IMPUTABILITY is the quality by which an act may be ascribed to a person as its
author or owner.
RESPONSIBILITY is the obligation of suffering the consequences of crime. It is
the obligation of taking the penal and civil consequences of the crime. (Albert)
Imputability, distinguished from responsibility. While imputability implies
that a deed may be imputed to a person, responsibility implies that the person
must take the consequence of such a deed.
GUILT is an element of responsibility, for a man cannot be made to answer for the
consequences of a crime unless he is guilty. (Albert)
ARTICLE 11. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES –
The following do not incur any criminal liability:
1. Any person in the defense of his person or rights, provided that the following
circumstances occur:
FIRST. Unlawful aggression
SECOND. Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent/ 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 Art.
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;
1st That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
2nd That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
3rd That there be no other practical & 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
BASIS: non-existence of a crime
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
- those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance with law
- no crime, no violation of law
- free from both criminal and civil liability (except in par. 4 of Art. 11)
- The burden of proof lies on the accused
PARAGRAPH 1. SELF-DEFENSE
Rights included in self-defense.
- defense of the person or body of the one assaulted
- his rights, that is, those rights the enjoyment of which is protected by law.
(right to life, right to property acquired by us, and the right to honor)
FIRST REQUISITE: UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
- an indispensable requisite
- equivalent to assault or at least threatened assault of an immediate and
imminent kind
- Aggression must be unlawful.
Has 2 kinds: lawful and unlawful
Paramour surprised in the act of adultery cannot invoke self-defense if he killed
the offended husband who was assaulting him.
REASON: it was made by a deceived and offended husband in order to
defend his honor and rights by punishing the offender of his honor, and if
he had killed his wife and (the paramour), he would have exercised a lawful
right and such acts would have fallen within the sanction of Article 42 3
(now Art. 247) of the Penal Code
When there is NO peril to one’s life, limb, or right, there is NO unlawful aggression
o PERIL TO ONE’S LIFE:
- The blow with a deadly weapon was aimed at the vital parts of his
body, in which case there is danger to his life;
1. Actual — that the danger must be present, in existence.
2. Imminent — the danger is on the point of happening. It is not
required that the attack already begins, for it may be too late.
o PERIL TO ONE'S LIMB:
- The blow with a less deadly weapon or any other weapon that can
cause minor physical injuries only, aimed at other parts of the body,
in which case, there is danger only to his limb.
- When a person is attacked, he is in imminent danger of death or
bodily harm
 - may also be actual or only imminent
- includes peril to the safety of one's person from physical injuries
- there must be actual physical force or actual use of weapon
Slap on the face is unlawful aggression because since the face represents a person
and his dignity, slapping it is a serious personal attack.
Mere belief of an impending attack is NOT sufficient. Neither is an intimidating or
threatening attitude. Even a mere push or shove not followed by other acts placing
in real peril the life or personal safety of the accused is NOT unlawful aggression.
"Foot-kick greeting" is NOT unlawful aggression.
RETALIATION
- Retaliation is NOT a justifying circumstance
- It is NOT self-defense.
- A strong retaliation may amount to unlawful aggression.
- In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured party already
ceased to exist when the accused attacked him. In self-defense, the
aggression was still existing when the aggressor was injured or disabled by
the person making a defense.
To constitute self-defense, the attack made by the deceased and the killing of the
deceased by defendant should succeed each other without appreciable interval of
time.
The unlawful aggression must come from the person who was attacked by the
accused, not from the person imposing self-defense
FACTORS THAT MAY BELIE CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE:
- Nature, character, location, and extent of wound of the accused allegedly
inflicted by the injured party
When the accused declined to give any statement when he surrendered to a
policeman, he is NOT awarded the benefit of self-defense.
When unlawful aggression which has begun no longer exists, because the
aggressor runs away, retreats or flees, the one making a defense has no more
right to kill or even to wound the former aggressor.
EXCEPT: When the retreat is to take more advantageous position
No unlawful aggression when there is agreement to fight
1. No unlawful aggression in concerted fight
2. There is agreement to fight in this case.
3. The challenge to a fight must be accepted.
Aggression which is ahead of the stipulated time and place is unlawful.
One who voluntarily joined a fight cannot claim self-defense
When one agrees to engage in a fight, no more unlawful aggression.
"stand ground when in the right."
REASON: if one flees from an aggressor, he runs the risk of being attacked in
the back by the aggressor.
HOW TO DETERMINE UNLAWFUL AGGRESSOR IN THE ABSENCE OF
EVIDENCE?
1. It is presumed that the unlawful aggressor is the person who was deeply
offended by the insult
2. When not satisfied with the explanation, it is the one who struck the first
blow
Unlawful aggression in defense of other rights
1. Attempt to rape a woman — defense of right to chastity.
2. Defense of property.
3. Defense of home.
There is self-defense even if the aggressor used a toy pistol, provided the accused
believed it was a real gun
THREAT TO INFLICT REAL INJURY is NOT unlawful aggression.
EXCEPT:
1. When one aims a revolver at another with the intention of shooting him.
2. The act of a person in retreating two steps and placing his hand in his
pocket with a motion indicating his purpose to commit an assault with a
weapon.
3. The act of opening a knife, and making a motion as if to make an attack.
When intent to attack is manifest, picking up a weapon is sufficient for unlawful
aggression
Aggression must be real, not merely imaginary. An unlawful aggression that is
expected is still real, provided it is imminent.
SECOND REQUISITE: REASONABLE NECESSITY
OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO PREVENT OR REPEL IT
- Pre-supposes the existence of unlawful aggression, which is either imminent
or actual
- "The law protects not only the person who repels an aggression (meaning
actual), but even the person who tries to prevent an aggression that is
expected (meaning imminent)."
REASONABLENESS OF THE NECESSITY depends upon the circumstances:
1. Necessity of the course of action taken. (unlawful aggression)
a. Place and occasion of the assault considered
b. The darkness of the night and the surprise which characterized
the assault considered
There is NO necessity of the course of action taken when the aggressor fled, ran
away, or desisted because the danger or risk on his part has disappeared.
The person defending is not expected to control his blow because he cannot be
expected to think clearly
The measure of rational necessity is to be found in the situation as it appeared to
the person defending himself
In repelling or preventing an unlawful aggression, the one defending must aim at
his assailant, and not indiscriminately fire his deadly weapon.
2. Necessity of the means used.
a. nature and quality of the weapon used by the aggressor,
b. his physical condition, character and size and
c. other circumstances
 in favor of law abiding citizens
1st two (2) requisites are common to 3 kinds of legitimate defenses:
- Self defense, defense of a relative, and defense of a stranger
- differ only in the third requisite
THIRD REQUISITE: LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION
ON THE PART OF THE PERSON DEFENDING HIMSELF
REASON: When the person defending himself from the attack by another gave
sufficient provocation to the latter, the former is also to be blamed for having given
cause for the aggression.
The third requisite of self-defense is present when —
1. There was no provocation at all
2. There was provocation but not sufficient; or
3. There was sufficient provocation but is not given by the person
defending himself;
4. There was sufficient provocation given by the person defending himself
but it was not the proximate and immediate to the act of aggression.
SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION
- it should be proportionate to the act of aggression and adequate to stir the
aggressor to its commission.
- It is NOT necessary for the provocation to be sufficient that the one who
gave it must have been guilty of using violence
BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME AS A DEFENSE
- do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of
any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the
Revised Penal Code.
REASON: understanding of the justifiably fearful state of mind of a person
who has been cyclically abused and controlled over a period of time.
"Sec. 26. Battered Women Syndrome as a Defense. — Victim survivors who are
found by the courts to be suffering from battered women syndrome do not incur
criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for
justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code.
(RA 9262, known as Anti-VAWC Act of 2004)
- has been recognized in foreign jurisdictions as a form of self-defense or, at
the least, incomplete self-defense
BATTERED WOMAN:
- 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
- in order to be classified as a battered woman, the couple must go through
the battering cycle at least twice
TRAITS: low self-esteem, traditional beliefs about the home, the family and
the female sex role; emotional dependence upon the dominant male; the
tendency to accept responsibility for the batterer’s actions; and false hopes that
the relationship will improve.
PHASES OF CYCLE OF VIOLENCE
1. 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.
- She allows herself to be abused in ways that, to her, are
comparatively minor.
2. Acute battering incident;
- characterized by brutality, destructiveness and, sometimes , death
- During this phase, she has no control; only the batterer may put an
end to the violence. Its nature reasons for ending it.
- she has a sense of detachment from the attack and the terrible pain,
3. Tranquil, loving (or, at least, nonviolent) phase
- acute battering incident ends.
- the couple experience profound relief
- he 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.
- the battered woman also tries to convince herself that the battery
will never happen again; that her partner will change for the better;
Underneath this miserable cycle of "tension, violence and forgiveness," each
partner may believe that it is better to die than to be separated.
- when the violence would happen, they usually think that they
provoked it, that they were the ones who precipitated the violence;
that they provoked their spouse to be physically, verbally and even
sexually abusive to them."
According to her, the reasons why a battered woman does not
readily leave an abusive partner are:
 poverty,
 self-blame and guilt arising from the latter' s belief that she provoked
the violence
 belief that she has an obligation to keep the family intact at all cost
for the sake of their children,
 belief that she is the only hope for her spouse to change.
3. Dr. Pajarillo
- explained that "overwhelming brutality, trauma" could result in post-
traumatic stress disorder, a form of "anxiety neurosis or neurologic
anxietism."
- may believe that they are essentially helpless, lacking power to
change their situation
4. Martin Seligman
- Found that "even if a person has control over a situation, but
believes that she does not, she will be more likely to respond to that
situation with coping responses rather than trying to escape."
 Flight, incompatible with self-defense.

Effect of Battery on Appellant

1. Lenore Walker, as well as her research on domestic violence

- explains that the cyclical nature of the violence inflicted upon the
battered woman immobilizes the latter's "ability to act decisively in
her own interests, making her feel trapped in the relationship with
no means of escape
- found that "the abuse often escalates at the point of separation and
battered women are in greater danger of dying

2. Dra. Dayan
- battered woman usually has a very low opinion of herself.
- she has self-defeating and self-sacrificing characteristics
 PARAGRAPH 2. DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
Relatives that can be defended:
- Spouse
- Ascendants, descendants
- Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters
- Relatives by affinity in the same degrees
- Relatives by consanguinity within the 4th civil degree
BASIS:
- Not only upon a humanitarian sentiment, but also upon blood impulse to
rescue of those close to them by blood ties
REQUISITES OF DEFENSE OF RELATIVES:
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
There is a legitimate defense of relative even if the relative being defended has
given the provocation. It is immaterial.
REASON:
The effects of the provocation did not reach the defender who took no part
Unlawful aggression can be made to depend upon the honest belief of the one
making the defense. (US vs. Ah Chong)
First and Second requisite already defined in the 1st par.
PARAGRAPH 3. DEFENSE OF STRANGERS
REQUISITES OF DEFENSE OF STRANGERS:
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
3. The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil
motives (The defense of stranger be actuated by a disinterested or generous
motive)
BASIS: What one may do in his defense, another may do for him. No ordinary man
would stand idly and see his companion killed without attempting to save his life.
STRANGERS – any person not included in the enumeration of relatives in par. 2
The third requisite would be lacking if the one defending was prompted by his
grudge against the assailant.
PARAGRAPH 4. AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL OR INJURY
INJURY: covers to persons and damage to property
REQUISITES:
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
The instinct of self-preservation will always make one feel that his own safety is of
greater importance than that of another
The greater evil should not be brought about by negligence or imprudence of the
actor.
When the accused was not avoiding any evil, he cannot invoke this justifying
circumstance.
The evil which brought about the greater evil must not result from a violation of
law by the actor.
There is civil liability under this paragraph
 PARAGRAPH 5. FULFILLMENT OF A DUTY PARAGRAPH 6. OBEDIENCE TO AND ORDER
OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF RIGHT OR OFFICE ISSUED BY A SUPERIOR FOR SOME LAWFUL PURPOSES

REQUISITES:
1. That the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise
of a right or office
2. That the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary
consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such
right or office.
Shooting of prisoner by a guard must be in self-defense or be absolutely necessary
to avoid his escape.
Shooting an offender who refused to surrender is justified, but shooting a thief who
refused to be arrested is not justified.
REQUISITES:
1. An order has been issued by a superior
2. The order is for some lawful purposes
3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful
When the order is not for lawful purposes, the subordinate who obeyed it is
criminally liable.
The subordinate is not criminally liable for carrying an illegal order of his superiors,
if he is not aware of the illegality of the order and he is not negligent.

Illegal performance of duty does not avail the defense of fulfillment of duty.

Self-defense vs. Defense of fulfillment of duty

- The public officer acting in performance of his duty may appear to be as the
aggressor provided that his aggression is lawful and necessary in the
fulfillment of his duty. Unlawful aggression in self-defense should not come
from the person making the defense.

In protection of rights:
- If in protecting his possession of property he injured (not serious) the one
trying to get it from him, he is justified.
- If it is a mere disturbance of property, force may be used against it anytime
as long as it continues.
- If the invasion consists of a real dispossession, force can be used only
immediately after dispossession
- If the property is immovable, there should be no delay in the use of force
 Paragraph 1.
ARTICLE 12. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES –
”An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.
The following are exempt from criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid BASIS: Complete absence of intelligence
interval.
IMBECILITY INSANITY
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law - Exempt in all cases - Not exempt during lucid interval
defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of - Completely deprived of
the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he reason and discernment and - Acts with intelligence during lucid
shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the freedom of the will of interval
same court. committing a crime
- Has mental development
2. A person under nine years of age. between 2 and 7 yrs 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 Insanity exists when there is a:
accordance with the provisions of Art. 80 of this Code. - Complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, that is, the
accused is deprived of reason, he acts without the least discernment,
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in because there is a complete absence of the power to discern,
conformably with the provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall - Total deprivation of freedom of the will
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 Procedure when the imbecile or the insane committed a felony
of some institution or person mentioned in said Art. 80. - The court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums
established for persons afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an without first obtaining the permission of the court.
injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it. - But the court has no power to permit the insane person to leave the asylum
without first obtaining the opinion of the Director of Health that he may be
5. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force. released without danger.

6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal
or greater injury.
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by
some lawful insuperable cause.
Evidence of insanity
- evidence of the condition of his mind during a reasonable period both
before and at the very moment of the commission of offense
- Circumstantial evidence, if clear and convincing, will suffice
- Direct testimony is not required, nor are specific acts of derangement

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
Insane at the time of:
- Grounds for exemption because there is wanting in the conditions of:
voluntary dolo: freedom, intelligent or intent COMMISSION OF FELONY TRIAL, but sane at time of commission
voluntary culpa: freedom, intelligent or negligence
Criminally liable. The trial, however, will be
- There is a crime committed but no criminal responsibility arises
suspended until the mental capacity of the
- Burden of proof lies on the person making the defense Exempt from criminal liability
accused be restored to afford him a fair
BASIS: complete absence of requisites of voluntariness trial.
Evidence of insanity
1. The evidence of insanity must refer to the time preceding the act under
prosecution or to the very moment of its execution. If the evidence points
to insanity subsequent to the commission of the crime, the accused cannot
be acquitted.
2. If the insanity is only occasional or intermittent in its nature, the
presumption of its continuance does not arise.
3. Where it is shown that the defendant had lucid intervals, it will be presumed
that the offense was committed in one of them.
4. A person who has been adjudged insane, or who has been committed to a
hospital or to an asylum for the insane, is presumed to continue to be
insane.
Schizophrenia
- a chronic mental disorder characterized by inability to distinguish between
fantasy and reality and often accompanied by hallucinations and delusions
- Formerly called dementia pracecox, the most common form of psychosis
- homicidal attack is common, because of delusions
- During the period of excitement, such person has no control whatever of
his acts
- Covered by the term insanity, therefore exempted
Kleptomania
- Can be exempting or mitigating circumstance, depending on the situation
- EXEMPTING: If the unlawful act of the accused is due to his mental disease
or a mental defect, producing an irresistible impulse, as when the accused
has been deprived or has lost the power of his will which would enable him
to prevent himself from doing the act”
- MITIGATING: If the mental disease or mental defect of the accused only
diminishes the exercise of his will-power, and did not deprive him of the
consciousness of his acts
EPILEPSY MAY BE COVERED BY INSANITY:
- Where the accused claimed that he was an epileptic but it was not shown
that he was under the influence of an epileptic fit when he committed the
offense, he is not exempt from criminal liability.
NOT COVERED BY INSANITY:
- Feeble-mindedness
- Pedophilia (sexual disorder with fantasies about children)
- Amnesia
Other cases of lack of intelligence.
1. Committing a crime while in a dream (Act was done without criminal intent)
2. Committing a crime while suffering from malignant malaria
Paragraph 2. “A person under nine years of age.”
BASIS: Complete absence of intelligence
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF 2006 (RA No. 9344)
- Age of absolute irresponsibility raised from 9 to 15 years of age
- A child fifteen 15 years of age or under at the time of the commission of the
offense shall be exempt from criminal liability.
- However, the child shall be subject to an intervention program as provided
under Section 20 of the same law.
Paragraph 3. (over 9-15)
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.
Paragraph 3, Article 1 2 of the Revised Penal Code is deemed repealed by the
provision of Republic Act 9344 declaring a child fifteen years of age or under
exempt from criminal liability.
"Section 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility.
— A child 15 years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense
shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subject to an
intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.
A child above 15 years but below 18 years of age shall likewise be exempt from
criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has
acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subject to the
appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption
from civil liability, which shall be enforce in accordance with existing laws."
BASIS: Complete absence of intelligence.
 Over 15 but below 18
15 years old below
who acted without discernment
Exempt from criminal liability Exempt from criminal liability
The child shall be subjected to an
intervention program.
The child shall be subjected to an
intervention program pursuant
If he acted with discernment, such child shall
to Section 20 of this Act.
be subject to the appropriate proceedings in
accordance with this Act.
PERIODS OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY.
- Under the Code as amended by Republic Act No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act of 2006), the life of a human being is divided into four periods:
Periods of criminal responsibility
absolute irresponsibility 9 years and below (infancy)
conditional responsibility 9 to 15 years
age of full responsibility 18 or over (adolescence) to 70 (maturity).
Determination of discernment:
1. ability of the child to understand the moral and psychological components
of criminal responsibility and its consequences
2. whether the child can be held responsible for essentially antisocial behavior
Discernment may be shown by:
1. Manner of committing the crime
2. Conduct of offender
PRESUMPTION OF MINORITY
- Child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the presumption of minority and
enjoy all the rights of a child in conflict with the law until proven to be 18
or over at the time of the commission of the crime.
- In case of doubt, minority is presumed.
DETERMINATION OF AGE:
1. Original or certified true copy of certificate of live birth
2. In absence of such, similar authentic documents showing his date of birth
such as baptismal certificate, school records, etc.
3. In absence of 1 and 2, the testimony of the child or the family related to
him by affinity or consanguinity

over 9 and under 15, offender acting with Paragraph 4.

discernment;
age of mitigated “Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by
responsibility 15 or over but less than 18; mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.

over 70 years of age BASIS: Lack of negligence and intent

ELEMENTS:
1. A person is performing a lawful act
CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW 2. With due care (without fault or negligence)
- 15 years and 1 day old to 18 at the time of the commission of the offense 3. He causes an injury to another by mere accident
4. Without fault or intention of causing it
DISCERNMENT
- mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong ACCIDENT
- Something that happens outside the sway of our will, and although it comes
DISCERNMENT INTENT about through some act of our will, not foreseeable
Product of the mental processes within Product of the mental processes within - If the consequences are plainly foreseeable, it will be a case of negligence,
a person a person not accident.
relates to the moral significance that a desired act of the person - Presupposes lack of intention to commit the wrong done
person ascribes to the said act. - A person in lawful act is exercising due care, diligence and prudence
 ACCIDENT NEGLIGENCE REQUISITES:
Product of the mental processes within Product of the mental processes within 1. Existence of uncontrollable fear
a person a person 2. Fear must be real and imminent
relates to the moral significance that a 3. Fear of injury is greater than or equal to that committed
desired act of the person
person ascribes to the said act
NATURE OF DURESS AS A VALID DEFENSE
- Should be based on real, imminent or reasonable fear of one’s life or limb
Paragraph 5. - Should not be speculative, fanciful, or remote fear (not uncontrollable fear)
- Accused must not have opportunity to escape or self-defense
“Any person who acts under the compulsion of irresistible force.”
IRRESISTABLE FORCE UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
BASIS: Complete absence of freedom Offender uses violence or physical Offender employs intimidation or
An act done by me against my will is not my act force to induce another threat in compelling another
ELEMENTS:
1. The compulsion is by means of physical force
2. Physical force must be irresistible Paragraph 7.
3. Physical force must come from a third person
“Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some
 No irresistible force when the accused pretended to be threatened with a lawful insuperable cause.”
gun, where he himself was armed with a rifle.
BASIS: Complete absence of intent
Nature of force:
- Must be irresistible ELEMENTS:
- Must be actual or imminent 1. An act is required by law to be done
- Threat of future injury is not enough 2. A person fails to perform such act
- Must give no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense 3. His failure to perform such acts was due to some lawful or insuperable cause

 A priest cannot be compelled to reveal any information which he came to

Paragraph 6. know by confession made to him in his professional capacity.

“Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or Examples:
greater injury.” - Distance which required a journey for 3 days
- Severe dizziness an extreme debility of woman
BASIS: Complete absence of freedom
An act done by me against my will is not my act
Article 12 COMPLETE ABSENCE OF: INTENT
ELEMENTS: Par. 1, 2, 3 Intelligence 
1. Threat which causes the fear must be equal or greater than that committed Par. 4 No negligence, no intent, mere accident 
2. It promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man
Par. 5 and 6 Freedom 
would have succumbed to it
Par. 7 Intent 

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE
No violation of law, therefore lawful
No criminal and civil liability
(except par. 4)
INSTIGATION BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL:
EXEMPTING CRICUMSTANCE
1. The one induced is liable as principal by direct participation.
There is a crime in violation of law 2. The one who induced the crime is liable as principal by induction.
No criminal liability but there is civil
liability (except in par. 4 and 7)  There is neither instigation nor entrapment when violation of law is simply
discovered.

ABSOLUTORY CAUSES  Assurance of immunity by a public officer does not exempt a person from
- Those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy criminal liability.
and sentiment, there is no penalty imposed

Other absolutory causes: COMPLETE DEFENSES IN CRIMINAL CASES.

Aside from Article 11 and 12, there are other absolutory causes in the Code: 1. Any of the essential elements of the crime charged is not proved by the
1. Article 6 prosecution and the elements proved do not constitute any crime.
2. Article 20 2. The act of the accused falls under any of the justifying circumstances.
3. Article 124, last paragraph 3. The case of the accused falls under any of the exempting circumstances.
4. Article 247, par. 1 and 2 4. The case is covered by any of the absolutory causes:
5. Article 280, par. 3 a. Spontaneous desistance during attempted stage (Art. 6), and no
6. Article 332 crime under another provision of the Code or other penal law is
7. Article 344 committed.
b. Light felony is only attempted or frustrated, and is not against
 Instigation persons or property. (Art. 7)
 Entrapment c. The accessory is a relative of the principal. (Art. 20)
d. Legal grounds for arbitrary detention. (Art. 124)
INSTIGATION ENTRAPMENT e. Legal grounds for trespass. (Art. 280)
Induce the would-be accused into the f. The crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief is committed
Ways and means and resorted to trap against a relative. (Art. 332 )
commission of the offense and the
and catch the criminal g. When only slight or less serious physical injuries are inflicted by
instigator himself becomes a principal
The idea of committing the crime The idea of committing the crime the person who surprised his spouse or daughter in the act of
comes from the instigator comes from the criminal sexual intercourse with another person. (Art. 247)
Exempted from criminal liability Not exempted h. Marriage of the offender with the offended party when the crime
Accused must still be convicted, it is committed is rape, abduction, seduction, or acts of
Accused must be acquitted lasciviousness. (Art. 344)
not a bar to the prosecution
i. Instigation
Instigation must be made by: 5. Guilt of the accused not established beyond reasonable doubt.
1. Public officers 6. Prescription of crimes. (Art. 89)
2. Private detectives 7. Pardon by the offended party before the institution of criminal action in
crime against chastity. (Art. 344)
However, the courts shall condemn this practice of instigation by directing an
acquittal. “Human nature is frail enough at best, and requires no encouragement
in wrongdoing.”
- If we cannot assist or prevent another from committing a crime, we should
at least abstain from leading him to temptation
 ARTICLE 13. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES – 3. Only principals and accomplices are liable for light felonies (Art. 16)
4. Accessories are not liable for light felonies even if committed against
NOT INCLUDED IN MIDTERM persons or property (Art. 16)

ARTICLE 14. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES – TWO PARTIES IN ALL CRIMES:

1. Active subject – the criminal (only natural persons)
NOT INCLUDED IN MIDTERM 2. Passive subject – the injured party (man, state, juridical person, group)

ARTICLE 15. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES – Active Subject Passive Subject

Natural Person  
NOT INCLUDED IN MIDTERM Juridical Person  

ARTICLE 16. WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE  Corpse or animals CANNOT be passive subject because they have no
rights that may be injured EXCEPT defamation against the dead.
ARTICLE 16: Who are criminally liable –
The following are criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies: Only natural persons can be active subject of crime because:
1. Principals (of the highly personal nature of the criminal responsibility)
2. Accomplices a. The Revised Penal Code requires that the culprit should have acted with
3. Accessories personal malice or negligence. An artificial or juridical person cannot act
The following are criminally liable for light felonies: with malic e or negligence.
1. Principals b. A juridical person, like a corporation, cannot commit a crime in which a
2. Accomplices willful purpose or a malicious intent is required.
c. There is substitution of deprivation of liberty (subsidiary imprisonment) for
Principal Accomplices Accessories pecuniary penalties in case of insolvency of the accused.
Consummated 0 -1 -2 d. Other penalties consisting in imprisonment and other deprivation of
Frustrated -1 -2 liberty, like destierro, can be executed only against individuals. (Albert)
Attempted -2
CORPORATION AND OTHER JURIDICAL PERSONS
Treble division of persons criminally liable. - Officers, not the corporation, are criminally liable.
- rests upon the nature of their participation in the commission of the crime - A corporation can act only through its officers or incorporators, and that
- When a crime is committed by many, without being equally shared by all, as regards a violation of the law committed by an officer of a corporation,
a different degree of responsibility is imposed upon each and every one of in the exercise of his duties, he answers criminally for his acts, and not
them; they are criminally liable either as principals, accomplices, or the corporation to which he belongs
accessories. - Being an artificial person, it cannot be prosecuted criminally.
- Criminal actions are restricted or limited to the officials of the corporation
Accessories are not liable for light felonies. and never directed against the corporation itself.
- Reason: In the commission of light felonies, the social wrong as well as the - As a general rule, a director or other officer of a corporation is criminally
individual prejudice is so small that penal sanction is deemed not necessary liable for his acts, though in his official capacity, if he participated in the
for accessories. unlawful act either directly or as an aider, abet tor or accessory, but is not
liable criminally for the corporate acts performed by other officers or
RULES RELATIVE TO LIGHT FELONIES: agents thereof.
1. Light felonies are punishable only when they are consummated (Art. 7) - the president or manager can be held criminally liable for the violation of a
2. Except those committed against persons or property (punishable even if law by the entity even if there is no evidence of his participation in the
they are only attempted or frustrated, under Art. 7) commission of the offense.
 REASON: Because a corporation or partnership can only act through its
officers and agents, so the act of agents is the act of the head of corp.
- In criminal cases, defendants are brought before the court through
warrants of arrest, which are issued only against natural persons. (cannot
be applied to juridical persons)
EXCEPT: in special laws
- Under Act 1459 (Corporation Law), Com. Act No. 146 (Public Service
Law), the Securities Law, and the Election Code, corporations may be
fined for certain violations of their provisions.
Conspiracy
MOTOR VEHICLE LAW. Even if the offense is imputable to the corporation, the
president and general manager of a corporation which violated the Motor Vehicles
Law was held criminally liable for the offense.
ARTICLE 17. PRINCIPALS
Single individual commits a crime - always a principal; done by direct
participation, because he must necessarily take direct part in the execution of the
act.
Two or more persons commit a crime – it is necessary to determine the
participation of each; they are co-principal by:
1. Direct participation
2. Induction
3. Cooperation
 CO-PRINCIPAL UNDER CATEGORIES IN ARTICLE 17
 criminal liability is limited to his own acts
 CO-PRINCIPAL BY REASON OF CONSPIRACY
 the act of one is the act of all, there is collective criminal responsibility
A. PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION - "Those who take a direct part in
the execution of the act."
CO-PRINCIPALS – two/ more accused each inflicting a serious wound
contributing to the execution of the crime
REQUISITES of PRINCIPALS BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION:
1. they participated in the criminal resolution
2. they carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by
acts which directly tended to the same end.
EXPLANATIONS:
1. PARTICIPATION IN THE CRIMINAL RESOLUTION
 they were in conspiracy at the time of the commission of the crime
 he performed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, either by
actively participating in the actual commission of the crime, or by
lending moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the
scene of the crime, or by exerting moral ascendancy over the rest of
the conspirators as to move them to executing the conspiracy.
 Silence does not make one a conspirator
- transcends companionship
- exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. (Art. 8, par. 2)
- exists and implied if, at the time of the commission of the offense, the
accused had a common purpose and were united in its execution.
- arises on the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to
commit the felony and forthwith decide to pursue it.
- act of one is the act of all (collective criminal responsibility)
- If there was no anterior conspiracy, if there was no unity of purpose and
intention immediately before the commission of the crime, their criminal
responsibility is individual.
- Where conspiracy has been adequately proven, all the conspirators are
liable as co-principals regardless of the extent and character of their
participation
- Where there is conspiracy to commit a felony, all the conspirators are
liable for its natural and logical consequences (Article 4, RPC)
- Conspirators are liable for the acts of another conspirator even though
such acts differ radically and substantially from that which they intend to
commit. (Article 4, RPC)
- Co-conspirator is liable only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy
- A conspirator is not liable for another's crime which is not an object of the
conspiracy or which is not a necessary and logical consequence thereof.
- A person in conspiracy with others, who had desisted BEFORE the crime
was committed by the others, is not criminally liable (reason: conspiracy
alone, is not a crime punishable by law except in cases specified by law)
- It is not necessary to ascertain the specific act of each conspirator, since
they have the same liabilities because the act of one is the act of all
- Immaterial who gave the fatal blow or the mortal wound
- The fact that an element of the offense is not present as regards one of
the conspirators is immaterial.
EXCEPT:
o Parricide (element of relationship must always be present)
o Murder with treachery (knowledge of treachery be present)
 of the victims, and he actually performed that role, he is a co-principal by
 In multiple rape, each rapist is liable for the other rapes. direct participation in the double murder.
- There could be no conspiracy to commit an offense through negligence
because it presupposes an agreement to INTENTIONALLY commit a 2. THEY CARRIED OUT THEIR PLAN AND PERSONALLY TOOK PART IN ITS
felony EXECUTION BY ACTS WHICH DIRECTLY TENDED TO THE SAME END.
- In cases of criminal negligence or crimes punishable by special law, - He must be at the scene of the commission of the crime, personally
allowing or failing to prevent an act to be performed by another, taking part in its execution.
makes one a co-principal. EXCEPT: conspiracy of kidnapping and killing the victim
Reason: by kidnapping, he already performed his part
"In the absence of a previous plan or agreement to commit a crime (conspiracy),
- The acts of each offender must directly tend to the same end
the criminal responsibility arising from different acts directed against one and the
- One serving as guard pursuant to the conspiracy is a principal
same person is individual and not collective, and each of the participants is liable
by direct participation. (Reason: he is in fact present, aiding, and
only for the acts committed by himself."
abetting in the commission of the crime.)
EXCEPT: If it was so in obedience to superior orders without
 When there is no conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention
knowledge that the deceased would later be killed
indicating participation in the criminal resolution, mere passive presence at
- When the second requisite is lacking, there is only conspiracy,
the scene of another's crime does not constitute complicity.
generally not liable except in certain cases (refer to Article 8)
- conspiracy alone, without the execution of its purpose, is not a crime
Suppose that three persons conspired to commit robbery only, but in the
punishable by law, except in special instances (Article 8, Revised Penal
course of the robbery one of them killed an inmate of the house, must all
Code) which, however, do not include robbery.
of them be held liable for robbery with homicide?
NO. It seems that the others must not be held responsible for the homicide
B. PRINCIPAL BY INDUCTION
which was not contemplated in their conspiracy and in which they did not take part.
- Those who induced others to commit it
The reason for this opinion is that Art. 296 of the Revised Penal Code defines
- The principal by induction becomes liable only when the principal by
the liability of the offenders in robbery if committed by a band, that is, any member
direct participation committed the act induced.
of a band (at least four armed men) is liable for any assault committed by the
other member of the band, unless it be shown that he attempted to prevent the
WAYS OF BECOMING PRINCIPAL BY INDUCTION:
same.
Hence, if the robbers are only three, or even more than three but not more
1. by directly forcing another to commit a crime
than three are armed, Art. 296 is not applicable and the robber who does not take
part in the assault is not liable therefor.
 Two ways of directly forcing:
a. by using irresistible force
Unity of purpose and intention in the commission of the crime
b. by causing uncontrollable fear
is shown in the following cases:
In these cases, there’s no conspiracy. Only the one using force or
a. Spontaneous agreement at the moment of the commission of the crime
causing fear is criminally liable. The material executor is not criminally
b. Active cooperation by all the offenders in the perpetration
liable because of Art. 12, pars. 5 and 6.
of the crime
c. Contributing by positive acts to the realization of a common
2. by directly inducing another to commit a crime
criminal intent
d. Presence during the commission of the crime by a band and
 Two ways of directly inducing:
lending moral support (Conspiracy is presumed when the crime is
a. By giving price, or offering reward or promise.
committed by a band.)
b. By using words of command.
e. Where one of the accused knew of the plan of the others to kill the two
victims and he accepted the role assigned to him, which was to shoot one
  REQUISITES: 3. That the words used must be so direct, so efficacious, so powerful as to
amount to physical or moral coercion.
1. That the inducement be made directly with the intention of a) Efficacious — One who makes the accused believe that the person to be
procuring the commission of the crime killed was the one who had stolen the property of the accused, is guilty
- The inducement and the commission of a crime whereby the as principal by inducement.
inducer becomes a principal, to the same extent and effect as if b) Powerful — (U.S. vs. Gamao, supra).
he had physically committed the crime, may exist in acts of 4. The words of command must be uttered PRIOR to the commission of the
command, sometimes of advice, or agreement for a crime.
consideration, or through an influence so effective that it alone 5. The material executor of the crime has no personal reason to commit the
determines the commission of the crime. crime.
- A father, by acts of command, induce his son to commit crime
- But a thoughtless expression or act, without any expectation or Principal by inducement in falsification. While it is true that it was the
intention that it would produce the result, is NOT an employee of th e office of the treasurer who performed the overt act of writing the
inducement to commit a crime. false facts on the residence certificate of the accused, it was, however, the accused
- Ill-conceived advice is NOT an inducement who induced him to do so by supplying him with those facts. The accused was a
principal by inducement. The employee was a mere innocent agent of the accused
2. Inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the in the performance of th e act constituting the crime. The employee was not
crime by the material executor criminally liable, because he had no knowledge of the falsity of the facts supplied
- without such inducement the crime would not have been by the accused.
committed
- without inducement, the crime would not materialize
- If the person who actually committed the crime had a personal reason PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT vs OFFENDER WHO PROPOSES TO COMMIT
to commit the crime, it cannot be said that the inducement was A FELONY
influential in producing the criminal act. In such case, the 2 nd requisite
is not present and the one charged with having induced the commission PRINCIPAL BY OFFENDER WHO PROPOSES
of the crime is not criminally liable. INDUCEMENT TO COMMIT A FELONY
- Kill him and we will bury him" as an imprudent utterance said in the 1. There is an inducement to 1. There is an inducement to
excitement of the hour or in the heat of anger, and not, rather, in the commit a crime. commit a crime.
nature of a command that had to be obeyed, DOES NOT make the 2. liable only when the crime 2. punishable only if he proposes
utterer a principal by inducement. is committed by the principal to commit treason or rebellion
- One who planned the crime committed by another (principal by direct by direct participation
participation) is a principal by inducement NOTE: If the proposal was NOTE: The person to whom the
- If the crime committed is not contemplated in the order given, (principal committed, the proponent proposal is made should not
by direct participation did not follow the exact orders), the inducement becomes a principal by commit the crime
is not material and not the determining cause thereof. inducement.
3. inducement involves any 3. involves only treason and
REQUISITES in order that a person using words of command may be held crime rebellion
liable as principal (paragraph No.2 of Art. 17)
1. That the one uttering the words of command must have the intention of Effects of acquittal of principal by direct participation upon
procuring the commission of the crime the liability of principal by inducement.
2. That the one who made the command must have an ascendancy or (1 ) Conspiracy is negatived by the acquittal of co-defendant.
influence over the person who acted. (2) One cannot be held guilty of having instigated the commission of a crime
EXCEPT: when there is conspiracy, ascendancy or influence is not without first being shown that the crime has been actually committed by another.
necessary
(3) His acquittal (because of exempting circumstances) is not a ground for the
acquittal of the principal by inducement.
REASON: no intent, no guilty mind
 Possessor of recently stolen property is a principal, unless he proves in a
satisfactory manner that he is but an accessory or an accomplice thereto
and that another person, from whom the article came, is the one who
stole it from the owner thereof.
C. PRINCIPAL BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION
- "Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act
without which it would not have been accomplished."
- His act of cooperation should be different from the act of the principal by
direct participation
COOPERATE: to desire or wish in common a thing
 REQUISITES of PRINCIPAL BY COOPERATION
1. Participation in the criminal resolution
- there is either anterior conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and
intention immediately BEFORE the commission of the crime charged;
May there be cooperation by acts of negligence?
YES. He is a principal by cooperation and his liability is the same
crime THROUGH RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE.
2. Cooperation must be indispensable
- the commission of the offense by performing another act, without
which it would not have been accomplished.
Liability of conspirators who took turns in raping a girl. It was
held that each of the m is responsible, not only for the act of rape
committed personally by him, but also for the rape committed by
the others. (Four sentences were imposed on each accused.)
Collective criminal responsibility.
- the offenders are criminally liable in the same manner and to the same
extent.
- the penalty to be imposed must be the same for all.
- Principals by direct participation have collective criminal
responsibility.
- Principal by induction, except that who directly forced
another to commit a crime have collective criminal responsibility.
- Principal by indispensable cooperation has collective criminal
responsibility with the principal by direct participation
Individual criminal responsibility
- Arises in the absence of previous conspiracy, unity of criminal purpose and
intention immediately before the commission of the crime, or community
of criminal design
- each of the participants is liable only for the act committed by him
ARTICLE 18. ACCOMPLICES
ARTICLE 18: Accomplices –
When there is no conspiracy between or among the defendants but they were
animated by one and the same purpose to accomplish the criminal objective, those
who cooperated by previous or simultaneous acts but cannot be held liable as
principals are accomplices.
- In case of doubt, the participation of the offender will be considered that of an
accomplice rather than that of a principal. (benefit of the doubt)
- When the participation of an accused is not disclosed, he is only an accomplice.
- the participation of the accused must be established by the prosecution by
positive and competent evidence. It cannot be presumed.
- An accomplice does not have previous agreement, conspiracy or understanding
with the principal to commit a crime
- Accomplice gets a one degree lower penalty than that of principal
ACCOMPLICE VS CONSPIRATOR
CONSPIRATOR (principal) ACCOMPLICE
a. Decide that a crime should be a. Merely concurs to that decision of the
committed principal
b. Merely instrument of the crime whose are
b. Author of the crime
not indispensable to the offense
c. Know and agree with criminal
c. Know and agree with criminal design
design
GENERAL RULE: Co-conspirators are liable as principal
EXCEPTION TO THE RULE: in murder or homicide case, wherein their roles in the
perpetration of the crimes mentioned, is of minor and character and not
indispensable to the crimes. (liable as accomplice)
REQUISITES TO BE AN ACCOMPLICE:
3. THERE IS A RELATION BETWEEN THE ACTS OF THE PRINCIPAL AND
1. THAT THERE BE A COMMUNITY OF DESIGN ACTS OF THE ACCOMPLICE
 Knows the criminal design of the principal by direct participation and  He may be liable for a crime different from that which the principal
concurs with the latter in his purpose committed.
 He must have previous knowledge of the criminal purpose

HOW AN ACCOMPLICE ACQUIRES KNOWLEDGE OF THE DESIGN? ACCOMPLICE VS PRINCIPAL (in general)
a. The principal informs or tells him
b. He saw the criminal acts of the principal ACCOMPLICE PRINCIPAL
1. does not take a direct part in 1. Take a direct part in the commission of
 The community of design need not be to commit the crime actually the commission of crime crime (principal by direct participation)
committed. It is sufficient if there was a common purpose to commit 2. does not force or induce others 2. Force or induce others to commit a crime
a particular crime and that the crime was a natural or probable to commit a crime (principal by induction)
consequence of the intended crime. 3. cooperate by previous or 3. Cooperate by another act which is
simultaneous act, which is indispensable to the crime (principal by
necessary but dispensable cooperation)
2. THAT HE COOPERATES BY PREVIOUS IR SIMULTANEOUS ACTS
 With the intention of supplying material or moral aid in the execution of
the crime in an efficacious way
 The cooperation is only necessary, but dispensable ACCOMPLICE VS PRINCIPAL BY COOPERATION
 The cooperation is not due to a conspiracy
- If there’s conspiracy, even if his cooperation is only necessary and ACCOMPLICE PRINCIPAL BY COOPERATION
dispensable, he is liable as principal. Nature of cooperation is 1. His participation is 1. His participation is indispensable, without
immaterial. necessary but dispensable which crime would not have been committed
2. Does not inflict mortal
A. BY PREVIOUS ACTS 2. His act caused the death of the victim
wound
- Knowing the criminal purpose
- Ex. Pharmacist, knowing the intention of the rape, furnishes him
the drug that would put the victim to sleep
ACCOMPLICE VS PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION
B. BY SIMULTANEOUS ACTS
- Without any previous agreement or understanding with principal
ACCOMPLICE PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION
- Ex. Holding of victim’s hands while the principal is attacking him
1. There is community of design 1. There is community of design
2. There is NO conspiracy 2. There is conspiracy
 He merely supplies the principal with material or moral aid without
3. As to acts performed, there is no
conspiracy to the latter.
clear-cut distinction. In case of
 The wounds inflicted by the accomplice should not be the cause of the 3. As to acts performed, there is no
doubt, it is in favor of lesser
death of victim. clear-cut distinction.
responsibility, that is, that of
 He should not inflicted the mortal wound. If he did, he is a principal.
mere accomplice.
 Present at the crime and gave moral support
 The moral aid may be through advice, encouragement or agreement
 Mere presence does not make one an accomplice
 ARTICLE 19. ACCESSORIES
 Does not participate in the criminal design, nor cooperate in the commission
 With knowledge of the crime, he SUBSEQUETLY takes part in 3 ways as
mentioned above
 In the absence of knowledge, he cannot be liable as an accessory
 If the thief was already convicted, mere possession of stolen property DOES
NOT make the accused guilty as an accessory
 Suspicion that a crime has been committed is not enough
SUSPICION – imagination of the existence of something without proof, or
upon very slight evidence, or upon no evidence at all
 Knowledge of commission of the crime may be acquired subsequent to the
acquisition of stolen property
 Knowledge of commission of the crime may be established by circumstantial
evidence
 In order for the accessory to be liable, the crime committed by the principal
must first be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
 Accessory did not participate either as principal or accomplice
 He takes part AFTER the crime has been committed.
SPECIFIC ACTS OF ACCESSORIES
1. (A) BY PROFITING THEMSELVES BY THE EFFECTS OF THE CRIME
- Ex. Received and used property knowing it was stolen
- Accessory should not take property without the consent of principal
- If he did, he is principal of the crime of theft
- When a person knowingly acquired stolen property by BRIGANDS, his
profiting is punished as act of principal and not accessory
(B) BY ASSISTING THE OFFENDER TO PROFIT BY THE EFFECTS OF
CRIME
- Ex. Selling of known stolen property and giving the proceeds of sale
to the thief
- Should not be in conspiracy
 A person who receives property knowing it was stolen, is guilty of the
crime of theft as an accessory.
 A person who receives property knowing it was stolen, sold it and gave
the proceeds to the theft, is guilty of theft as an accessory.
 A person who receives property knowing it was stolen, for the purpose
of concealing it, is guilty of the crime of theft as an accessory.
2. BY CONCEALING OR DESTROYING THE BODY OF THE CRIME OR THE
EFFECTS OR INSTRUMENTS THEREOF, TO PREVENT ITS DISCOVERY
 Crime of the principal may be any crime EXCEPT light felonies
a. BODY OF THE CRIME
- Same as corpus delicti
- Means that a specific offense was in fact committed by someone
- Ex. Burial of the victim to prevent discovery of homicide
- Ex. Making it appear that the deceased was armed by placing a
weapon in his hands when already dead, and that it was self-defense
- Mere act of carrying a cadaver of one unlawfully killed to be buried
is sufficient to be liable as accessory
- If the act was not to hide, but to expose it to make it appear that
other incidents caused the crime, accessory is not liable
b. EFFECTS OR INSTRUMENTS OF THE CRIME
- Ex. Received a known stolen property and hide it (effect of crime)
- Ex. Hide a knife used in murder (instrument of crime)
 The concealing or destroying the body of the crime or the effects or
instruments thereof, must be done TO PREVENT ITS DISCOVERY.
 If the purpose is for anyone to see it, accessory is not liable.
3. BY HARBORING, CONCEALING OR ASSISTING IN THE ESCAPE OF
THE PRINCIPAL OF THE CRIME
TWO CLASSES OF ACCESSORIES:
A. PUBLIC OFFICERS – harbors, conceals, or assists in the escape of the
principal of any crime EXCEPT light felonies with abuse of his public
functions. (Ex.. A mayor who refused to prosecute offender)
Requisites:
a. Accessory is a public officer.
b. He harbors, conceals, or assists in the escape of the principal.
c. The public officer acts with abuse of his public functions
d. The crime committed by the principal is any crime EXCEPT LIGHT
FELONY
B. PRIVATE PERSONS – harbors, conceals, or assists in the escape of 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 a habitually guilty of
some other crime.”
Requisites:
a. Accessory is a private person.
b. He harbors, conceals, or assists in the escape of the author of
the crime
c. That the crime committed by the principal is either
- Treason SPANISH vs ENGLSH TEXT
- Parricide
- Murder
- An attempt against the life of the Chief Executive
- Or he is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime
 One who witnessed a crime by someone he knew, say murder by his friend,
kept silent and did not report it to authorities is NOT LIABLE even as an
accessory
 If the same person went to the authority and volunteered false information
to deceive them and thus to prevent the detection of guilty parties and aid
them in escape, he is LIABLE as an accessory.
Accessory’s liability is subordinate and subsequent to that of the principal
- His guilt is directly related to that of the principal.
- If the principal is acquitted, accessory cannot be held liable.
- REASON: there is no crime as basis for convicting the accessory
EXCEPT: BARLAM CASE
- If the principal is acquitted due to exempting circumstances (minority,
insanity, imbecility)
- REASON: there is a crime as basis for convicting the accessory
Ex. A minor stole P500 ring and B bought it for P200 knowing it was stolen,
B is liable as an accessory but A is exempted from criminal liability.
Apprehension and conviction of the principal is not necessary for the
accessory to be held criminally liable BARLAM CASE, REFUTED
- Accessory can be held liable even if the principal is unknown PROVIDED
THAT the existence of the crime was proved and someone actually
committed it
- The determination of liability of accessory can proceed independently of that
of the principal
PRINCIPAL – ACCESSORY RELATIONSHIP
 IF NO CRIME WAS ESTABLISHED AND PROVED, the acquittal of the principal
must result in the acquittal of accessory.
 IF THERE WAS AN ESTABLISHED AND PROVED CRIME, the accessory can
be convicted notwithstanding the acquittal of the principal (possible if the
principal is acquitted due to exempting circumstances)
SPANISH ENGLSH
“…whenever the author of the crime of
“It is NOT necessary that the principal is GUILTY of treason, parricide,
should be first declared guilty before murder, or an attempt to take the life
the accessory can be made liable as of the Chief Executive, or is known to
such.” be habitually guilty of some other
crime.”
SPANISH TEXT SHOULD PREVAIL!
 Accused CANNOT be held liable as an accessory if the principal charged with
MURDER died before trial
Reason: Had he been alive, he might have been found guilty of HOMICIDE
only and not murder
- Barlam is charged for having assisted Balisi in his escape in the crime of
theft
- Barlam did not profit nor conceal the effects or instruments of the crime
- COURT: Not only the crime must be proven, but also the identity of criminal
- Balisi was not tried because he died prior to the arraignment
- The accused guilty as accessory (Barlam) is given full hearing
- Whether the principal is brought to court or not, the prosecution must prove
the commission of the crime and the participation of all the persons involved
- The accessory can refute the evidence of prosecution negating the crime
and the participation of alleged principal
- Court will now decide whether the crime has been established or not, and
whether the principal is guilty without pronouncing judgment on him
  The arraignment, trial and conviction of accessory DURING THE Note: In other crimes punishable by the Revised Penal Code, the penalty lower by
PENDENCY of a separate case against the principal are NULL AND VOID. two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be
Reason: The principal must be the first one to be tried and convicted imposed upon the accessories to the commission of a consummated felony. (Art.
53, Revised Penal Code)
 But when the principal is not yet apprehended (ex. because of failure to
identify him), the accessory may be prosecuted and convicted. The non-
prosecution of the principal for the reason that his identity has not yet been HEAVY PENALTIES FOR ACCESSORIES IN ROBBERY AND THEFT
discovered, cannot serve as basis to free the accessory
MORE LESS
PENALTY IS:
 For one to be liable as an accessory, it is NOT necessary that the principal THAN THAN
be identified and convicted. reclusion temporal (if it exceeded 20 years)
 What’s necessary is the “corpus delicti” or the fundamental facts which 12, 000 22, 000 prision mayor, +1 year in additional P10,000 *max period
prove that there is a crime committed 6, 000 12, 000 prision correctional in its medium and maximum period
200 6, 000 “ “ “ “ minimum and medium period
PRESIDENTIAL DECRE E NO. 1612 – enacted to impose heavy penalties on arresto mayor in medium period to prision correccional in
persons who profit by the effects of robbery and theft 50 200
its minimum period
5 50 arresto mayor in its medium period
5 arresto mayor in its minimum period
PRESIDENTIAL DECRE E NO. 1612
ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979
 ACCESSORY in robbery and theft is a PRINCIPAL in fencing.
SECTION 1. Title. — This decree shall be known as the Anti-Fencing Law.

SEC. 2. Definition of Terms. — The following terms shall mean as follows:
A. Fencing is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for
another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose
of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, item,
object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to
have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
B. "Fence" includes any person, firm, association, corporation or partnership
or other organization who/which commits the act of fencing.
SEC. 5. Presumption of Fencing. — Mere possession of any goods, article, item,
object, or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall
be prima facie evidence of fencing.
Accessory Distinguished From Principal And From Accomplice:
1. The accessory does not take direct part or cooperate in, or induce, the
commission of the crime. (principal)
2. The accessory does not cooperate in the commission of the offense by acts
either prior thereto or simultaneous therewith. (accomplice)
3. The participation of the accessory in all cases always takes place AFTER the
commission of the crime.
An accessory does not participate in the criminal design, nor cooperate in the
commission of the felony, but, with knowledge of the commission of the crime, he
subsequently takes part in any of the three ways mentioned in Article 19.
 ARTICLE 20. EXEMPTED ACCESSORIES Ex. A committed parricide by killing his wife, went to his ADOPTED BROTHER to
hide and his adopted brother harbored and concealed him because he gave him
REASON OF ART. 20 P1,000. Is the adopted brother an accessory?
- Based on blood ties - Yes, he is an accessory for harboring and concealing his brother
- And the preservation of the cleanliness of one’s name which compels one  But not for gaining profit because the P1,000 was a mere reward and not
to conceal crimes committed by relatives so near the effect of the crime parricide

GENERAL RULE: AN ACCESSORY IS EXEMPTED FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY
WHEN THE PRINCIPAL IS HIS:
- Spouse
- Ascendants, descendants
- Legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters
- Or relatives by affinity within the same degrees
 Nephew or niece not included among such relatives because it does not
come within any of the degrees of relationship mentioned in Art. 20
WHEN ACCESORY PUBLIC OFFICER IS RELATED TO PRINCIPAL
- He is exempt from criminal liability
- Blood ties and family relationship constitutes a more powerful incentive than
the call of duty
 The only case where accessory related to principal cannot be exempted
is when the he profited himself or assisted the offender to profit in the
effects of the crime.

EXCEPTION TO THE RULE:

- If the accessory (1) profited by the effects of the crime, or (2) assisted the
offender to profit by the effects of the crime
REASION: Because his acts are not prompted by affection but by a detestable
GREED.

 Accessories falling within paragraph 1 of Art. 19 are NOT exempted from

criminal liability if they are related to the principal
 Accessories under paragraphs 2 and 3 of Art. 19 are EXEMPTED if so.

 If the concealing of the effects of the crime is NOT to prevent its discovery
BUT TO gain profit, accused is liable as accessory.