet, the presence of the mayor did not prevent A

from committing the crime against B. Hence, the second aggravating circumstance is present.
DISRESPECT OF RANK, AGE OR SEX, OR DWELLING OF THE OFFENDED PARTY, IF THE LATTER HAS NOT GIVEN
PROVOCATION.
There are four aggravating circumstances under this paragraph;

1. Disregard of rank;
2. Disregard of age;
3. Disregard of sex;
4. Crimes committed in dwelling of the offended party;
These four aggravating circumstances can be appreciated singly or collectively if present in the commission of the crime. There must be
deliberate intent on the part of the offender to disrespect the offended party on account of the latter’s age, sex, or rank.
Disregard of rank, disregard of age and disregard of sex can only be considered in crimes against persons and crimes against chastity.
You do not consider these in crimes against property; you do not consider these in crimes against public interest. They can only be
considered in crimes against persons and crimes against chastity.
Disregard of rank
Rank refers to a high social standing, a high position in the society. For this to be considered as an aggravating circumstance, it is
necessary that the offender be of lower rank than that of the offended party.
Example;
A student attacking a professor. There was a disregard of rank of the said professor. An employee attacking his employer. There was a
disregard of rank of the said employer.
Disregard of age
Age here refers to both minority and senority.

GARCIA NOTES 3
The offended party is 95 years old. A killed him by hitting his head for 25 times with a lead pipe. Obviously, there was disregard of his age.
REVIEW [2018]
Considering his age, whereas even one hit of the lead pipe could have already killed the said old man but he was hit 25 times showing
disregard of the age of the old man.
Example;
A child is 4 years old. He was stabbed 25 times, thereafter his body was placed inside a dram filled with water and then the dram was
covered. There was disregard of age. The victim was a minor and therefore any attack, just 1 stab, could have killed the minor. But he was
stabbed 25 times; not only that, he was also submerged and the drum was covered, which shows disrespect of age.
*If there was disrespect of age and there was also treachery, the aggravating circumstance to be considered is treachery because it
absorbs disrespect of age.
Disrespect of sex
Disrespect of sex refers to the female sex. This is inherent in the crime of rape and in certain crimes involving chastity.
Crimes committed in dwelling of the offended party

Dwelling is considered as aggravating circumstance if the crime is committed inside the dwelling of the offended party, that is, the
offended party was inside his dwelling at the time of the commission of the crime and he has not given any provocation.
If the crime is committed inside the dwelling of the offended party, it is as an aggravating circumstance because it shows the greater
perversity of the offender than when the crime is committed in any other place.
The constitution itself provides that a man’s abode must be respected and therefore when a crime is committed inside the house
dwelling it shows the greater criminality on the part of the offender.
Even if a crime is committed inside dwelling, it cannot be considered as aggravating if the following circumstances are present;
1. offended has given provocation;
2. If the offender and the offended party are living in the same dwelling;
3. Dwelling is inherent in the commission of the crime.
Example;
X and Y are roommates in a rented apartment. One night, when X was studying for his exam, Y arrived from work. Y was so tired, he
went directly straight to bed and turned off the lights. However, X turned on the lights and told Y that he was still studying. On the other
hand, Y turned off the lights because he can’t sleep with the lights. X turned off the lights, and Y turned it on again. An altercation
ensued between X and Y. Suddenly, X stabbed Y with a ballpen in the eye. Y was blinded. X was charged with serious physical injury.
Q: May the aggravating circumstance of dwelling be appreciated in this case?

A: NO. One of the exceptions for dwelling to be appreciated is that when the offender and the offended party are both living together in
the same dwelling. In this case, X and Y are roommates. They are living in the same dwelling together. Thus, the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling cannot be appreciated.
Example;
X and Y were fighting in the streets. In the course of their fight, X lost. Thereafter, X went home and left the gate and door open.
Sometime later, X saw Y walking in the street in front of his home. X told Y “kung matapang ka, pumasok ka dito”. Y entered the house
of X. Without any warning, Y stabbed X multiple times. Y was charged with the information of homicide.
Q: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of dwelling should be appreciated?

A: NO. In order for dwelling to be appreciated, there must be no provocation on the part of the owner of the house who is also the
offended party. In this case, were it not for X taunting Y to come into his house if Y is brave, Y would not have had the opportunity to
stab X.
*Dwelling includes the dependencies, the staircase and the enclosures therein.
*The dwelling need not be owned by the offended party. It suffices that the offended party uses it for rest and comfort. E.g., a room
being rented by the lessee or a tenant; room where a person is living as a bedspacer.

CONSUMMATE FRUSTRATE ATTEMPTED 3
REVIEW
Example; D [2018] D
A who lives in a nipa hut was sitting at the staircase when B came and forcibly drag her to another house, 1 kilometer away from A’s
Penalty The penalty A penalty lower
house, where she was raped
prescribed byby B. lower by by two degrees
law for the one degree than that
offense; than that prescribed by
Q: Is the aggravating circumstance prescribed
of dwelling law for
present?
A: YES. The aggravating circumstance by lawisfor
present principal of crime
even if the a was committed in another place far from the dwelling, the aggression
the party.
started in the dwelling of the offended principal consummated
The aggression that started in the dwelling of the offended party when she was dragged from
PRINCIPALS of a felony;
the said staircase, that aggression cannot be divided from the commission of said crim. So even if it grounds were consummated in
consummat
another place for as long as aggression (Art.dwelling,
started in the 51) still dwelling is an aggravating circumstance.
e d felony;
(Art. 50)
Example;
X woke up 6:00Ainpenalty lower HeThe
the morning. gotpenalty
up from bed,A penalty lower out the window wanting to get fresh morning air. Suddenly and without
and looked
any warning, Y by one
shot X.degree lower
X died. The by
information by one degree
charges Y with murder qualified by treachery and with the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling. than that one degree than that
prescribed by than prescribed by
law for principal prescribed law for
of a by law for principals of an
Q: Should the aggravating circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? A: YES. Dwelling is an aggravating circumstance. It is not
consummated the principal attempted
necessary for dwelling to be aggravating that the perpetrator of the crime was able to get in. It suffices that the offended party or the victim
ACCOMPLIC felony; of a felony;
is inside his house. The assailant may device ways and means to commit the crime from the outside.
ES (Art. 52) frustrated (Art. 56)
felony;
(Art. 54)
Q: Will the treachery absorb the aggravating circumstance of dwelling?
A: NO. Treachery does not absorbThe
A penalty lower penaltyIn this
dwelling. The penalty
case, murder was qualified by treachery, and dwelling will be treated as an ordinary
by two degrees
aggravating circumstance. lower by two lower by two
than that degrees degrees than
prescribed by than that prescribed
Example; law for principal prescribed by law for
of aa woman of highbystanding
W is 95 years old; law for in theprincipals of an
society. She was a former department secretary. She is living alone in her house. One
time here comesconsummated
X. X wanted to robthethe valuablesattempted
inside the house of the said old woman. X entered the said house and he was able to
ACCESSORI felony; principals of felony; (Art. 57)
get the valuables from the vault of the house. He was about to leave the house when accidentally pushed the chair. By reason thereof, the
ES
woman was awaken. (Art. 53) a frustrated
The woman upon seeing X begun screaming. X then fired at the woman 50 times. The woman died.
felony;
(Art. 55
Q: Are the aggravating circumstances of disregard of rank, disregard of age, disregard of sex present?
A: NO. The crime committed is robbery with homicide, under article 10 which is a crime against property. Disregard of rank, age and sex
are not applicable to any other crimes but only to crimes against person and crimes against chastity. Since the crime committed is a crime
against property, therefore, disregard of rank, age and sex cannot be considered against the accused.
Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of dwelling present?

A: YES. The crime committed robbery with homicide is a form of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons. Dwelling is only
inherent in robbery with use of force upon things but dwelling is not inherent in case of robbery with violence against or intimidation of
persons just like robbery with homicide. So in this case, only dwelling should be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE OR OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS.

There are two aggravating circumstances;
1. Abuse of confidence;
2. Obvious ungratefulness;
Abuse of Confidence
The circumstance exists only when the offended party has trusted the offender who later abuses such trust by committing the crime.
The abuse of confidence must be a means of facilitating the commission of the crime, the culprit taking advantage of the offended
party’s belief that the former would not abuse said confidence.
Elements of abuse of confidence;

1. That the offended party had trusted the offender;
2. That the offender abuse such trust by committing a crime against the offended party;
3. That the abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime
Example;
H and W were husband and wife living here in Manila for 4 years. Suddenly here comes X. X was their former neighbor in Batangas. He
told H and W “I am looking for work here in Manila, can I live in your house while I am looking for work?” Since X was a good neighbor
back then, H and W trusted X and allowed X to live inside their house. X now sleeps in the house of H and W while he was looking for
work here in manila. One time H was out of the house. The house helpers and the drivers were also away. The only person left in the
house was X and W. While H was out, X went to the master’s bedroom and had carnal knowledge of W against the latter’s will.
Q: Is the aggravating circumstance abuse of confidence present in this case?

- CRIMINAL LAW
A: YES. X was there because A and B trusted him, yet he abused such trust and confidence and instead facilitated the commission of
GARCIA NOTES
the crime. Therefore this aggravating circumstance is present. 3
REVIEW [2018]
Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of dwelling present in the case? A: NO. The aggravating circumstance of dwelling in this case
cannot be considered because at the time of the incident, H and W allowed X to live with them even though it was only in a temporary
basis. Ownership of the house is irrelevant in dwelling.
Obvious Ungratefulness
Ungratefulness means the offender has no gratitude, does not even know how to say thank you.
The elements of obvious ungratefulness are the following;

1. That the offended party had trusted the offender;
2. That the offender abuse such trust by committing a crime against the offended party;
3. That the act be committed with obvious ungratefulness
Example;
A was selling kettles and other kitchen wares on the street under the heat of the sun. A goes from one house to another under the heat
of the sun. He was so thirsty already so he knocked on the gate of the house of X. X opened the gate and A told X that he was so
thirsty. X being a good person, allowed A to go inside their house and asked him to take a sit while he get him a glass of water. When
he came back, he was not only holding a glass of water but also brought some

biscuits. However A suddenly, brought out his knife and stabbed X and thereafter robbed him.
Q: Is the aggravating circumstance obvious ungratefulness present? A: YES. Instead of showing gratitude for having been allowed
to enter the house and given a glass of water with biscuits, he instead took advantage of the goodness of the man and committed the
crime of killing and robbery. There was obvious ungratefulness on the part of the offender.
THE PALACE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, OR IN HIS PRESENCE, OR WHERE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES ARE ENGAGED IN THE
DISCHARGE OF THEIR DUTIES OR IN A PLACE DEDICATED TO RELIGIOUS WORSHIP.
If the crime is committed in any of these places it is considered as an aggravating circumstance because it shows on the part of the
offender lack of respect on these places.
There are four aggravating circumstances in this case;
1. In the Palace of the chief executive;
2. In the presence of the chief executive;
3. Public authorities engaged in the discharge of their duties;
4. Place dedicated to religious worship;
In order however for these aggravating circumstances to be considered, it is necessary that the offender deliberately sought the said place
to commit the crime because otherwise it cannot be said that he disrespected the place.
In the Palace of the Chief Executive

This aggravating circumstance may be committed regardless of whether there is a public affair or official affair going on, if a crime is
committed it is aggravating.
Example:
A and B are chefs in Malacanang. They are outdoing each other in trying to prepare the best meal for P-noy. One time, both of them were
preparing lunch for the president. Suddenly they had an argument. In the course thereof, A stabbed B. B suffered a fatal wound but he
survived. Prosecuted for frustrated homicide.
NUMBER OF CONVICTION PENALTY PRESCRIBED

Q: Is the aggravating circumstance that the
The penalty forcrime was committed in the palace of the Chief Executive present?
the last
A: NO. Because he works there,crimehe lives there.heIt be
of which cannot
foundbe said that he sought the said place in order to commit the crime. It cannot be
said that he went to said place inguilty.
order to commit the crime or can it be said that he disrespected the said place.
Third Conviction; ADDITIONAL PENALTY;

In the presence of the Chief Executive prision correccional in
executive.
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES
Even if the Chief Executive is notitsengagedmedium in his official duty, still it is considered as aggravating because of the lack of respect to the chief
and
maximum periods; 3
REVIEW [2018] The penalty provided for
the last crime of which he
Where the Public Authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties
RECIDIVISM HABITUAL
be found guilty.
It is not only necessary that the said places are where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, it is also necessary
DELINQUENCY
that at the time of the commission of the crime, the public authorities are actually engaged in the performance of their duties.
Fourth Conviction;
Generic aggravating Cannot be offset
ADDITIONAL by ordinary
PENALTY;
circumstance - Can be offset; Prision mitigating
mayor circumstance;
in its
Example;
Requires at l minimum
Requiresand medium
periods;
at l
Many farmers were having a rally outside the DAR. They started the rally around 6am, it is now 8pm, they were still there. The officials
andeast
t wo east
The culprit

t hree
shall be
conviction; convictions;to the penalty
sentenced
Felony violated
employees must be
had already left, so the The
provided felony
farmersforwere violated
the last crime
there are
still of
having their rally. They set tents and prepared to sleep there. In the course
within the
thereof, same title
2 farmers of the
argued at each serious
which heInbe
other. physical
found
the ofinjuries,
guilty.
course their argument one farmer jumped into the fence and went inside the DAR. The
code; farmer followed him and when
second less the second
serious farmer physical
was able to catch up with the first farmer, he killed the latter.
injuries, robbery, theft,
ADDITIONAL PENALTY;
estafa, falsification;
prision mayor in its
Q:Fifth Conviction;
Is the aggravating circumstance maximum that theperiod
crime wastocommitted in a place where the Public Authorities are engaged in the
discharge of their duties present? reclusion temporal in its
A: NO. Although DAR is a placeminimum where theperiod.
Public Authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, at the time of the commission
of the crime, the officials and employees are not in the actual performance of their duties. Under this aggravating circumstance, it is not
only necessary that the said places are where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, it is also necessary that at
the time of the commission of the crime, the public authorities are actually engaged in the performance of their duties.
In a place dedicated to religious worship

Even if there is no religious ceremony on going, for as long as the said crime is committed in said place dedicated to religious worship it
is aggravating because of lack of respect on said place.
Example;
X was in a church praying to kill Y. X saw Y at the back of the church. X went out of the church. X entered the church in the back door
and suddenly, he stabbed Y. Y died. X was charged with homicide.
Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of place of religious worship present?

A: YES. In order for the aggravating circumstance of religious worship to be appreciated, the offender must especially sought the place
to facilitate the commission of the crime. In this case, when X saw Y, he went out of the church and entered in the back so that he could
stab
Y. X deliberately sought the place of religious worship to facilitate the commission of the crime.
NIGHTTIME, UNINHABITED PLACE, OR BY A BAND

There are three aggravating circumstances in this case;
1. Nighttime;
2. Uninhabited place;
3. Band;
Nighttime
Nighttime is from sunset to sunrise. In order for these aggravating circumstances to be considered, it is necessary that the offender
deliberately sought the darkness of the night either to facilitate the commission of the crime or to insure or afford impunity.
Elelements;
The following are the elements of Nighttime;
1. The darkness or silence of the night was especially sought by the offender;
2. That night time was taken advantage of by the offender to facilitate the commission of the crime;
3. The purpose is to insure his immunity from capture;
Even if the offender sought nighttime, the moment the scene of the crime has been illuminated by any light, rule out nighttime as an
aggravating circumstance.

Example;
In the commission of the crime, A decided to kill B, his enemy. A knew that B would pass by the place wherein there were no light posts.
A waited for B in the said place. Upon the moment B arrived A left his post and was about to stab B when suddenly a tricycle passed by
and the light coming from the tricycle illuminated the scene of the crime. Even if A deliberately sought nighttime, nighttime is not
aggravating because a light illuminated the scene of the crime. Whenever any light has illuminated the scene of the crime, rule out
nighttime as an aggravating circumstance. Light coming from the tricycle, from any vehicle, nearby house, light posts or even from the
moon, for as long as the scene of the crime has been illuminated, nighttime is not aggravating.
An uninhabited place
Means a place which is isolated from the others or located far from others. However this is not the requirement for it to be considered
aggravating.
Requisites;
1. That in the place where the crime was committed there was a remote possibility for the victim to receive some help;
2. That the offender deliberately sought the uninhabited place in order to facilitate the commission of the crime;
Example;
A, B and C are fishermen. Around 3 am, they all went out fishing on their respective boats. They were sailing 5 meters away from each
other. Suddenly X sprung out of the water and he stabbed A.
Q: In the prosecution for killing of A, is the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place present?
A: YES. First, in the place where the crime was committed, there was very little, remote possibility for A to receive some help. Because B
and C must still swim before they could render help or assistance to
A. Before they could have swum and reached A, A is already dead. Therefore there was very litter or remote possibility for the victim to be
saved. The said accused X deliberately sought the place in order to facilitate in the commission of the crime because he suddenly
appeared from the water. Therefore the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place is present.
By a band
For the aggravating circumstance of by a band to be present, the law says where more than three armed malefactors shall have acted
together in the commission of the offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band. Therefore, there must be at least 4
armed men in the commission of the crime or they must have acted together in the commission of the crime.
Example;
A, B, C, D and E all armed with knives, killed X. The information stated that A, B, C, D and E conspired with one another and as a band
they committed the crime of murder against X. during the presentation of evidence, conspiracy was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Likewise, band as an aggravating circumstance was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Thus the judge convicted A, B, C, D and E for the
crime of murder as conspirators. The judge also considered the aggravating circumstance of by a band. The counsel for the accused filed
a motion for the consideration, questioning the consideration of the aggravating circumstance of by a band. According to the counsel,
conspiracy has already been considered therefore by a band can no longer be considered by the court.
Q: Is the counsel’s contention correct?

A: NO. Even if the court already considered conspiracy, by a band may still be considered by the court because conspiracy is a means
of committing a crime. It means they have the same criminal liability. On the other hand, by a band is an aggravating circumstance. One
does not absorb the other, therefore, both maybe considered and appreciated by the court.
Example;
A induced B, C, and D wanted to kill W. A, B, C, and D planned to commit the crime at 11pm so that the community is fast asleep. At
11pm, B, C, and D entered the house of W. They directly proceeded to his room. W’s room was fully lighted. Thereafter, B, C, and D
stabbed W. W died. A, B, C, and D was charged murder qualified by treachery with the aggravating circumstance of nighttime,
uninhabited place, and by a band.
Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of nighttime present?

A: YES. Although the room of W was fully lighted, the accused deliberately sought the darkness and silence of the night in order to
facilitate the commission of the crime.
Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of by a band present?

A: NO. A band is present whenever more than three armed malefactors come together in the commission of the crime. All of the armed
malefactors must be a principal by direct participation. In this case A is a principal by inducement.
Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place present? A: NO. In order for an uninhabited place to be present, the
offender deliberately sought a place isolated from the others or located far from others so that there is a remote possibility that the
victim may receive help.
ON THE OCCASION OF A CONFLAGRATION, SHIPWRECK, EARTHQUAKE, EPIDEMIC, OR OTHER CALAMITY OR
MISFORTUNE.
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES
It is considered as an aggravating circumstance because on occasion of these calamities, the offender took advantage of the said 8
occasion in order to commit the crime.
REVIEW [2018]
Example;
X and Y were fighting. X lost the fight. Suddenly, there was an earthquake and all the people panicked and went outside their house. X
went out of his house and saw Y also panicking. X saw this as an opportunity to kill Y and get his revenge. X approached Y and
stabbed him multiple times. X was charged with homicide committed on the occasion of earthquake as an aggravating circumstance.
Q: How do we appreciate the aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed on the occasion of an earthquake?
A: The aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed in the occasion of an earthquake must be appreciated as a qualifying
aggravating circumstance. Article 248 states that when a person kills another on the occasion of a calamity such as an earthquake, the
person is liable for murder. In this case, since X killed Y on the occasion of an earthquake, such aggravating circumstance shall qualify
the crime into murder.

Example;
An earthquake occurred. All of the persons in the community panicked and went outside their house. Upon Seeing this, X saw an
opportunity to commit theft and take the belongings of other person who are out of their house. However, X was apprehended and
charged for the crime of theft with the aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed on the occasion of an earthquake.
Q: How do we appreciate the aggravating circumstance of earthquake in relation to the crime of theft?
A: The aggravating circumstance of earthquake should be considered as a qualifying circumstance. Article 310 of the RPC states that
when theft was committed on the occasion of an earthquake, the crime committed is qualified theft. In this case, since X committed the
crime of theft in the occasion of an earthquake, he is liable for qualified theft.
AID OF ARMED MEN

Aid of armed men means that the armed men aided the offender in the commission of the crime. The aid given by the armed men maybe
a direct or indirect participation in the commission of the crime.
The armed men who gives aid to the offender are merely accomplices because they may give material or moral aid to the offender.
Armed men v. By a band

BY A BAND AID OF ARMED MEN
There must be at least 4 There is no requisite as to the
armed number of armed men;
malefactors;
The armed men may have
Must have acted together
direct or indirect
in the actual commission
participation. They are mere
of the crime; (conspiracy)
accomplices of
the offender.
RECIDIVISM
A recidivist is one whom at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have previously been convicted by final judgment of another crime
embraced in the same title of this Code.
The following are the elements of recidivism;

1. The offender is on trial for an offense;
2. He was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime;
3. Both the first and second offenses are embraced in the same title of the code;
4. That the offender is convicted of the second offense charged.
Example:
A has been convicted of the crime of attempted homicide. The judge found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, he was
convicted. The judgment became final and executory, therefore he was behind bars. He served out his sentence. Once out of prison cell,
he lived a good life. However, after 25 years, he engaged in a fight and killed the other man. By reasonable doubt he was charged with
and convicted of the crime of murder.
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES
Q: Can the judge consider recidivism as an aggravating circumstance in imposing the penalty for murder? 8
A: YES. Both homicide and murder are embraced in the same title of the code. The fact that 25 years had lapsed from the time of the first
REVIEW [2018]
crime to the second crime is immaterial because recidivism is
imprescriptible. There is no time limit between the first crime for which he has been convicted by final judgment and the second crime
for which he is also convicted.
Example;
X was a convicted murder. While serving his sentence, he was granted an absolute pardon by President Duterte. X was released from
prison. After a few weeks, X was engaged in a fight and killed Y. X was convicted with homicide with the aggravating circumstance of
recidivism.
Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of recidivism present in this case? A: YES. The fact that X was granted with pardon does not
erase the effects of the prior conviction of murder.
Example;
X was a military man. He was convicted of conspiracy to commit rebellion. While he was serving his sentence, an amnesty proclamation
was executed by the president for all those who conspired to commit rebellion. X applied for amnesty and was granted. X was able to
get out of prison. Sometime later, X joined some military men and participated in their coup d’état. X, long with the other military men,
were apprehended and convicted.
Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of recidivism present in this case? A: NO. Amnesty erases the effects of the crime as if no
crime happened and no crime was committed by the accused. It totally obliterates and erase the former conviction. In this case, since X
was granted amnesty in the conspiracy to commit to commit rebellion, recidivism was not present.
REITERACION OR HABITUALITY
The offender has been previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more
crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
The following are the elements of reiteracion;

1. That the accused is on trial for an offense;
2. That he previously served sentence for another crime to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more
crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty;
3. That he is also convicted of the new offense.
The first situation is that, he has already served out the sentence, he has already been punished for a crime.
Under the second element there are two situations;

1. If it is only one crime it is necessary that the said crime must carry a penalty equal to or greater than the second crime;
2. If there are two crimes for which he had been previously punished, it is necessary that they carry a lighter penalties than the new
crime for which he is convicted.
There are four forms of habituality;

1. Recidivism; (Article 14, par. 9)
2. Riteracion; (Article 14, par. 10)
3. Habitual Delinquency; (Article 62, no. 5)
4. Quasi-recidivism; (Article 160)

Recidivism v. Reiteracion
RECIDIVISM REITERACION
Requires conviction by final
judgment; - CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES Requires service of sentence;
8
May be felonies or offenses
REVIEW [2018]
Crimes must be felonies;
punishable by special law;
Offenses are under the same Offenses may or may not be
title of the RPC; in
the same title of the RPC;
Example:
A has been convicted of the crime of homicide. Convicted by final judgment, he was placed behind bars. He served out his sentence.
Once out of prison, he committed forcible abduction. Homicide is punished by reclusion temporal. Forcible abduction is now on trial. The
penalty prescribed by law for forcible abduction is also reclusion temporal. The judge found him guilty for forcible abduction.
Q: Can the judge consider reiteracion as an aggravating circumstance in imposing the penalty for forcible abduction?
A: YES. The penalty for the crime of homicide where he has already served out his sentence is equal to the penalty for forcible abduction,
both reclusion temporal. Therefore, reiteracion or habituality can be considered.
Example;
B committed forcible abduction. He was convicted by final judgment. He served out his sentence. He is now out of prison. Once out of
prison, he committed falsification of public document. He is on trial for the said falsification of public document. The judge found him guilty
beyond reasonable doubt.
Q: In imposing the penalty for falsification of public document, can judge consider reiteracion as an aggravating circumstance?
A: YES. The penalty for forcible abduction is reclusion temporal, which is higher than the penalty for falsification of public document
committed by a private individual which is only prision correccional. Therefore, reiteracion or habituality should be considered by the court
in imposing the penalty for falsification of public document.
Example;
B committed falsification of public document. Convicted, served out the sentence. After service of sentence, he is out of prison, he
engaged in a fight and killed his opponent. His now on trial for homicide. The judge found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Q: Can the judge consider reiteracion as an aggravating circumstance?

A: NO. The crime for which he has served out his sentence carries a penalty lighter than that of the second crime. The law requires that if
it is only one crime, it must carry a penalty equal to or greater than the second crime he committed.
Example;
A slapped B. B filed a case for slight physical injuries against A. He was convicted and served out his sentence for slight physical injuries
which is arresto menor. Once out of prison, he was still mad at B. He deliberately caused damage to the property of B. B now filed a case
of malicious mischief against A. The judge found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for malicious mischief.
A: NO. Slight physical injuries which carries with it the penalty of arresto menor is lighter than malicious mischief which carries with it
the penalty of arresto mayor. Therefore the judge cannot consider reiteracion as an aggravating circumstance. He was convicted of
malicious mischief and placed behind bars.
Example;
In the same problem, after service of sentence, A is now out of prison. Once out of prison, he was still mad at B. Therefore he made
sworn affidavits stating false statements against B. B filed a case of perjury against A. he is now on trial for the crime of perjury. The
judge found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

A: YES. The first two crimes, the penalties of which were already served out, carry lighter penalties than the third crime: slight physical
injuries, arresto menor; malicious mischief arresto mayor. Therefore reiteracion can be considered.
Example;
X was convicted of homicide with the privilege mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense. The judge imposed upon him the
penalty of Prision coreccional (6 years). X applied for probation and it was granted. While under probation, X forcibly abducted his
neighbor. As a result, an information for forcible abduction was charged against X with the aggravating circumstance of reiteracion.
Q: is the aggravating circumstance of reiteracion present in this case?

A: NO. In order for reiteracion to be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, the offender must have previously served his
sentence. By applying probation, the accused admitted to the commission of the crime, however, he avoided serving sentence. The
Supreme Court held that probation is not the same as serving once sentence. In this case, there was no reiteracion.
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES 7
IN CONSIDERATION OF A PRICE, REWARD, OR PROMISE.
REVIEW [2018]
If the price, reward or promise, as a circumstance is present in the killing of a person, it is not considered as a generic aggravating 3
person but a qualifying aggravating circumstance. It is one of the qualifying circumstances under Art.248.
This aggravating circumstance should be considered both against the person who made the offer and the person who accepted the
price, reward or promise. Therefore, it is to be considered both against the principal by inducement and the principal by direct
participation.
To be considered against the principal by inducement, it is necessary that the price, reward or promise must be the prime reason for the
principal by direct participation committed the crime. That without the price, reward or promise, the principal by direct participation would
not have committed the crime.
BY MEANS OF GREAT WASTE AND RUIN

That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or international damage thereto,
derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin.
The offender makes use of inundation, fire or explosion in order to commit the crime. It is a means to commit the crime. If these means

are used in killing a person, it is not a generic aggravating circumstance, it is a qualifying aggravating circumstance under article
248. It qualifies the killing to murder.
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
Evident premeditation is the stubborn adherence to a decision to commit a crime.
It implies a deliberate plans before or after the commission of the crime.
The following are the requisites of evident premeditation;

1. The time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination;
3. Sufficient lapse time between the determination and execution, to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his acts;
Example;
A slapped B two times in front of the public. B felt so humiliated so he told A “the next time I see you, I will kill you!” B went home and
searched for his gun. He found the same and kept it under his pillow, waiting for the time to kill A. A month has lapsed. B while walking
saw
A. upon seeing A, he immediately run to his house, went to his bedroom and took the gun under his pillow. He raised back to A and shot
him.
Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation present?

A: YES. First, the time when the offender determined to commit the crime. That is the time when B told A “the next time I see you, I will kill
you!” Second, an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination. He brought a gun. It is an overt act showing that he
has clung to his determination. Third, a sufficient lapse time between the determination and execution. A month has passed. That is
sufficient for him to cool off, to reflect upon the consequences of his acts. Therefore, evident premeditation was present in the commission
of the crime.
THAT THE CRAFT, FRAUD OR DISGUISE BE EMPLOYED.

There are three aggravating circumstances;
1. Craft;
2. Fraud;
3. Disguise
Craft
Craft means intellectual trickery or cunning resorted to by the accused
Example;
- CRIMINAL LAW
The accused knocked at the door. He knows that only the maid was at home. He told the maid that he was a relative of the owners of the
GARCIA NOTES
house who came from the province. He was allowed to enter the house, thereafter he committed a crime of robbery. There was cunning or 7
intellectual trickery resorted to by the accused for he tricked the maid to consummate the crime of robbery.
REVIEW [2018] 3
Fraud
Fraud or deceit is manifested by the use of insidious words or machinations resorted to by the accused so that the offended party will
perform an act that will make the offender do the crime easily.
Example;
The offended party was about to sleep on the upper portion of the house because the lower portion is a store. The offender called over
the owner, saying that he was going to buy something. The owner went down the house and opened the store. However, upon opening
the store, he was stabbed and robbery was committed. There was fraud as manifested by the insidious words or machinations, resorted
to by the offender.
Disguise
Disguise are ways and means resorted to by the accused to conceal his identity.
This include stockings, bonnet or anything that could be used so that one could not be recognized.
If despite disguise he is recognized, rule out disguise as an aggravating circumstance, it did not serve its purpose.
ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH

Abuse of superior strength is intentionally employing excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the offended
party.
The requisites for abuse of superior strength are the following;

1. That there be a notorious inequality of forces between the offender and the offended party in terms of their age, size and
strength;
2. That the offender took advantage of this inequality of forces to facilitate the commission of the crime.
Inequality of forces
Inequality of forces includes the following;
1. Offender uses weapon to tak advantage;
2. Numerical Superiority;
3. Difference in physical characteristics such as age strength and size.
The mere fact that there was numerical superiority does not automatically mean that there is abuse of superior strength. Under the
second element, evidence must show that the offender deliberately took advantage of their strength to facilitate the commission of the
crime.
TRERACHERY
There is treachery or alevosia when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in
the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the
offended party might make.
The following are the elements of treachery;

1. That the offender deliberately adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him;
2. That at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself.

The essence of treachery is the suddenness and unexpectedness of the act to unexpecting and unarmed victim who has not even the
slightest provocation. The victim must be totally without defense.
If the victim was able to put out any defense, no matter how minor, treachery is not present.
Example;
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES
A was about to stab B but he was able to parry the blow, that is already a defense on his part. He was able to run away, that is already
considered as a defense. Treachery is no longer present. It is necessary that the offended party or the victim must be totally without 7
REVIEW [2018]
defense.
3
Q: What if the attack is a frontal attack?
A: Even if it is a frontal attack, if it is so sudden, unexpected, such that the offended party would not be aware of it and was not able to put
up any defense, there is still treachery.
Example;
A and B were walking towards each other. When near enough, B suddenly stabbed A. It was a frontal attack yet obviously there was
treachery. A was totally defenseless and B deliberately and consciously adopted the means in the commission of the crime.
People v. Matibag (G.R. No. 206381, March 15, 2015)

Deceased Duhan was walking along the road when the accused Matibag confronted him and asked “ano bang pinagsasabi mo?”, Duhan
replied “wala”. Matibag thereafter hit Duahan and pulled out a gun and shot him. Matibag was charged with the murder qualified by
treachery.
Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of treachery present in this case? A: YES. The essence of treachery is the sudden and
unexpected attack. A frontal attack does not necessarily rule out treachery. The qualifying circumstance may still be appreciated if the
attack was so sudden and so unexpected that the deceased had no time to prepare for his or her defense. In this case, Although the
attack was frontal, the sudden and unexpected manner by which it was made rendered it impossible for Duhan to defend himself, adding
too that he was unarmed.
When Victim is a Minor

Whenever the offended party is a minor, there is always treachery because the minor is always defenseless.
Example;
Victim is 17 years of age, but a big, macho man, full of muscles.
Q: Is there treachery?
A: The Supreme Court held that whenever the offended party is a minor, there is always treachery.
Minority Appreciated in Treachery

Minority here does not refer to the statutory definition of minority, that is, being below 18 years of age. Minority here is with reference to
the sense of helplessness of the victim. So it is necessary that the victim is helpless.
Example;
If the victim is 17 years old with a masculine physique and was able to put up a defense, there is no treachery. But if the victim is 6 years
old, then there is treachery.
The Offender Adopted Particular Means

The offender must have deliberately adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him.
Example;
A prisoner arrived at the police station. Upon removal of his handcuffs, he immediately grab the pistol of the arresting officer. Thereafter
he went out pointing the said gun. Upon seeing a woman who was getting inside the PNP station, he shot the woman.
Q: The woman died. Is the aggravating circumstance of treachery present?
A: NO. It is a mere chance encounter. The first element is wanting. There is no showing the offender deliberately adopted the particular
means, method or form of attack employed by him in killing the woman.
People v. Vilbar (G.R. No. 186541, February 1, 2012)

Guilbert Patricia and his wife Maria Liza owns a sari-sari store. One night, when Guilbert arrived home from work, he saw the accused
who was drunk, urinating in one of the table in their store. Guilbert reprimanded the accused, but the accused merely ignored Guilbert.
Suddenly, the accused approached Guilbert, drew out a knife, and stabbed him repeatedly. The accused was charged with murder
qualified by treachery.
Q: Was treachery present as an aggravating circumstance?

A: NO. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution in the instant case merely showed that accused-appellant attacked Guilbert
suddenly and unexpectedly, but failed to prove that accused- appellant consciously adopted such mode of attack to facilitate the
perpetration of the killing without risk to himself.
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES
Treachery must be present at the commencement of the attack
For treachery to arise it is necessary that he must be present at the commencement of the attack in order to know whether the offended7
REVIEW [2018]
party was totally defenseless.
3
People v. Bokingco (G.R. No. 187536, August 10, 2011)
The witness saw the deceased Pasion enter the room of Bokingco. The witness peeped through the window of Bokingco who was seen
hitting something in the floor. Bokingco was charged with murder qualified by treachery.
Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of treachery present?

A: NO. For treachery to be appreciated, the prosecution must prove that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to
defend himself, and that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him.Nobody
witnessed the commencement and the manner of the attack. While the witness Vitalicio managed to see Bokingco hitting something on
the floor, he failed to see the victim at that time.
People v. Tabarnero (G.R. No. 68169, February 24, 2010)

The witness Emerito testified that he saw the deceased Ernesto bing held by two persons whil accused Gary and Alberto Tabarnero
were stabbing the deceased. The witness did not see how the attack commenced but only that he was attacked by both the accused
while his hands were held by another person.

Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of treachery present in this case? A: YES. The Supreme Court held that there was treachery.
What the witness saw was that the hands of the victim were being held at the back while he was being attacked. That is sufficient because
there was restraint on the person of the victim. Even the witness did not observe the commencement of the attack, since there was
restraint on his person, he was totally defenseless, treachery is present according to the Supreme Court.
Treachery absorbs Craft

If craft was used to insure the commission of the crime without risk to the accused, it is absorbed as treachery.
Example;
A, B, C, and D wanted to kill X. Thus, they procured the uniform of military en and knocked on the door of X. Upon seeing the military
uniform, X allowed A, B, C, and D to enter his house. Once inside, A, B, C, and D, shot X. They were charged with murder qualified by
treachery and with the aggravating circumstance of craft.
Q: Was craft absorbed by treachery in this case?

A: NO. Although, the all the accused dressed up as military men, such did not facilitate the commission of the crime. The uniform of
military men was merely used as a means to gain entry into the house of X.
Example;
X wanted to kill Y. Thus, X took his gun and hid it in the pocket of his jacket so that it could be concealed. Thereafter, X approached Y and
started talking. While Y was talking, X shot Y with the gun concealed in his jacket. Y died.
Q: Was craft used to facilitate the commission of the crime?

A: YES. Since X hid the gun in his jacket to conceal it from the eyesight of Y, such means facilitated the crime of murder through craft.
Treachery Absorbs Abuse Superior Strength

When both abuse of superior strength and treachery is present, only treachery will be appreciated because abuse of superior strength is
absorbed by treachery.
Fantastico v. Malicse (G.R. No. 190912, January 12, 2015)

Elpidio Malicse got into a heated argument with his sister Isabela Iguiron. However, they were pacified by the Barangay Chairman. Victim
Malicse returned to the house of Isabela to apologize, however, accused Fantastico (the son-in law of Isabela) along with Rolly Villanueva,
suddenly attacked victim with a stick and lead pipe, respectively. Malicse almost died were it not for the intervention of the barangay tanod.
The accused was charged with attempted murder qualified by abuse of superior strength.
Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of Abuse of superior strength present in this case?

A: YES. The victim in this case was unarmed, while the accused was armed with a stick and a lead pipe. However, there was no
treachery in this case. From the facts proven by the prosecution, the incident was spontaneous, thus, the second element of treachery is
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES 7
wanting. The incident, which happened at the spur of the moment, negates the possibility that the petitioners consciously adopted means
to execute the crime committed.
REVIEW [2018] 3
IGNOMINY
Ignominy is a moral circumstance which adds disgrace or humiliation to the injury suffered by the victim.
People v. Bumidang (G.R. No. 130630, December 4, 2000)

Accused Bumidang went into the house of Melencio Imbat in the middle night. Accused threatened to kill Melencio and her unmarried
daughter Gloria if the door was not opened. When Melencio opened the door, the accused asked where the room of Gloria is. Melencio
thereafter pointed to the room of Gloria. The accused went inside the room of Gloria. The accused threatened to kill her with a spear if
she resisted. The accused removed the garments of Gloria, inspected her genitals with a flashlight and proceeded to have carnal
knowledge in front of Melencio.
Q: Was there ignominy in this case?

A: YES. The Supreme Court held that it was established that BALIWANG used the flashlight and examined the genital of Gloria before
he ravished her. He committed his bestial deed in the presence of Gloria's old father. These facts clearly show that BALIWANG
deliberately wanted to further humiliate Gloria, thereby aggravating and compounding her moral sufferings.
People v. Saylan (G.R. No. L-36941, June 29, 1984)

Accused Saylan raped Eutropia Agno five times. In one of those time, Saylan gained entry to the genitals of the Eutropia from behind in
dog- style position. Eutropia filed a complaint for rape against Saylan.
Q: Does the dog-style position adds ignominy to rape?

A: YES. The entry of the penis was from behind. Although this position was not novel and in fact normal in case of two consenting
partners, such act adds ignominy in rape cases.
People v. Fernandez (G.R. No. L-62116, March 22, 1990)

Rebecca Soriano is employed as a house helper. Rebecca had just taken a shower in the house of her master when suddenly, accused
went inside the house and raped her. She added that after the ape, the accused grab a handful of mud and smeared it on her vagina.
Q: Is there ignominy in this case?

A: YES. The act of "plastering" mud on the victim's vagina right after she was raped, is adequately and properly described as
"ignominy".
UNLAWFUL ENTRY
There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose
In correlation to this, paragraph 19 states that as a means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken.
Example;
A was on vacation. B knew that A was on vacation. He saw that the window on the third floor of the house was open. He got a ladder
and placed it in the window, climbed it and entered the house. Then he took the valuables, got out through the window.
Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of unlawful entry present?

A: NO. The reason is that, the fact that a crime was committed after an unlawful entry is inherent in the commission of the crime
because the crime committed is robbery under Art.299, robbery with use of force upon things. The essence of robbery, is in the act of
unlawful entry. The entry was done through a means not intended for anything

that is to a window. Thus, the fact that a crime was committed after an unlawful entry is not an aggravating circumstance.
Example;
A was passing by the house of B. Suddenly he saw through the window, two cellphones being charged. Interested on the cellphones, he
broke the window entered his hand and took the cellphones.
Q: Is the aggravating circumstance that as a means to the commission of the crime the window was broken present?
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES
A: YES. The crime committed is theft only and not robbery because the offender did not enter the house. In the case of People v.
Jaranilla (G.R. No. L-28547 February 22, 1974) One essential requisite of robbery with force upon things is that the malefactor should7
REVIEW [2018]
enter the building or dependency, where the object to be taken is found. If the culprit did not enter the building, there would be no robbery
3
with force upon things. The crime committed is only theft. In this case, the offender only broke the window, entered his hand and took the
cellphones. Therefore the crime committed is theft. In theft, the fact that a window was broken is not inherent it is an aggravating
circumstance.
AID OF PERSONS UNDER 15 YEARS

If the crime committed makes use of minors under 15 years of age, it shows the greater perversity of the offender because he knows that
minors cannot be arrested. Persons below 15 years of age cannot be prosecuted, it is among the exempting circumstances. Therefore, it
shows greater perversity.
BY MEANS OF MOTOR VEHICLE

If the crime is committed with the use of motor vehicle in killing a person, it is a qualifying aggravating circumstance under article 248. If
the motor vehicle is used in the commission of any other crime, it is a mere generic aggravating circumstance.
Example;
X was walking along the road. Suddenly two men riding in tandem in a motorcycle snatched the handbag of X. X was able to identify the
plate number of the motorcycle and reported the matter to the police. The police made an investigation which resulted to the arrest of the
two men.
Q: Is the use of motor vehicle an aggravating circumstance?

A: YES. The two men used the motor vehicle to snatch the handbag of
X. Thereafter, the two men utilized the motor vehicle to facilitate their escape. Thus, the aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle
is present because it facilitated the commission of the crime.
CRUELTY
Cruelty is the additional physical pain aside from the material injury which is not necessary to the commission of the crime.
The following are the elements of cruelty;

1. That at the time of the infliction of the physical pain, the offended party is still alive;
2. That the offender enjoys and delights in seeing his victim suffer gradually by the infliction of the physical pain;
* The victim must be alive because a corpse cannot feel pain.
Example;
A person was found dead with several wounds all over his body. The fact that there was 25-50 wounds cannot immediately mean that
there was cruelty in the commission of the crime. It is necessary to determine, whether first, he was still alive at the time the physical
pain was inflicted; second, did the offender enjoy and delight in seeing his victim suffer gradually by the infliction of the physical pain. If
there were defense wounds, cruelty cannot be appreciated.
Ignominy vs. Cruelty

IGNOMINY CRUELTY
The victim suffered moral pain; The victim suffered physical
pain or physical suffering;
The victim may either be alive It is necessary that the victim
or dead; is
alive;
USE OF AN UNLICENSED FIREARM

Under section 1 of P.D. 1866 as amended by. R.A. 8294, If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such
use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

In the case of People v. Palaganas (G.R. No. 165483, September 12, 2006) The Supreme Court held that the passage of Republic Act.
No. 8294 on 6 June 1997, the use of an unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is now considered as a SPECIAL aggravating
circumstance and not a generic aggravating circumstance.
Thus, if the use of unlicensed firearm is inherent in the crime committed, it shall not constitute as another offense but will be considered
as a special aggravating circumstance.
Example;
A killed B by means of an unlicensed firearm. B died and A was arrested. The firearm was recovered. Two cases were filed against A;
murder or homicide as the case maybe and illegal possession of unlicensed firearm under PD. 1866 as amended by RA 8294.
PARDON AMNEST
Merely suspends the Obliterates all effects of
Q: Are the charges correct? execution of sentence, crime as if no crime was
A: NO. Under section 1 of PD. 1866 as amended by RA 8294 if homicide erases or murderthe is committed with thecommitted;
penalty use of an unlicensed firearm,
such use of unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
to be imposed;Therefore, there shall only be one charge of
murder or homicide as the case maybe. The use of the unlicensed firearm shall be alleged in the information as an aggravating
Granted only after Granted at any stage of
circumstance.
conviction by final proceedings, before during or
judgment; after final judgment;
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Example; Private act of President. As Public act of President.
A father and son had an argument. The son shot his father with an unlicensed such, the person
firearm. pardoned
The father Granted
died. Two cases were filed against the
son: parricide and illegal possession
PART II of unlicensed firearm. The fiscal opined that under section 1 of PD. 1866
with as amendedthe by RA c8294
on
if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of unlicensed firearm shall be considered
as an
EXTINCTION
aggravating circumstance.OF CRIMINAL
It did not provide for parricide, therefore two cases should be filed.
currence o f
LIABILITY
Q: Is the fiscal correct?
A: NO. SC has already ruled, that the words homicide and murder in the said law is used in its generic sense. Therefore it includes all
kinds of killing where the penalty prescribed by law is the same as murder

which is reclusion perpetua to death. The penalty prescribed by law is
reclusion perpetua to death.
Example;
X wanted to carnap the vehicle of Y. In doing so, X approached Y and intimidated him with an unlicensed firearm. X told Y to surrender his
vehicle otherwise he will be killed. Y, being terrified for his life, surrendered the keys to his vehicle. X drove away. Thereafter, Y reported
the incident to the police. An investigation ensued which lead to the arrest of X. X was charged with the information of carnapping and use
of an unlicensed firearm.
Q: Is the charge correct?

A: Yes. The use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance only if such use is inherent in the
commission of the crime. In this case, since the use of an unlicensed firearm was not inherent in the commission of the crime of robbery, it
shall be a separate offense.
Example;
X and Y had a fight. X stabbed Y with a knife. Thereafter, the police arrived to arrest X. Upon his arrest, X was body searched by the
police and found in his possession an unlicensed firearm. X was charged with homicide and illegal possession.
Q: Is the charge correct?

A: YES. Use of an unlicensed firearm will only be appreciated as a special aggravating circumstance if such was inherent in the
commission of the crime. In this case, although the crime committed was homicide, the unlicensed firearm was not used as a means to
facilitate the commission of the crime. Hence the proper charge against X was the use of an unlicensed firearm and homicide.
DANGEROUS DRUGS
A killed B. thereafter he chopped the body of B. because of the manner employed by the accused in killing the victim, the police suspected
that he was under the influence of prohibited drugs. He was brought to the PNP crime laboratory for forensic examination. the results
provided that he was under the influence of prohibited drugs.
Q: What is the effect of the positive result of the said examination on the commission of the crime of the said accused?
A: Under Section 25 of RA 9165, when a crime is committed by an offender under the influence of dangerous drugs, such state shall be
considered as a qualifying aggravating circumstance. Therefore, it will bring about a change in the nature of the crime to a more serious
crime with a higher penalty.
--xXx--
must plead and prove it Congress. Courts take

before the
Art.courts. No concept. judicial
15. Their notice ofcircumstances
— Alternative it; are those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or
judicial notice
mitigating of
according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission. They are the
Pardon; - CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES
relationship, intoxication and the degree of instruction and education of the offender.
8
May beThegivenalternative
to all kindscircumstance
of ofgranted
Generally relationship shall be taken into consideration when the offended party in the spouse,
to a class
REVIEW [2018]
ascendant,
offenders; descendant, legitimate,
offender.
natural,
or group
have
or adopted
of persons who
1
brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degrees of the
committed political offenses;
The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstances when the offender has
committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit said felony but
when the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE
Alternative circumstances are those circumstances which can either be aggravating or mitigating, depending on their effect in
There are three alternative Circumstances in Article 15

1. Relationship;
2. Intoxication;
3. Degree of Instruction or Education
RELATIONSHIP
Relationship is considered as an alternative circumstance when the offender is related to the offended party as his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, illegitimate, natural, adopted brothers, sisters or relatives by affinity within the same degree.
Relationship as mitigating
Relationship is considered as mitigating in crimes against property.
Relationship as an Absolutory Cause

In certain crimes against property, relationship of the offender with the offended party is exempting.
Example;
1. Theft;
2. Estafa or swindling; and
3. Malicious mischief;
Under article 332 if the crime committed is theft, estafa or swindling, and malicious mischief, relationship exempts the offender from
criminal liability.
Relationship in crimes against Persons

In crimes against persons, relationship is mitigating if the following circumstances are present;
1. The offender is of a higher degree than that of the offended party; and
2. The crime committed is less physical injury, or slight physical injury.
Relationship is aggravating if the crime committed by the offender who is of higher degree than that of the offended party is serious
physical injury
Relationship is inherent in the crime of parricide.
INTOXICATION
There is intoxication when the offender has taken such amount of liquor of sufficient quantity as to affect his mental capacity to
determine the consequences of his act.
Intoxication as mitigating
Intoxication is considered as a mitigating circumstance if it is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the felony

Intoxication as aggravating
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES
Intoxication is considered as an aggravating circumstance if it is habitual and it is done subsequent to the commission of a crime. 8
REVIEW [2018] 1
Example;
X wanted to commit a crime. Since he had no courage, he deliberately takes liquor as a stimulant for him to commit the crime. He was so
nervous he cannot commit the crime, so he takes liquor form him to have the strength to commit the crime.
DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION

As a rule a low degree of education or instruction is considered as a
mitigating circumstance.
Exception: if the crime committed is inherently evil or wrong.
Exemption;
Killing a person, molesting a woman, taking the personal property of another. Such is as wrong as to a learned man as it is to an ignorant
man.
As Aggravating Circumstance
A high degree of education is considered as an aggravating circumstance if the offended makes use of his high degree of education in
facilitating the commission of the crime.
Example;
A lawyer committing estafa by falsifying a deed of absolute sale. The lawyer makes use of his high degree of education in order to commit
the crime.
However, in a case where a lawyer kills another person in the course of an argument, his high degree of education has nothing to do with
the commission of the crime. Therefore in this case, it cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
Absolutory Causes are those circumstance which have the effect in Article 12. Absolutory causes exempts a person from criminal liability
but not from civil liability.
Examples;
1. Mistake of fact;
2. Instigation;
3. Accessories in Light felonies;
EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Extenuating circumstances are those which have the same effect as mitigating circumstance but not included in Article 13, to lower the
imposable penalty
Example;
A mother killed her own child less than 3 days old in order to conceal her dishonor. The penalty here will be lowered by 2 degrees, from
reclusion perpetua to death, the penalty will be prision mayor.
INSTIGATION
I mentioned Instigation, as an absolutory cause. In instigation, the mens rea originated from the mind of the public officer who only lured
the offender to commit the crime.
On other hand, entrapment is not an absolutory cause because entrapment refers to ways and means resorted to by the public officer in
order to trap and capture a criminal in flagrante delicto. Here, the mens rea originated from the mind of the offender
In People vs Naelga (G.R. No. 171018, September 11, 2009) The Supreme Court differentiated instigaton and entrapment.
INSTIGATION ENTAPMENT
The mens rea (evil intent) The mens rea (evil intent)
originated from the mind of originated from the mind of
the the
public officer; offender;
An absolutory cause by Not an absolutory cause;
reason
of public policy;
- CRIMINAL
The public officer is liable as
GARCIA NOTES The public officer is not
principal by inducement;
criminally liable; LAW 8
REVIEW [2018] 1
--xXx--
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE
Art. 16. Who are criminally liable. — The following are criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies:
Principals. Accomplices. Accessories.
The following are criminally liable for light felonies: Principals

Accomplices
--xXx--
Art. 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 it would not have been
accomplished.
Kinds
There are three kinds of Principals;
1. Principal by direct participation;
2. Principal by inducement;
3. Principal by direct participation;
PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION

Principal by direct participation are those who take direct part in the execution of the act.
The principal by direct participation must necessarily be present in the scene of the crime because he is the one who actually executed
the crime. Without him, the crime will not be committed.
PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT
Principal by direct participation are those who directly force or induce other to commit it.
The principal may or may not be present in the scene of the crime.
PERIOD OF DEDUCTION
IMPRISONMENT
First two years; 20 days for each month of
good
behavior during detention;
Third to fifth year, inclusive, 23 days for each month of
of
Elements; good
his1.
imprisonment;
Inducement be made with behavior during
the intention detention;the commission of the crime;
of procuring
2. The
Sixth until inducement is the determining
the tenth year, 25 days forcause
eachof the commission of the crime by the material executor;
inclusive, of his month of good
imprisonment; behavior during
Forms of inducement detention;
Inducement
Eleventh and may come in different30forms;
successive days for each
1. Giving
years of price, reward or promise;
of his Imprisonment; month of good
2. By employing force, command or ascendancy
behavior during which is being followed by the principal by direct participation.
detention;
At any time during the another deduction of 15
PRINCIPAL
period of BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION
days, in addition to numbers
Principal by indispensable cooperation
imprisonment; one toare those
four whofor
hereof cooperate
each in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not
have been accomplished. month of service time
rendered for;
1. Study;
Elements; 2. Teaching; or
- CRIMINAL LAW
1. The accused participated in the3.criminal
GARCIA NOTES resolution;
Mentoring;
2. Performance by him of another act indispensable to the accomplishment of the crime; 8
REVIEW [2018] 1
The principal by indispensable cooperation must be at the scene of the crime because he must perform another act without the crime
would not have been.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

--xXx--
PART III
Art. 18. Accomplices. — Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in Art. 17, cooperate in the execution
of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. CIVIL LIABILITY
The accomplice merely cooperate in the commission of the crime by previous of simultaneous acts. The participation is only minor in
character. It only provides material and moral aide in an efficacious manner but not in an indispensable manner.
If the act performed by the offender facilitated the commission of the crime, but it is not indispensable in the commission of the crime, with
or without said act nevertheless, the crime had been committed, the offender is merely an accomplice.
Requisites to be an accomplice;
1. There must be a community of design;
2. That he performs the acts previous or simultaneous to the commission of the crime; and
3. That the acts performed by the principal is related to the acts performed by the accomplice.
Community of design
The accomplice had been informed of the criminal design of the offender and having been informed, he concurs with the said criminal
design. He’s not part of the conspiracy but he knows and concurs with the design because he was informed of the same only after the
principal had come up with agreement.
Example;
A, B, C, D, and E decided to rob a bank. Based on their agreement, A.B, and C will be the ones to enter the bank. D will serve as lookout.
E will serve as the driver of the vehicle. They committed the crime on the date agreed upon.
Q: What are the liabilities of A, B, C, D, and E?

A: All of them are liable as principals by direct participation, because all of them are authors of the criminal design.
Example;
What if, A, B and C decided to rob the bank. On the agreed time and place, they were already about to go to the bank, but suddenly
they realized they have no vehicle. So they flagged down a taxi. They informed the taxi driver of their criminal design, to which the taxi
driver agreed for his car to be used as a getaway vehicle. While on their way to the bank, they realized that they needed a lookout. They
saw a balut vendor and asked him, “Can you be our lookout? The moment you see a police coming, shout baluuuuut!” The said vendor
agreed to the said criminal design. After robbing the bank, A B C and the balut vendor boarded the taxi.
Q: What is the criminal liability of each?

A: A, B, and C, are liable as principal by direct participation, while the taxi driver and the balut vendor are liable as accomplices. They
are accomplices since A, B, and C already agreed on the criminal design before they informed the two of the same and the latter
concurred by performing simultaneous acts or subsequent to the commission of the crime.
* So no matter how minor the participation is of an offender, if he is an author of the criminal design, even if he only acted as a lookout,
still he is liable as a principal by direct participation
Example;
X wanted to kill Y. X knows that Y is living in a dorm. In order to execute his plan, X contacted W who is also living in the same dorm as
Y. X told W of his plan to kill Y. X asked W to open the gate of the dorm at exactly 1 am so that X could enter. At exactly 1am, W opened
the door to the dorm allowing X to enter. Upon entering, X immediately went to the room of Y. Thereafter, X stabbed Y. Y died.
Q: What is the liability of X?
A: X is liable as a principal by direct participation in the crime of homicide regarding the death of Y. X is the one who performed all the
acts of execution by stabbing Y resulting to the death of the latter.
Q: What is the liability of W?

A: W is liable as an accomplice. Although W knew of the plan to kill X, he did not participate the criminal resolution thereof. X merely
informed W of the plan, and W merely concurred. Likewise, the acts of W in opening the gate for X is not an indispensable act in order
to consummate the homicide of Y. X could have easily asked another person to open the gate of the dorm for him.
---xXx--
GARCIA NOTES CRIMINAL LAW 8
REVIEW [2018] 1
Art. 19. Accessories. — Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without
having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the
following manners:
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime;
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its
discovery;
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts
with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty

of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some
other;
Knowledge of the Crime

The accessory does not know the criminal design. What he knows is the commission of the crime. Despite knowledge that the crime has
been committed, he take part subsequent to its commission.
BY PROFITING FROM THE EFFECTS OF THE CRIME.

The accomplice profited themselves or assisted the offender to profit from the effects of the crime.
Example;
A, by means of deceit, was able to take the diamond ring of his friend. So A swindled his friend by means of deceit. After taking the ring,
she went to B. A told B “B, I have here a diamond ring, I swindled it from my friend and I’m selling it to you for only 10k. B bought the said
ring and displayed it to his shop to have it sold. Later B was found in possession of the said ring.
Q: Is B liable as an accessory?
A: YES. B assisted A, the principal of the crime of swindling, in profiting from the effects of the crime by buying the stolen diamond ring.
Furthermore, B slater sold the diamond ring for profit. Thus, B is considered as an accomplice.
DESTROYING THE BODY OF THE CRIME TO PREVENT ITS DISCOVERY

2nd act of an accomplice is by concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its
discovery.
Body of the crime

The body of the crime does not mean the corpse of a deceased person in murder, or the item stolen in case of robbery or theft. It means
that a fact has been committed by someone.
Elements of body of the crime;

1. Proof of occurrence of a certain event;
2. Proof of person’s criminal liability;
Example;
X and Y were engaged in a fight. In the course of the said fight, X killed
Y. Thereafter, X told his friend W to bring the body of Y to the house of Y and burn it to conceal and destroy the body of Y in exchange for
100k. Needing the money, W took the body of Y and brought it in the house Y. Thereafter, W burned down the house of Y. Thereafter, the
relatives of Y reported to the police that he has been missing for a long time. The police made an investigation which lead to the arrest of
X and W.

A: X is a principal by direct participation in the crime of homicide of Y, because it was X who executed the acts of execution which lead to
the death of Y. Likewise, X, is a principal by inducement in the crime of arson. Were it not for the consideration given by X to W, the latter
would not have burned the house of Y with the body of Y inside for the purpose of concealing the crime of homicide.

A: W is an accessory of the crime of homicide of Y. W assisted in the concealing and destroying the corpse of Y by burning it in Y’s own
house. However, W is a principal by direct participation in the crime 8
REVIEW [2018]
of arson. W executed the acts of execution of arson in burning the house of Y with the body of Y inside. 1
Example;
X and Y were fighting. Y kicked and punched X. X lost the fight and fell down. W, who saw the fight, gave X a gun and ordered to shoot
Y. S, another bystander, also told X to shoot Y. X shot Y who died immediately. X went home. Feeling guilty of the crime that he
committed, confessed to his father what he had done. X gave the gun that he used to his father. The father hid the gun to prevent its
discovery by the police.

A: X is guilty of homicide as a principal by direct participation. X completed all the acts of execution for homicide by pulling the trigger of
the gun which immediately resulted to the death of Y.

A: W is considered as a principal by indispensable cooperation in the crime of homicide. W gave a gun to X which the latter used to
shoot and kill Y. Were it not for the gun which W gave, X would not have used said gun to kill Y therby committing homicide.
Q: What is the liability of S?

A: S is not criminally liable. Even though S also told X to shoot Y, he did not provide the gun to complete the acts of the execution.
Likewise, absence of any finding of conspiracy, or that S participated in the criminal resolution of homicide, such words of
encouragement does not make him criminally liable.
Q: What is the liability of the father?

A: The father is liable as an accessory. By concealing the gun which X, his son, used to commit the crime of homicide, he assisted by
concealing the effects or the instrument of the crime of homicide in order to prevent its discovery. However, by virtue of Article 20, the
father is exempted from the criminal liability because X was his son. However, he is liable for obstruction of justice because he assisted
in preventing the discovery of the crime of homicide.
ASSISTING THE ESCAPE OF THE PRINCIPAL

The 3rd act of the accessory is by harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime, provided that he
either;
1. Acts with abuse of his public functions; or
2. The author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to
be habitually guilty of some other offense;
* If the accessory who harbored and concealed or assisted in the escape of the of the principal is a private individual, the law specifies
the crime committed, which is PD 1829, otherwise known as Obstruction of Justice.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
Obstruction of Justice is committed by any person who willfully and lawfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of
suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases.
Example;
The principal committed swindling or estafa. X harbored the principal despite knowing the latter committed estafa. X cannot be
considered

as an accessory because estafa or swindling is not among the crimes mentioned in the second part of the 3rd act.
Q: What is the criminal liability of the friend?

A: He is liable for obstruction of justice under P.D. 1829.
Example;
What if A and B sisters. They had a housemaid, X. A and B were cruel to X, for a minor mistake they would slap, boxed or injure her. One
time, A went to work. When she arrived home, she saw the deceased body of X. A and B placed the deceased body in a sack and placed
- CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA NOTES
it on the trunk of their car. However, someone witnessed their act who immediately called the police, reporting that he saw 2 women
putting a sack in the truck wherein 2 feet were protruding from the said sack. A and B were prosecuted and both convicted for murder. 8
REVIEW [2018] 1
Q: Are both A and B liable for murder?
A: NO. The Supreme Court said that only B is liable, not for murder but only for homicide. When A arrived, the housemaid was already
dead.
Q: Does A have no criminal liability?

A: A is considered as an accessory. Her act of trying to place the deceased body inside the trunk of the car in order to prevent the
discovery of the crime her act constitutes that of an accessory. But she falls under Article 20 since she is related to the offender.
FENCING
Under P.D. 1612, a fence includes any person, firm, association corporation or partnership or other organization who/which commits the
act of fencing.
“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.
Elements
In the case of Dimat v. People (G.R. No. 181184, January 25, 2012) The Supreme Court held the following as elements of fencing;
1. A robbery or theft has been committed;
2. The accused, who took no part in the robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or
buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article or object taken during that robbery or theft;
3. The accused knows or should have known that the thing derived from that crime; and
4. He intends by the deal he makes to gain for himself or for another.
Example;
X was a house helper. One night, when the master was not home, X went to the room of his master and took the jewelries worth 500k and
cash worth 1M from the cabinet. X went to his mother and told her that she stole the jewelries and cash from the master. The mother
deposited the cash to a bank. The mother sold the jewelries to a jewelry store in a discounted amount of 100k. When the master came
home, he found the jewelries and cash missing. The master reported
the incident to the police. Upon investigation, the police apprehended X, the mother, and the jewelry store owner.

A: X is liable as principal by direct participation in the crime of qualified theft. X used his occupation as a house help as a means to
facilitate the commission of the crime of theft.
Q: What is the liability of the mother?

The mother is liable as an accessory because she assisted X from profiting from the effects of the crime. Despite having knowledge of
the commission of the crime, the mother deposited the money to a bank in order to gain interest therefrom. Likewise by selling the
jewelries to the jewelry store, the mother enriched herself from the stolen jewelries.
Q: What is the liability of the Jewelry store owner?

A: The Jewelry store owner is liable as a fence. The jewelry store owner, knowing that the said jewels were sold to him at an extremely
low price, should have known that the same were proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
Q: If you were the fiscal, what case would you prefer to file against the jewelry store owner? a fence or an accessory?
A: You can only file either of the two. It’s better to file fencing. Because it is easier to prove. While in accessory, he must first know that
the crime has been committed. In fencing, it is not necessary that he knows.
Section 5 of PD 1612 provided a prima facie presumption of fencing. The burden of evidence is shifted on the accused
--xXx--
Art. 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, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted
brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling within
the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding article.
An accessory is exempted from criminal liability in the following instances;

1. When the crime committed is a light felony;
2. When the said accessory is the spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or
relatives by affinity within the same degrees;
--xXx--
Light penalties:
Arresto menor,
Public censure.
Penalties common to the three preceding

classes: Fine, and
Bond to keep the peace.
ACCESSORY PENALTIES
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
Suspension from public office, the right to vote
and be voted for, the profession or calling.
Civil interdiction,
Indemnification,
Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and
proceeds of the offense,
Payment of costs.

PENALTIES
Penalties refers to punishment, imposed by lawful authority upon a person who has committed an intentional felony or a culpable felony
2 kinds of penalties;
1. Principal; and
2. Accessory
Principal penalties
Principal penalties are penalties prescribed by law or precribed by the court.
Accessory penalties
Accessory penalties are those which are necessarily included in the imposition of principal penalties.
--xXx--
--xXx-- CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

DEATH
Under RA 9346, death penalty cannot be imposed.
SEC. 2 of RA 9346: in lieu of death penalty it shall be reclusion perpetua in case of violation of the RPC and life imprisonment in case of
violation of Special Penal Laws.
SEC. 3. Person convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by
reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as
amended.
Art. 25. Penalties which may be imposed. — The penalties which may be imposed according to this Code, and their
different classes, are those included in the following:
SCALE
PRINCIPAL PENALTIES
Capital punishment:
Death.
Afflictive penalties:
Reclusion perpetua, Reclusion temporal,
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
Prision mayor.
Correctional penalties:
Prision correccional, Arresto mayor, Suspension, Destierro.
--xXx-- AFFLICTIVE PENALTIES

RECLUSION PERPETUA AND LIFE IMPRISONMENT
Reclusion perpetua is imposed in case the offender violated the provisions of the Revised Penal Code. On the other hand, life
imprisonment is imposed in case the offender violate the provisions of the special penal laws.
Reclusion perpetua v. Life Imprisonment

The following are the distinctions reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment;
RECLUSION PERPETUA LIFE IMPRISONMENT
Penalty is imposed in case of Penalty is imposed in case of
violation of the Revised Penal violation of special penal
Code; laws;
Carries a duration of 20 to 40 No fixe duration;
years;
Carries with it an accessory Does not carry an accessory
penalty; penalty’
Q: Is Reclusion perpetua a divisible penalty?

A: NO. In People v. Lucas (G.R. Nos. 108172-73, January 9, 1995) had the Congress intended that Reclusion perpetua be a divisible
penalty, the application of two indivisible penalties under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code will be meaningless and there would
be no statutory rules for determining when either reclusion perpetua or death should be the imposable penalty

Q: If reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty, then what is the reason for fixing the duration of reclusion perpetua?
A: In the same case as mentioned above, the Supreme Court held that the duration of thirty (30) years for reclusion perpetua is
necessary to serve as the basis for determining the convict's eligibility for pardon or for the application of the three-fold rule in the service
of multiple penalties.
RECLUSION TEMPORAL
Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, the duration of reclusion temporal is 12 years and 1 day to 20 years.
PRISION MAYOR
Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, the duration of Prision mayor shall be from six (6) year and one day to twelve (12) years.
DISQUALIFICATION
Perpetual or Temporary Absolute Disqualification Perpetual or Temporary Special Disqualification may be either a principal penalty or an
accessory penalty.
Principal Penalty
As a principal penalty, the duration of temporary absolute or special disqualification shall be from six (6) year and one day to twelve (12)
years under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code.
Accessory Penalty
Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, when the penalty of temporary special or absolute disqualification is imposed as an
accessory penalty, its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.
CORRECTIONAL PENALTIES
PRISION CORRECCIONAL AND DESTIERRO

Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, the duration of the penalties of prision correccional shall be from six (6) months and one
(1) day to six (6) years.
DESTIERRO
Under Article 87 of the Revised Penal Code, any person sentenced to destierro shall not be permitted to enter the place or places
designated in the sentence, nor within the radius therein specified, which shall be not more than 250 and not less than 25 kilometers
from the place designated.
Destierro is a principal penalty and has a duration of six (6) months and one (1) day to six(6) years under Article 27 of the Revised
Penal Code,
SUSPENSION
Suspension may either be a principal penalty or an accessory penalty.
Suspension as principal penalty

Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, the duration of the penalties of destierro shall be from six (6) months and one (1) day to
six(6) years.
Suspension as accessory penalty

Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, when the penalty of destierro is imposed as an accessory penalty, its duration shall be that
of the principal penalty.
ARRESTO MAYOR
Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor shall be from one (1) month and one (1) day
to six (6) months.

The principal penalty which accompanies perpetual absolute disqualification are the following;
1. Death; (thirty years following the date of sentence)
2. Reclusion perpetua;
3. Reclusion temporal;
ARRESTO MENOR
--xXx-- LIGHT PENALTIES

The principal penalty which accompanies perpetual special disqualification of the right of suffrage are the following;
1. Prision mayor;
2. Prision correccional ;
Perpetual Absolute v. Temporary Absolute

PERPETUAL TENMPORARY
ABSOLUTE ABSOLUTE
Effective during the lifetime Disqualification lasts during
of the convict and even after the term of the sentence, and
the service of the sentence; is removed after the service
of the sentence, except:
1. Deprivation of the
Public
office/employment;
2. Loss of all rights to
retirement pay or
pension for any
office
formerly held.
--xXx--
Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, the duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall be from one (1) day to thirty (30) days.
PUBLIC CENSURE
A principal and indivisible penalty that has no fixed duration.
--xXx--
PENALTIES COMMON TO THE THREE CLASSESS
FINE
A pecuniary penalty which is imposed by the court in case of the judgment of conviction. Instead of imprisonment, the penalty imposed
is fine.
BOND TO KEEP THE PEACE

Under Article 35 of the Revised Penal Code, It shall be the duty of any person sentenced to give bond to keep the peace, to present two
sufficient sureties who shall undertake that such person will not commit the offense sought to be prevented, and that in case such
offense be committed they will pay the amount determined by the court in the judgment, or otherwise to deposit such amount in the
office of the clerk of the court to guarantee said undertaking.
Bond to keep the peace is a principal penalty.

Bond for Good Behavior
Bond to keep the peace is different from bond for good behavior.
Under Article 284 of the Revised Penal Code, in cases of grave threats and light threats, the person making the threats may also be
required to give bail not to molest the person threatened, or if he shall fail to give such bail, he shall be sentenced to destierro.
Bond to keep the peace v. Bond for good behavior
Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government, unless they be property of a third
person not liable for the offense, but those articles which are not subject of lawful commerce shall be destroyed.
PAYMENT OF COST
Cost means the expenses of litigation.
Cost Includes
Under Article 7 of the Revised Penal Code, costs shall include fees and indemnities in the course of the judicial proceedings, whether
they be fixed or unalterable amounts previously determined by law or regulations in force, or amounts not subject to schedule.
Q: Who shall pay the cost?

A: If an accused is convicted of a crime, cost shall be adjudged against him. However, in case of acquittal, each party must bear his
own lost.
--xXx--
CIVIL INTERDICTION
--xXx-- ACCESSORY PENALTIES
PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT
Preventive Imprisonment is the detention of accused while the case against him is on going trial either because;
1. The crime he committed is a non-bailable offense and evidence of guilt is strong; or
2. The crime committed is a bailable offense but he does not have the funds.
Q: Can the period of preventive imprisonment undergone by the accused be credited to his final sentence?
A: YES. As a general rule, Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code states that offenders who have undergone preventive imprisonment
shall
Under Article 34 of the Revised penal Code, Civil interdiction shall deprive the offender during the time of his sentence the following rights;
1. Rights of parental authority;
2. Guardianship, either as to the person or property of any ward;
3. Marital authority,
4. The right to manage his property; and
5. The right to dispose of such property by any act or any conveyance inter vivos.
The offender sentenced to civil interdiction ma make a last will and testament because the prohibition to dispose property extends only to
inter vivos and not to mortis causa.
Donation may also be made by the offender provided that it shall take effect after death or mortis causa.
An accessory penalty
Civil Interdiction is always an accessory penalty in case of the following principal penalties;
1. Death;
2. Reclusion perpetua;
3. Reclusion temporal;
FORFEITURE AND CONFISCATION

Under Article 45 of the Revised penal Code, every penalty imposed for the commission of a felony shall carry with it the forfeiture of the
proceeds of the crime and the instruments or tools with which it was committed.
be credited in the service of their sentence consisting of deprivation

of liberty, with the full time during which they have undergone preventive imprisonment, if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in
writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, except in the following cases;
1. When they are recidivists or have been convicted previously twice or more times of any crime; and
2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence they have failed to surrender voluntarily;
Q: What is the effect if the detention prisoner does not abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted
prisoners?
A: Under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, if the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed
upon convicted prisoners, he shall be credited in the service of his sentence with four-fifths of the time during which he has undergone
preventive imprisonment.
Q: What is the effect if the accused has undergone imprisonment for a period equal to or more than the maximum
imprisonment for the offense charged?
A: Under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, whenever an accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to or
more than the possible maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to which he may be sentenced and his case is not yet
terminated, he shall be released immediately without prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding on appeal, if the
same is under review.

Preventive imprisonment for Destierro
In case the maximum penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty (30) days of preventive
imprisonment.
Q: Can the period of preventive imprisonment be deducted in case of destierro?

A: YES. Because destierro also involves deprivation of liberty and has a fixed duration of six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years.
NOTE: If detention has already exceeded the possible maximum imprisonment of the offense charged but his case is not yet terminated,
file a case for Habeas Corpus for the immediate release of the accused.
--xXx--
PARDON
There are two kinds of pardon;
1. Pardon by the offended party; (Article 23)
2. Pardon by the President; (Article 36)
Pardon by the offended party

Under Article 23 of the Revised Penal Code, a pardon of the offended party does not extinguish criminal action except as provided in
Article 344 of this Code; but civil liability with regard to the interest of the injured party is extinguished by his express waiver.
Example;
X killed Y. The relatives of Y filed a complaint for homicide against X. thereafter, X asked forgiveness from the relatives of Y. The relatives
of Y accepted the apology of X and thereby granted him a pardon.
Q: Will the pardon of the offended party extinguish the criminal liability of the offender in homicide?
A: NO. In the crime of homicide, pardon by the offended party will not extinguish the criminal liability of the offender. Homicide is a public
crime and it is essentially more of an offense against the state rather than the offended party because it causes disturbance or public
disorder.
Private Crimes
Pardon by the offended party does will only operate to extinguish the criminal liability in private crimes as mentioned under under Article
344 of the Revised Penal Code;
1. Adultery;
2. Concubinage;
3. Seduction;
4. Abduction;
5. Rape; and
6. Acts of lasciviousness;
Example;
X filed a complaint for acts of lasciviousness against Y. during the trial, Y asked for forgiveness from X. X accepted the apology of Y.
Thereafter, X granted Y a pardon.
Pardon prior to Criminal proceedings

For pardon to extinguish the criminal liability of the offender, it must be given prior to the institution of the criminal action.
Q: Will the pardon of X in the crime of acts lasciviousness against Y operate to dismiss the case already instituted?
A: NO. Although the crime committed by Y is a private crime under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, the case will not be
dismissed because it was given after the institution of the criminal prosecution.
Q: What is the effect of pardon given by X?

A: The pardon of X will only serve as to extinguish the civil liability of Y in the complaint for acts of lasciviousness.
Regardless of whether private or public crimes, the pardon given by the private complainant must be prior to the institution of the
criminal case.
Marital Rape
Although the general rule is that pardon must be given prior to the institution of the criminal case, Article 266-C of the Revised Penal
Code, the subsequent valid marriage between the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed.
Under Article 266-C of the revised penal Code, in case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the subsequent forgiveness by the
wife as the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty: Provided, That the crime shall not be extinguished or the
penalty shall not be abated if the marriage is void ab initio.
Pardon by the President

Under Article 36 of the Revised Penal Code, a pardon shall not work the restoration of the right to hold public office, or the right of
suffrage, unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon.
Just like amnesty and parol, the pardon by the president does not extinguish civil liability because the same is personal to the victim.
2 kinds of pardon by the president;

1. Absolute pardon; (Article 89)
2. Conditional Pardon; (Article 94)
In addition, Presidential Pardon does not automatically restore the following rights, unless they are specifically stated by the terms of the
pardon;
1. To hold public office;
2. To vote and be voted; and
3. To exercise his right of suffrage;
Pardon by the President v. Pardon by the Offended party

PARDON BY THE PARDON BY THE
PRESIDENT OFFENDED
PARTY
Extinguishes criminal Does not extinguish criminal
liability; liability whether public or
private crime with the
exception of Marital Rape
under Article 266-C;
Does not extinguish civil Extinguish civil liability as it is
liability deemed as a waiver;
of the offender;
Pardon must be made before Pardon may only be made
the institution of the criminal after conviction by final
case; only in private crimes; judgment
--xXx--

Art. 38. Pecuniary liabilities; Order of payment. — In case the property of the offender should not be sufficient for the
payment of all his pecuniary liabilities, the same shall be met in the following order:
The reparation of the damage caused. Indemnification of consequential damages The fine.
The cost of the proceedings.
PECUNIARY LIABILITIES PECUNIARY PENALITIES

(ARTICLE 38) (ARTICLE 25)
Imposed by the court in case Imposed by the court in case
of of
conviction but not as penalty; conviction as a penalty;
--xXx--
Article 39. Subsidiary penalty. - If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine mentioned in the paragraph 3
of the nest preceding article, he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each eight pesos,
subject to the following rules:
1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correccional or arresto and fine, he shall remain under confinement until
his fine referred to in the preceding paragraph is satisfied, but his subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of the
term of the sentence, and in no case shall it continue for more than one year, and no fraction or part of a day shall be counted
against the prisoner.
2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six months, if the
culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a light felony.
3. When the principal imposed is higher than prision correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed upon
the culprit.
4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed by confinement in a penal institution, but such penalty is of
fixed duration, the convict, during the period of time established in the preceding rules, shall continue to suffer the same
deprivations as those of which the principal penalty consists.
5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may have suffered by reason of his insolvency shall not relieve
him, from the fine in case his financial circumstances should improve. (As amended by RA 5465, April 21, 1969).
SUBSIDIARY PENALTY
Subsidiary Penalty is a substitute penalty for fine in case of insolvency by the accused.
Q: If the accused is insolvent and cannot pay the fine, may he be imposed of a subsidiary penalty of imprisonment?
A: NO. Absent any express statement of subsidiary penalty by the court, subsidiary penalty cannot be imposed even if the accused is
insolvent and cannot pay the fine.
Q: Why must there be an express statement by the court imposing subsidiary penalty?
A: Because it is only a substitute penalty. A subsidiary penalty is not a principal penalty nor an accessory penalty, but only a substitute
penalty for fine.
Rate of Subsidiary Penalty

Under Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code, if the convict has no property with which to meet the fine mentioned in paragraph 3 of
Article 38 of the Revised Penal Code, he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each amount
equivalent to the highest minimum wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at the time of the rendition of judgment of conviction by the
trial court subject to the following rules;
1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correccional or arresto and fine, he shall remain under confinement until his fine
referred to in the preceding paragraph is satisfied, but his subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of the term of the
sentence, and in no case shall it continue for more than one year, and no fraction or part of a day shall be counted against the
prisoner;
2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six months, if the culprit shall
have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a light felony;
3. When the principal imposed is higher than prision correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed upon the culprit;
4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed by confinement in a penal institution, but such penalty is of fixed duration,
the convict, during the period of time established in the preceding rules, shall continue to suffer the same deprivations as those
of which the principal penalty consists;
5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may have suffered by reason of his insolvency shall not relieve him, from the
fine in case his financial circumstances should improve. (As amended by RA 5465, April 21, 1969).
Limitations of Subsidiary Penalty

Subsidiary penalty cannot be imposed on the following instances;
1. If the judgment of the court did not impose fine as a penalty;
2. If the judgment of the court did not expressly state that in case of nonpayment of fine, the convict shall suffer subsidiary penalty;
3. If the principal penalty that goes with fine exceeds prision correccional or higher than 6 years;
4. If the principal penalty that goes with fine does not have fixed duration;
5. If what the convict thinks to pay is not fine but damages and cost;
Example;
X was convicted of reckless imprudence causing damage to property. Penalty imposed on him is fine and public censure. Lower portion
of the decision “in case of insolvency to pay the fine, he shall suffer subsidiary penalty”.
Q: Is the court correct?

A: NO. The principal penalty that goes with fine is public censure is not to be executed in a penal institution and is an indivisible penalty.
Example;
Accused was convicted of prision mayor and fine. The decision of the court includes a statement that in case of insolvency to pay the
fine, he shall suffer subsidiary penalty.

A: NO. Subsidiary penalty cannot be imposed if the principal penalty is higher than the prision correccional. Since prision mayor is more
than 6 years, subsidiary penalty cannot be imposed.
Example;
X was convicted of a felony. The penalty imposed on him is fine alone. The judgment became final and executory. A writ of execution was
issued by the court, however such writ was unsatisfied. The judge ordered for his arrest to suffer subsidiary penalty.

A: NO. Failure to state that in case of insolvency to pay the fine, convict cannot be made to suffer subsidiary penalty.
Example;
X was convicted of a fine with a subsidiary penalty. However, X was insolvent so he was imprisoned. When he was released he bought
lottery tickets and won the lottery. X is now a multimillionaire. Thereafter, the court issued a writ of execution against him. X argues that his
fine is now satisfied because he was subsidiarily imprisoned in lieu thereof.
Q: Can the court issue a writ of execution against X despite serving the subsidiary penalty of imprisonment?
A: YES. Even if X already served the prison term for subsidiary imprisonment, the court may still hold him liable for the fine unsatisfied.
--xXx--
* Memorize the Rules in Articles 50 – 57.

* Exception to Articles 50 – 57 is Article 60.
--xXx--
Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes. - When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when
an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to
be applied in its maximum period.
2 Kinds of Complex Crime

There are 2 kinds of complex crime;
1. Compound Crime;
2. Complex Crime Proper;
In both kinds, only one (1) information is filed and the accused shall suffer the penalty for the most serious crime in its maximum period.
COMPOUND CRIME
Compound Crime is present when the offender performs a single act which constitutes to two or more grave or less grave felonies.
Basis
Basis of compound crime is the singularity of act of the offender.
Elements
The elements of compound crime are the following;
1. Offender performs single act;
2. Resulted to two or more less grave felonies Basis: Singularity of act
Example; aberratio ictus

A aimed the gun at B. But because of poor aim, it shot C a pedestrian walking. Treachery was attended. As to B, crime committed is
attempted murder. As to C, murder. Crime committed is attempted murder.
Example;
A political rival placed a bomb on B’s car. A person died, several persons injured. A single act placing the bomb produces two or more
less grave felonies. Crime is murder with multiple frustrated murder.
If two persons died, the charge is double murder. If three or more persons died, the crime is multiple murder. There is no complex crime
of triple murder.
Example;
X wanted to kill Y. to kill Y, X placed a bomb under the car of Y. When Y and wife and 3 children opened the car, the bomb exploded. As
a result, Y and his wife died. However, the children survived due to medical treatment.
Q: Is X liable for a complex crime?

A: YES. The single act of X in placing the bomb in the car of Y resulted to 5 grave felonies; the murder of Y and his wife, and the
frustrated murder of the children. The charge should be double murder with multiple frustrated murder.
Q: In the same problem, what is the crime committed if all of them died?
A: X will be liable for multiple murder because the single act of placing a bomb resulting to 5 grave felonies. There should only be one
charge or one information filed in court.
Example;
X is armed with M-16 high powered rifle, machine gun. He went inside the conference room. One pull of trigger, many bullets came out
hitting 5 persons.
Q: is X liable for the complex crime of multiple murder?

A: NO. If the weapon used is a high powered machine gun, the factor to be considered is the number of bullets which came from the
machine gun and the number of people wounded or killed rather than the single act of pulling the trigger. Thus, X is liable for 5 counts of
murder.
COMPLEX CRIME PROPER

Complex crime proper is present when the offense is a necessary means commit the another offense.
Elements
The following are the elements of complex crime proper;
1. Two offenses committed;
2. Offenses necessary means to commit the other;
3. Both crimes are punished by the same statute
Example
The following are examples of complex crime proper;
1. Rape with forcible abduction - A was on the ladder of the house, B a woman abducted her against her will and with lewd design;
2. Estafa thru falsification of public document. Person falsifies a public document – Falsification used to defraud another;

Estafa through falsification of private document
There is no estafa by falsification of private document. In estafa and falsification of private document, there is only and the same damage
contemplated by both felonies. Thus, only charge can be made, either falsification or estafa, otherwise the prohibition against the twice
recovery for damages will be violated.
If estafa cannot be committed without falsification, the correct charge is falsification. Estafa is merely a consequence.
If estafa can be committed without falsifying, the proper charge is estafa. Falsification is merely an incident of estafa.
On the other hand, in falsification of public document, damage is not an element of the offense. Thus, the charge of estafa thru falsification
of public document may exist.
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME

Special complex crimes exist when, in reality, two or more crimes are committed but in the eyes of law only one.
It is the law which provides what crimes would be complexed and what crimes go together;
1. Robbery with homicide; (Article 294)
2. Kidnapping with homicide; (Article 267 as amended by R.A. 7659)
3. Rape with homicide; (Article 266-B)
Special Complex Crime v. Compound Crime
SPECIAL COMPLEX COMPOUND CRIME
CRIME
The law specifies the crimes Crimes are general;
which are combined;
Law provides for the penalty; The penalty for the most
serious crime is imposed in
the
maximum period;
Light felonies are absorbed; Light felonies committed is a
separate and distinct charge;
DELITO CONTINUADO.
Delicto continuado or continuous crime is present when the offender is impelled by a single criminal impulse commits a series of overt
acts in about the same time and about the same place violating one and the same provision of law. Basis is singularity of impulse.
Basis
The basis is the singularity of impulse of the offender.
Elements
In the case of Santiago v. Garchtorena (G.R. No. 109266, December 2, 1993) the Supreme Court established the elements of delito
continuado;
1. Plurality of acts performed during a period of time;
2. Unity of penal provisions violated;
3. Unity of criminal purpose or aim;
Example;
A, B, C,D lives in one compound. All engaged in the business of selling rooster. One night, 11:00 in the evening here comes X. While they
were sleeping, X took the rooster of A, then of B, then of C, then of D.
Q: How many crimes will you file against X?
A: Crime committed is one charge of theft. X impelled by a single impulse committed overt acts leading to theft.
Santiago v. Garchtorena (G.R. No. 109266, December 2, 1993) Petitioner Miriam Defensor-Santiago was charged in the
Sandiganbayan with the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act for favoring 32 “unqualified” aliens with the benefits of the Alien Legalization
Program. Defender-Santiago moved for a bill of particulars, contending that unless she be provided with the names and identities of the
“aliens” she would not be able to adequately prepare for trial. Initially, the public prosecutors stated that they would file only one
amended complaint, but they later filed 32 amended informations, separately naming each of the aliens in each of the informations. The
Sandiganbayan admitted the 32 amended informations.
Q: Was it correct to admit the 32 amended informations?

A: NO. For delito continuado to exist there should be a plurality of acts performed during a period of time; unity of penal provision
violated; and unity of criminal intent or purpose, which means that two or more violations of the same penal provisions are united in one
and same instant or resolution leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose or aim. In this case, the 32 Amended
Informations aver that the offenses were committed on the same period of time, i.e., on or about October 17, 1988. The strong
probability even exists that the approval of the application or the legalization of the stay of the 32 aliens was done by a single stroke of
the pen, as when the approval was embodied in the same document.
CONTINUING CRIME OR TRANSITORY OFFENSE.

In Continuing crime, the offender may be prosecuted in any courts of the place where any of the crime has been committed. This is
more on remedial law not in criminal law.
Example;
X in payment of his obligation, issued a postdated check to Y in Manila, on the maturity date, Y deposited the check to his depositary
bank in Quezon City. The check however was dishonored by the drawee bank in Caloocan City. Notice of dishonor was sent. X failed to
make good the check. A complaint was filed against X for violation of
B.P. 22.
Q: Where may Y file the case for violation of BP 22?

A: The complaint may be filed in any of the court where the elements of the crime occurred.
If the BP 22 case has already been filed in the MTC of Manila, the said case can no longer be filed before the MTC of Quezon City or
Caloocan City.
--xXx--
Art. 46. Penalty to be imposed upon principals in general.

— The penalty prescribed by law for the commission of a felony shall be imposed upon the principals in the commission of
such felony.
Whenever the law prescribes a penalty for a felony is general terms, it shall be understood as applicable to the
consummated felony.

Penalty Imposed
Under Article 46, when the law prescribes a penalty for a felony, it shall be understood to mean that such penalty shall be imposed upon
principals of a consummated felony.
--xXx--
PENALTY IMPOSED UPON ACCESSORIES AND ACCOMPLICES

(Articles 50-57)
Articles 50-57 provides for penalties if the offender is a principal, accomplice or accessory whether or not the felony is consummated,
frustrated, attempted.
Exception
Under Article 60, the provisions contained in Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this Code shall not be applicable to cases in which the law
expressly prescribes the penalty provided for a frustrated or attempted felony, or to be imposed upon accomplices or accessories.
--xXx--
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.
5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:
(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided by law for the last crime of which he
be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods;
(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be
found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods; and
(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of
which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its
minimum period.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in
conformity herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years.
PARAGRAPH 1.
The following aggravating circumstance shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing penalty;
1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by law; or
2. Aggravating circumstances which are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor;
3. Aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such a degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission thereof
(Par. 2);
Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime

especially punishable by law.
Example;
1. That the crime be committed by means of fire is not considered as aggravating in arson; (Art. 14, par. 2)
2. The crime be committed by means of derailment of a locomotive shall not be considered in damages and obstruction to means
of communication; (Art. 330)

Aggravating circumstances which are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor;
Example;
1. The crime be committed in the dwelling of the offended party is not aggravating in robbery with force upon things; (Art. 299)
2. Abuse of confidence is not qualified theft committed with grave abuse of confidence; (Art. 310)
PARAGRAPH 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.
Example;
Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery and theft;
PARAGRAPH 3.
The following aggravating or mitigating circumstance shall serve to aggravate for mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices, and
accessories;
1. Those which arise from the moral attributes of the offender; or
2. From his private relations with the offended party; or
3. From any other personal cause;
Those which arise from the moral attributes of the offender
Example;
A and B killed C. A acted with evident premeditation, and B with passion and obfuscation.
Q: How should the aggravating circumstance be appreciated?

A: Evident premeditation should affect and aggravate only the penalty for A, while passion and obfuscation will benefit B only mitigate his
liability.
From his private relations with the offended party.

A and C inflicted slight physical injuries on B. A is the son of B. C is the father of B.
Q: How does A and C’s relationship with B affect their criminal liability?
A: The alternative circumstance of relationship, as aggravating shall be taken into account against A only, because he is a relative of a
lower degree than the offended party, B.
From any other personal cause In the material execution of the act A and B committed a crime. A was under 16 years of age and B
was a recidivist.
PARAGRAPH 4
The following circumstance 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;
1. In the material execution of the act; or
2. In the means employed to accomplish it;
Example;
A, as principal by induction, B, and C agreed to kill D. B and C killed D with treachery, which mode of committing the offense had not
been previously agreed upon by them with A. A was not present when B and C killed D with treachery.
Q: How should the aggravating circumstance in this case be appreciated?

A: The aggravating circumstance of treachery should not be taken into account against A, but against B and C only. But if A was
present and had knowledge of the treachery with which the crime was committed by B and C, he is also liable for murder, qualified by
treachery.
In the means employed to accomplish it

A ordered B to kill C. B invited C to eat with him. B mixed poison with the food of C, who died after he had eaten the food. A did not
know that B used poison to kill C.
Q: Is the aggravating circumstance that the crime that the crime be committed by means of poison applicable to A?
A: NO. The aggravating circumstance that the crime be committed by means of poison is not applicable to A.
ORGANIZED OR SYNDICATED CRIME GROUP.

An organized or syndicate crime group consists of two or more persons collaborating, confederating and mutually helping another for
purposes of gain in the commission of the crime.
The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was committed by any person who belongs to an organized/syndicated crime
group.
The information charges A, B, C, D as collaborating, confederating and mutually helping another for purposes of gain in the commission
of the crime. This is what the information alleges. Trial found this so. The judge considered conspiracy and considered this special
aggravating circumstance.

A: NO. Before the special aggravating circumstance be considered the court, evidence must show was held to commit crimes involving
gain.
HABITUAL DELINQUENCY
A person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, is within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the
crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time
or oftener.
Elements;
1. The crime is specified should be serious physical injuries, less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa;
2. There should be at least three convictions;
3. Each convictions must come within ten year from date of release or last conviction of the previous crime;
Effect
Additional penalty shall be imposed in the maximum period being an aggravating circumstance.
No prescriptive period on the Prescribes in ten years;

commission of the offense;
No additional penalty; Provides additional penalty;
QUASI RECIDIVISM
Under Article 160, a person is said to be a quasi-recidivist if
after having been convicted by a final judgment, he shall
commit a felony before serving out his sentence or while
service of sentence. The maximum period shall be imposed.
Again it is a special aggravating circumstance.
* The first crime may be any crime. The second crime must be
a felony.
Example;
A, while serving a final judgment, he was found in possession of
illegal drugs.
Q: Is A a quasi-recidivist?
A: NO. The second crime is not a felony, it is a special law.
Example;
If A was was serving sentence for possession of illegal drugs
and then inside a crime he killed a co-inmate.

Limitation
The penalty committed for the crime plus additional penalty should not exceed thirty years.
Recidivism and Habitual Delinquency

Recidivism and Habitual Delinquency may be simultaneously considered because they have different effects on criminal liability of the
offender. Recidivism effect is on the theft committed. It may be offset by mitigating circumstances. Habitual delinquency will give him
additional penalty.
Example;
A was charged and convicted of robbery he served his sentence. Within 10 years from date of release he committed theft. He served
sentence and again released. Within 10 years he committed another theft. The judgment become final and executory. He served again
and out of prison. Within 10 years against he committed another theft. He is now in trial.
Q: Can the judge impose both recidivism and habitual delinquency? A: YES. He is recidivist because at the time he served theft he
was previously convicted of a final judgment of robbery embraced within the same title of the code. He is also habitual delinquent,
because within the ten years from the date of his last release he committed a theft the third time.
Q: Is A a quasi-recidivist?
A: YES. Maximum period prescribed by law shall be imposed.
--xXx--
Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties.

- In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be
observed in the application thereof;
1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall
be applied.
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the
lesser penalty shall be applied;
3. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating
circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied;
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the act, the court shall
reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideration of their number and importance, for the purpose of applying the
penalty in accordance with the preceding rules, according to the result of such compensation;
Outline of the rules.

1. When the penalty is single indivisible, it shall be applied regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
2. When the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed;
GARCIA NOTES - CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW [2018]
Example;
a.
When there is only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be imposed;
b. When there is neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be imposed;
c. When there is a mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be imposed.
d. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall allow them to offset one another;
circumstance. Since only one mitigating circumstance is left, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua shall apply;
PRIVELEGE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE

When there is a privileged mitigating circumstance, apply it first before computing the penalties.
Example;
A was charged with the information of Rape. At the time of the commission of the offense, A was only 16 years old. After trial, he was
sentenced to the indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua. In his motion for reconsideration, A argues that his penalty should be lowered
by one degree because he is a minor. The judge denied the motion on the ground that reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty
The penalty for Rape is reclusion perpetua. If the penalty is single and indivisible, it shall be imposed as is, without consideration of any
Aggravating or Mitigating circumstance
Example;
The penalty for the crime of murder is reclusion perpetua to death - two indivisible penalties.
Only one aggravating circumstance.

If the murder was committed with the aggravating circumstance of trespass to dwelling, the greater penalty of death shall be applied;
Two or more aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance

If the murder was committed with the aggravating circumstances of trespass to dwelling and recidivism, the greater penalty of death shall
be applied;
No mitigating nor aggravating circumstance

If there is no mitigating or aggravating circumstance in attendant, apply the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua;
One mitigating and no aggravating circumstance

If the murder was committed with the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua shall
apply;
Two or more mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance

If the murder was committed with the mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation and sufficient provocation on the part of the
offended party, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua shall apply;
If there are two aggravating circumstance and one mitigating circumstance

If the murder was committed with the aggravating circumstances of trespass to dwelling and recidivism, and the mitigating circumstance of
passion and obfuscation, one mitigating circumstance will offset one aggravating circumstance. Since only one aggravating circumstance
is left, the greater penalty of death shall apply;
If there are two mitigating circumstance and one aggravating circumstance

If the murder was committed with the mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation and sufficient provocation on the part of the
offended party, and the aggravating circumstance of trespass to dwelling, one mitigating circumstance will offset another aggravating
and cannot be offset by mitigating circumstance.

A: NO. Minority is a privilege mitigating circumstance which lowers the penalty by one degree. Indivisible penalties shall be imposed as
is regardless of mitigating or aggravating circumstance. However, privilege mitigating circumstance takes preference over prior to the
computation of penalties. In this case, since A was a minor at the time of the commission of the offense, his penalty should be lowered
by one degree to reclusion temporal.
--xXx--
Article 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. - In cases in which the penalties
prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of three different penalties, each
one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the court shall observe for the
application of the penalty the following rules, according to whether there are or are not mitigating or aggravating
circumstances:
1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its
medium period.
2. When only a mitigating circumstances is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its
minimum period.
3. When an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its
maximum period.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall reasonably offset those of one class
against the other according to their relative weight.
5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall
impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable, according to the number
and nature of such circumstances.
6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating circumstances, the courts shall not impose a greater
penalty than that prescribed by law, in its maximum period.
7. Within the limits of each period, the court shall determine the extent of the penalty according to the number and nature
of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater and lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime.

Degree of penalty
Degree of penalty is a penalty prescribed by law for every crime committed whether divisible or indivisible.
Period of penalty
A period of penalty refers to the subdivision of every said divisible penalty into three portion, the first portion is minimum, second is
medium, third is maximum
Indivisible penalty
Indivisible penalties are penalties without fixed duration, death, reclusion perpetua, perpetual absolute disqualification, perpetual special
disqualification, public censure, fine.
Divisible penalty
Divisible Penalties are penalties with fixed duration and therefore can be divided into three period. the first portion is minimum, second is
medium, third is maximum
*Memorize the rules under Article 64.
Example;
X and Y had a fight. In the course of the fight, X killed Y. X was charged and convicted of homicide. The penalty for homicide is Reclusion
temporal.
No aggravating and no mitigating.

Reclusion temporal shall be imposed in its medium period.
One mitigating and no aggravating.

If there is voluntary surrender in the part of X, reclusion temporal shall be imposed in its minimum period.
One aggravating and no mitigating.

If X was a recidivist, reclusion temporal shall be imposed in its maximum period.
Both mitigating and aggravating are present.

If the homicide was committed in the dwelling of Y and X acted on passion and obfuscation, the aggravating and mitigating circumstance
will offset one another and reclusion temporal shall be imposed in its medium period.
Two mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance.

The homicide was committed with passion and obfuscation and X voluntary surrendered. A penalty one degree lower than reclusion
temporal shall be imposed upon X. X shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium period.
Two or more aggravating circumstance.

X committed the crime of homicide with trespass to dwelling and disregard of the age of Y. regardless of the number of aggravating
circumstance present, the court cannot impose a penalty higher than the maximum period prescribed by law. Thus, X will suffer the
penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period.
Three mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance.

If there is sufficient provocation on the part of Y, and voluntarily surrendered and there voluntary plea of guilt, X shall suffer the penalty
lower by one degree than reclusion temporal. Thereafter, we apply the remaining mitigating circumstance in accordance with the
previous rules. Thus, X will suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.
Four mitigating circumstance.

X committed homicide with passion and obfuscation when he was suffering from an illness which would diminish the exercise of his will-
power, and thereafter voluntary surrendered and there is a voluntary plea of guilt. The penalty imposed upon him cannot be lowered by
two degrees. Thus, X will suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.
* In order that the penalty will be lowered by 1 degree, it is necessary that there absolutely is NO aggravating circumstance.
Even if there are many Mitigating circumstances, as long as there is 1 aggravating circumstance, you will cannot lower the penalty by
degrees, it is only by periods.
Privilege Mitigating Circumstance

If present, Privilege Mitigating Circumstance must be applied first prior to the application of penalties under the Rules of Articles 63 and
64.
Example;
X committed the crime of homicide. The penalty for homicide is
reclusion temporal.
One privilege mitigating circumstance.

X was a minor at the time he committed homicide. Minority is a privilege mitigating circumstance which will lower the imposable penalty
by one degree. Thus, X will suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium period.
Two privilege mitigating circumstances.

X was a minor at the time he committed the homicide. He argues incomplete self-defense. Minority and Incomplete self-defense are
both privilege mitigating circumstance which will lower the imposable penalty by two degrees. Thus, X will suffer the penalty of prision
correccional in its medium period.
Two privilege mitigating circumstance and one ordinary mitigating circumstance.
X was a minor at the time he committed the homicide with incomplete self-defense. He voluntarily surrendered to the persons in
authority. Minority and Incomplete self-defense are both privilege mitigating circumstance which will lower the imposable penalty by two
degrees. The remaining ordinary mitigating circumstance shall operate to make the penalty in its minimum period. Thus, X will suffer the
penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period.
2 privilege mitigating circumstance and 3 ordinary mitigating circumstance.

X was a minor who was suffering an illness which diminishes the exercise of his will-power at the time he committed the homicide with
incomplete self-defense on his part. He voluntarily surrendered to the persons in authority and thereafter voluntarily plead guilty.
Minority and Incomplete self-defense will lower the imposable penalty by two degrees. The two ordinary mitigating circumstances will
operate to lower the penalty imposed after the application of the two privilege mitigating circumstance. The remaining ordinary
mitigating circumstance shall operate to make the penalty in its minimum

period. Thus, X will suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period.
--xXx-- INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (R.A. 4103)
Indeterminate Sentence Law modifies the imposition of penalty. It is
applied both to the Revised Penal Code and Special Penal Laws. It provides for a minimum and max term, such that the moment the
offender serves the minimum of the sentence, he shall be eligible for parole. If granted, he will serve the remainder of the sentence out of
prison, but subject to the supervision of the parole officer
OBJECTIVES
The following are the objectives of the Indeterminate Sentence Law;
1. Uplift and redeem valuable human material;
2. Avoid unnecessary and excessive deprivation of liberty;
These objectives are achieved when the moment the offender becomes eligible to apply for parole and he may be able to serve sentence
out of jail.
PAROLE
Parole is the conditional release of the offender form the correctional institution after serving minimum sentence after showing that he has
reformed. Note it does not extinguish criminal and civil liability.
Requisites;
1. He must be placed in prison jail to serve an indeterminate sentence penalty which exceeds 1 year;
2. Served minimum term of sentence;
3. Board of pardons and parole found that his released is for greater interest of society
DISQUALIFICATIONS UNDER THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW.

The general rule is that everyone is entitled to the Indeterminate Sentence law. However, this act shall not apply to the following persons;
1. Convicted crime punished by death or life imprisonment; (Reclusion perpetua ias held by the Supreme Court in People
v. Enriquez G.R. No.158797, July 29, 2005)
2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason, misprision of treason;
3. Those convicted of rebellion, sedition, or espionage;
4. Those convicted piracy;
5. Those who are habitual delinquents; (In People v. Jaranilla,
G.R. No. 28547, Feb. 22, 1974, the Supreme Court ruled that Recidivist are entitled to an indeterminate sentence law)
6. Those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence; (In People v. Perez, 44 OG 3884, a minor who escaped
from confinement in the reformatory is entitled to the benefits of the law because confinement is not considered imprisonment).
7. Those who having been granted conditional pardon by the President shall have violated the terms thereof;
8. Those whose maximum period of imprisonment does not
exceed one year;
Reclusion perpetua cannot Avail Indeterminate Sentence Law

In the concurring opinion of Justice Tinga in the case of (People v. Tubongbanua, G.R. No. 171271, August 31, 2006) Parole is extended
only to those convicted of divisible penalties. Under Section 5 of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, it is after 'any prisoner shall have served the minimum penalty imposed on him, that the Board of
Indeterminate Sentence may consider whether such prisoner may be granted parole. There being no 'minimum penalty imposable on
those convicted to reclusion perpetua, it follows that persons sentenced by final judgment to reclusion perpetua could not have availed
of parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Q: is the indeterminate sentence law applicable if the penalty imposed is destierro?

A: NO. Destierro does not involve imprisonment.
Effect of disqualification
If the offender is disqualified for the application of the indeterminate sentence law, he shall be given a straight penalty. The offender
must serve the entire term of his sentence and he is not eligible for parole.
Example;
A final judgment was rendered against X. He was granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive. He violated the terms and
conditions of the said pardon. He was charged with evasion of service of sentence. He was found guilty by the court.
Q: Can the court impose upon him an indeterminate sentence?

A: NO. X is among those disqualified under the law. By violating the condition of his pardon he cannot avail of an indeterminate
sentence law.
Example;
X has been convicted of final judgment of serious physical injuries, thereafter he committed homicide and the judge found him guilty of
homicide.
Q: Can the judge impose upon him an indeterminate sentence?

A: YES. X is a recidivist. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, only habitual delinquents are disqualified from availing indeterminate
sentence. A recidivist is qualified under the law from availing the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Example;
X is a minor who was charged and convicted for kidnapping with ransom, the penalty of which is reclusion perpetua to death. Since
minority is a privilege mitigating circumstance, we will lower the imposable penalty by one degree.
Q: is X qualified under for indeterminate sentence?

A: YES. In applying the indeterminate sentence law, we should consider the imposable penalty rather than the penalty prescribed by
law. In this case, since the penalty of reclusion perpetua was lowered to reclusion temporal, then X is qualified for indeterminate
sentence.
Computation for Indeterminate Sentence Law

In order to arrive at an indeterminate sentence in the violation of the RPC, the following rules must be considered;
1. Get first the maximum term of sentence with all the attendant circumstance in accordance with Article 64 of the RPC;
2. Lower it the one degree. Do NOT consider anymore the attendant circumstance. The minimum term of sentence depends upon
the sound discretion of the court.

VIOLATION OF SPECIAL PENAL LAWS
If the offense is punished by special laws, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which
shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.
Example;
X committed was charged and convicted of the anti-carnapping law. Section 14 of R.A. 6539 (Anti-Carnapping law) provides a penalty for
17 years and 4 months to 30 years if a person committed carnapping by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or force
upon things.
Q: Under the indeterminate sentence law, what is the duration of the penalty for the violation of the anti-carnapping law?
A: Under the indeterminate sentence law, if a special law is violated, the courts may sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence
provided that it shall not be less than the minimum or more than the maximum according to the sound discretion of the judge. Thus,
anywhere from 17 years and 4 months to 30 years may be imposed upon X.
Argoncillo v. CA, G.R. No. 118816, July 10, 1998

The crime committed is illegal fishing with the use of explosives. The penalty prescribed by law is 20 years to life imprisonment. The judge
imposed him the penalty of straight 30 years.

A: NO. The Indeterminate sentence law states that a violation of special penal law and the said special penal law does not use the
enumeration of penalties in the RPC, the maximum term of the sentence shall not exceed the maximum penalty prescribed by law and the
minimum term of sentence shall not be less than the minimum penalty prescribed by law. In this case, since the penalty prescribed by law
is 20 years to life imprisonment, it means that the penalty to be imposed upon the convict must be an indeterminate sentence. SC said the
penalty must be 20 years (minimum term) to 25 years (maximum term)
Article 64 and Indeterminate Sentence law

The indeterminate sentence law did not repeal Article 34 of the Revised Penal Code. On the contrary, they are related.
Example;
A abducted B with lewd design. His intention was rape. But before A raped B, A was arrested. A was charged with the crime of forcible
abduction punishable by reclusion temporal.
Q: What is the penalty imposed if there is no mitigating or aggravating circumstance?

A: The maximum term will be reclusion temporal in medium period since there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstance. The
minimum term is 1 degree lower in any of its periods according to the sound discretion of the court. Thus, the imposable penalty is prsion
mayor in any of its period to reclusion temporal.
Q: What if there is only one ordinary mitigating circumstance is present?
A: Maximum term will be reclusion temporal in minimum period and the minimum term is Prision mayor in any of its period according to
the sound discretion of the court.
Q: What if there is only one aggravating circumstance is present? A: The maximum term will be reclusion temporal in its maximum
period and the minimum term is Prision mayor in any of its period according to the sound discretion of the court.
Q: What if both aggravating and mitigating circumstance are present?

A: The maximum term shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period because under article 64 you should offset the circumstances.
The minimum term will be one degree lower than reclusion temporal which is Prision mayor in any of its period according to the sound
discretion of the court.
Q: What if there are 2 aggravating circumstance and 1 ordinary mitigating circumstance present?
A: The maximum term shall be reclusion temporal in its maximum period applying the last aggravating circumstance after offsetting the
aggravating circumstance and mitigating circumstance. The minimum term is Prision mayor in any of its period according to the sound
discretion of the court.
Q: What if there are two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance present?
A: The maximum term shall be prision mayor in its medium period. Since there are two ordinary mitigating circumstances, we lower the
imposable penalty by one degree. The minimum term is prision correccional in any of its periods according to the sound discretion of
the court.
Q: What if there are three mitigating circumstance with no aggravating circumstance present?
A: The maximum term shall be prision mayor in its minimum period. The two ordinary mitigating circumstances shall operate to lower
the imposable penalty by one degree, the remaining ordinary mitigating circumstance shall operate to make the penalty in its minimum
period. The minimum term is prision correccional in any of its periods according to the sound discretion of the court.
Q: What if there are four mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance?

A: The maximum term shall still be prision mayor in its minimum period. In case of ordinary mitigating circumstance, you can only lower
the penalty by one degree. You cannot lower the penalty by two degrees. The two ordinary mitigating circumstances shall operate to
make the penalty in its minimum period. The minimum term is prision correccional in any of its periods according to the sound discretion
of the court.
* In order that the penalty will be lowered by one degree, it is necessary that there is NO aggravating circumstance.
Even if there are many mitigating circumstances, for as long as there is one aggravating circumstance, you cannot lower the penalty by
degrees. Only by periods.
Example;
A was charged with the information of rape with mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation, against B. thereafter, A voluntarily
surrendered. A convicted of rape and was punished with the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Q: since there are two mitigating circumstance, should the judge lower his penalty by one degree?
A: NO. Reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty. Under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, if the penalty prescribe by law is a single
invisible penalty you shall impose it as it is regardless of any aggravating or mitigating circumstance.
Q: What is the penalty of A if, in a addition to the 2 mitigating circumstances above mentioned, A is a minor at the time of the
offense?
A: privilege mitigating circumstance must first be applied prior to the ordinary mitigating circumstance. Since minority is a privilege
mitigating circumstance which lowers the penalty by one degree, the maximum term is prision mayor in its medium period and the
minimum term prision correccional in any of its range according to the sound discretion of the court.
*Only circumstance that can defeat an indivisible penalty is a privilege mitigating circumstance.
Example;
X was charged with the crime of frustrated homicide. X voluntarily surrendered to the authorities. In the trial, the mitigating circumstance of
immediate vindication to a grave offense was in attendant.
Q: What should be the penalty imposed to X?

A: Since the penalty for frustrated homicide is prision mayor and there are two other ordinary mitigating circumstance present, the maxium
term of sentence is Prision correccional in its medium period while the mimimum term of sentence. Arresto mayor within the range or.
Q: What is the penalty if, in addition to the facts above mentioned, X is minor committing without discernment?
A: Since the penalty already imposed upon X is prision correccional, we lower it by one degree more because minority is a privilege
mitigating circumstance. Thus, according to Article 64, the maximum term is Arresto mayor in its medium period. Indeterminate sentence
law is not applicable if the penalty imposed upon the offender does not exceed one year. In this instance we cannot give him an
indeterminate sentence because the duration of arresto mayor is 1 month to 6 months.
If the maximum term of sentence does not exceed one year, a straight penalty shall be imposed upon him.
--xXx--
PROBATION LAW (P.D. 968 as Amended by R.A. 10707)

Probation is a disposition by which a convict after conviction and sentence is released subject to the conditions imposed by the court
under the supervision of a probation officer.
Objectives
The following are the objectives of probation law;
1. To promote the correction and rehabilitation of the offender because he is placed under a personalized treatment;
2. To provide an opportunity for the reformation of penitent offender;
3.
To prevent further commission of crimes because the offender is placed under an individualized treatment;
4. To decongest cases;
5. To save the Government from spending much-needed funds when the offender will be placed behind bars
The first three objectives are based on P.D. 968. The last two purposes are jurisprudential.
Probation as a Privilege
Probation is not a right but a privilege. Thus, even if a convict is not among those disqualified of probation, the judge can still deny the
application. This denial is not appealable. The grant or denial of application is dependent solely on the sound discretion of the judge.
DISQUALIFICATIONS
The following are disqualified to avail probation;
1. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment is more than 6 years;
2. Those who have been convicted of subversion and crimes against national security;
3. Those who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of more than six (6)
months and one (1) day and/or a fine of more than one thousand pesos (P1,000.00);
4. Those who have already availed the benefit of probation;
5. Those who have perfected an appeal from judgment of conviction;
6. Those convicted of an election offense under the Omnibus Election Code;
7. Those convicted of drug trafficking or drug pushing;
8. Those who filed a malicious report that a person is committing a violation of Anti-money laundering law and was convicted
because of such malicious filing
Example;
X was charged and convicted for alarms and scandals. He was sentenced to 30 days of arresto menor.
Q: Can X avail probation?

A: If the felony was committed prior to the amendment of the probation law, X cannot avail probation. Under P.D. 968, a person who is
convicted of a crime involving public disorder cannot avail probation. The felony of Alarm and Scandal is a crime against public disorder.
Thus X cannot avail probation. However, if the crime was convicted after the amendment, X may avail probation. Under R.A. 1070,
crimes against public disorder is removed from the disqualifications. Thus, X may avail probations
Q: May probation be availed even if the penalty imposed upon the offender is only a fine?
A: YES. Under Section 4 of P.D. 968 as Amended by R.A. 10707, Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a term of
imprisonment or a fine only.
APPEAL AND PROBATION

Generally, under P.D 968, appeal and probation are mutually exclusive remedies. This is because the reason behind appeal and the
reason behind probation are diametrically opposed.
If a person appeals, it means that he is questioning the decision of the court. He is insisting on his innocence. On the other hand, if a
person

applies for probation, it means that he is accepting the judgment of the court. He, however, does not want to serve his sentence behind
bars.
Exceptions;
1. However, Section 4 of R.A. 10707 which amended the probation law, states that when a judgment of conviction imposing a non-
probationable penalty is appealed or reviewed, and such judgment is modified through the imposition of a probationable penalty,
the defendant shall be allowed to apply for probation based on the modified decision before such decision becomes final. The
application for probation based on the modified decision shall be filed in the trial court where the judgment of conviction imposing
a non-probationable penalty was rendered, or in the trial court where such case has since been re-raffled.
This notwithstanding, the accused shall lose the benefit of probation should he seek a review of the modified decision which
already imposes a probationable penalty.
2. Section 42 of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare act provides that the court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a child
in conflict with the law, and upon application at any time, place the child on probation in lieu of service of his/her sentence taking
into account the best interest of the child. For this purpose, Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 968, otherwise known as the
"Probation Law of 1976", is hereby amended accordingly.
Colinares v. People (G.R. No. 182748, December 13, 2011)

Colinares hit Rufino twice in the head with a stone. Thereafter, Colinares was charged and convicted for frustrated homicide in the
regional trial court. He was sentenced to 2 years and 4 months of prision correcional to 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor. Colinares
appealed to the Court of Appeals for the purpose of modifying his conviction from frustrated homicide to attempted homicide thereby
lowering the penalty so that he can avail probation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC. Thus, Colinares elevated the
case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that Colinares is only liable for attempted homicide because the prosecution failed to
prove that the wound of Rufino is fatal. Thus the penalty imposed on him should be lowered to imprisonment of four months of arresto
mayor, as minimum, to two years and four months of prision correccional, as maximum.
Q: Can Colinares avail probation after the perfection of appeal to modify his conviction?
A: YES. Colinares did not appeal from a judgment that would have allowed him to apply for probation. He did not have a choice between
appeal and probation. He was not in a position to say, "By taking this appeal, I choose not to apply for probation." The stiff penalty that the
trial court imposed on him denied him that choice. Besides, in appealing his case, Colinares raised the issue of correctness of the penalty
imposed on him. He claimed that the evidence at best warranted his conviction only for attempted, not frustrated, homicide, which crime
called for a probationable penalty. In a way, therefore, Colinares sought from the beginning to bring down the penalty to the level where
the law would allow him to apply for probation.
Q: When and where do you apply for probation?
A: A grant of probation is applied before the Trial Court which heard the case within the period of perfecting an appeal or within 15 days
from promulgation of judgment.
CONDITIONS IMPOSED UPON OFFENDER UNDER PROBATION

There are two conditions imposed upon a person seeking probation;
1. Mandatory/ Ordinary;
2. Discretionary/ Special;
Mandatory
The following are mandatory conditions imposed by the court to the probationer;
1. Appear before the probationary officer within 72 hours from the receipt of the order;
2. Report once a month;
Discretionary
Discretionary or special conditions are dependent upon the sound discretion of the court. Usually involves engaging in a vocation, not
drinking alcohol, not going to house of ill-reputes.
The only limitation on the discretionary conditions is that they must not be so restrictive to the rights of the accused such that they will
no longer be in consonance with his freedom.
Example;
In the case of Baclayon v. Mutia (G.R. No. L-59298, April 30, 1984) the trial court prohibited the offender, who is a teacher by
profession, to teach as a condition during the period of probation. This is a restrictive condition. It deprives the offender his means of
livelihood.
PERIOD OF PROBATION:
SENTENCE PERIOD OF PROBATION
Imprisonment of not more
Will not exceed two years;
than 1 year;
All other cases of
Will not exceed 6 years;
imprisonment;
Not less than nor be more
than 2x than the total
number of days of subsidiary
Fine subsidiary imprisonment, taking into
imprisonment in case of account the highest
insolvency; minimum wage rate at the
time of the
rendition of the judgment.
EFFECT OF PROBATION
Probation will suspend the execution of the sentence. However, it will
not extinguish civil liability.
Under Section 16 of P.D. 968 as amended by R.A. 10707, the final discharge of the probationer shall operate to restore to him all civil
rights lost or suspended as a result of his conviction and to totally extinguish his criminal liability as to the offense for which probation
was granted.
Moreno v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 168550, August 10, 2006)

Moreno ran for the public office of punong barangay. However, a petition for disqualification was filed against him because he was
convicted by final judgment of the crime of Arbitrary Detention and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of Four (4) Months and One
(1) Day to Two (2) Years and Four (4) Months. Moreno argues that the disqualification under the Local Government Code is for those ho

have served sentence for more than 1 year. Since Moreno applied and was granted of probation, he did not serve his sentence because
probation suspends the service of the offender.
Q: Can a person who was convicted by final judgment but was granted probation run for public office?
A: YES. The phrase service of sentence, understood in its general and common sense, means the confinement of a convicted person in a
penal facility for the period adjudged by the court. During the period of probation, the probationer does not serve the penalty imposed
upon him by the court but is merely required to comply with all the conditions prescribed in the probation order. Furthermore, he
accessory penalties of suspension from public office, from the right to follow a profession or calling, and that of perpetual special
disqualification from the right of suffrage, attendant to the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period imposed upon Moreno were similarly suspended upon the grant of probation.
Example;
Lindsay Lohan, after conviction, applied for probation and was granted the same. Thereafter, she filed an appeal questioning the civil
indemnity imposed upon her. The judge denied the appeal on the ground that Lindsay already applied for probation. Therefore, the appeal
cannot be granted.

A: NO. The only effect of probation is to suspend the execution of the sentence. It has nothing to do with the civil aspect of the case.
Insofar as the civil aspect is concerned, the convict can still appeal it.
Example;
D, under the probation for two years, was imposed the condition that he could not change his residence. For two years, he complied with
this condition. After the lapse of two years, D now changed his residence. The probation officer learned about this and filed for a Motion to
Revoke the probation. D contended that the period of probation (2 years) has already been completed, so he is already allowed to change
residence. The trial court granted the revocation.
Q: Is the trial court correct?

A: YES. The expiration of the period of probation does not ipso facto mean the termination of probation. Probation is only terminated upon
the issuance of the court of a final discharge of probation. This happens when after the lapse of the period of probation, the probation
officer will file a Motion before the court with a recommendation stating that the convict has complied with the conditions imposed and
therefore, he should be discharged. The court will then issue a final discharge of probation. Only then will probation be terminated.
--xXx--
Art. 66. Imposition of fines. — In imposing fines the courts may fix any amount within the limits established by law; in
fixing the amount in each case attention shall be given, not only to the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, but more
particularly to the wealth or means of the culprit.
FINE
Fine is a pecuniary penalty imposed by court in case of judgment of conviction.
Factors to consider in imposing fines;

1. Aggravating and mitigating circumstance;
2. Wealth and means of the offender
Scale of Penalty in case of Fine

Article 26 of the Revised Penal determines whether a fine is afflictive, correctional, or light penalty.
SCALE OF PENALTY AMOUNT OF FINE
Afflictive Penalty; Exceeds P6,000.00
Correctional Penalty From P200.00 to P6,000.00
Light Penalty; Less than P200.00
--xXx--
Art. 75. Increasing or reducing the penalty of fine by one or more degrees. — Whenever it may be necessary to
increase or reduce the penalty of fine by one or more degrees, it shall be increased or reduced, respectively, for each degree,
by one-fourth of the maximum amount prescribed by law, without however, changing the minimum.
If a fine is imposed to an accomplice or an accessory, the fine shall be reduced or increased, respectively for e each degree, by one
fourth of the maximum amount prescribed by law.
Example;
If A prevented the meetings of congress by means of fraud, the penalty imposed upon him is P200 – P2000. If he is merely an
accomplice, the fine will be lowered by one degree and a decrease of
¼ of the maximum amount prescribed by law. Since ¼ of P2,000.00 is P500.00, the penalty imposed upon the accomplice is P200.00 to
P,500.00.
Example;
A, B, and C, was charged and convicted of an impossible crime. A as the principal, B as the accomplice, and C as the accessory. The
court imposed upon them a fine of P200.00 to P500.00 as prescribed by law.
Q: How much would A, B, and C, pay?

A: A, as the principal, is liable for a fine ranging from P200.00 – P500.00. To get the liability of B as an accomplice we take ¼ of the
maximum amount of fine and deduct it therefrom. So the maximum amount of fine is P500.00 ¼ of P500.00 is 125. Deduct P125.00
from P500.00. This will now be P375.00 Thus, B, as an accomplice, is liable for P200-P375. Let us say the offender is a mere
accessory, deduct ¼ or P125.00 from the maximum fine. The sum is P250.00. Thus, C as the accomplice is liable for P200.00 -
P250.00
--xXx--
Article 70. Successive service of sentence. - When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them
simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit otherwise, the following rules shall be observed:
In the imposition of the penalties, the order of their respective severity shall be followed so that they may be executed
successively or as nearly as may be possible, should a pardon have been granted as to the penalty or penalties first imposed,
or should they have been served out.

For the purpose of applying the provisions of the next preceding paragraph the respective severity of the penalties
shall be determined in accordance with the following scale:
1. Death,
2. Reclusion perpetua,
3. Reclusion temporal,
4. Prision mayor,
5. Prision correccional,
6. Arresto mayor,
7. Arresto menor,
8. Destierro,
9. Perpetual absolute disqualification, 10 Temporal absolute disqualification.

11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling, and
12. Public censure.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding, the maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall not be
more than three-fold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No other penalty to
which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed equals the same maximum period.
Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years. In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of
perpetual penalties (pena perpetua) shall be computed at thirty
years. (As amended).
SIMULTANEOUS SERVICE OF SENTENCE

Under Article 70, as a rule, when the convict has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of the
penalties will so permit.
Penalties that allow simultaneous service of sentence;

1. Improvement and fine;
2. Imprisonment and suspension;
3. Imprisonment and public censure;
Q: What penalties cannot be served at the same time?
A: All forms of imprisonment.
SUCCESSIVE SERVICE OF SENTENCE

All forms of imprisonment cannot be served simultaneously.
Example;
X was convicted of two counts of homicide. A penalty of reclusion temporal was imposed upon him for each count of homicide. Reclusion
temporal has a duration of 12-20 years. X will satisfy the first 12-20 years of imprisonment. Thereafter, he shall serve another 12-20 years
of reclusion temporal for the second count of homicide.
Order of Severity.
In the imposition of penalties, the convict shall first serve the most severe penalty imposed upon him in accordance with the scale
provided for in Article 70.
THREE-FOLD RULE
The three-fold rule provides that when multiple successive penalties are imposed upon the offender, the maximum duration of the
convict's sentence shall not be more than three-fold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon
him. However, such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years.
Example;
X raped her daughter 5 times. He was charged and convicted of 5 counts of rape. The penalty for 1 count of rape is reclusion perpetua.
Q: What penalty shall the court impose on him?

A: 5 counts of reclusion perpetua.
Q: Since reclusion perpetua is 20-40 years, does that mean X will serve 200 years in prison?
A: NO. Under the three-fold rule the when the offender is serving multiple successive sentences, the maximum duration of the
offender’s sentence shall not exceed three folds of the length of the most severe penalty, provided that such penalty will not be more
than 40 years. In this case, since the penalty imposed upon X is 5 reclusion perpetua, his service of sentence will not be more than
three-folds of the length of reclusion perpetua which is the most severe penalty imposed upon him. However, since three counts of
reclusion perpetua is 120 years which exceeds the maximum penalty of 40 years, X will serve the maximum sentence of 40 years.
Example;
X was charged and convicted of 5 counts of rape punishable by reclusion perpetua and a civil liability of P50,000.00. The judge,
applying the three-fold rule, sentenced X of 40 years of imprisonment and a civil liability of P50,000.00.

A: NO. The three-fold rule is not for the judge to impose. The 40 years imprisonment in accordance to three-fold rule refers to service of
sentence, NOT to the imposition of penalties.
Q: If the judge will not impose the three-fold rule? Who will impose it?
A: The three-fold rule is for the Director of Prisons to apply and compute, and not for the judge to impose.
Q: How should the judge impose 5 counts of rape?

A: The judge shall impose upon him a penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape, the penalty prescribed by law for the crime
of rape. Likewise, the judge shall impose upon the convict the civil liability of P50,000.00 for each count of rape.
Q: does the three-fold rule also apply to civil liabilities of the offender?
A: NO. Each count of rape is a violation of the person of the victim therefore, civil indemnity is separate and distinct from the criminal
offense of rape. The civil indemnity shall be the number of times the victim was raped.

In answering questions regarding penalties, you need not state the equivalent duration. It suffices that you state the designation, i.e.
prision mayor, prision correcional, etc.
--xXx--
Article 71. Graduated scales. - In the case in which the law prescribed a penalty lower or higher by one or more degrees
than another given penalty, the rules prescribed in Article 61 shall be observed in graduating such penalty.
The lower or higher penalty shall be taken from the graduated scale in which is comprised the given penalty.
The courts, in applying such lower or higher penalty, shall observe the following graduated scales:
SCALE NO. 1
1. Death,
2. Reclusion perpetua,
3. Reclusion temporal,
4. Prision mayor,
5. Prision correccional,
6. Arresto mayor,
7. Destierro,
8. Arresto menor,
9. Public censure,
10. Fine.
SUBSIDIARY PENALTIES
Subsidiary penalties are deemed imposed.
SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT
Unlike subsidiary penalties, the subsidiary imprisonment must be
expressly stated in the decision.
--xXx--
Art. 74. Penalty higher than reclusion perpetua in certain cases. — In cases in which the law prescribes a penalty
higher than another given penalty, without specially designating the name of the former, if such higher penalty should be that
of death, the same penalty and the accessory penalties of Article 40, shall be considered as the next higher penalty.
If the decision or law says higher than Reclusion perpetua or 2 degrees than Reclusion temporal, then the penalty imposed is Reclusion
perpetua or Reclusion temporal as the case may be.
Death must be designated by name. However, for the other penalties, this does not apply.
Example;
The penalty for crime X is 2 degrees lower than RP. The penalty imposed is prision mayor.
--xXx--
SCALE NO. 2
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification,

2. Temporal absolute disqualification
3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling,
4. Public censure,
5. Fine.
Q: What is the importance of 1 day in the duration of the period (6 yrs and 1 DAY -12 years)?
A: The 1 day separates the different degrees of the penalty. It also separates a divisible penalty from an indivisible penalty. It also
determines whether subsidiary imprisonment may be imposed on the offender.
--xXx--
Art. 72. Preference in the payment of the civil liabilities. — The civil liabilities of a person found guilty of two or more
offenses shall be satisfied by following the chronological order of the dates of the judgments rendered against him, beginning
with the first in order of time.
The penalties shall be satisfied according to the scale of Art 70
--xXx--
Art. 73. Presumption in regard to the imposition of accessory penalties. — Whenever the courts shall impose a penalty
which, by provision of law, carries with it other penalties, according to the provisions of Articles 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44 of this
Code, it must be understood that the accessory penalties are also imposed upon the convict.
Art. 75. Increasing or reducing the penalty of fine by one or more degrees. — Whenever it may be necessary to
increase or reduce the penalty of fine by one or more degrees, it shall be increased or reduced, respectively, for each degree,
by one-fourth of the maximum amount prescribed by law, without however, changing the minimum.
The same rules shall be observed with regard of fines that do not consist of a fixed amount, but are made
proportional.
--xXx--
Art. 76. Legal period of duration of divisible penalties. — The legal period of duration of divisible penalties shall be
considered as divided into three parts, forming three periods, the minimum, the medium, and the maximum in the manner
shown in the following table:
--xXx--
Art. 77. When the penalty is a complex one composed of three distinct penalties. — In cases in which the law
prescribes a penalty composed of three distinct penalties, each one shall form a period; the lightest of them shall be the
minimum the next the medium, and the most severe the maximum period.
Whenever the penalty prescribed does not have one of the forms specially provided for in this Code, the periods shall
be distributed, applying by analogy the prescribed rules.
--xXx--

EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF PENALTIES
Art. 78. When and how a penalty is to be executed. — No penalty shall be executed except by virtue of a final judgment.
A penalty shall not be executed in any other form than that prescribed by law, nor with any other circumstances or
incidents than those expressly authorized thereby.
In addition to the provisions of the law, the special regulations prescribed for the government of the institutions in
which the penalties are to be suffered shall be observed with regard to the character of the work to be performed, the time of its
performance, and other incidents connected therewith, the relations of the convicts among themselves and other persons, the
relief which they may receive, and their diet.
The regulations shall make provision for the separation of the sexes in different institutions, or at least into different
departments and also for the correction and reform of the convicts.
--xXx--
Art. 79. Suspension of the execution and service of the penalties in case of insanity. — When a convict shall become
insane or an imbecile after final sentence has been pronounced, the execution of said sentence shall be suspended only with
regard to the personal penalty, the provisions of the second paragraph of circumstance number 1 of article 12 being observed in
the corresponding cases.
If at any time the convict shall recover his reason, his sentence shall be executed, unless the penalty shall have
prescribed in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
The respective provisions of this section shall also be observed if the insanity or imbecility occurs while the convict is
serving his sentence.
INSANITY AT THE TIME OF TRIAL OR AFTER THE CONVICTION OF THE ACCUSED BY FINAL JUDGMENT
There will be a suspension of sentence. The accused cannot be made to suffer the sentence.
The moment he regains his sanity he is required to serve his sentence. Provided, that the period of penalty has not yet prescribed.
--xXx--
Art 80 (as amended by PD 603: Child and Youth Welfare Code) Note: refer to R.A. 9344 (Minority)
--xXx--
Art. 81. When and how the death penalty is to be executed.

Art. 82. Notification and execution of the sentence and assistance to the culprit.
Art. 83. Suspension of the execution of the death sentence.
Art. 84. Place of execution and persons who may witness the same. Art. 85. Provisions relative to the corpse of the person
executed and its burial.
As of writing, the death penalty is suspended by virtue of R.A. 9346.
Under RA 9346, the prohibition pertains only to the imposition of death penalty. But for heinous crimes, the penalty shall still be death.
Only that it cannot be imposed.
--xXx--
Art. 86. Reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor, prision correccional and arresto mayor. — The
penalties of reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor, prision correccional and arresto mayor, shall be executed
and served in the places and penal establishments provided by the Administrative Code in force or which may be provided by
law in the future.
--xXx--
Art. 87. Destierro. — Any person sentenced to destierro shall not be permitted to enter the place or places designated
in the sentence, nor within the radius therein specified, which shall be not more than 250 and not less than 25 kilometers from
the place designated.
DESTIERRO
Destierro is considered as a principal correctional and divisible penalty. Therefore, jurisdiction over crimes punishable with destierro lies
with the Metropolitan Trial Court.
Destierro shall be imposed in the following cases;

1. Death or serious physical injuries is caused or are inflicted under exceptional circumstance;
2. Person fails to give bond for good behavior in grave and light threats;
3. Concubine’s penalty for the crime of concubinage;
4. When after reducing the penalty by one or more degree, destierro is the proper penalty
Execution of Destierro
1. Convict shall not be permitted to enter the place designated in the sentence nor within the radius specified, which shall not be
more than 250 and not less than 25 km from the place designated;
2. If the convict enters the prohibited area, he commits evasion of sentence
--xXx--
Art. 88. Arresto menor. — The penalty of arresto menor shall be served in the municipal jail, or in the house of the
defendant himself under the surveillance of an officer of the law, when the court so provides in its decision, taking into
consideration the health of the offender and other reasons which may seem satisfactory to it.
--xXx--
Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. — Criminal liability is totally extinguished;
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is
extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment;
2. By service of the sentence;
3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects;
4. By absolute pardon;
5. By prescription of the crime;
6. By prescription of the penalty;
7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Art 344 of this Code;
MODES OF EXTINGUISHING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Article 89 is incomplete. The following are the modes ofextinguishing criminal liability;
1. Death;
2. Service of Sentence;
3. Amnesty;
4. Absolute pardon;
5. Prescription of crime;
6. Prescription of penalty;
7. Valid marriage of the offended with the offender;
8. Express repeal of the penal law; (Decriminalization of the act)
9. Probation under PD. 986 as amended by R.A. 10707;
DEATH
Death is the permanent cessation of life.
Q: When does death extinguish criminal liability?

A: Death extinguishes criminal liability at any stage of the proceedings, be it before or after conviction. This is because the moment the
offender dies, there is no one to serve the personal penalty.
Extinguishment of Civil liability through Death

In People v. Amistoso (G.R. No. 201447, August 28, 2013) the Supreme Court laid down rules in case the accused dies prior to final
judgment;
1.
Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely
thereon;
2. 2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may also be predicated on a
source of obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of obligation from which
the civil liability may arise as a result of the same act or omission:
a. Law;
b. Contracts;
c. Quasi-contracts;
d. (delict);
e. Quasi-delicts;
3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, an action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by
way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended.
This separate civil action may be enforced either against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused, depending on
the source of obligation upon which the same is based as explained above.
4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action by prescription, in cases
where during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction, the private-offended party instituted together
therewith the civil action. In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency
of the criminal case, conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any apprehension
on a possible privation of right by prescription. (Citations omitted.)
SERVICE OF SENTENCE
Service of sentence means satisfaction of the penalty imposed. If it is imprisonment, it means that he has served his sentence behind
bars. If it is fine, it means that he has paid the amount.
AMNESTY
Amnesty is an act of grace from the power entrusted with the execution of the law which does not only exempt the offender from the
service of penalty for the crime committed, but also obliterates the effects of the crime. It does not only suspend the execution of the
sentence. It also obliterates the effects of the crime.
ABSOLUTE PARDON
Absolute Pardon is an act of grace received from the power entrusted with the execution of the law which exempts the offender from
the penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed.
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME
Prescription of Crime is the loss or forfeiture of the right of
State to prosecute an act prohibited by law. The moment that a
crime has already prescribed, the court has to dismiss the case
even if the accused has not moved for its dismissal. The courts
lose their jurisdiction to try the case.

VALID MARRIAGE
A valid marriage between the offender and the offended party extinguishes criminal liability only in relation to private crimes; i.e.
seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and one public crime which is rape.
* Under Art 266, the valid marriage of the offended with the offender extinguishes criminal liability as well as the penalty.
Example;
Jack raped Rose. Rose filed a case of rape against Jack. Trial on the merits ensued. During trial, Jack and Rose would often see each
other and because of this, they fell in love with each other. Later on, they got married. This valid marriage will extinguish the criminal
liability of Jack.
Q: IS the criminal liability extinguished if the marriage took place after the offender was convicted by final judgment?
A: YES. Even if there is already a final and executory judgment, such as when the offender is already behind bars, a valid marriage
between the offender and the offended will still extinguish criminal liability and the penalty imposed.
--xXx--
Art. 90. Prescription of crime. — Crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal shall prescribe
in twenty years.
Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in fifteen years.
Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten years; with the exception of those punishable by
arresto mayor, which shall prescribe in five years.
The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year.
The crime of oral defamation and slander by deed shall prescribe in six months.
Light offenses prescribe in two months.
When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the highest penalty shall be made the basis of the application of the
rules contained in the first, second and third paragraphs of this article. (As amended by RA 4661, approved June 19, 1966.)
Art. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. — The period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on
which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted by the filing of the
complaint or information, and shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being
convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him.
The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago.
Period of Prescription of Crimes

PENALTY OF CRIMES PRESCRIPTION PERIOD
Death, Reclusion 20 years;
perpetua,
reclusion temporal;
Other afflictive penalties; 15 years;
Correctional penalties; 10 years;
Arresto mayor; 5 years;
Libel and other similar 1 year
offenses;
Oral defamation and slander 6 months;
by
deed
Light felonies; 2 month.
COMPUTATION OF PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD

The running of the prescriptive period shall be from the time of the commission of the crime, if known. If not known, from discovery by
offended party, authorities and agents.
Example;
X and Y had a quarrel. In the course thereof, X killed Y. Thereafter, X buried the body of Y in his backyard. Unknown to X, neighbor A
witnesses A burry the body in his backyard. After 25 years from the commission of the crime, the neighbor became old and sickly. He
then told the police what he witnessed 25 years ago. The police then went to the backyard, dug the ground and saw the bones of Y.
Q: Can the State still prosecute H for parricide?

A: YES. The crime has not yet prescribed. The authorities and their agents only came to know the crime 25 years from its commission.
This is the only time when the prescriptive period for the crime shall commence to run. Also, the neighbor who knew the commission of
the crime is not the person required by law to discover the crime in order to start the running of the prescriptive period. Therefore, the
State can still file the case of parricide.
Example;
Niki and Mariah were friends. Niki, before going to Mindanao, left the titles of her properties to Mariah for safekeeping. Mariah became
interested in one of the properties. While Niki was in Mindanao, Mariah falsified a Deed of Absolute Sale forging the signature of Niki,
making it appear that Niki sold the property to her. Mariah then registered the Deed before the Registry of Deeds. The title was
thereafter transferred to the name of Mariah. 20 years thereafter, Niki came back to Manila and acquired the titles she left to Mariah.
Niki noticed that one title was missing. She eventually discovered that the property covered by such missing title was already
transferred to the name of Mariah.
Q: Can Niki file case of falsification of public document punishable by Prision mayor, against Mariah?
A: NO. The crime has already prescribed. If a document or transaction involves real properties (sale, lease, attachment), the moment
the document is registered before the Registry of Deeds, such registration constitutes constructive notice. As such, the law presumes
that the whole world, including Niki, knows about the registration. The period

of prescription commences to run from that time. Since 20 years have already lapsed in this case, the crime has already prescribed. This
concerns only criminal liability. But Niki can still file a civil case for damages or any civil action to recover the property.
VIOLATION OF SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

In the case of People v. Pangilinan (G.R. No. 152662, June 13, 2012), the Supreme Court said whether it is a violation of a special penal
law like the BP 22 or a violation of the RPC, the filing of a complaint before the office of the public prosecutor suspends or interrupts the
running of the prescriptive period. It remains suspended until the case has been decided the accused being acquitted or convicted or the
case has been dismissed for any reason not imputable to him.
Here the checks were issued, and the notice of dishonor was received by the maker in 1995. The cases were filed before the prosecutors
in 1997, and they filed the information in the MTC in 2000. The MTC and RTC ruled that the crime did not prescribe. The CA held that the
crime had prescribed, and that the filing of the complaint before the prosecutors did not suspend the running of the prescriptive period.
The CA cited the case of Zaldivia v. Reyes and ruled that the violation of BP 22 has already prescribed because according to the CA, in
case of violation of special penal laws, the running of the prescriptive period is only interrupted upon the filing of the case before the
appropriate court because the Supreme Court interpreted the word “proceedings” as judicial proceedings in Zaldivia v. Reyes.
The SC said that the interpretation of the CA is erroneous. SC said it is now settled in jurisprudence that whether it is a violation of a
special penal law or a violation of the RPC, the filing of the complaint with the public prosecutor interrupts the running of the prescriptive
period.
Violation of Municipal Ordinance

In Zaldivia v. Reyes (G.R. No. 102342, July 3, 1992), what is involved is a violation of a municipal ordinance. It is only in case of violation
of municipal ordinance wherein the running of the prescriptive period is interrupted upon the filing of the complaint before the proper court.
The filing of the information in 1997 suspended the prescriptive period and the same remains suspended; thus the crime has not yet
prescribed
Example;
Gerald and Kim were spouses. Gerald, as a medical representative, was assigned in Visayas leaving his wife, Kim, in Manila. 20 years
thereafter, Kim while watching TV saw Gerald presenting another woman, Maja, as his wife. Furious, Kim went to Visayas and therein
discovered that there was a registered marriage certificate between Gerald and Maja, the woman she saw on TV.
Q: Can Kim file a case of bigamy?

A: YES. The crime has not yet prescribed. The rule on constructive notice by registration is applicable only if the transaction involves real
properties. Registration as to other documents or transactions with the Office of the Civil Registry does not constitute constructive notice
to the whole world. Since the wife herein discovered the bigamous marriage only 20 years thereafter, this shall be the starting point for the
running of the prescriptive period of the crime.
PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD SUSPENDED

The Prescriptive period shall be suspended upon filing of complaint or info before the fiscal’s office or before the court/public prosecutor
for
purposes of preliminary investigation. It remains suspended until the accused is convicted or acquitted or the case is terminated without
the fault of accused.
The term shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago.
Situations which do not follow Art. 91;

1. In continuing crimes-prescriptive period will start to run only at the termination of the intended result;
2. In crimes against false testimony, prescriptive period is reckoned from the day final judgment is rendered in the proceeding
where such false testimony is utilized not when the false testimony is made;
3. In Election offenses;
a. if discovery of the offense is incidental to judicial proceedings, prescription begins when such proceedings terminate; or
b. From the date of the commission of the offense.
--xXx--
Art. 92. When and how penalties prescribe. — The penalties imposed by final sentence prescribe as follows;
1. Death and reclusion perpetua, in twenty years;
2. Other afflictive penalties, in fifteen years;
3. Correctional penalties, in ten years; with the exception of the penalty of arresto mayor, which prescribes in five years;
4. Light penalties, in one year.
Art. 93. Computation of the prescription of penalties. — The period of prescription of penalties shall commence to run
from the date when the culprit should evade the service of his sentence, and it shall be interrupted if the defendant should
give himself up, be captured, should go to some foreign country with which this Government has no extradition treaty, or
should commit another crime before the expiration of the period of prescription.
PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTY
Prescription of penalty is the loss of the right of the State to execute the sentence.
Prescription Period
PENALTY PRESCRIPTION PERIOD
Death, Reclusion perpetua; 20 years;
Afflictive penalties; 15 years;
Correctional penalties; 10 years;
Arresto mayor; 5 years;
Light penalties; 1 year
COMMENCEMENT PERIOD
The running of the period shall commence from the time the convict evaded the service of his sentence. It is necessary therefore that
the convict is serving his sentence and while serving, he escaped. It is from the time of escape that the prescriptive period runs.
Example;
Garcia was convicted of homicide. The judgment became final and executory. He was brought to serve sentence in Muntinlupa. While
serving sentence, he escaped. Police failed to capture and find him. It

was only after 20 years that Garcia was located and brought behind bars. Garcia’s counsel filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus contending
that the penalty prescribed and therefore, Garcia could not be imprisoned.
Q: Is the counsel correct?

A: YES. The penalty has prescribed. Homicide prescribes in 15 years. Here, Garcia was captured 20 years from escape.
Example;
Cuenca was charged with homicide. Being a bailable offense, Cuenca posted bail. During the arraignment and pre trial, Cuenca appeared
before the court. However, during the trial proper, he did not appear. Trial in absentia ensued. Judgment was for conviction. Warrant of
arrest was issued against Cuenca. It was only 20 years thereafter that the police were able to arrest Cuenca and bring him behind bars.
Cuenca’s counsel filed a petition for habeas corpus contending that the penalty has prescribed.
Q: Is the counsel correct?

A: NO. The penalty has not prescribed. In fact, prescription has not even commenced to run. For the period to run, it is necessary that the
offender is serving sentence and while serving sentence, he escaped. The running of prescriptive period only starts from the escape of
offender. In this case, the offender has not even served his sentence.
SUSPENSION OF PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD OF PENALTY

The following are the grounds when the prescriptive period of penalty is suspended;
1. When offender surrenders;
2. When offender went to a country which has no extradition treaty with the Philippines;
3. When convict commits a crime before the expiration of period of prescription;
4. When the offender is captured;
Prescription of Crimes v. Prescription of Penalty

PRESCRIPTION OF PRESCRIPTION OF
CRIMES PENALTY
Loss or forfeiture of the Loss or forfeiture of the
right of the State to right of the State to
prosecute; enforce final
judgment;
Starts counting upon the Starts counting upon the
discovery of the commission escape or evasion of
of the crime. service of sentence.
Mere absence from the Absence from the
Philippines interrupts the Philippines interrupts the
running of the prescription; period only when the
convict goes to a foreign
country without an
extradition treaty with the
Philippines;
Commission of another Commission of another
crime before the expiration crime before the expiration
of the prescriptive period of the period interrupts the
does not prescription.
interrupt prescription.
--xXx--
Art. 94. Partial Extinction of criminal liability. — Criminal liability is extinguished partially;
1. By conditional pardon;
2. By commutation of the sentence; and
3.
For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is serving his sentence.
MODES FOR PARTIALLY EXTINGUISHING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

The following are the modes for extinguishing criminal liability;
1. Conditional Pardon;
2. Commutation of sentence;
3. Good conduct of allowance;
4. Special Time Allowance for Loyalty;
5. Parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law;
6. Implied repeal or amendment of penal law lowering the penalty;
CONDITIONAL PARDON
Conditional Pardon is an act of grace received from a power entrusted with the authority to execute the law, but the pardon herein is
subject to strict conditions.
Because of this strict conditions, there must be acceptance on the part of the offender. The moment he accepts, it becomes incumbent
upon him to comply with the strict terms and conditions of the pardon.
Failure to comply with any of the strict conditions, the State can file a criminal case under Art 159- evasion of service of sentence. In
addition, the Chief Executive can order the immediate incarceration of the offender under the Administrative Code.
COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE
In commutation of sentence, a new sentence imposed shall be in lieu of the original sentence.
Example;
Death penalty commuted to Reclusion perpetua.
--xXx--
ART. 97. Allowance for good conduct. – The good conduct of any offender qualified for credit for preventive
imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of this Code, or of any convicted prisoner in any penal institution, rehabilitation or
detention center or any other local jail shall entitle him to the following deductions from the period of his sentence;
1. During the first two years of imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of twenty days for each month of good
behavior during detention;
2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a reduction of twenty-three
days for each month of good behavior during detention;
3. During the following years until the tenth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of
twenty-five days for each month of good behavior during detention;
4. During the eleventh and successive years of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of thirty days for
each month of good behavior during detention; and
5. At any time during the period of imprisonment, he shall be allowed another deduction of fifteen days, in addition to
numbers one to four hereof, for each month of study, teaching or mentoring service time rendered. (As amended by R.A.
10592)
An appeal by the accused shall not deprive him of entitlement to the above allowances for good conduct.
GOOD CONDUCT ALLOWANCE

Good conduct allowance is awarded to the offender if he has
been behaving properly in prison. The Director of Prisons shall
compute the good conduct allowance in favor of the offender
so that he will be immediately released.

--xXx--
ART. 98. Special time allowance for loyalty. – A deduction of one fifth of the period of his sentence shall be granted to
any prisoner who, having evaded his preventive imprisonment or the service of his sentence under the circumstances
mentioned in Article 158 of this Code, gives himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of a
proclamation announcing the passing away of the calamity or catastrophe referred to in said article. A deduction of two-fifths of
the period of his sentence shall be granted in case said prisoner chose to stay in the place of his confinement notwithstanding
the existence of a calamity or catastrophe enumerated in Article 158 of this Code. (As amended by
R.A. 10592)
Example;
During the time Bin Laden was serving his sentence behind bars, an
8.9 magnitude earthquake suddenly occurred prompting Bin Laden to escape. He then went to the house of his mother. While Bin Laden
was watching TV in the house of his mother, he saw the President announcing that the earthquake subsided. Within 48 hours from
announcement, Bin Laden surrendered. Because of this surrender, Bin Laden is entitled to the special allowance for loyalty for being so
loyal to the government.
If Bin Laden remained in prison despite the 8.9 magnitude earthquake, he is entitled to a deduction of 2/5 from the period of his sentence.
However, if Bin Laden did not return, there will be an additional 1/5 to the term of his sentence. If Bin Laden merely remained in prison,
there will be neither deduction nor addition to his sentence.
--xXx--
Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. — Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
CIVIL LIABILITY
As a general rule, every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. For every criminal action filed in court, the civil action for the
recovery of civil liability is deemed impliedly instituted.
Reason
The commission of a crime, 2 injuries are inflicted;
1. Social injury against the State for the disturbance of social order; and
2. Personal Injury against the offended party and his heirs;
The social injury against the state will be answered by reparation. The personal injury will be answered by the civil indemnity.
Exceptions to Implied Institution of Civil Action

The following are the exemption to the general that a civil action is impliedly instituted in a criminal case;
1. When offended party waives the civil action;
2. When the offended party reserves the right to file a separate civil action, which must be made prior to the presentation of
evidence of the prosecution;
3. When the offended party files the civil action prior to the criminal action
ACQUITTAL; EFFECT ON CIVIL LIABILITY:
In the following cases, acquittal in a criminal action bars recovery in a civil action;
1. If the judgment of acquittal states that the alleged criminal acts of the offender were not committed by him;
2. If the judgment of acquittal states that the accused is not guilty of criminal or civil damages;
In the following cases, the acquittal of the accused in a criminal case is not a bar to recover civil liability;
1. When judgment of acquittal is based on reasonable doubt - This is because civil actions require mere preponderance of
evidence;
2. When judgment of acquittal states that the liability of accused is not criminal but civil in nature - This usually happens when the
case is estafa and there is a contract between the accused and complainant, upon which the

accused failed to comply with the terms of the contract. There is breach of contract;
3. When the judgment of acquittal states that the civil liability does not arise from the crime but from other sources of obligations;
--xXx--
Art. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. — The exemption from criminal liability established in
subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of article 12 and in subdivision 4 of article 11 of this Code does not include exemption from civil
liability, which shall be enforced subject to the following rules:
First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article 12, the civil liability for acts committed by an imbecile or insane
person, and by a person under nine years of age, or by one over nine but under fifteen years of age, who has acted without
discernment, shall devolve upon those having such person under their legal authority or control, unless it appears that there
was no fault or negligence on their part.
Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor under his authority, legal guardianship or control, or
if such person be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own property, excepting property exempt
from execution, in accordance with the civil law.
Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented
shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have received.
The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, the proportionate amount for which each one shall be liable.
When the respective shares cannot be equitably determined, even approximately, or when the liability also attaches to
the Government, or to the majority of the inhabitants of the town, and, in all events, whenever the damages have been caused
with the consent of the authorities or their agents, indemnification shall be made in the manner prescribed by special laws or
regulations.
Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of Article 12, the persons using violence or causing the fears shall be
primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there be no such persons, those doing the act shall be liable, saving always to the latter
that part of their property exempt from execution.
INSANE, IMBECILE, MINOR

In case the offender is insane, imbecile or minor, the civil liability arising from their acts shall be shouldered by the persons who have
custody of the insane, imbecile or minor.
Secondary liability falls on the property of the insane, imbecile or minor, except those properties which are prohibited from being attached.
STATE OF NECESSITY
All persons who have been benefitted during the state of necessity shall bear the civil liability. If there are many persons benefitted, the
liability shall be divided by the court proportionately.
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE OR UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR

Borne by the person who enforced the threats to the offender. Secondary liability falls upon the principal by direct participation, who
is the one who acted under the compulsion of irresistible force or uncontrollable fear.
--xXx--
Art. 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments. — In default of the
persons criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other persons or corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes
committed in their establishments, in all cases where a violation of municipal ordinances or some general or special police
regulation shall have been committed by them or their employees.
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses from
guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the value thereof, provided that such guests shall have notified in advance the
innkeeper himself, or the person representing him, of the deposit of such goods within the inn; and shall furthermore have
followed the directions which such innkeeper or his representative may have given them with respect to the care and
vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons unless
committed by the innkeeper's employees.
Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. — The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article
shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by
their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties.
SUBSIDIARY CIVIL LIABILITY

Parents, teacher, employers, and proprietors shall be subsidiarily liable for the crimes committed by their children, students, employees,
servants.
Subsidiary Liability of employers

Employers may be held subsidiarily liable for the acts of their employees provided the following requisites are present;
1. Employer must be engaged in some kind of industry;
2. Employer and employee relationship;
3. Employee committed a crime in the exercise of his duties as employee;
4. There must be conviction of the crime and the employee was found insolvent to pay civil indemnity;
The moment the employee was found insolvent, the liability of the employer now becomes absolute. A motion for the issuance of a
subsidiary writ of execution must then be filed by the complainant
Example;
Paris Hilton, a guest in a hotel, told the representative of the hotel that she carries valuables. The representative of the hotel told Paris
about the rules regarding the care and vigilance of the valuables. However, during nighttime, a robbery occurred inside the hotel.
Among those taken were the valuables of Paris. The offender was arrested, convicted and civil liability was imposed upon him.
Q: In case of insolvency of the offender, does the proprietor of the hotel or establishment have subsidiary civil liability?

A: YES. The guest complied with the rules and regulations as to the care and vigilance of the goods. He also informed the representative
of the hotel of the presence of his valuables.
Example;
Same situation as above. The guard of the hotel tried to fight the robbers. One of the robbers shot the guard. Prosecuted for robbery with
homicide and was convicted.
Q: In case of insolvency, is the proprietor of the hotel subsidiarily liable?

A: NO. The crime committed is robbery with homicide, which is a crime under robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons. If
the crime committed is robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons, the proprietor is not liable, except if the offender is the
employee of the hotel or establishment.
Solidum v. People (G.r. No. 192123, March 10, 2014)

Gerald Gercayo was born with an imperforated anus. Two days after his birth, Gerald underwent colostomy, a surgical procedure to bring
one end of the large intestine out through the abdominal wall, enabling him to excrete through a colostomy bag attached to the side of his
body. When Gerald was three years old, he was admitted at the Ospital ng Maynila for a pull-through operation. Dr. Leandro Resurreccion
headed the surgical team along with the anesthesiologists which includes petitioner Dr. Fernando Solidum. During the operation, Gerald
experienced bradycardia, and went into a coma. His coma lasted for two weeks,9 but he regained consciousness only after a month. He
could no longer see, hear or move. Thus, the mother lodged a complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries
against the attending physicians and Ospital ng Maynila.
Q: Is Dr. Solidum civilly or criminally liable?

A: NO. The Prosecution presented no witnesses with special medical qualifications in anesthesia to provide guidance to the trial court on
what standard of care was applicable. It would consequently be truly difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether the first three
elements of a negligence and malpractice action were attendant.
Q: Is Ospital ng Maynila subsidiarily liable?

A: NO. For one, Ospital ng Maynila was not at all a party in the proceedings. Hence, its fundamental right to be heard was not respected
from the outset. Second, granting for the sake of argument that Ospital ng Maynila was impleaded, still it cannot be subsidiarily liable
because the requisites for the subsidiary liability of the employers are not present. First, there is no employer-employee relationship
because based on the evidence, Dr. Solidum is a consultant and not an employee of OM. Second, OM is not engaged in some kind of
industry, it is a charitable institution that caters hospital services to poor patients; there is no profit. Also, Dr. Solidum was not criminally
liable. Lastly, granting that Dr. Solidum was held liable for civil liability, there was no proof that Dr. Solidum was insolvent such that OM will
be subsidiarily liable.
Example;
A municipal ordinance provides that Establishment XYZ should only be open during weekdays. However, this establishment violated the
ordinance as it opened on a Sunday. A crime was committed during the Sunday it opened.
Q: Is the proprietor of the establishment liable?
A: YES. There was a violation of the ordinance. Any crimes committed in the establishment will make the proprietor subsidiarily liable
for civil liability only, not for criminal liability.
Example;
Vin Diesel was a driver of XYZ Corporation engaged in the business of distributing goods to supermarkets. Vin Diesel was driving
recklessly as he was headed to one supermarket. In the course thereof, Vin Diesel hit a car. The car was damaged. Because of this, a
crime for reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property was filed against Vin Diesel. Court found him guilty. The penalties
imposed were fine and payment of damage caused. When the judgment became final and executory, a writ of execution was issued but
was returned unsatisfied due to the insolvency of Vin Diesel.
Q: Is there need to file a separate civil action?

A: NO. There is no need to file a separate civil action. In the very same action for reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property,
the moment the employee is found to be insolvent, the liability of the employer becomes absolute. However, even if it is absolute, it is
not automatic. The complainant has to file a Motion for the Issuance of a Subsidiary Writ of Execution. This is not an ex parte motion,
but a litigated one. Thus, the other party (XYZ COrpo) must be informed for due process.
--xXx--
Art. 104. What is included in civil liability. — The civil liability established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code includes;
1. Restitution;
2. Reparation of the damage caused;
3. Indemnification for consequential damages.
Art. 105. Restitution. — How made. — The restitution of the thing itself must be made whenever possible, with
allowance for any deterioration, or diminution of value as determined by the court.
The thing itself shall be restored, even though it be found in the possession of a third person who has acquired it by
lawful means, saving to the latter his action against the proper person, who may be liable to him.
This provision is not applicable in cases in which the thing has been acquired by the third person in the manner and
under the requirements which, by law, bar an action for its recovery.
RESTITUTION
Restitution is the return of the very thing taken.
Exception
Exception: if the innocent purchaser acquired the said property in a public sale. Then, it can no longer be taken away from him.
Q: What is the remedy of the offended party if the thing can no longer be returned?
A: The remedy of the offended party is reparation.
--xXx--
Art. 106. Reparation. — How made. — The court shall determine the amount of damage, taking into consideration the

price of the thing, whenever possible, and its special sentimental value to the injured party, and reparation shall be made
accordingly.
Reparation
In case of inability to return the property stolen, the culprit must pay the value of the property stolen. The court shall determine the value of
the thing taken including its sentimental value.
--xXx--
Art. 107. Indemnification — What is included. — Indemnification for consequential damages shall include not only
those caused the injured party, but also those suffered by his family or by a third person by reason of the crime.
INDEMNIFICATION
Indemnification includes moral damages, civil indemnity, exemplary damages.
Moral Damages
Moral damages in case of rape or murder need not be proved. It suffices that the crime has been committed. The law presumes that the
victim suffered moral indemnity because of the crime committed.
Exemplary Damages
Exemplary damages can only be granted if there are aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime.
--xXx--
Article 108. Obligation to make restoration, reparation for damages, or indemnification for consequential damages and
actions to demand the same; Upon whom it devolves. - The obligation to make restoration or reparation for damages and
indemnification for consequential damages devolves upon the heirs of the person liable.
The action to demand restoration, reparation, and indemnification likewise descends to the heirs of the person injured.
Article 109. Share of each person civilly liable. - If there are two or more persons civilly liable for a felony, the courts
shall determine the amount for which each must respond.
If there were 2 accused convicted, insofar as the civil liability is concerned, it is the court which shall determine the civil liability of the 2
accused
--xXx--
Art. 110. Several and subsidiary liability of principals, accomplices and accessories of a felony — Preference in
payment.
— Notwithstanding the provisions of the next preceding article, the principals, accomplices, and accessories, each within their
respective class, shall be liable severally (in solidum) among themselves for their quotas, and subsidiaries for those of the other
persons liable.
The subsidiary liability shall be enforced, first against the property of the principals; next, against that of the
accomplices, and, lastly, against that of the accessories.
Whenever the liability in solidum or the subsidiary liability has been enforced, the person by whom payment has been
made
shall have a right of action against the others for the amount of their respective shares.
Example;
X, Y and Z were charged in the case of robbery. They were all charged as principals. But the judge ruled that X is a principal, Y is an
accomplice and Z is a mere accessory. The judge divided the civil liability proportionately. Their liabilities among themselves are in
solidum.
Q: Against whom can the private complainant recover said civil liability?
A: The private complainant can recover the entire civil liability from X, the principal but X now has a right of action against Y and Z
insofar as their respective civil liabilities are concerned. If X cannot pay, the private complainant can go against Y. Y can now go against
X and Z because their liabilities are in solidum but subsidiary insofar as the private complainant is concerned
--xXx--
Art. 111. Obligation to make restitution in certain cases. — Any person who has participated gratuitously in the
proceeds of a felony shall be bound to make restitution in an amount equivalent to the extent of such participation.
Art. 112. Extinction of civil liability. — Civil liability established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code shall be
extinguished in the same manner as obligations, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Law.
EXTINGUISHMENT OF CIVIL LIABILITY:

Civil Liability shall be extinguished by the following acts;
1. By pardon of the offended party;
2. Other modes for extinguishing civil liability under Civil Code; (payment, Condonation, etc)
Civil liability is personal and cannot be extinguished by pardon, amnesty, probation, commutation of sentence, etc. Civil liability can only be
extinguished in the same manner as in Civil Law, by the extinguishment of obligations, i.e., payment, loss of the thing, remuneration,
compensation, etc.
--xXx--
Art. 113. Obligation to satisfy civil liability. — Except in case of extinction of his civil liability as provided in the next
preceding article the offender shall continue to be obliged to satisfy the civil liability resulting from the crime committed by
him, notwithstanding the fact that he has served his sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty or other rights, or has not
been required to serve the same by reason of amnesty, pardon, commutation of sentence or any other reason.
--END--

Criminal Law REVIEW (2018) 5 : Garcia Notes

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Criminal Law REVIEW (2018) 5 : Garcia Notes

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

- CRIMINAL LAW

Injury committed against a person

Injury committed against the state - Punishment is imprisonment.

Q: Who has the power to enact Penal Laws?

Q: Is the power of Congress absolute?

Limitations to the Power of Congress to enact Penal Laws:

Exceptions to the GENERALITY characteristic:

Generally Accepted Principles of PIL;

Laws of Preferential Application;

Philosophies under the Criminal Law System

1. Classical/ Juristic Philosophy;

1.2 Purpose of penalty is Retribution;

1.3. Determination of penalty is done mechanically;

1.4. Emphasis is on the crime and not on the criminal;

2.1 Basis of criminal liability is man’s social environment;

2.2. Purpose of penalty is for purposes of rehabilitation;

2.3. Determination of penalty is done on the case to case basis

GARCIA NOTES - CRIMINAL LAW

* The Revised Penal Code adheres to Classical philosophy;

THEORIES/RULES CONCERNING CRIMINAL LAW;

Utilitarian/ Protective Theory;

Q: Should Magno should be convicted of violation of B.P. 22?

Doctrine of Pro Reo

Maxim: In case of doubt, rule always for the accused;

Constitution: Unless proven guilty, deemed innocent. “Guilt must be proven.”

Reason: Presumption of innocence;

Q: Are there common law crimes in the Philippines?

Art. 2 of the RPC has 2 scopes of application ;

Q: Can Pres. X be prosecuted for rape?

Q: May Pres. X be prosecuted?

Q: When is it a Philippine ship or airship?

Jurisdictional Rules for Merchant Vessels

French Rule = flag country

*Philippines adhere to the English Rule which is strictly territorial in nature.

Q: Where may she file the case?

Crimes against National Security includes the following;

Crime committed against the Law of Nations include the following;

Q: Can A, B, C, D, and E be tried in the Philippines?

Q: Can A, B, C, D, and E be tried in the Philippines?

GARCIA NOTES - CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW [2018] ​

2 kinds of felonies that are may be committed under Art. 3;

An intentional felony is a voluntary act because it is committed by means of deliberate intent.

* You cannot see intent. It is an internal state of the mind;

Factors to Determine Intent

Q: Was there motive?

Q: What was the nature and number of weapon used?

Q: What was the manner of committing the crime?

GENERAL CRIMINAL SPECIFIC CRIMINAL

Q: Will A’s defense stand in court?

People v. Mapalo (G.R. No.172608, February 6, 2007)

Q: How do you prove Motive?

immediately after the

Elements of Mistake of Fact

Q: Can a mistake of fact be used as a defense against culpable felony?

US v. Ah Chong (G.R. No. L-5272 March 19, 1910.)

Q: Is the contention Yapyucu justified?

Q: Can a crime be committed without criminal intent?

ACTS MALA PROHIBITA

They are not inherently wrong;

MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA

Garcia v. CA (G.R. No. 157171 March 14, 2006)

Lonely v. People (G.R. No. 152644, February 10, 2006)

GARCIA NOTES - CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW [2018]

GARCIA NOTES - CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW [2018] 1