Criminal

 Law  1  -­‐  Justice  Sandoval  –  Lecture  Mini-­‐cases  (Post-­‐midterms)                                

 
ARTICLE 14

Paragraph 11

1. A approached B. A told B that he was angry with his teacher. B told A that he will give him a
reward if he kills the teacher. A killed the teacher. A reported to B and was paid by him.
a. It is not aggravating because the primary consideration was not the money. A was
already angry at the teacher.
2. A approached a standby, B. A told him that to kill mayor M and he will pay him 1M. B told A that
he wanted a higher price. A accepted the agreement. B killed M.
a. It is aggravating.

Paragraph 12

1. A and B were walking and saw a mental retard dancing. A and B suddenly got gas and lighted the
mental retard up. A and B said, “sige sayaw lang, igiling mo”. Mental retard died.
a. It is not aggravating because there was no intent to kill.
b. The fire must be used to kill the person intentionally.
2. Law student L saw the beautiful maid of his parents. During night time, when L’s parents were
asleep. L knocked at the door of the maid. The maid refused saying, “hindi pako handa
magkarelasyon”. The day after, L asked his medstudent friend for drugs, “pare meron kaba dyan
ung pampatulog”. Medstudent gave her some. L student gave a drink to the maid however it was
more than the suggested grams. Maid died of overdose.
a. It is not aggravating because there was no intent to kill the maid.

Paragraph 13

1. A and B had a fistfight. A is bigger than B. A was at the receiving end of the punches. A told B,
“Putang ama ka, hanggang lingo nalang ang buhay mo”. B answered, “Sige”. A forgot about
everything. A went to MOA on Sunday. A saw B. The friends of A reminded him, “ Oi si B oh.
Diba sabi mo hanggang lingo nalang buhay nyan?”. A got a knife and killed B.
a. It is not aggravating. There was no evident premeditation.

Time is not important to show that such a crime was evident.

 
Service  .  Sacrifice  .  Excellence                                                                                                                                                                                                        Angelo  J.  Logronio  
Criminal  Law  1  -­‐  Justice  Sandoval  –  Lecture  Mini-­‐cases  (Post-­‐midterms)                                
 
Paragraph 14

2. A, B and C were wearing Coat and Tie and they were in the street. A taxi driver saw them and
told himself, “siguradong malaki tip nito.” Pinara ni ABC ung taxi. ABC asked taxi driver, “manong
kamusta na byahe nyo magkano na kinita nyo”. Taxi driver replied, “abay okay naman, nakaka
apat na libo nako”. A,B,C declared hold up.
a. It is aggravating.
3. A wore baseball cap and handkerchief. A holdup his neighbor.
a. It is aggravating.
4. A wore baseball cap and handkerchief. A declared hold up in B’s house. The handkerchief fell
down.
a. It is aggravating. The act was already commenced.
5. Pedro wore baseball cap and handkerchief. Pedro went to aling Tentay’s house and declared
hold up. Aling Tentay replied, “Ano kaba pedro, anong hold up hold up? Pinagsasabi mo?”
a. No it is not aggravating.
6. A dressed himself in charcoal and raped B.
a. It is aggravating.

Paragraph 15

1. A and B were unarmed. A and B raped W.

a. No it is not aggravating.
2. Boy was armed. Boy killed 2 men.
a. It is aggravating.
3. A and B had a fistfight for a girl, W. B defeated A. W picked B. After the fight, A told B, “tara
celebrate tayo inuman tayo dyan sa bar”. B replied in the affirmative. A repeatedly gave B shots
but he himself didn’t drink any shot. B got so drunk. A took advantage and punched B a lot of
times. B was unable to defend himself.
a. It is aggravating. The drinks were used to weaken B’s defense.

Paragraph 16

 
Service  .  Sacrifice  .  Excellence                                                                                                                                                                                                        Angelo  J.  Logronio  
Criminal  Law  1  -­‐  Justice  Sandoval  –  Lecture  Mini-­‐cases  (Post-­‐midterms)                                
 
1. A met his mortal enemy, B, along the street. A gave a sporting smile at B. When their paths were
about to cross. A stabbed B. B died.
a. It is aggravating even though the attack was frontal. No chance to retaliate.
2. A went to his mortal enemy B’s house. A shouted, “putang ama ka, lumabas ka dyan tagaan
tayo”
a. B went down. B slipped and fell down. A hacked B at the back.
i. It is not aggravating because it was preceded by words.
b. While B was going down, A shot him dead.
i. It is aggravating although it was preceded by words.
3. A had evident premeditation against E. A waited for E. A planned on how to kill E. E entered a CR
and saw his twin brother, E-1 there. E-1 left the CR first. A shot E-1 believing it was E. (Very
important case, according to Justice Sandoval)
a. There was no evident premidation in killing E-1.
b. However, it is aggravating for there was treachery in the crime. There is treachery even in
mistake of identity.

Paragraph 17

1. A raped W in the presence of her husband H.

a. It is aggravating for there was insult.
2. A raped W doggystyle.
a. It is aggravating.

Paragraph 18

Paragraph 19

Paragraph 20
Paragraph 21

ARTICLE 15

Relationship

1. S went to his father’s house. The door was locked so S passed through an open window and
stole money.
a. This is robbery NOT theft because S entered an opening not intended for entry.
 
Service  .  Sacrifice  .  Excellence                                                                                                                                                                                                        Angelo  J.  Logronio  
Criminal  Law  1  -­‐  Justice  Sandoval  –  Lecture  Mini-­‐cases  (Post-­‐midterms)                                
 
b. Therefore, it is NOT mitigating.
2. The mistress went to her paramour’s house and said, “putangama ka bigyan moko pera kundi
papatayin kita. Bubuntisin moko, di ka naman magbibigay ng pera.”
a. This is robbery NOT theft (Robbery by force or intimidation)
b. Therefore, it is NOT mitigating.
3. A assaulted her younger sister B, with no intent to kill but inflicting less serious physical injuries
a. It is mitigating.
4. B assaulted her older sister A, with no intent to kill but inflicting less serious physical injuries
a. It is aggravating.
5. A assaulted his brother in law, which was the husband of his younger sister. Furthermore, the
said brother in law was having an illicit relationship with A’s elder sister
a. Taking consideration the “other conditions present”, it is aggravating.
6. Brother committed malicious mischief against her sister but they are not living together.
a. Because of the comma placing, the law provides that it is not only brothers-in-law and
sisters-in-law but also brothers and sisters that need to live together to be mitigated
under Article 15.
b. Therefore, it is NOT mitigating.

Intoxication

1. A, B, C, and D conspired to kill X, they had a round of drinks before proceeding to do the act.
a. The intoxication was done subsequent to the plan. It is aggravating.

High Degree of Instruction or Education

1. A graduated Summa Cum Laude from the Ateneo, and continued studied until achieving Masters
and Doctorate Decrees. A killed B.
a. The high degree of education was not used to commit the crime
b. Therefore, it is NOT aggravating.
2. A opened 5 bank accounts B1, B2, B3, B4, B5. A deposited 200k each bank account totaling to
1M all in all. A issued a 100k pay to cash check from B1 and deposited it to B2. A issued a 100k
pay to cash check from B3 and deposited it to B4. After several repeat of the procedure, A gained
the status of a “valued client”. A pooled all the money to B5 worth 2M Pesos. A issued a 2M
check from B5 asking from exempt from 3 clearing days.
a. A used his superior intellect in committing the check-kiting estafa.
b. Therefore, it is aggravating

 
Service  .  Sacrifice  .  Excellence                                                                                                                                                                                                        Angelo  J.  Logronio  
Criminal  Law  1  -­‐  Justice  Sandoval  –  Lecture  Mini-­‐cases  (Post-­‐midterms)                                
 
Low Degree of Instruction and Education

1. A who only finished Grade 1 was charged with perjury for signing something. A said, “sabi ng
kapit-bahay kong LLB pirmahan ko daw eh”
a. It is mitigating.
2. A raped 3 women. When asked he answered, “Judge masama mo bang mangrape? Di ko po
alam eh. Grade 1 lang tinapos ko”
a. It is not mitigating
3. A committed the crime of treason. A was unschooled.
a. Treason is a crime related to love of country
b. Therefore, it is not mitigating.

ARTICLE 16 and 17

Direct Participation and Accessory

1. A, B, C, and D drank together and planned to kill X. They talked about when, how and what
weapon to be used in the crime. Thereafter they proceeded to the house of X. A told B, C, and D
“Mga pare, dito nako sa yard. Ako na magbabantay kung sakaling may reresbak dyan kay X”. A
was left on the yard. The rest proceeded to the Main door and then they opened it. B told C and
D, “Mga pare dito nalang ako sa Main door, ako magbabantay dito sakaling may reresbak kay X”.
B was left near the Main Door. Upon entering, C told D, “dito nalang ako sa mga ibang kwarto
babantayan ko”. D killed X.
a. D is obviously a principal by direct participation
b. A, B, and C are also principals by direct participation because they all conspired and
agreed to the commission of the crime, they went personally to the crime scene and they
all acted together towards the commission of the crime.
2. A passed by his Brother-In-Law’s house. A told his brother-in-law, “hoy, pare, painom ka naman”.
The brother-in-law was not in a good mood replying to A, “yang dagat nalang laklakin niyo”. A
replied “gago ka pala e”. brother-in-law went inside the house and went out with a spear. Brother-
in-law and A fought over spear. Seeing the commotion, the wife of the brother-in-law saw and
hacked A with a bolo.
a. The wife is obviously a principal by direct participation
b. The brother-in-law is not a principal by direct participation because there was no
agreement, conspiracy nor consent. (Requisites: conspiracy and presence)

 
Service  .  Sacrifice  .  Excellence                                                                                                                                                                                                        Angelo  J.  Logronio  
Criminal  Law  1  -­‐  Justice  Sandoval  –  Lecture  Mini-­‐cases  (Post-­‐midterms)                                
 
3. Nagsuntukan si A and B. A inflicted slight physical injuries on B, P came and assisted A to
escape.
a. P is not liable because it was just a light felony and he was an accessory to the crime.

Price, Reward or Promise

1. A approached B, “kilala mo ba yan si X? papatayin ko yan, gago yan eh” B replied, “sige kupal
nga yan, bigyan kita 100k patayin mo”. A killed X and got the 100k bounty.
a. B is not a principal by inducement because A would still kill X without the 100k.
b. Price must be the primordial reason
2. The father of Ferdinand Marcos held out words of command to him, “anak kaw na pumatay dyan.
17 ka pa naman di ka makukulong”. Ferdinand Marcos killed the newly elected assemblyman.
a. The father is a principal by inducement because of the words of command and his
ascendancy
3. A throws a knife at B then targets his revolver at B, “patayin mo yan si X”. B killed X
a. A is a principal by inducement by uncontrollable fear/irresistible force

Flipflopping decisions of SC regarding indispensable cooperation

1. A, B, and C agreed to kill X. A held the arm of X. B held the other arm of X. C stabbed X.
a. According to the SC, A and B are principals by indispensable cooperation. C is principal
by direct participation
b. However, according to the great J. Sandoval, A, B and C are principals by direct
participation because they all conspired and proceeded with the killing.
2. A, B, and C agreed to rape X. A held the arms of X. B held the feet of X. C raped X.
a. According to the SC, A and B are principals by indispensable cooperation. C is principal
by direct participation
b. However, according to the great J. Sandoval, A, B and C are principals by direct
participation because they all conspired and proceeded with the crime.
3. A found a check worth 100k and his boardmate, DBM, was actually the deputy bank manager of
the drawee bank. A told DBM, “may nakita akong 100k na check kaso vintage date na”. DBM told
A to encase the check. A went to the drawee bank to encash it. A went to the teller and the teller
submitted the check to DBM which was the deputy bank manager. Even though the assistant
checker did not verify that the check had funds, DBM still noted the check can be encashed. A
and DBM split the 100k between them.
a. A is a principal by direct participation in the crime of estafa

 
Service  .  Sacrifice  .  Excellence                                                                                                                                                                                                        Angelo  J.  Logronio  
Criminal  Law  1  -­‐  Justice  Sandoval  –  Lecture  Mini-­‐cases  (Post-­‐midterms)                                
 
b. DBM is a principal by indispensable cooperation. The defining factor was that what DBM
did was of different nature.

Conspiracy is an important factor among principals, except by inducement by employing irresistible force.
No conspiracy = don’t consider as principals.

ARTICLE 18

1. A approached B, “meron kabang baril dyan papatayin ko si X. B replied, “oh eto baril, tama yan
kupal si X eh”. A killed X with the gun.
a. B is an accomplice because he knows the intent of A
2. A approached B, meron kabang baril dyan”. B replied, “bakit?”. A answered back, “wala lang”. B
gave the gun to A. A killed X with the gun.
a. B is not an accomplice because he does not know the intent of A
3. A approached B, “meron kabang baril dyan papatayin ko si X. B replied, “ay medyo sira tong baril
ko eh samahan nalang kita”. In the crime scene B told A “idiin mo ung pagkasa para gumana”. A
killed X afterwards.
a. B is liable as principal NOT accomplice.
4. A approached B, “meron kabang baril dyan papatayin ko si X. B replied, “oh eto baril, tama yan
kupal si X eh pero pag nagkabualyasuhan wala ako dyan ha”. Upon nearing the house of X, A
saw a lot of people and decided to use a knife instead. A threw a knife through a window killing X.
a. B is NOT an accomplice because there is no direct relation between the act of lending
the gun and the act of A killing X
5. A approached B, “meron kabang baril dyan papatayin ko si X. B replied, “oh eto baril, tama yan
kupal si X eh pero pag nagkabualyasuhan wala ako dyan ha”. 12 midnight na di parin nakikita ni
A si X pero nakita nya bigla si Y na mortal nya ring kaaway. Pinatay nya si Y gamit ung baril.
a. B is NOT liable as an accomplice because there was no direct relation between the act of
lending and the act of A killing X

ARTICLE 19

PARAGRAPH 1

1. T stole the watch of W and sold the watch to B who bought it. Is B an accessory?
a. No if he has no knowledge
b. If T told B that he stole it yet B still bought it, he is an accessory because he benefitted
from the effects of the crime and assisted the offender to benefit from the crime
 
Service  .  Sacrifice  .  Excellence                                                                                                                                                                                                        Angelo  J.  Logronio  
Criminal  Law  1  -­‐  Justice  Sandoval  –  Lecture  Mini-­‐cases  (Post-­‐midterms)                                
 
c. Moreover B violated PD 1612 (Anti Fencing Law) (“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.)
i. What’s important in fencing is the knowledge, if you know its stolen, you are
liable, if you do not know that its stolen, you are not liable
ii. In J. Sandoval’s opinion, B is criminally liable for both Art 19 and PD 1612.
Therefore, he is charged twice, goes to jail twice.
2. K kidnapped B. K asked X to negotiate with the parents of B for 1M or else B will be killed in 2
days. X went to the parents of B and relayed the message and got the 1M. X went back to K. K
gave X 100k.
a. K is the principal
b. X is the accessory because he profited from the effects of the crime.
3. R rented the warehouse of O. R used the warehouse as a garage for his stolen vehicles. O came
to know of it.
a. O is liable for violation of PD 1612
4. T stole TV, Ref, Laptop, Jewelry worth 500k. T sold ONLY the TV to B.
a. Under PD 1612, B is liable for the whole 500k even if it was only the TV that he bought
b. Under Art 19(1), B is liable only for the price of the TV

PARAGRAPH 2

1. K killed D. K approached A, “Pare tago mo to para di ako madiscover”. A buried the corpse of D
a. A is an accessory for concealing the body of the crime
2. A and B were very close friends. A killed X with a knife. X lay dead. B subsequently placed a knife
on the hand of X who was lying dead to make it appear like self-defense
a. B is an accessory for concealing the body of the crime
3. A wife, W, had an illicit affair with her compadre C without the knowledge of the husband H. They
were in the house of W and H. Pag di tumitingin si H, kinikiss ni C si W. Until nakita ni H silang
dalawa. H got a knife and attacked C. However, H was killed by C. It was all witnessed by W and
H’s 11 year old daughter D. W told D, “ako na kakausap dito, wag ka magsasalita ah”. The
policemen came and asked what happened. W replied that there came burglars but they got
away. Later on, D revealed to the police what actually happened.
a. W is an accessory for concealing the body of the crime

 
Service  .  Sacrifice  .  Excellence                                                                                                                                                                                                        Angelo  J.  Logronio  
Criminal  Law  1  -­‐  Justice  Sandoval  –  Lecture  Mini-­‐cases  (Post-­‐midterms)                                
 
4. I killed A. I approached F, the daughter of the mayor. I asked F to hide the gun used to kill A. F
replied affirmatively.
a. F is an accessory for concealing the INSTRUMENT.
b. GUN = INSTRUMENT
5. I carnapped a car and asked F, the daughter of the mayor to hide the car. F replied affirmatively.
a. F is an accessory for concealing the EFFECTS of the crime
b. CAR = EFFECTS

TECHNICALITIES

1. A,B and C robbed a house, and stole some properties. C sold all the properties robbed to X, X
knowing it to be stolen still bought the property
a. X is an accessory because his acts were AFTER THE CRIME. X profited and he knows
the crime committed
2. K was with X when they kidnapped B. K told X to negotiate with the parents of B. X successfully
negotiated with the parents of B. K and X divided the money from the parents.
a. X is a principal of the crime.
b. X cannot be an accessory in additional to him being the principal.
c. X is punishable only as principal of the crime

PARAGRAPH 3

• J. Sandoval’s so called “hidden interpretation” of Paragraph 3

a. First part of paragraph 3 is regarding a PUBLIC OFFICER
! He must assist the PRINCIPAL to be held liable
! Any crime can be committed
b. Second part of paragraph 3 is regarding a PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL
! He must assist the author of the crime (author = principal, accomplice,
accessory)
! Crime committed must be Treason, Parricide, Murder, attempt on the life of the
chief exec, or habitual guilty of other crime.
1. Policeman, A, assisted in the escape of an accomplice.
a. A is not liable, Policeman A can only be liable if he assists a principal.
2. K approached G asked him for a gun. G asks why. K answered that he will kill D. K killed D.
a. G approached mayor and told him that he lent his gun to K. Mayor assisted G in
escaping.

 
Service  .  Sacrifice  .  Excellence                                                                                                                                                                                                        Angelo  J.  Logronio  
Criminal  Law  1  -­‐  Justice  Sandoval  –  Lecture  Mini-­‐cases  (Post-­‐midterms)                                
 
i. Mayor is not liable under Article 19 (3)
ii. However, he is liable under PD 1829 for obstruction of justice.
b. K approached mayor and asked for help. Mayor helps K in escaping.
i. Mayor is liable under Article 19(3)
ii. Mayor is liable under PD 1829
iii. According to Justice Sandoval, he will go to jail twice.
c. G approached private individual, P. P helps G in escaping
i. P is liable under Article 19(3)
3. R raped V. R went to Private individual, P. P assisted R in his escape.
a. P is not liable under Article 19(3) because rape is not one of the crimes enumerated.
b. However, P is liable under PD 1829
4. K killed D. Private Individual P assisted K in his escape. The trial judgment was that K committed
homicide and not murder.
a. P is not liable under Article 19(3) because homicide is not one of the crimes enumerated.
5. K killed D, G assisted in his escape. The trial judgment was that K committed murder. However, K
was proven to be insane.
a. P is liable under Aritlce 19(3). As long as the crime committed was murder, even if K was
acquitted, P is still liable as an accessory.
6. Divided SC Case according to Justice Sandoval
a. A and B were riding in tandem when they passed X’s yard, A shot X, killing him. They
were charged with murder in conspiracy with each other. A was able to hide for 5 years.
However, B was caught. B was found guilty as an accessory to the crime. B was held
th
assisting A in his escape. After the 5 year, A was arrested. However, during the
proceedings, no one pointed at A. J acquitted A. Subsequently, B filed for writ of habeas
corpus.
i. B is still liable. Whoever was the killer, as long as it was proven that the crime
was murder and that B assisted the killer in his escape, B is still liable as an
accessory
ii. Moreover, B is also liable under PD 1829

ARTICLE 20

1. Ivler Jason was charged with murder. Ivler Jason escaped and hid in his mother’s house. Mother
denied to the NBI that Ivler Jason was there.
 
Service  .  Sacrifice  .  Excellence                                                                                                                                                                                                        Angelo  J.  Logronio  
Criminal  Law  1  -­‐  Justice  Sandoval  –  Lecture  Mini-­‐cases  (Post-­‐midterms)                                
 
a. Mother is covered by Article 20
b. However, Mother is held liable under PD 1829

Article  71  

• Penalties  
o Death  –  indivisible  
o Reclusion  Perpetua  –  indivisible  (People  vs  San  Lucas)  
o Reclusion  Temporal  –  12  years  1  day  –  20  years  
o Prision  Mayor  –  6  years  1  day  –  12  years  
o Prision  Correccional  –  6  months  1  day  –  6  years  
o Arresto  Mayor  –  1  month  1  day  –  6  months  
o Destierro  6  months  1  day  –  6  years  
o Arresto  Menor  1day  to  30  days  

When  there  was  no  ISL  YET  

1. X  committed  frustrated  homicide  

a. Homicide  =  Reclusion  Temporal,  Frustrated  Homicide  =  1  penalty  lower  =  Prision  
Mayor  
b. How  to  divide  into  periods  
i. Divide  the  highest  possible  under  the  said  penalty  by  the  highest  possible  
under  the  lower  penalty.  12/6  =  6  
ii. Divide  it  by  3.  6/3  =  2.  Therefore  the  gap  shall  be  by  2  
iii. Therefore,  
6  years  1  day  –  8  years  =  MINIMUM  PERIOD  
8  years  1  day  –  10  years  =  MEDIUM  PERIOD  
10  years  1  day  –  12  years  =  MAXIMUM  PERIOD  
c. Offset  the  proved  mitigating  and  aggravating  circumstances  
i. Mitigating  Circumstances  

 
Service  .  Sacrifice  .  Excellence                                                                                                                                                                                                        Angelo  J.  Logronio  
Criminal  Law  1  -­‐  Justice  Sandoval  –  Lecture  Mini-­‐cases  (Post-­‐midterms)                                
 
1. Ordinary  Mitigating  Circumstances  
a. 1  Ordinary  Mitigating  Circumstance  =  1  lower  period  (i.e.  
medium  to  minimum)  
b. Ordinary  Mitigating  Circumstances  are  offset  by  Aggravating  
2. Privileged  Mitigating  Circumstances  
a. 1  Privileged  Mitigating  Circumstance  =  1  lower  degree  (i.e.  PM  
to  PC)  
b. Privileged  Mitigating  Circumstances  cannot  be  offset  by  
Aggravating  
c. 1st  two  Mitigating  Circumstances  under  Article  13  are  
privileged  (incomplete  self-­‐defense  and  below  18  years),  the  
rest  are  ordinary  
3. Mitigating  Circumstances  can  lower  your  penalty  up  to  the  lowest  
period  of  the  lowest  degree  of  penalty  (e.g.  From  PM  to  Freedom)  
ii. Aggravating  
1. Aggravating  Circumstances  
a. 1    Aggravating  Circumstance  =  1  higher  period  (i.e.  medium  to  
maximum)  
b. Aggravating  Circumstances  are  offset  by  Ordinary  Mitigating  
Circumstances  
2. Aggravating  Circumstances  cannot  go  higher  than  the  current  degree  
(i.e.  If  penalty  is  PM,  can  go  only  as  high  as  maximum  penalty  of  PM,  
cannot  go  to  the  next  level)  

When  ISL  was  enacted  

1. X  was  guilty  of  bigamy.  

a. Bigamy  =  Prision  Mayor  =  6  years  1  day  –  12  years  
b. Computation  of  the  range  of  penalty  
 
Service  .  Sacrifice  .  Excellence                                                                                                                                                                                                        Angelo  J.  Logronio  
Criminal  Law  1  -­‐  Justice  Sandoval  –  Lecture  Mini-­‐cases  (Post-­‐midterms)                                
 
i. The  court  shall  get  the  maximum  term  from  the  medium  period  of  the  said  
penalty  (medium  period  because  there  was  no  aggravating  nor  mitigating)  
1. In  this  case,  medium  period  of  Prision  Mayor  is  8  years  1  day  –  10  
years  
2. Therefore,  the  judge  can  get  the  maximum  term  from  the  range  of  8  
years  1  day  –  10  years  
ii. The  court  shall  get  the  minimum  period  from  the  range  of  the  penalty  one  
degree  lower  
1. In  this  case,  Prision  Correccional  is  the  penalty  one  degree  lower  
2. Therefore  the  judge  can  get  the  minimum  term  from  the  range  of  6  
months  1  day  –  6  years  
iii. Example:  Max  Term  9  years  (from  8  years  1  day  –  10  years)  
                                   Min  Term  7  months  (from  6  months  1  day  –  6  years)  
2. Accused  was  17  years  old  acting  with  discernment  who  committed  homicide.  He  was  a  
recidivist.  
a. Homicide  =  Reclusion  Temporal  =  12  years  1  day  –  20  years  
b. However,  1  privileged  mitigating  (  17  years  old),  1  aggravating  
c. Computation  of  the  range  of  penalty  
i. The  court  shall  get  the  maximum  term  by  offsetting  the  mitigating  and  
aggravating  
1. 1  privileged  mitigating  =  penalty  one  degree  lower  =  Reclusion  
Temporal  to  Prision  Mayor  
2. 1  aggravating  =  Medium  of  Prision  Mayor  to  Maximum  of  Prision  
Mayor  
3. Therefore,  the  judge  can  get  the  maximum  term  from  the  range  of  10  
years  1  day    (maximum  period  of  Prision  Mayor)  
ii. The  court  shall  get  the  minimum  period  from  the  range  of  the  penalty  one  
degree  lower  
1. In  this  case,  Prision  Correccional  is  the  penalty  one  degree  lower  

 
Service  .  Sacrifice  .  Excellence                                                                                                                                                                                                        Angelo  J.  Logronio  
Criminal  Law  1  -­‐  Justice  Sandoval  –  Lecture  Mini-­‐cases  (Post-­‐midterms)                                
 
2. Therefore  the  judge  can  get  the  minimum  term  from  the  range  of  6  
months  1  day  –  6  years  
a. If  the  judge  sets  the  minimum  term  for  6  months  and  1  day  
and  the  accused  served  the  said  period  in  good  behavior,  he  
shall  be  eligible  of  parole  
3. When  ISL  doesn’t  apply  (Straight  Penalty)  
a. When  penalty  imposed  is  death  penalty  or  life  imprisonment  
i. It  is  important  to  note  that  it  is  life  imprisonment  and  not  reclusion  perpetua  
1. Reclusion  perpetua  –  After  30  years,  eligible  for  parople  
2. Life  imprisonment  –  no  definite  extent  by  special  law  and  no  accessory  
penalty  
b. Max  Penalty  not  more  than  1  year  
c. When  the  crime  is  under  security  of  state  crimes  (treason,  rebellion,  misprision  of  
treason,  sedition,  espionage  etc.)  
d. Piracy  
e. Habitual  Delinquents  
f. Evaded  service  of  sentence  
i. A  was  convicted  with  homicide,  while  serving  sentence,  he  escaped.  
Committed  homicide  again  
1. Considered  Evaded  Service  
ii. Concubine  C  had  an  illicit  relation  with  Husband  H.  Wife  W  knew  of  the  illicit  
relationship,  W  demanded  C.  C  was  found  guilty.  H  was  jailed  and  C  was  
sentenced  by  destierro.  C  entered  the  prohibited  area  of  destierro  and  
committed  homicide  
1. Considered  Evaded  Service  
2. However,  it  is  already  held  that  ISL  does  not  apply  to  destierro.  
Therefore,  regardless,  no  ISL  application.  WEIRD  WEIRD  CASE  BY  
SANDOVAL!  

 
Service  .  Sacrifice  .  Excellence                                                                                                                                                                                                        Angelo  J.  Logronio  
Criminal  Law  1  -­‐  Justice  Sandoval  –  Lecture  Mini-­‐cases  (Post-­‐midterms)                                
 
iii. X  escaped  confinement.  Guilty.  14  years  of  imprisonment.    However  he  was  
confined  in  the  NCM(place  for  mentally  challenged)  instead.  After  2  days,  X  
escaped  NCM.  
1. NOT  Considered  Evaded  Service  
2. Mental  Hospital  Patient  not  a  Prisoner  
iv. X  was  17  years  old.  Guilty.  8-­‐14  years  imprisonment.  However,  he  was  
confined  in  the  Manila  Youth  Rehab  instead.  X  escaped,  and  committed  
another  crime.  
1. NOT  Considered  Evaded  Service  
4. Special  Laws  
a. Must  not  go  beyond  the  minimum  and  maximum  limits  set  by  special  law  
b. X  committed  a  crime  under  a  special  law  which  said  law  attaches  a  punishment  of  1  –  
5  years.  
i. X  shall  have  a  penalty  of,  for  example  1  year  and  2  days  or  4  years  and  11  
months  

Probation  Law  

1. Probation  Law  is  the  disposition  by  which  an  accused  having  been  sentenced  and  convicted  of  
a  crime  will  not  go  to  jail  because  even  though  he  committed  a  crime,  he  cannot  be  
considered  a  criminal  
2. Doctor,  D  went  to  his  clinic.  When  he  was  on  his  way  home,  3  drunk  men  stopped  his  car  and  
asked  for  drinking  money.  D  gave  the  drunk  men  500.  Drunk  men  was  enraged  and  wanted  
more,  they  hit  D’s  car  and  ran  away.  D  alighted  his  car,  shot  one  of  them.  
a. He  cannot  claim  self-­‐defense  
b. However,  he  will  not  go  to  jail  because  of  the  Probation  Law  
3. What  the  judge  will  do  is  order  and  cause  investigation  via  Probation  Officer.  If  Probation  
Officer  sees  that  his  family  is  good  (e.g.  Law  student  brother,  Med  student  sister,  parents  well  
employed),  the  court  will  usually  approve.  If  the  petition  is  granted,  probation  will  be  granted  

 
Service  .  Sacrifice  .  Excellence                                                                                                                                                                                                        Angelo  J.  Logronio  
Criminal  Law  1  -­‐  Justice  Sandoval  –  Lecture  Mini-­‐cases  (Post-­‐midterms)                                
 
for  1  year  or  so.  And  is  required  not  to  associate  with  criminals.  After  serving  the  1  year  or  so,  
will  be  released.  
4. Probation  Law  applies  only  to  penalties  not  more  than  6  years  
a. One  mother  of  a  starlet  was  filed  with  10  counts  of  oral  defamation.  Sentenced  for  
one  year  each  count.  10  years  total.  She  applied  for  probation.  Denied  by  Fiscal  who  
said  that  the  penalty  was  more  than  6  years.  However,  SC  said  that  it  is  not  the  total  
that  is  to  be  counted.  Rather,  the  maximum  term  of  one  crime.  In  the  current  case  it  is  
just  one  year  for  one  crime.  Therefore,  he  can  be  granted  probation.  
5. Instances  not  covered  by  Probation  Law  
a. If  you  are  once  in  probation,  you  can  no  longer  be  qualified  for  another.  
i. Accused  was  charged  of  robbery.  He  was,  however,  found  guilty  of  theft.  1-­‐3  
years  imprisonment.  However,  the  accused  had  no  money  to  bail.  Therefore,  
he  was  jailed.  He  was  already  serving  2  years  sentence  in  jail.  He  wrote  a  letter  
to  the  Judge  asking  for  probation.  Some  days  after,  he  wrote  a  letter  again  
withdrawing  probation  because  he  wanted  to  reserve  his  probation  for  a  
future  crime  (FUNNY  BARBS  STORY  OF  SANDOVAL!  Ha  ha  ha)  
b. Violation  of  election  laws  
c. Convicted  of  violation  of  anti-­‐drugs  law  
d. Sentenced  previously  of  more  than  200  pesos  fine  or  for  more  than  1  month  and  1  day  
e. When  you  appeal,  you  are  no  longer  qualified  because  the  case  is  open  for  review.  
i. Conflicting  examples  of  Sandoval  
1. Accused  was  convicted.  He  wanted  to  APPEAL  the  penalty  not  the  
decision  from  2-­‐4  years  to  1  year  imprisonment.  Accused  applied  for  
probation.  SC  held  that  that  regardless  of  the  reason,  as  long  as  it  is  
considered  an  APPEAL,  one  is  not  qualified  for  probation  
2. Accused  was  convicted  of  robbery.  RTC  sentenced  him  to  4-­‐8  years  
(cannot  apply  for  probation,  max  penalty  >  6  years).  Accused  appealed  
and  CA  found  him  guilty  only  for  theft  and  punished  for  only  1-­‐2  years.  

 
Service  .  Sacrifice  .  Excellence                                                                                                                                                                                                        Angelo  J.  Logronio  
Criminal  Law  1  -­‐  Justice  Sandoval  –  Lecture  Mini-­‐cases  (Post-­‐midterms)                                
 
He  can  now  be  eligible  for  probation  provided  he  applies  15  days  from  
the  receipt  of  the  decision  
3. RTC  charged  X  with  Frustrated  Homicide.  Penalty  is  Prision  Mayor  (6.1  
–  12)  therefore  no  probation.  Accused  appealed  to  CA,  affirmed  RTC.  
However,  when  brought  to  SC,  it  held  that  it  was  only  Attempted  
Homicide  and  not  Frustrated  Homicide.  Therefore  the  penalty  is  6  
months  1  day  to  6  years.  Therefore,  he  is  entitled  to  probation.  
4. However,  upon  verification  with  Justice  Sandoval,  1.  shall  still  hold.  
Appeal  =  not  qualified  for  probation  

Additional  Notes  to  aid  in  computation  of  periods  

  Principal   Accomplice   Accessory  

Consummated   What  is  set  by  the  RPC   -­‐1   -­‐2  
Frustrated   -­‐1   -­‐2   -­‐3  
Attempted   -­‐2   -­‐3   -­‐4  
 

MODES  OF  TOTALLY  EXTINGUISIHING  CRIMINAL  LIABLITY  

Death  of  the  Accused  

1. A  committed  a  crime.  He  was  sentenced  to  4-­‐8  years  of  imprisonment.    
a. While  serving  the  sentence,  A  died.  
i. Criminal  liability  will  be  totally  extinguished  
ii. Civil  liability  will  be  against  the  testate/intestate  proceedings  
 
Service  .  Sacrifice  .  Excellence                                                                                                                                                                                                        Angelo  J.  Logronio  
Criminal  Law  1  -­‐  Justice  Sandoval  –  Lecture  Mini-­‐cases  (Post-­‐midterms)                                
 
b. While  case  was  pending,  A  died.  
i. Criminal  liability  will  be  totally  extinguish  
ii. Civil  liability  may  be  filed  by  civil  action  of  the  offended  parties  

Service  of  Sentence  

Amnesty  and  Pardon  

1. A  committed  rebellion  in  1981.  He  was  granted  amnesty  in  1982.  He  committed  Sedition  in  
1988.  
a. He  is  not  a  recidivist.  
2. A  committed  homicide.  He  was  granted  pardon  by  the  President  in  1982.  He  committed  murder  
in  1988.  
a. He  is  a  recidivist  
3. A  was  held  guilty  of  homicide.  He  was  sentenced  8-­‐14  years  of  imprisonment.  While  serving  
sentence,  he  escape  the  prison  cell.  However  he  was  caught.  He  was  charged  for  evasion  of  
service  of  sentence  and  a  penalty  of  1-­‐3  years  of  imprisonment.  
a. A  was  granted  absolute  pardon  for  the  crime  of  homicide.  
i. He  will  still  serve  the  1-­‐3  years  imprisonment  for  evasion  of  sentence.  
4. A  committed  estafa  against  B.  B  granted  pardon  to  A.  
a. The  trial  will  still  continue  however  there  is  no  civil  liability  
5. However,  in  cases  of  SARA,  pardon  of  the  aggrieved  party  would  also  extinguish  the  criminal  

liability  if  the  pardon  was  given  before  the  case  was  filed  in  court.
a. However, in cases of rape, if husband rapes his wife, and W grants H pardon, even if the
trial is going on, pardon still valid, and if H is already serving sentence, the Judge will
order the Director of Prisons to let H out of jail

Marriage

1. L committed estafa against M. While the case was pending, L and M got married.
a. The criminal case will continue, Marriage only extinguishes in SARA.

 
Service  .  Sacrifice  .  Excellence                                                                                                                                                                                                        Angelo  J.  Logronio  
Criminal  Law  1  -­‐  Justice  Sandoval  –  Lecture  Mini-­‐cases  (Post-­‐midterms)                                
 
2. X induced A, B, C to rape L. Place was provided by Y, an accomplice. Z assisted in the escape,
an accessory. A, B, C, X, Y, Z were all detained. A courted L and after some time they got
married.
a. The case against A, B, C, X, Y, Z will be dismissed.
3. S raped C. S and C got married. The court dismissed the case of rape. However, after some time,
S left C. C filed a motion to revive case. It reached the SC.
a. S is guilty of rape, the marriage was clearly not done in good faith
4. A raped L. It took time for A to court L. The case was already in the promulgation stage. A and L
got married before promulgation.
a. Judge will still order the dismissal of the case.
5. A raped L. A was held guilty and was serving sentence, when A and L got married.
a. Judge will disregard the judgment of conviction and order the release of A
6. A, B and C, took turns in raping L.
a. Marriage cannot extinguish in cases of multiple rape.

Civil Liabilities

1. A committed a crime and was held guilty of estafa and a crime under a special law.
a. 1 act caused the complaint, there will only be 1 civil liability
2. PD 603 – in case of insane minor, etc.
st nd rd
a. Civil liability – 1 = father, 2 mother, 3 guardian.
3. Z owns a movie house in Manila. Erap declared that no one shall open movie houses until 10am.
However, A opened his movie house at 7am because of a stampede of moviegoers. A killed B n
the moviehouse. A was sentenced imprisonment and to pay 50k pesos. However A was poorita.
a. The 50k civil liability will be borne by Z.
4. A stole the ring of B, sold it to C for 10k. C sold it to D for 20k. C did not know that A stole it. B
came to know of it and approached D.
a. B can get the property without payment
b. The system would be that D will run after C and C will run after A.
5. A stole the ring of B, sold it to C for 10k. C sold it to D for 20k. C did not know that A stole it. D
however, sold it in an auction. E bought it for 30k. B came to know of it.
a. B can get the property but with compensation of the 30k because it was bought in a
public auction.

 
Service  .  Sacrifice  .  Excellence                                                                                                                                                                                                        Angelo  J.  Logronio  
Criminal  Law  1  -­‐  Justice  Sandoval  –  Lecture  Mini-­‐cases  (Post-­‐midterms)                                
 
6. A killed B. RT ruled that A to pay the heirs of B 100k. Still not being able to pay, A died. B-1, heir
of B, approached A-1 heir of A saying, “akin na yung 100k na utang ng tatay mong mamamatay
tao”
a. A-1 has no obligation to pay
b. A-1 has no obligation to pay. However, A-1 paid B, someone told A-1 that he had no
obligation to pay B-1. A-1 went to B-1 and asked to be paid back.
i. B-1 doesn’t need to pay back. Considered natural obligation.
c. Supposed A-1 left 1M pesos to A-1. However, when B was alive, he had debt from A. A-1
claimed that the payment for said debt was to be deducted from the 100k liability.
i. A-1 is wrong.
d. Supposed A left 1M pesos to A-1. B-1 asked A-1 for the civil liability. A-1 was owed by B-
1. A-1 wants that he will not pay B-1 in exchange of the 100k civil liability borne by B.
i. A-1 is wrong. The debt between A-1 and B-1 constitutes “loan from of the heirs"

 
Service  .  Sacrifice  .  Excellence                                                                                                                                                                                                        Angelo  J.  Logronio