1.

INTRODUCTORY PART
VALLES.Crim1.Notes
INTRODUCTION c. Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater
Criminal Law- this is the branch of the law that: punishment than the law annexed to the crime when
a. Defines crimes committed
b. Treats of their nature d. Alters the legal rules of evidence and allows conviction
c. Provides for their punishment upon less or different testimony than the law required at
the time of commission
Its sources are as follows: e. Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in
a. Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) and its amendments effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for
b. Special penal laws something which when done was done lawful
c. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during martial law f. Deprives the accused some lawful protection to which
Note: Court decisions are not sources of criminal law because he has become entitled (protection of a former
they merely explain the meaning of and apply the law as enacted conviction or acquittal, or proclamation of amnesty.
by the legislative body.
Bill of Attainder
Crime A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment
This is an act of commission or omission in violation of a public without trial; it substitutes legislative act for judicial process of
law that forbids or commands it. the determination of guilt.
There are no common-law crimes in the Philippines. The rule is,
if there is no law punishing an act or omission, then there is no MEMORIZE: RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
crime. Constitutional Rights (Art III, Bill of Rights)
1. Right to speedy disposition of their cases
The State, through the legislative branch and in the exercise of its 2. Right to due process
police power, has the power to: 3. Right to bail
a. Define crimes This shall not be impaired even if the writ of habeas
b. Punish crimes corpus is suspended
c. Lay down the rules of criminal procedure a. General Rule
Before conviction, all persons have the right to: -
LIMITATIONS OF PENAL LEGISLATION bail by sufficient sureties or
a. No ex post facto law shall be enacted - be released by recognizance
b. No bill of attainder shall be enacted b. Exception
c. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense Persons charged with crimes punishable by
without due process of law reclusion perpetua, when the evidence of guilt is
strong, do not have the right to bail
Ex post facto law 4. Rights in criminal prosecutions
The passage of an ex post facto law is the passage of retroactive In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the
laws prejudicial to the accused. right to:
It has the following characteristics: (MACADA) a. Be presumed innocent until proven otherwise
a. Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the b. Be heard by himself and counsel
law, which act was innocent when done, and punishes c. Be informed of the nature and cause of the
the same act accusation against him
b. Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was d. Have speedy, impartial, and public trial
when committed e. Meet the witnesses face to face
f. Have compulsory processes to secure the attendance
of witnesses and the production of evidence in his
behalf
Trial may proceed after the arraignment even if the
accused is absent if:
1. He was duly informed
2. His absence is unjustifiable
5. Right not to be compelled to be a witness against
himself
6. Right against excessive fines and against cruel,
degrading, or inhumane punishment
7. Right against double jeopardy
If an act is punished by law or by ordinance, conviction
or acquittal shall constitute a bar to another prosecution
for the same act. Otherwise, it will constitute double
jeopardy.
8. Right of free access to courts and quasi-judicial bodies,
and adequate legal assistance
Statutory Rights (Sec 1, Rule 115, Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure)
1. Be presumed innocent until proven otherwise
2. Be present and defend in person by counsel at every
stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to
promulgation of judgment
3. Be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him
4. Have speedy, impartial, and public trial
5. To confront and cross-examine them
6. Have compulsory processes to secure the attendance of
witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf
7. To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to
cross-examination on matters covered by direct
examination.
8. To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness
against himself
9. To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner
prescribed by law
VALLES.Crim1.Notes
WAIVABLE RIGHTS
- Those that are personal
- Confrontation and cross examination of witnesses
NON-WAIVABLE RIGHTS
- Those that involve public interest
- Right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation
CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW: (TGP)
1. GENERAL
Criminal law is binding on all persons who live and
sojourn in Philippine territory.
Exception:
a. Sovereigns and heads of states, and diplomatic
representatives are not subject to Philippine
Territorial Jurisdiction.
b. Art 2 of RPC: subject to treaties and laws of
preferential application
c. Art 14 of CC: subject to principles of international
law and to treaty stipulations
General rule:
a. Civil courts have jurisdiction regardless of the
military character of the accused. They shall have
concurrent jurisdiction with general courts-martial.
b. During times of war, there is concurrent jurisdiction
if:
- No hostiles are in progress
- Civil courts are functioning
Exception:
a. When the alleged crime is committed in the exercise
of the military person’s duties (service-connected),
the military courts shall take cognizance of the case
and the Articles of War shall apply.
b. The RTCs may not deprive the military courts of
their jurisdiction over the following service-
connected crimes:
- Disrespect towards the president
- Disrespect toward superior officer
- Conduct unbecoming an officer or a gentleman
- General Article
2. TERRITORIAL
Penal laws are enforceable only within Philippine
territory.
Exception: Article 2 of RPC (See notes on next chapter)
Philippine Territory:
a. Art 2 of RPC
RPC shall be enforced within the Philippine
Archipelago, including its atmosphere, interior
waters, and maritime zone.
b. Art 1 of the 1987 Constitution
National territory comprises the Philippine
Archipelago, with all the islands and waters
embraced therein, and all other territories over
which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction, including consisting of its terrestrial,
fluvial, and aerial domains, including its territorial
sea, seabed, subsiul, insular shelves, and other
submarine areas. The waters around, between, and
connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless
of their breadth and dimension, form part of the
internal waters of the Philippines.
3. PROSPECTIVE
Crimes are punished under the laws in force at the time
of their commission.
General rule:
Penal laws may be given retroactive effect if they are
favorable to the accused.
Exception:
a. When the new law is expressly made inapplicable to
pending or existing actions.
b. The offender is a habitual criminal/delinquent.
EFFECTS OF REPEAL ON PENAL LAW
a. If the penalty in new law is lighter
Apply the new law. DUH. But remember exceptions
above.
b. If penalty in new law is heavier
Apply the laws during the time of the commission of
the crime
c. The crime is no longer punishable in the new law
The crime is obliterated.
Jo, to remember this easily: (c) is just like (a)
wherein the penalty in the new law is lighter than
the penalty in the old law. Hence, we apply the new
law. That is, 0 penalty.
THINGS TO REMEMBER:
1. Absolute repeal obliterates the crime, but repeal by
reenactment or by implication does not destroy
criminal liability. (same w/ c above)
2. When the repealing law fails to penalize the offense
under the old law, the accused can no longer be
convicted under the new law. (same w/ c)
3. A person erroneously accused and convicted under a
repealed statute may be punished under the repealing
statute, provided that the accused had the opportunity to
defend himself against the charges.
4. A new law which omits anything in the old law dealing
on the same subject operates as a repeal of anything not
so included in the amendatory act.
CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS
These construction rules are applied ONLY when the law is
ambiguous and there is doubt as to their interpretation.
Otherwise, the literal meaning of the provisions shall prevail.
1. Penal laws are construed strictly against the government
and liberally in favor of the accused.
2. In the construction and interpretation of the provisions
of the RPC, the Spanish text is controlling because it
was approved by the Philippine Legislature in the
Spanish text.
No person should be brought within the terms of
criminal statutes who is not clearly within them, nor
should any act be pronounced criminal which is not
clearly made so by the statute.
2. PRELIMINARY TITLE
Article 1 - 2
VALLES.Crim1.Notes
PRELIMINARY TITLE
Article 1
Republic Act No. 3815
An Act Revising the Penal Code and Other Penal Laws
Approved: December 8, 1930
Took effect: January 1, 1932
Article 2
General Rule:
The provisions of the RPC shall be enforced only within the
Philippine archipelago, including its atmosphere, interior
waters, and maritime zone. (This is the territorial characteristic of
penal laws)
Exceptions, that is, RPC may be enforced outside of Philippine
Jurisdiction:
1. When it is provided in the treaties and laws of
preferential application
2. Against those who:
a. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine
ship or airship
b. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency
note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and
securities issued by the Government of the
Philippine Islands
c. Should be liable for acts connected with the
introduction into these islands of such obligations
and securities
d. While being public officers or employees, should
commit an offense in the exercise of their functions
e. Should commit any of the crimes against national
security and the law of nations, defined in Title 1,
Book 2 of the RPC.
When the offender should commit an offense while
on a Philippine ship or airship
• Identity or nationality of the ship is determined by
its registration in the Philippine Bureau of
Customs, in accordance with the laws of the
Philippines. Hence, if the ship is not registered, it is
beyond the jurisdiction of Philippine courts.
• The RTC has original jurisdiction over all crimes of
any country on board a ship of war craft of any kind
registered or licensed in the Philippines
• Any person who commits a crime in a ship may be
tried in our civil courts if:
a. The ship (whether foreign or Pinoy) is within
Philippine territory.
It is within the jurisdiction of Philippine Courts
if forbidden conditions had already existed
during the time the ship was within our
territorial waters, regardless of the fact that such
condition has already existed prior to the arrival
of the ship in our waters. This is a continuing
offense on board a foreign vessel.
b. It is a Philippine ship but sailing beyond our
territory (beyond 3 miles from the shore) but
NEVER when the ship is already in a
FOREIGN TERRITORY.
Being outside of Philippine Jurisdiction is
completely different from being in a foreign
territory.
Are the following instances within the jurisdiction of
Philippine Courts?
1. Philippine Vessel in Ph territory YES
2. Philippine vessel outside Ph territory YES
3. Philippine vessel in foreign territory NO
4. Foreign vessel in Ph territory (cont. offense) YES
5. Foreign vessel in foreign territory NO
These apply to merchant ships or vessels
NOTE:
Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over offenses
committed on board foreign warships, even though they may
be in the territorial waters of the Philippines.
Warships are always reputed to be the territory of the country to
which they belong and cannot be subjected to the laws of another
state.
Rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard
foreign merchant vessels
a. French Rule
The crimes aboard merchant vessels while in territorial
waters of another country are not triable in the courts of that
country unless their commission affects the peace and
security of the territory or the safety of the state is
endangered.
b. English Rule (we follow this in the Ph)
The crimes aboard merchant vessels while in territorial
waters of another country are triable in the courts of that
country unless they merely affect things within the vessel or
pertain to internal management or affairs.
May Philippine Courts try the following offenses even when
committed abroad or in a foreign country?
1. Commit an offense while on a Philippine NO
ship or airship
2. Forge or counterfeit any coin or currency YES
note of the Philippine Islands or
obligations and securities issued by the
Government of the Philippine Islands
3. Introduction into these islands of such YES
obligations and securities
4. Commit an offense in the exercise of their YES
functions as public officers or employees
5. Commit any of the crimes against national YES
security and the law of nations, defined in
Title 1, Book 2 of the RPC.
Interior waters
This includes creeks, rivers, lakes and bays, gulfs, straits, coves,
inlets and roadsteads lying wholly within the 3-mile limit.
Maritime zone
3 miles from the coastline, starting from the low water mark. It
includes bays, gulfs, adjacent parts of the seas or recesses in the
coastline whose width at their entrance is not more than 12 miles
measured from headland to headland, and all straits of less than 6
miles wide.
 3. TITLE 1
Article 3 - 10
VALLES.Crim1.Notes
TITLE 1
COVERAGE: Articles 3-10
ARTICLE 3
Felonies are acts and omissions punishable by laws (RPC).
Its elements are:
a. Acts or omissions
• An act is a bodily movement tending to produce
some effect in the external world. It is not
necessary that such may actually be produced
because the possibility of its production is
sufficient.
• An omission is the failure to perform a positive
duty that one is bound to do.
Note: only internal acts are punished. Internal
acts, or thoughts, are beyond the scope of RPC.
b. Punishable by RPC
• There is no crime when there is no law punishing
it.
• A felony is punishable by the RPC, while a crime
or offense is punishable by special statute.
c. Incurred by means of dolo or culpa
• Dolo or deceit means an act is performed with
deliberate intent. It is malicious.
• `Culpa or fault means an act is a result of
imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack
of judgment. It is voluntary, but not malicious.
Imprudence: deficiency of action; lack of skill
Negligence: deficiency of perception; lack of
foresight
2 kinds of felonies:
a. Intentional felonies- the act or omission is
malicious, that is, with the intention to do an
injury to the person, property, or rights
b. Culpable felonies- the act or omission is
unintentional or simple the incident of
another act performed without malice
A criminal act is presumed to be voluntary. In the absence of
indubitable explanation, the act must be declared voluntary and
punishable. The only difference between the 2 is malicious
intent.
REQUISITES OF DOLO AND CULPA MISTAKE OF FACT
DOLO (DECEIT) CULPA (FAULT) Mistake of fact is the misapprehension of facts by the person
Freedom Freedom who causes injury to the other. Such person is not criminally
Intelligence Intelligence liable for he acted without criminal intent. Ignorantia facti
Intent Imprudence, negligence, lack of excusat.
foresight or skill The following are requisites in order that mistake of fact may
1. Freedom- a person is not free if he acts under the be raised as a defense: L.I.F
compulsion of irresistible force or under the impulse 1. The act would have been lawful had the facts been as
of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. the accused thought them to be
As such, he is exempted from criminal liability. 2. The intention of the accused in performing the act
2. Intelligence- imbecile, insane, infants below 9 years, should be lawful.
and minors below 15 years act without intelligence, 3. There must be no fault or negligence on the part of
and are therefore, exempt from criminal liability. the accused.
3. Intent- intent is a mental process and as such, it is Even if there is no intent but there is fault, the accused is not
difficult to prove. However, such mental process is absolved of liability because he may not be liable with
manifested in the overt acts of a person. This is why intentional felony, but he is liable with culpable felony.
in criminal or unlawful acts, there is a prima facie Hence, all three requisites must CONCUR.
(rebuttable) presumption of intent. Such presumption CLASSES OF CRIMES
does not arise in lawful acts. CRIMES PUNISHED BY
o General intent- general requirement for dolo 1. Intentional felony RPC
o Specific intent- some crimes require specific 2. Culpable felony RPC
intent- intent to gain in properties; intent to kill in 3. Punished by special laws Municipal/city ordinance
frustrated and attempted murder; intent of lewd in CRIMES PUNISHED BY SPECIAL LAWS
forcible abduction a. Intent to commit the crime is not necessary. It is
sufficient that the act was done freely and
Hence, if there is no fault or intention, but mere accident, a consciously. Meaning, there was intent to perpetrate
person is exempt from liability. or commit the ACT itself.
b. The act alone constitutes the offense
c. Because of (a), good faith is not a defense.
d. Basta if you violate it, punishable ka. No excuses.
MALA IN SE vs MALA PROHIBITA
MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA
Acts that are naturally Wrongful only because
wrongful/inherently immoral* prohibited by statute
Criminal intent required Criminal intent not required
Serious effects on society as Violates only rules of
to call for unanimous convenience
condemnation
*mala in se even if punishable by special laws/statutes
VALLES.Crim1.Notes

MOTIVE vs INTENT - However, this does not apply in culpable felonies In the following cases, the injury is considered to be
MOTIVE INTENT or criminal negligence. When a person does not the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the
Moving power that impels Purpose to use particular commit an intentional felony, he is not liable for felony committed (Philippine jurisprudence):
one to action for a definite means to effect such result the result which is not intended i. When the victim drowned after he jumped
result - He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of into the water because he was being chased
Not an essential element of Essential in intentional felony the evil caused with a knife. “Any person who creates in
crime - Under paragraph 1 of Art 4, a person committing another’s mind an immediate sense of danger,
Established by testimony of Proved by the overt acts of an intentional felony is liable even if: which causes the latter to do something
witnesses the accused a. There is mistake of identity of the victim. resulting in the latter’ injuries, is liable for
Error in personae the resulting injuries.”
MOTIVE: WHEN RELEVANT AND WHEN NOT b. There is a mistake in the blow, or a person ii. When the victim removed the drainage from
RELEVANT NOT RELEVANT intending to inflict injury on another inflicts it the wound, which caused peritonitis, which in
Identity of the accused is in Commission of the crime has on another. Aberratio ictus turn caused his death, it appearing that the
dispute been proven and evidence of c. The act exceeds intent. Praeter intentionem wound caused by the accused inflicted severe
identification is convincing pain, which made the victim remove it. “He
Assailant unidentified Assailant identified REQUISITES FOR PAR1, ART4 TO APPLY who is the cause of the cause is the cause of
Identification of the accused When the defendant admits • There must be a felony committed. the evil caused.”
proceeds from an unreliable killing (crime); or when there There is no felony when iii. When other causes cooperated in producing
source; the testimony is no doubt that he was the o The act is not punishable under the revised the fatal result, as long as the wound inflicted
inconclusive and not free culprit penal code is dangerous or calculated to destroy or
from doubt o The act is covered by the justifying endanger life. This is true even if the
There are antagonistic circumstances in Art 11. immediate cause of death was the erroneous
theories of the crime • The wrong done must be the direct, natural, and medical treatment. But if it is shown that the
logical consequence of the offense. injury would not have caused death and that it
There were no eyewitnesses
Natural- occurrence in the ordinary course of life is shown beyond all doubt that the death was
Circumstantial evidence Sufficient evidence
Logical- rational connection between act and injury due to the malicious or careless act of the
The proof of motive is not sufficient proof of guilt, and
practitioner, this rule will not apply.
therefore cannot be a basis for conviction. The strongest That is, the felony committed must be the proximate iv. The victim was suffering from internal
motive cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable cause of the resulting injury. malady. This is true if the blow was the
doubt. Proximate cause is that cause, which, in the natural efficient, accelerating, or proximate cause of
and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient death. The offender is criminally liable if his
ARTICLE 4 intervening cause, produces the injury, without which act caused, accelerated, or contributed to the
Criminal liability is incurred: the result would not have occurred. death or injury of the victim.
1. By any person committing a felony although the Proximate legal cause is that acting first and v. The offended party refused to submit to
wrongful act done be different from what he producing the injury, either: surgical operation. The offended party is not
intended 1. Immediately, or required to submit himself to operation to
- A person committing intentional felony is 2. By setting other events in motion, all relieve the accused from the natural and
responsible for all consequences which may constituting a natural and continuous chain of ordinary results of his crime.
logically and naturally result from his acts, events, each having a close causal with its vi. The resulting injury was aggravated by
whether foreseen or intended or not. immediate predecessor. infection
VALLES.Crim1.Notes

The felony is not the proximate cause of the injury Criminal liability is incurred: (Art 4, paragraph 2) ARTICLE 5
when: 2. By any person performing an act which would be
1. There is an active force that intervened an offense against person or property, were it not : PARAGRAPH 1 PARAGRAPH 2
between the injury and the felony, and such a. For the inherent impossibility of its The act is not punishable by Court finds accused guilty
active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely accomplishment law
foreign from the felonious act of the accused b. On account of the employment of inadequate court deems it proper to Penalty is clearly excessive
2. The resulting injury is due to the intentional or ineffectual means repress such act because the accused acted
act of the victim. That is, it must be with lesser degree of malice
malicious so as to desire the increase of the REQUISITES FOR IMPOSSIBLE CRIME or the injury caused was of
criminal liability of his assailant. 1. The act performed WOULD HAVE BEEN an lesser gravity
offense against person or property Court shall dismiss the case Court should not suspend the
NOT EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE and acquit the accused execution of the sentence
The following do not destroy the cause and effect relationship AGAINST PERSONS AGAINST PROPERTIES Court shall report to Chief Court shall recommend
between the felony and the injury: 1. Parricide a. Robbery Executive through DOJ executive clemency
1. Weak or diseased condition of the victim 2. Murder b. Brigandage
2. Nervousness or temperament of the victim 3. Homicide c. Theft Pursuant to article 5, the Supreme Court ordered that a copy
3. Causes inherent to victim (e.g. unable to swim) 4. Infanticide d. Usurpation of the Decision be furnished to:
4. Neglect of the victim or third person 5. Abortion e. Culpable insolvency a. President of the RP through DOJ
5. Erroneous or unskillful medical treatment 6. Duel f. Swindling and other b. Senate president
6. Delay in medical treatment deceits c. Speaker of the house
#NOtoVictimBlaming 7. Physical Injuries g. Chattel mortgage
8. Rape h. Arson and other NOTE: Penalties are not excessive when intended to enforce a
WHEN DEATH IS PRESUMED TO BE THE NATURAL crimes involving public policy.
CAUSE OF THE PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED destruction
1. At the time the injuries were inflicted, the victim was i. Malicious mischief DUTY OF THE COURTS TO APPLY THE LAW
of normal health Note: the crime should not have been committed. Otherwise, there is - It is the duty of judicial officials to enforce the
2. Death may be expected from the injuries no impossible crime to speak of. Only the acts are committed. law as they are, regardless of their personal
3. Death ensued within a reasonable time opinion. The proper remedy at the moment is
2. Act was done with evil intent legislative amendment or executive clemency,
Is the accused criminally liable for the consequences which 3. The accomplishment is inherently impossible or the and not the disposition of the case in accordance
originate through the fault or carelessness of the injured means employed were inadequate or ineffectual with the judge’s personal views. DURA LEX
person? a. Inherent impossibility may be legal impossibility, SED LEX. The wisdom, efficacy, and morality of
The general rule is that a person who commits a felony shall be physical impossibility, or both.
liable for al the logical, natural, and direct consequences of his laws fall in the legislative sphere.
b. Employment of inadequate means - The legislature’s failure to amend the penalties in
act or omission, and that the negligence of the victim is not an
efficient intervening cause that would break the cause and If adequate means were employed but the desired order to reflect the value of money in the present
effect relationship between the felony and the injury. However, results are not achieved, it is frustrated felony. times cannot be cured through decisions of the
if it is proved that the negligence or carelessness of the victim Art 4 does not apply in frustrated felonies. court contrary to what the existing laws say, for
was done with the malicious intent or the intent to increase the c. Employment of ineffectual means that would amount to judicial legislation and
liability of his assailant, the accused is exempted from criminal Inadequate relates more to amount, while would encroach upon the power of another branch
l liability. ineffectual relates more to substance of act. of the government.
4. Act is not a violation of another provision of the RPC
VALLES.Crim1.Notes
ARTICLE 6
STAGES OF CRIME DEVELOPMENT
1. Internal acts
These are not punishable, even if they would
constitute a crime HAD THEY BEEN carried out.
Intent and effect always go together
2. External acts
a. Preparatory acts
General rule: not punishable
Exception: when law provides for their punishment
(e.g possession of picklock as preparatory act to
commit robbery; carrying weapons with which to
kill the intended victim; carrying inflammable
materials to commit arson)
b. Executory acts
These are all punishable.
i. Attempted felony
ii. Frustrated felony
iii. Consummated felony
ATTEMPTED FELONY
There is attempted felony if the offender commences the
commission of the felony directly through overt acts, but
does not perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony by reason of cause or accident other than
his own spontaneous desistance.
ELEMENTS OF ATTEMPTED FELONY:
1. The offender commences the commission of the
felony directly through overt acts
a. There must be external acts
b. Such external acts have a direct connection
with the crime intended to be committed
2. The offender does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony
If he has performed all acts of execution, it is no
longer a mere attempt. It will either be a frustrated or
consummated felony, depending on whether or not
the felony was produced.
3. The offender’s act is not stopped by his personal
desistance
- If he does not perform the overt act as a result of An indeterminate offense is one where the offender in
his own desistance, the law does not punish him. performing and act is not certain.
This is a reward granted by the law to people who
heed the call of their conscience and return to the Subjective Phase is that point where the offender begins the
path of righteousness, after having one foot on the commission of the crime to that point where he still has
verge of crime. Good motive is not necessary. control over his acts and their consequences.
Only the abstinence from the commission of the
act is required. FRUSTRATED FELONY
- Such desistance should be made before all acts of There is frustrated felony when the offender performs all acts
consummation are performed. of execution to produce the felony, but which nevertheless do
- Spontaneous desistance of a malefactor exempts not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of
him from criminal liability for the intended the offender.
crime but not from the crime ALREADY
COMMITTED by him before the desistance.
4. The non-performance of acts of execution was due to
cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance.
An overt act is a physical deed or activity, indicating the
intention to commit a particular time, more than mere
planning or preparation, which if carried to its complete
termination following its natural course, without being
frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary
desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily
ripen into a concrete offense.
• Drawing or trying to draw a pistol is not an overt act
of homicide. It is possible that at any time during the ELEMENTS OF FRUSTRATED FELONY:
subjective stage of the felony, the accused could have 1. The offender performs all acts of execution
voluntarily desisted from performing all acts of The offender must have performed the last act
execution, which would exempt him from criminal necessary to produce the crime. (For example, if the
liability. wound inflicted is mortal, the last act has been
• Raising a bolo as if to strike the offended party with performed. If the gun misses or if the wound inflicted
it is not an overt act of homicide is not mortal, the act is only overt. The last act has not
been performed.)
For an overt act to constitute an attempted offense, it is 2. All acts performed would produce the felony as a
necessary that: consequence
1. Their objective be known and established or 3. Felony is not produced
2. The acts be of such nature that they themselves should 4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the
obviously disclose the criminal objective necessarily perpetrator
intended
VALLES.Crim1.Notes

FRUSTRATED vs ATTEMPTED FELONY Without unlawful taking as an act of execution, the ARTICLE 7
FRUSTRATED FELONY ATTEMPTED FELONY offense could only be attempted. Therefore, there is General Rule: Light felonies are punishable only when they
Criminal purpose of the offender was not accomplished no such thing as a frustrated theft. have been consummated.
Performed all acts Has not performed all acts ESTAFA - The rationale behind the general rule is that these
no intervention from there is intervention during This is consummated upon abuse of confidence and felonies produce light and insignificant moral and
beginning of consummation the period, and such damage to the offended party. material injuries that public conscience is satisfied
of the crime until the acts intervention prevents the ROBBERY BY THE USE OF FORCE UPON with providing a small penalty for their
have been performed execution of all act THINGS consummation. If they are not consummated, the
This is consummated when the offender takes and wrong done is so slight that there is no need for
ATTEMPTED/FRUSTRATED vs IMPOSSIBLE CRIME carries out of the building the thing taken. providing a penalty at all.
ATTEMPTED/FRUSTRATED IMPOSSIBLE CRIME ROBBERY WITH THE USE OF VIOLENCE
Evil intent of the offender was not accomplished AGAINST OR INTIMIDATION OF PERSONS LIGHT FELONIES
Evil intent possible of Evil intent not possible of This is consummated from the moment the person These are infractions of the law for the commission of which
accomplishment accomplishment gets hold of the thing taken or is in a position to the penalty of arresto menor (imprisonment from 1-30 days)
Intervention of cause/event Inherent impossibility dispose of it properly or a fine not exceeding 200, or both, is provided. STAMI
beyond the will of the offender prevents accomplishment c. Manner of committing the felony Light felonies punished by RPC
prevents accomplishment 1. Formal crimes- these are crimes consummated in a. Slight physical injuries
one instant. Either there is a crime or there isn’t. b. Theft
CONSUMMATED FELONY (slander, false testimony, sale of marijuana and c. Alteration of boundary marks
The felony is consummated when all the elements necessary prohibited drugs or acting as broker) d. Malicious mischief
for the execution and accomplishment are present. 2. Crimes consummated by mere proposal or e. Intriguing against honor
If not all elements are proven, then it is either: overt act- examples: proposal to flee to enemy
a. The felony is not shown to have been consummated country and proposal to the minor to satisfy one’s Exception: Crimes committed against persons or properties
b. The felony is not shown to have been committed lust are punishable even when attempted or frustrated.
c. Another felony is shown to have been committed 3. Felony by omission - The rationale behind the exception is that these
4. Crimes requiring the intervention of 2 persons crimes presuppose in the offender moral
In distinguishing among consummated, frustrated, and to commit them are consummated by mere depravity.
attempted felonies, we take into account the following: agreement. If the proposal is rejected by the LIGHT FELONIES AGAINST PERSON & PROPERTY
a. Nature of the offense other, it constitutes attempted felony. PERSON PROPERTY
b. Elements of the felony 5. Material crimes- these are crimes not Slight physical theft by hunting or fishing or gathering
consummated in one single act; they are injuries items in an enclosed estate or when
ARSON
consummated in stages trespass is forbidden when the value of
This is consummated even if only a portion of the the thing stolen does not exceed P5.00
house or structure. There is no attempted impossible crime because in maltreatment Theft where the value of the thing stolen
THEFT impossible crimes, the person has already performed all does not exceed P5.00 and the offender
This is consummated upon actual taking of the acts of execution but the accomplishment is impossible or was prompted by hunger, poverty, or
property with the intent to gain. Appropriation by the ineffective means were employed. In attempted felony, the difficulty of earning
offender is not necessary. It has been held that accused must not have performed all acts of execution. Alteration of boundary marks
unlawful taking is deemed complete from the moment There is no frustrated impossible crime because the acts Malicious mischief where the
that the offender comes into possession of the thing, performed by the offender are considered as consummated damage is not more than 200 or if it
even if he has no opportunity to dispose the same. offense. cannot be estimated.
VALLES.Crim1.Notes
ARTICLE 8
General Rule: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony
are not felonies in themselves and hence, are not punishable.
- The rationale behind is that conspiracy and
proposal to commit a crime are only preparatory
acts, and the law regards them as innocent
- As long as the conspirators do not perform acts in
furtherance of their malevolent design, the
sovereign of the state is not outraged and the
tranquility of the public remains undisturbed.
Exception: They become punishable only in the cases in
which the law specially provides for their punishment.
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT A FELONY
This exists when two or more persons come into an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit
it.
- When there is unity of purpose and unity of
actions to execute the unlawful objective, there is
said to be a conspiracy.
- The acts of the offenders must show a common
design
- Conspiracy arises on the very instant the plotters
agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the
felony and decide to pursue it. The time to afford
the opportunity for meditation and reflection is
NOT required
- QUANTUM OF PROOF: it must be proven
beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence of actual
cooperation, and not mere cognizance or approval
of an illegal act, is required.
REQUISITES:
1. 2 or more persons come to an agreement
2. The agreement concerns the commission of a felony
3. The execution of the felony is decided upon
PROPOSAL TO COMMIT A FELONY
This exists when the person who has decided to commit a
felony proposes its execution to some other person.
There is no criminal proposal when: Also, it is not necessary that the other person accepts the
1. The person who proposes is not determined to commit proposal. If it is accepted, it may be conspiracy to commit the
the felony felony.
2. There is no decided, concrete, and formal proposal
3. It is not the execution of the felony that is proposed ARTICLE 9
This article classifies felonies according to their gravity,
INSTANCES WHEN RPC SPECIALLY PROVIDES A determined by the penalties attached to them.
PENALTY FOR MERE CONSPIRACY
CRIME (conspiracy IMPRISONMENT + FINE GRAVE FELONIES
to commit..) Those to which the law attaches capital punishment or
Treason Prison mayor Not exceed 10k penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive in
Coup Prison mayor (min) Not exceed 8k accordance with Art 25
Rebellion/Insurrection Prison Correccional Not exceed 5k - Capital punishment is death penalty
(max) - Afflictive penalties are the following: R2P3
Sedition Prison mayor (med) Not exceed 2k o Reclusion perpetua
Note: What is punished is the conspiracy, so they must not have o Reclusion temporal
actually committed the felony. If they do, they will be liable for the o Perpetual/temp absolute disqualification
felony itself and the conspiracy is only a manner of incurring o Perpetual/ temporary special disqualification
criminal liability and not a separate offense. When there is o Prision mayor
conspiracy, there is SOLIDARY LIABILITY. The act of one is the -
act of all. They are all considered as co-principals.
The felony is a grave felony if:
INSTANCES WHEN RPC SPECIALLY PROVIDES A 1. There are 2 distinct penalties attached and the higher
PENALTY FOR MERE PROPOSAL of the 2 is an afflictive penalty.
2. The penalty is composed of 2 or more periods
CRIME (conspiracy IMPRISONMENT + FINE
corresponding to different divisible penalties, the
to commit..)
higher of which is an afflictive penalty
Treason Prison Correccional Not exceed 5k
3. The penalty is composed of 2 periods corresponding
Coup Prison mayor (min) Not exceed 8k
to different afflictive penalties
Rebellion/Insurrection Prison Correccional Not exceed 2k
(med)
Note: the felony must not have been committed yet. If already LESS GRAVE FELONIES
committed, the proponent would be liable for such felony as a Those which the law punishes with penalties which in their
principal by inducement. In this case, the proposal is not a separate maximum period are correctional in accordance with Art 25
felony. The following are correctional penalties: D.P.A.S
o Prision correccional
If the proponents desist before any rebellious act is actually o Arresto mayor
performed, they shall be exculpated from liability. But if the o Suspension
proposal to commit the felony has already been made to o Desterrio
another person, the proposal has been consummated and
therefore, the proponent is not relieved from liability. The felony is a less grave felony if:
1. There are 2 distinct penalties attached and the higher
of the 2 is a correctional penalty.
VALLES.Crim1.Notes

2. The penalty is composed of 2 or more periods
corresponding to different divisible penalties, the
higher of which is a correctional penalty
3. The penalty is composed of 2 periods corresponding
to different correctional penalties
LIGHT FELONIES
These are infractions of the law for the commission of which
the penalty of arresto menor (imprisonment from 1-30 days)
or a fine not exceeding 200, or both, is provided.
Public censure is also a light penalty.
Less than 200 Light felony
200 Light felony
Above 200 to 6k Less grave felony
Above 6k Grave felony
ARTICLE 10
Special penal laws are controlling with regard to offenses
therein specifically punished. The general provisions
contained in the RPC only supplement those contained in the
special laws.
- This is applicable only in special penal laws
- RPC is not suppletory to laws which are not penal
in nature
- In order that a crime may be punished in case its
commission reached only the attempted or
frustrated stage of execution, the special law has
to fix a penalty for it.
- When a special law covers the mere attempt to
commit the crime defined by it, the attempted
stage is punishable by the penalty provided by
that law
4. Mitigating or aggravating circumstances not applied
to offenses punishable under special laws.
- Example: voluntary plea of guilt not a mitigating
circumstance under special laws
5. When the special law adopted penalties from the
RPC, the rules for graduating penalties by degrees or
determining the proper period should be applied.
6. There are no accessory penalties unless the special
law provides it.

SPECIAL LAW
This is a law that punishes acts not defined and punished in
the Revised Penal Code.

When provisions in RPC do not apply to special laws

1. When there is legal impossibility, either by express
provision or necessary implication, the RPC is not
suppletory
2. When the provisions in the special law are different or
distinct to those in the RPC, and when the former
contains no reference to the latter, the latter is not
suppletory
3. Rules regarding frustrated, attempted, and
consummated felonies do not apply to offenses
governed by special laws.
 4. ARTICLE 11
JUSTIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCE
article 11
Circumstances affecting criminal liability: J.E.M.A.A d. Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters
1. Justifying circumstances or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees
2. Exempting circumstances and absolutory causes e. And those by consanguinity within the fourth
3. Mitigating circumstances civil degree
4. Aggravating circumstances Provided that:
5. Alternative circumstances a. The first and second requisites prescribed in
the next preceding circumstance are present,
IMPUTABILITY b. And the further requisite, in case the
• It is the quality by which an act may be ascribed to a provocation was given by the person attacked,
person as its author or owner. that the one making defense had no part
• It implies that the act committed has been done freely therein.
and consciously, and therefore, may be put down to 3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights
the doer as his own act of a stranger
RESPONSIBILITY Provided that:
• This is the obligation of suffering the consequences of a. The first and second requisites mentioned in the
crime. first circumstance of this Article are present and
• It is the obligation of taking the penal and civil b. That the person defending be not induced by
consequences of the crime. revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
GUILT 4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or
• Element of responsibility: a man cannot be made to injury, does an act which causes damage to
answer for the consequences of a crime if he is not another
guilty Provided that the following requisites are present;
a. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
ARTICLE 11 b. That the injury feared be greater than that done to
avoid it;
The following do not incur any criminal liability: c. That there be no other practical and less harmful
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, means of preventing it.
provided that the following circumstances concur: 5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or
a. Unlawful aggression. in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to 6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order
prevent or repel it. issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.
c. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights • Those where the act of a person is said to be in
of accordance with the law
a. His spouse • The person is not deemed to have transgressed the law
b. Ascendants • The person is free from criminal and civil liability.
c. Descendants
o An exception is in Paragraph 4 of Article 11.
There is civil liability when a person is
benefited by the act.
BURDEN OF PROOF
The burden of proof is incumbent upon the accused to prove
the justifying circumstance claimed by him in order to avoid
criminal liability
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE #1: SELF-DEFENSE
• It is incumbent upon the accused to prove by clear
and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in
defense of himself.
• Otherwise, conviction would follow his own
admission that he killed the victim.
• He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and
not on the weakness of that for the prosecution. Even
if the evidence of the prosecution is weak, it cannot be
disbelieved after the accused admitted to the killing.
• The plea of self-defense cannot be justifiable
entertained when it is:
o Uncorroborated by separate competent
evidence
o In itself extremely doubtful
• This finds justification in man’s natural instinct to
protect, repel, and save his person or rights from
impending danger or peril.
CLASSICISTS
Lawful defense is grounded on the impossibility on
the part of the State to avoid a present unjust
aggression and protect a person unlawfully attacked;
therefore it is inconceivable for the state to require
that innocent succumb to an unlawful aggression
without resistance
jo valles
article 11
POSITIVISTS
Lawful defense is an exercise of a right, an act of
social justice done to repel the attack of an
aggression.
SELF-DEFENSE REQUISITE #1
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
There are 2 kinds of aggression:
1. Lawful aggression
• This is the fulfillment of a duty or exercise of a right
in a more or less violent manner.
• When the chief of police used violence by throwing
stones at the accused when the latter ran away from
him to elude arrest for a crime committed in his
presence
• A person may use such force reasonably necessary to
repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful
physical invasion or usurpation of his property. He is
not an unlawful aggressor. He is merely exercising a
right.
• When the offended spouse catches the other spouse
having sex with the paramour, such offended spouse
is justified in killing both the offending spouse and
the paramour. This assault is natural and lawful,
performed to defend the honor and rights of the
offended spouse.
• When the deceased seized the accused by the throat
and exerted pressure thereon, this is not considered an
unlawful aggression (US v Padilla). When there is no
peril to one’s life, limb, or right, there is no unlawful
aggression.
2. Unlawful aggression
• A paramour cannot invoke self-defense if the
offended husband (original husband) assaults him.
• An officer exceeding his authority may become an
unlawful aggressor.
o Example: a provincial sheriff carries out the
writ of execution and takes away personal
property that has sentimental value to the
debtor even if other personal properties were
given and were sufficient to satisfy the debt.
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION DEFINED
• This is equivalent to an actual assault or at least a
threat of assault of an immediate and imminent kind.
o In case of threats, the same must be offensive
and positively strong, showing the wrongful
intent to cause an injury.
• There is unlawful aggression when the peril to one’s
life, limb, or right is either actual or imminent.
• There must be actual physical force or actual use of
weapon.
• This presupposes an actual, sudden, and unexpected
attack or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a
threatening or intimidating attitude.
• The aggression must not be imaginary. It must be real
• The aggression may be expected, provided it is real.
• There can be no self-defense unless the victim has
committed an unlawful aggression against the person
defending himself.
• It is necessary that we be assaulted or attacked or that
we be threatened with an attack in an immediate and
imminent manner
- Example: brandishing a knife with which to stab
us or pointing a gun to fire against us
• Without unlawful aggression, the second requisite
will have no basis. There is nothing to prevent or
repel.
WHEN THERE IS NO PERIL TO ONE’S LIFE, LIMB,
OR RIGHT, THERE IS NO UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
PERIL TO ONE’S LIFE
a. Actual- the danger must be present, that is, actually in
existence.
b. Imminent- that the danger is on the point of happening.
It is not required that the attack already begins, because
it might be too late by then
PERIL TO ONE’S LIMB
When a person is attacked he is in imminent danger of death
or bodily harm.
- When the blow with a deadly weapon is aimed at
the vital parts of the body, there is danger to one’s
life.
- When a less deadly weapon that can cause minor
physical injuries is aimed at other parts of the
body, there is danger only to one’s limb.
This may also be actual or imminent, and includes peril to the
safety of one’s person from physical injuries.
THERE MUST BE ACTUAL PHYSICAL FORCE OR
ACTUAL USE OF WEAPON
- Insulting words addressed to the accused, no
matter how objectionable they may have been,
without physical assault, could not constitute
unlawful aggression.
- Slight push on the head with the hand is not
unlawful aggression
- A mere push or shove, not followed by other acts,
does not constitute unlawful aggression.
- Foot-kick greeting is not unlawful aggression.
It is a way of greeting in the form of a practical
joke. Even if it hurts, it is not a serious or real
attack on a person’s safety.
- The alleged act of the victim in placing his hand
in his pocket as if drawing out something is not
unlawful aggression.
- A slap on the face is an unlawful aggression.
The face represents the person and his dignity.
Slapping it is a serious personal attack. It is a
physical assault coupled with a defiance of an
individual’s personality.
RETALLIATION VS SELF-DEFENSE
jo valles
article 11
In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured
party had already ceased when the accused attacked him.
- When a person inflicts slight physical injuries on
another (without intention to inflict other
injuries), and the latter attacked the former, the
one making the attack is an unlawful aggressor.
The aggression has ceased
- Retaliation is not a justifying circumstance
because under the law, the defender no longer
has the right to kill or wound the former
aggressor when the unlawful aggression ceases.
In self-defense, the aggression by the injured party was still
existing wen the accused attack him.
- When a person is about to strike another with fist
blows and the latter, to prevent or repel the blows,
stabs the former with a knife, the act of striking
with fist blows is an act of unlawful aggression
that may justify the use of the knife. In this case,
there is self-defense.
When a person who was insulted, slightly injured or
threatened, made a strong retaliation by attacking the one
who gave the insult or caused a slight injury or made a
threat, such person becomes the offender and the injury,
threat or insult that he received is only a provocation that
mitigates his liability.
SELF-DEFENSE IN HOMICIDE
In order that self-defense may be invoked, it is essential that:
a. The killing of the deceased by the defendant be
simultaneous with the attack of the deceased
b. Or both acts succeeded each other without
appreciable interval of time
- The accused had no time nor occasion for
deliberation and cool thinking.
THE UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION MUST COME FROM
THE PERSON WHO WAS ATTACKED BY THE
ACCUSED
In order to constitute self-defense, unlawful aggression must
come, directly or indirectly, from the person
FACTORS AFFECTING CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE
1. Nature, character, location, and extent of the wound
of the accused allegedly inflicted by the injured party
may belie the claim of self-defense
2. Improbability of the deceased being the aggressor
belies the claim of self-defense
3. The fact that the accused declined to give any
statement when he surrendered to a policeman is
inconsistent with the claim of self-defense
- When one is placed in an inculpatory
predicament, the natural or spontaneous reaction
would be a protestation of innocence or
justification
4. Physical fact may determine whether the accused
acted in self-defense
- The revolver of the victim was still tucked inside
the waistband of his pants, indicating his
unpreparedness when he was shot 13 times. This
belies the claim of self-defense
WHEN THE AGGRESSOR FLEES
General Rule:
When the aggressor flees, the unlawful aggression no longer
exists. In this case, one may no longer invoke self-defense if
he causes harm to said aggressor.
Exception:
If it is clear that the aggressor, in retreating, intended to take a
more advantageous position to insure the success of the attack
already begun by him, the unlawful aggression is still
continuing, and the one making the defense has a right to
pursue him in his retreat and to disable him.
In this case, self-defense may be invoked.
NO UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION WHEN THERE IS AN
AGREEMENT TO FIGHT
• In concerted fights, each of the protagonists is
considered to be both assailant and assaulted.
o It is immaterial who attacks or receives the
wounds first, for the first act of force is an
incident of the fight itself, and in no case can
it be considered to be unwarranted or
unexpected, which would legalize self-
defense.
• Neither can invoke the right of self-defense because
aggression which is an incident in the fight is bound
to arise from one or the other of the combatants.
• There must be acceptance of both parties.
o He who does not accept may invoke self-
defense
o There is no acceptance when there is an
aggression ahead of the stipulated time and
place. In this case, the aggression would be
unlawful notwithstanding the agreement to
fight, and may justify self-defense
VOLUNTARILY JOINING A FIGHT
• When one voluntarily joins a fight, the claim of self-
defense will not prosper
• In voluntarily joining, he voluntarily exposed himself
to the consequence of a fight with his opponents
• It is also immaterial who received the first wounds or
who attacked first. The first attack which came from
either party is but an incident of the fight.
• When one agrees to engage in a fight, he cannot
plead self-defense because there was no unlawful
aggression to speak of.
STAND GROUND WHEN IN THE RIGHT
jo valles
article 11
• Where the accused is where he has the right to be, the
law does not require him to retreat when his assailant
is rapidly advancing upon him with a deadly weapon.
• If one flees from an aggressor, he runs the risk of
being attacked in the back.
DETERMINING THE UNLAWFUL AGGRESSOR
In the absence of direct evidence to determine who provoked
the conflict, it has been held that it shall be presumed that, in
the nature of order of things:
- The person who was deeply offended by the insult
was the one who believed he had a right to
demand explanation of the perpetrator of the
insult
- And the one who also truck the first blow when
he was not satisfied with the explanation
In short, it is the accused.
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION IN DEFENSE OF
OTHER RIGHTS
1. DEFENSE OF RIGHT TO CHASTITY
2. DEFENSE OF PROPERTY
3. DEFENSE OF HOME
DEFENSE OF RIGHT TO CHASTITY
The following are considered to be unlawful aggression:
- Embracing a woman, touching her private parts
and her breasts, and throwing her to the ground
for purposes of raping her
- Placing of a man’s hand on a woman’s upper
thigh
A woman imperiled may kill her offender if it is the only
means left for her to protect her honor from so grave an
outrage.
DEFENSE OF PROPERTY
Art 429 of the Civil Code provides:
The owner or lawful possessor of the thing has the right to
exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof.
For this purpose, he may use such force as may be
necessary to repeal or prevent an actual or threatened
unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property.
- The burden of proving the fact that there was
unlawful aggression falls upon the accused
- Defense of property may be invoked as a
justifying circumstance only when it is coupled
with an attack on the person entrusted with
said property.
o Defense of property, whether complete or
incomplete, must be coupled with an
attack by the one getting the property on
the person defending it.
o This is because the defense of property is
not as important as the right to life.
DEFENSE OF HOME
• When the manner of entry clearly constitutes an act o
aggression, the owner of the house need not wait for a
blow before repelling the aggression, as that blow
may be fatal.
• When a person is attacked in his own house, he has
the right to protect it and those within it, from the
intrusion or the attack.
o Such person is not obliged to retreat, but may
pursue his adversary until he has secured
himself from danger.
• Even if there is an element of danger to the
inhabitants, it may not always be the case that there is
a reasonable necessity of killing the assailant.
• The courts must not hesitate to sustain the theory of
self-defense when a thief or robber shows aggression
by overt acts instead of fear or desire to escape upon
apprehension.
BELIEF OF THE ACCUSED IN DETERMINING
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
The belief of the accused may be considered in determining
the existence of unlawful aggression
• 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 UNLAWFUL
AGGRESSION
A mere threatening or intimidating attitude, not preceded by
an outward and material aggression, is not unlawful
aggression.
A mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient to
justify the commission of the act that would otherwise be
punishable.
It is required that:
1. The act be offensive and positively strong
2. Showing the wrongful intent of the aggressor to
cause an injury.
EXAMPLES OF THREATS TO INFLICT REAL
INJURY
1. When one aims a revolver at another with the
intention of shooting him
2. The act of a person in retreating 2 steps and placing
his hand in his pocket with a motion indicating his
purpose to commit an assault with weapon
3. The act of opening a knife, making a motion as if to
make an attack.
4. When picking up of a weapon is preceded by
circumstances indicating the intention of the deceased
to use it in attacking the defendant
5. When intent to attack is manifest, picking up of
weapon is sufficient unlawful aggression.
SELF-DEFENSE REQUISITE #2
REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS
EMPLOYED TO PREVENT OR REPEL IT
In making a defense, we:
a. Prevent aggression that places us in imminent danger
jo valles
article 11
b. Repel the aggression that places us in actual danger
• This second requisite presupposes the existence of
unlawful aggression.
• This means that there must be reasonable:
o Necessity of the course of action taken by the
person who makes a defense
o Necessity of the means used
- Reasonableness of necessity depends upon the
circumstances of each case because in
emergencies where a person’s life is imperiled,
human nature does not act upon formal thoughts
or processes but in obedience to the instinct of
self-preservation.
NECESSITY OF THE COURSE OF ACTION TAKEN
This depends on the existence of unlawful aggression.
- If there is no unlawful aggression, or if it has
ceased to exist, then there is no necessity for the
action taken as there is nothing more to prevent or
repel.
The following must be taken into consideration:
a. Place and occasion of the assault
b. The darkness of the night and the surprise which
characterized the assault
NO NECESSITY OF THE COURSE OF ACTION
The theory of self-defense is based on the necessity on the
part of the person attacked to prevent or repel the
unlawful aggression. When the danger of risk disappears,
his actions while defending himself should stop as well.
- Example, after one has successfully disarmed his
aggressor, there is no more need for killing.
- When the aggressor has been disarmed and
thereafter manifested a refusal to fight, the
accused is not justified in killing him. The danger
of risked had already ceased.
MINOR PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED AFTER
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
Self-defense may be invoked if:
a. The mortal wounds were inflicted by the accused on
the aggressor at the time when the requisites of
complete self-defense were present.
b. Minor physical injuries were inflicted after the
aggression ceased to exist an there is no proof that the
relatively small wounds contributed to or hastened the
death of the deceased.
The rationale behind this is that it is presumed that the main
cause of death of the unlawful aggressor were the mortal
wounds incurred when unlawful aggression was still present,
at such time the accused was justified in inflicting mortal
wounds for self-defense.
Therefore, this will not be applied if it could be shown that the
wounds inflicted after the aggression had ceased caused the
death. Self-defense may no longer be invoked in this case.
PERSON DEFENDING IS NOT EXPECTED TO
CONTROL HIS BLOW
• In emergencies where a person’s life is imperiled,
human nature does not act upon formal thoughts or
processes but in obedience to the instinct of self-
preservation.
• The person defending himself cannot be expected to
think clearly so as to control his blow.
o However, this is not a license to kill.
o The defense of one’s person or rights does not
necessarily amount to the killing of the
unlawful aggressor.
• Rational necessity is to be found in the situation as it
appeared to the petitioner at the time when the blow
was struck, and not at a time when he had the
opportunity to reflect coolly.
ACT OF DEFENSE TO BE EXERCISED W/ DUE CARE
In repelling or preventing an unlawful aggression, the one
defending must aim at his assailant, and not indiscriminately
fire his deadly weapon.
NECESSITY OF THE MEANS USED
The means used must be rationally necessary to prevent or
repel an unlawful aggression.
Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel
unlawful aggression to be liberally construed in favor of law-
abiding citizens.
- When a lawless person attacks, he should assume
risk of losing his life from the act of self-defense
of the victim
- Otherwise, law-abiding citizens will be at the
mercy of lawless elements.
TEST OF REASONABLENESS
• The reasonableness of the means employed will
depend upon:
a. The nature and quality of the weapon used by the
aggressor, his physical condition, character, size,
and other circumstances
b. The nature and quality of the weapon used by the
person defending, his physical condition, character,
size, and other circumstances
c. Place and location of the assault
• Perfect quality between the weapons is not required,
because the assaulted person does not have sufficient
tranquility of mind to think, to calculate, and to
choose which weapon to use.
• Reasonable necessity of the means employed does not
imply material commensurability between the means
of attack and defense.
o What the law requires is rational
equivalence.
jo valles
article 11
o The emergency, and the instinct (more than
reason) that impels the defense, and the
proportionality rests upon the imminent
danger of the injury.
NATURE AND QUALITY OF WEAPON
The weapon used is reasonable if it cannot be shown that the
person assaulted:
a. Had other available means
b. If there were other means, he could coolly choose
the less deadly weapon to repel the assault.
• As a general rule, a dagger or knife is more dangerous
than a club
• As a general rule, there is no difference when one
uses a firearm against a dagger or a knife.
• Using a pocket knife against a cane is reasonable.
• Use of revolver against an aggressor armed with a
bolo is reasonable, when the aggressor was advancing
upon the accused and within a few feet of striking
distance.
• When a person is attacked with fist blows, he must
repel the same with a weapon of the same nature. That
is, with fists also.
PEACE OFFICER DEFENDING HIMSELF
In the performance of his duty, the peace officer represents the
law he must uphold.
- The law allows an individual to prevent or repel
an aggression
- The law requires a peace officer to overcome his
opponent.
The police officer is not required to afford a person
attacking him, the opportunity for a fair and equal
struggle.
- Again, this is not a license to kill.
SELF-DEFENSE REQUISITE #3
LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION ON THE
PART OF THE PERSON DEFENDING HIMSELF
When the person defending himself from the attack by another
gave sufficient provocation to the latter, the former is also to
be blamed for giving cause for the aggression.
In the following cases, the third requisite is present, that is
there is lack of sufficient provocation:
• No provocation at all
• There was provocation, but it was not sufficient
• It was sufficient, but it was not given by the person
defending himself
• The provocation was given by the person defending
himself but it was not the proximate and immediate to
the act of aggression.
- Example, if A slapped B 2 days ago, such act of
slapping is not the immediate or proximate to the
subsequent aggression made by B.
SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION
• A provocation is sufficient if it is proportionate to the
act of aggression and adequate to stir the aggressor to
its commission.
• To be sufficient, it is not necessary that the person
committing the act should be guilty of committing
violence.
• In the following cases, there is sufficient provocation:
o When one challenges another to come out to
see who the better man is
o When one hurls insults or imputes to another
the utterance of vulgar language. This is
sufficient provocation but not necessarily an
unlawful aggression.
o When the accused tried to forcibly kiss the
sister of the deceased.
BATTERED WOMAN
• A battered woman is one who is repeatedly
subjected to 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.
o May include any woman in any form of
intimate relationship with a man.
o To be classified as such, the couple must go
through the battering cycle at least twice.
• Victim-survivors who suffer from battered woman
syndrome do not incur criminal or civil liability
notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements
for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the
RPC.
• In the determination of the state of mind of the victim,
the court shall be assisted by a psychiatrist or a
psychologist.
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE # 2: DEFENSE OF
RELATIVES
Affinity- relationship that arises as a result of marriage
Consanguinity- relationship by blood
The justification for defense of relatives is founded upon
humanitarian sentiment and upon the impulse of blood that
impels men to the rescue of those close to them by ties of
blood on the occasion of great perils.
REQUISITES
a. Unlawful aggression
b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it
c. In case the provocation was given by the person
attacked, that the one making defense had no part
therein.
jo valles
article 11
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
• This is a condition sine qua non, without this there
can be no defense of a relative
• Unlawful aggression can exist as a matter of fact or it
can be made to depend upon the honest belief of the
one making a defense.
- A wife who finds her husband being beaten up by
2 men is justified in killing the aggressors of her
husband if she believed in good faith that her
husband was the victim of an unlawful
aggression.
REASONABLE NECESSITY
• Rational necessity is to be found in the situation as it
appeared to the person making the defense at the
time when the blow was struck, and not at a time
when he had the opportunity to reflect coolly
• The reasonableness of the means adopted lies on the
imminent danger against the subject of the attack as
perceived by the defender and the instinct (more than
reason) that moves the defender to move the attack.
IN CASE PROVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE
PERSON ATTACKED
In case provocation was given by the person attacked (the
relative), a legitimate defense of a relative may be raised
provided that the one defending the relative has no part in the
provocation.
- The person making the defense must not have
induced the defended to provoke the deceased
- Even if the person defending the relative was
induced by revenge or hatred, as long as the 3
requisites are present, there will still be a
legitimate defense.
The reason behind this is because the provocation on the part
of the defended does not extend to the one defending, who was
prompted by some noble or generous sentiment in protecting
or saving a relative.
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE #3: DEFENSE OF A
STRANGER
The justification for this kind of defense is founded upon the
principle that what one may do in his defense, another may do
for him.
STRANGER- any person not included in the enumeration of
relatives by affinity or by consanguinity in Paragraph 2 shall
be deemed a stranger.
REQUISITES
a. Unlawful aggression
b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it
c. That the person defending be not induced by revenge,
resentment, or other evil motive.
- This requirement is satisfied even if the person
defending has a standing grudge against the
assailant, provided that he enters upon the defense
of a stranger out of generous motive to save the
stranger from serious bodily harm or possible
death.
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE #4: AVOIDANCE OF
GREATER EVIL OR INJURY
The damage referred to in here covers injury to persons and
damage to property.
REQUISITES
a. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
b. That the injury feared be greater than that done to
avoid it;
- The greater evil should not be brought about by
the negligence or imprudence of the actor.
- The greater evil should not be brought about by
the violation of law of the actor.
- The killing of the fetus to save the life of the
mother is justified.
- Self-preservation will always make one feel that
his own safety is of greater importance than that
of the other.
c. That there be no other practical and less harmful
means of preventing
CIVIL LIABILITY
• In all other justifying circumstances, there is no civil
liability. Under this paragraph civil liability is borne
by the persons who benefited.
• the persons for whose benefit the harm has been
prevented shall be liable in proportion to the benefit
which they have received.
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE #5: FULLFILMENT
OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF RIGHT OR
OFFICE
• Shooting of prisoner by guard must be in self-defense
or be absolutely necessary to avoid his escape.
• Shooting an offender who refused to surrender is
justified
• Shooting a thief who refused to be arrested is not
justified
• Legitimate performance of duty is presumed
• An officer is never justified in using unnecessary
force or in treating the offender with wanton violence
or in resorting to dangerous means when the arrest
could be effected otherwise.
o No violence or unnecessary force shall be
used in making an arrest, and the person
arrested shall not be subject to any greater
restraint than is necessary for his detention.
• Duty of the police officer to make arrests
o Generally there should be a warrant of arrest
o If there is none, an arrest is justified if the
violation was committed in their own
presence.
jo valles
article 11
REQUISITES
a. The accused acted in the performance of a duty or in
the lawful exercise of a right or office
b. The injury caused or the offense committed be the
necessary consequence of the due performance of
duty or lawful exercise of such right or office.
LAWFUL EXERCISE OF RIGHT
Art 429 of the Civil Code provides:
The owner or lawful possessor of the thing has the right to
exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof.
For this purpose, he may use such force as may be
necessary to repeal or prevent an actual or threatened
unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property.
• When there is unlawful aggression against the person
charged with the protection of the property, defense
of right to property under Paragraph 1 will apply.
• When there is no unlawful aggression against the
person charged with the protection of the property,
lawful exercise of a right under Paragraph 5 will
apply.
ACTUAL INVASION OF PROPERTY
a. Disturbance of possession
Force may be used against it any time even beyond
the prescriptive period for forcible entry
b. Real dispossession
Force to gain repossession can be used only
immediately after the dispossession.
In immovable properties, delay, even if excusable,
will bar the right to use of force. Once the usurper’s
possession has become firm by the lapse of time, the
lawful possessor must resort to the competent
authority to recover his property.
LAWFUL EXERCISE OF OFFICE
- An executioner who executes a criminal is not
liable for murder because he is acting in the
lawful exercise of his office.
- A surgeon who amputates a person is not liable
for mutilation because he is acting in the lawful
exercise of his office
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE #6: OBEDIENCE TO
AN ORDER ISSUED FOR SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE
REQUISITES:
a. The order has been issued by a superior
b. Such order must be for some lawful purpose
c. The means used by the subordinate to carry out such
purpose is lawful.
Note: Both the person who gives and executes the order must
act within the limitations prescribed by law.
- Hence, if an executioner executes a criminal a day
before the prescribed date, such executioner is
liable for murder.
• When the order is not for a lawful purpose, the
subordinate who obeyed it is criminally liable
• The subordinate is not liable criminally for carrying
out an illegal order of his superior if he is not aware
that the order was illegal and that he is not negligent.
o He must be in good faith
o He must not be negligent
jo valles
 6. ARTICLE 13
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
These are circumstances which, if present, the commission of
the crime do not entirely free the actor from criminal liability,
but serve only to reduce the penalty.
The presence of mitigating circumstances only reduces the
penalty, but does not change the nature of the crime.
- The basis of this is the diminution of:
o Freedom of action
o Intelligence
o Intent
o Lesser perversity of the offender
- Note that in exempting circumstances, there is
absence, not mere diminution of the factors
enumerated above.
TYPES OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
ORDINARY MITIGATING
- Contained in subsections 1-10 of Article 13
- This is contained in the first subsection of Article 13,
if Article 69 is not applicable.
PRIVILEGED MITIGATING
a. Art 68: Penalty to be imposed upon a person under 18
years- when the offender is below 18 and his case
falls under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, the
following rules shall be observed:
1. Exempt from criminal liability
o Offenders under fifteen up to 15 years old
o Offenders over fifteen but under 18,
provided that they acted without
discernment.
2. Penalty next lower than that prescribed by law
(but always in the proper period) shall be
imposed:
o Offenders over 15 but under 18, and they
acted with discernment.
b. Art 69: Penalty to be imposed when the crime
committed is not wholly excusable
o Penalty lower by one or two degrees than
that prescribed by law shall be imposed of the
deed is not wholly excusable
o The reason why it is not wholly excusable is
because of the lack of some conditions
required to justify or exempt the act from
criminal liability
o Provided, that the majority of such
conditions are present.
c. Art 64: Rules for application of penalties which
contain three periods.
o When there are 2 or more mitigating
circumstances and no aggravating
circumstances, the court shall impose the
penalty lower to that prescribed by the law, in
the period that it may deem applicable,
according to the number and manner of such
circumstance.
o This is applicable whether the penalty is a
single divisible penalty or it is composed of
three different penalties
Privileged mitigating circumstances are applicable only to
particular crimes:
a. Voluntary release of person illegally detained:
o within 3 days
o without the offender attaining his purpose
o before the institution of the criminal actions
b. Abandonment without justification of the spouse who
committed adultery. (penalty one degree lower)
ORDINARY VS PRIVILEGED MITIGATING
ORDINARY PRIVILEGED
Can be offset by aggravating Cannot be offset by
circumstances aggravating circumstances
If not offset by aggravating If not offset by aggravating
circumstance, the penalty that circumstance, the penalty
will be applied is the penalty imposed is one or two
in its minimum period (in degrees lower than that
case of divisible penalty) prescribed by law.
ARTICLE 13
The following are mitigating circumstances:
RE-AGE, IN-PRO-VIN, IM-SURE-DEF, ILL-O
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all
the requisites necessary to justify or to exempt from
criminal liability in the respective cases are not
attendant.
2. That the offender is under eighteen years of age or
over seventy years. (Age)
o In the case of the minor, he shall be
proceeded against in accordance with the
provisions of Art. 80
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so
grave a wrong as that committed.
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of
the offended party immediately preceded the act
5. That the act was committed in the immediate
vindication of a grave offense to
a. the one committing the felony (delito),
b. his spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity
within the same degrees.
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as
naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself
to a person in authority or his agents, or that he had
voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior
to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or
otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus
restricts his means of action, defense, or
communications with his fellow beings.
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the
exercise of the will-power of the offender without
depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.
10. Any other circumstances of a similar nature and
analogous to those above-mentioned
jo valles
 Paragraph 1:
NOT ALL REQUISITES TO JUSTIFY OR EXEMPT AN
ACT ARE PRESENT:
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES- liabilities under all
paragraphs of Article 11 may be mitigated in the absence of
any requisite provided that majority thereof are present.
a. Self-defense
b. Defense of a relative
c. Defense of stranger
d. State of necessity
e. Performance of duty
f. Obedience to order of superior
Incomplete defense of self, relatives and/or stranger
• The existence of unlawful aggression is an
indispensable requisite. Without this, there is no
defense to speak of.
• Hence, this provision is applicable only when the first
requisite of defense is present and the other 2 are
absent
• When 2/3 of the requisites are present, it is considered
as a privileged mitigating circumstance as per Art
69.
Incomplete justifying circumstance: performance of duty
There are 2 requisites to justify this:
- There must be a duty or lawful exercise of right or
office
- The injury caused must be the necessary consequence
thereof
When 1 of 2 requisites is present, Art 69 is applicable. ½ is
deemed to constitute the majority.
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES- only paragraph 3
(above 15 but below 18) paragraph 4 (causing injury by
accident) and paragraph 6 (uncontrollable fear) may be
mitigated.
o There can be no mitigation in paragraph
1because there is no middle ground between
sanity and insanity. It’s either you’re crazy or
not.
o There can be no mitigation in paragraph 2
because there is no middle ground between
the presence or absence of intelligence.
Incomplete circumstance of minority over 15 and under 18
years of age
To be exempt, the minor referred to above must not have
acted with discernment. If he acts, with discernment, he is not
exempted from liability. But his liability is mitigated.
Incomplete exempting circumstance of accident
To be exempt, there are 4 requisites:
- Lawful act
- Due care
- Injury caused by accident
- No fault or intent
For there to be a mitigating circumstance, only the second
requisite (due care) and the 1st part of the fourth requisite may
be absent.
- There is mitigating circumstance in the sense that the
offender is liable only for culpable felony instead of
intentional felony.
o Because if the first requirement and the 2nd
part of the 4th requisite are absent, then it
follows that the third requisite is absent as
well.
o In this case, there is no mitigating
circumstance at all. There is in effect
intentional felony.
Incomplete exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear
There are 2 requisites for exemption:
- Fear of equal or greater evil
- Said evil is of such gravity and imminence that an
ordinary person would have succumbed
If only one is present, there is a privileged mitigating
circumstance. (1 is majority of 2).
In People vs Magpantay, when there was lack of requisite, the
court lowered the period of the penalty. However the author
believes that Article 69 should apply.
Incomplete exempting circumstance of performance of
duty
There are 2 requisites for exemption:
- The accused was acting in the performance of the
duty or exercise of a right or office
- The injury caused or offense committed be the
necessary consequence of the due performance of
such duty or the lawful exercise of such right or
office.
If only one is present, there is a privileged mitigating
circumstance. (1 is majority of 2).
Paragraph 2:
AGE
The basis is the diminution of intelligence, which is an
element of voluntariness.
This provision has been repealed by RA 9344 or the Juvenile
Justice Welfare Act of 2006. The effects are as follows:
EXEMPT
- If the child is 15 years old and above and acted with
discernment.
MITIGATED
- If the child is 15 years old and above and acted
without discernment.
- The child is known as a child in conflict with the law
and shall undergo diversion programs.
DIVERSION
This refers to an alternative, child-appropriate process of
determining the responsibility and treatment of a child in
conflict with the law on the basis of his or her social, cultural,
economic, psychological, or educational background without
resulting to formal court proceedings.
jo valles
DIVERSION PROGRAM
This is a program that the child in conflict with the law is
required to undergo after he or she is found responsible for an
offense without resorting to formal court proceedings.
a. When the imposable penalty is not more than 6
years of imprisonment, a mediation, family
conferencing, and conciliation, and when
appropriate, adopt indigenous method of conflict
resolution.
o A contract of diversion may be entered into
during this process of conferencing,
mediation, and conciliation.
▪ Failure to comply with the terms and
conditions of this contract of
diversion shall give the offended
party the option to institute the
appropriate legal action.
o If, during this process, the child voluntarily
admits to the commission of the act, it shall
not be used against him in any subsequent
proceeding.
o The period of prescription of the offense shall
be suspended until the completion of the
diversion proceedings, but not to exceed 45
days.
o The period of prescription of the offense shall
be suspended until the completion of the
diversion program, but not to exceed 2
years. The local social welfare and
development officer shall supervise the
diversion program.
▪ A child shall present himself to the
competent authorities that imposed
the diversion program at least once a
month for reporting and evaluation.
b. In victimless crimes where the imposable penalty is
not more than 6 years of imprisonment, the local
social welfare and development officer shall meet
with the child and the parents for the development of
the appropriate diversion and rehabilitation program,
in coordination with the Brgy Council for the
Protection of Children.
c. Where the imposable penalty is more than 6 years,
diversion measures may be resorted to only by the
court.
AGE OF OVER 70 YEARS
- This is only a generic mitigating circumstance.
- Prior to the enactment of RA 9346 that prohibits the
imposition of penalty, a person over 70 years of age
had a privileged mitigating circumstance:
o When an offense is punishable by death
penalty, the penalty shall not be imposed. It
shall be lowered to life imprisonment.
o When the death sentence has already been
imposed, it shall be suspended and
commuted. It shall be lowered to life
imprisonment.
Paragraph 3
NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG
AS THAT COMMITTED.
The basis is that the element of voluntariness in intentional
felony is diminished.
This provision shall be applicable only when there is notable
and evident disproportion between the means employed to
execute the criminal act and its consequences.
- Intention, being an internal state, must be judged by
external acts.
- This is judged through the proportion of the means
employed and also the fact that the blow was or was
not aimed at a vital part of the body.
- The weapon used, the part of the body injured, the
injury inflicted, and the manner it is inflicted may
show that the accused intended the wrong committed.
- If, through the manner of attack, death could
reasonably be anticipated, the accused shall be
presumed to have intended the natural consequence of
his wrongful act.
- Inflicting of 5 stab wounds in rapid succession
negates pretense of lack of intention.
- Brute force negates the claim that he had no intention
to kill the victim.
o It is the intention of the offender at the
moment when he is committing the crime
which is considered, not the intention during
the planning stage.
- If conspiracy is proven, one of the co-conspirators
cannot claim mitigating circumstance for lack of
intent. The act of one is the act of all.
- The court must appreciate as mitigating circumstance
the fact that the physical injuries inflicted on the
victim could not have resulted naturally and logically
to his death if the latter’s health was in good
condition.
o Note that in Art 4, one is liable for results that
he did not intend when committing a felony,
and the poor health of the victim cannot
excuse him from liability.
o However, it may mitigate his liability.
- When applicable in certain crimes:
o Applicable in robbery with homicide
o Not appreciated in murder qualified by
treachery
o When the victim does not die as are result o
the assault, the absence of the intent to kill
reduces the felony to mere physical injuries,
but it does not constitute a mitigating
circumstance.
o This is not applicable to felonies by
negligence. In culpable felonies, there is no
intent to speak of in the first place.
o This is not applicable to a woman who causes
unintentional abortion to herself
▪ However, this is applicable when one
person unintentionally causes
abortion to another.
o This is applicable only to offenses resulting in
physical injuries or material harm.
jo valles
 ▪ Not appreciated in defamation or
slander.
▪ But it is applicable in malversation of
public funds.
Paragraph 4
PROVOCATION OR THREAT ON THEE PART OF
THE OFFENDED PARTY
The basis is diminution of intelligence and intent.
PROVOCATION
It is any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended
party, capable of exciting, inciting or irritating anyone.
Requisites to claim mitigation of liability:
a. It must be sufficient
b. It must come from the offended party
c. It must be immediate to the act
SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION
It is sufficient if it is adequate to excite a person to commit the
wrong and must accordingly be proportionate to its gravity.
- This will depend upon the act constituting the
provocation, the social stranding of a person, or the
place and time when the provocation is made.
- Provocation on the part of the deceased or the victim
may not be acceptable for self-defense on the part of
the accused, but it may mitigate his liability.
WHEN SUFFICIENT
- When the deceased challenged the accused to a fight
and the latter accepts, there is no self-defense. But
there is a mitigating circumstance.
o However, if the defendant sought the
deceased after which the latter challenged the
former and the former accepted, there can be
no mitigating circumstance. The accused was
ready and willing to fight when he was
challenged.
- When the deceased hit the accused on the eye with his
fist before the fight
- When the deceased abused and ill-treated the accused
by kicking and cursing the latter
-When the aggression is in retaliation for an insult, a. There be a grave offense done to:
injury, or threat, there is no self-defense, but there is a o The person committing the felony
mitigating circumstance. o His spouse
WHEN NOT SUFFICIENT o Ascendants, descendants
- The performance of duty by the victim can never be a o Legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or
source of provocation sisters or relatives by affinity within the same
degree
MUST ORIGINATE FROM THE OFFENDED PARTY ▪ This also applies to the surviving
Hence, when the deceased merely tried to stop the accused spouse of a deceased relative
and another person from fighting and did not give any other b. The felony is committed in vindication of such grave
reason for the accused to attack him, the provocation given by offense.
the other person cannot be taken as a mitigating circumstance o A lapse of time is allowed between the
in killing the deceased. vindication and the doing of the grave
offense.
PROVOCATION IMMEDIATE TO THE COMMISSION o The term immediate used by the law is
OF THE CRIME actually erroneous. It is supposed to be
There must be no time interval between the provocation and proximate.
the commission of the crime o The provocation must also be proportionate to
- Hence, the provocation by the deceased in the first the damage caused by the act and it should be
stage of the debt is not a mitigating circumstance adequate to stir one into its commission.
when the accused killed him after he had fled.
- The reason for this is that the conduct of the offended PROVOCATION VS VINDICATION
party or the victim could no longer have excited the PROVOCATION VINDICATION
accused to the commission of the crime, he having Must be made directly to the may be made to others (see
had the time to regain his reason and to exercise self- person committing the felony enumeration)
control. Grave offense not necessary There must be a grave
- Provocation may also come in the form of threats. offense
o The threat need not be offensive and The provocation must The vindication may be
positively strong. immediately precede the act proximate, that is, an interval
▪ However, vague threats are not of time is allowed
sufficient either. There is greater leniency in terms of vindication because of
o If it is strong and offensive, the threat to the fact that it concerns the honor of a person, an offense
conflict real injury is an unlawful aggression which is more worthy of consideration than mere spite against
which may give rise to self-defense. the one giving the provocation or threat.
o
Paragraph 5 GRAVE OFFENSE
VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE This is to be decided by the court, taking into account the:
The basis is the diminution of the conditions of a. Social standing of the person
voluntariness b. Place
Requisites: c. Time insult was made
jo valles
Instances of grave offense:
- When the deceased insulted a 70 year old man in a
party in front of so many people
- Calling someone a Japanese spy during the time
when the US had just started to occupy the PH
- A person kills another for having found him in the act
of committing an attempt against the accused’s wife.
- However, a general remark not directed against the
accused or his relatives as enumerated cannot be
considered a grave offense. (parinig, in short)
Paragraph 6
IMPULSE
This is based on the diminution of the exercise of one’s
intelligence and intent.
Requisites:
a. The accused acted upon an impulse
b. The impulse is so powerful that it naturally produced
passion or obfuscation in him.
o Because when there are causes naturally
producing in a person powerful excitement,
he loses his reason and self-control, thereby
diminishing the exercise of his will power.
o Note that the cause producing the passion or
obfuscation must come from the offended
party.
o It may also arise in the honest belief of the
offender
RULES OF APPLICATION
Passion and obfuscation may constitute a mitigating
circumstance only when the action arose from lawful
sentiments.
- When the common law wife, after 5 years of
relationship and living together as husband and wife
without the benefit of marriage, decides to live with
another man and the common law husband decides to
kill her for that, mitigating circumstance cannot be
availed of because the causes of loss of self-control
must arise from legitimate feelings and not from
vicious, unworthy, and immoral passions. US vs Hicks
- But if the common law husband catches the common
law wife in flagrante in the arms of another man, the
former is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
passion and obfuscation, because the impulse was
caused by the sudden revelation that she was
untrue to him.
- The accused has been living with the deceased as the
former’s common law wife for 15 years. The latter
had helped support the house of the man, who later
married another woman. The common law wife is
likewise entitled to the mitigating circumstance. Her
feelings arose from lawful sentiments because the
facts could not but arouse that natural feeling of
despair in the woman who saw her life broken and
found herself abandoned by the very man whom she
considered for so long to be her husband.
- When the woman wounded her common law husband
when he abandoned her after taking advantage of her,
it was held that the mitigating circumstance could be
availed of because of the harsh treatment which the
deceased gave her a short time before she stabbed
him.
Hence, this will not apply when:
a. The act is committed in a spirit of lawlessness
b. The act is committed in spirit of revenge
CONDITIONS FOR INVOKING PASSION OR
OBFUSCATION AS MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
a. There be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to
produce such a condition of mind
o The crime must be provoked by prior unjust
or improper acts of the injured party.
o Hence, a common-law husband cannot
compel the common-law wife to come home.
The refusal of the latter to go home is a valid
exercise of her right and cannot be a source of
sufficient provocation.
o The fulfillment of a duty is not a proper
source of passion or obfuscation.
b. The said act which produced the obfuscation was not
far removed from the commission of the crime by a
considerable length of time, during which the
perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity.
o No passion or obfuscation after 24 hours,
several hours, or half an hour after the cause
and before the commission of the crime.
o The burden of proving that the act was not far
removed from the commission of the crime
lies on the defense.
o Circumstance of passion and obfuscation
cannot be mitigating in a crime which was
planned and calmly meditated before its
execution.
OBFUSCATION ARISING FROM JEALOUSY
- Cannot be invoked in favor of the accused whose
relationship with the victim was illegitimate.
- Acceptable when killing arose from rivalry for the
hand of a woman
- Loss of reason and self-control due to jealousy
between rival lovers was not mitigating.
Notes:
1. Provocation and obfuscation arising from
one and the same cause should be treated as
only one mitigating circumstance
2. Vindication of grave offense cannot co-exist
with passion and obfuscation.
3. Passion and obfuscation is compatible with
lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong
4. Passion and obfuscation cannot co-exist with
evident pre-meditation (such as in treachery)
PASSION V IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
PASSION IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
Mitigating circumstance Exempting circumstance
No physical force Requires physical force
This is internal to the Must come from a third
jo valles
offender person
Arises from lawful sentiment unlawful
PASSION V PROVOCATION
Produced by impulse, which may Comes from the injured
be caused by provocation
Proximate only; the influence of Immediately precede the
the cause must last until the act
moment the crime is committed
There is loss of reason and self-control on the part of the
offender
Paragraph 7
SURRENDER OR CONFESS VOLUNTARILY
The basis is the lesser perversity of the offender.
This paragraph provides 2 mitigating circumstances:
1. Voluntary surrender to a person in authority or his
agents
PERSON IN AUTHORITY
One directly vested with jurisdiction, or a public officer
who has the power to govern and execute the laws
whether as an individual or as member of some court or
governmental corporation, board, or commission. (barrio
or barangay chairman)
AGENT OF A PERSON IN AUTHORITY
A person who, by direct provision of law, or by election
or appointment by competent authority, is charged with
the maintenance of public order and the protection
and security of life and property and any person who
comes to the aid of persons in authority. (Surrender to a
commanding officer)
- A chief clerk is not a person in authority or an agent
2. Voluntary confession of guilt before the court prior to
the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
a. Offender had not actually been arrested
b. Offender surrendered himself to a person of authority
or his agents
o If he surrenders only the weapon, it is not
deemed to be a voluntary surrender.
c. Surrender was voluntary
o It must be in such a manner that is
spontaneous as to show the interest of the
accused to surrender unconditionally to the
authorities either because:
▪ He acknowledged his guilt
▪ He wants to save them the trouble
and expenses incurred in his search
and capture
If none of these 2 reasons impelled the
surrender, because he was motivated by an
intention to insure his safety because his
arrest is inevitable, the surrender is not
spontaneous and therefore not voluntary.
▪ Spontaneous emphasizes the idea of
inner impulse and acting without
external stimulus.
▪ There is spontaneity even if the
surrender is induced by fear of
retaliation by the victim’s relatives.
▪ Surrender is not voluntary when there
is a condition imposed or there is an
external stimulus, or when it is forced
by circumstance.
Some rules on voluntary surrender:
- This does not simply mean non-flight. In fact it
doesn’t matter if the accused never avoided arrest or
never hid or fled.
- The RPC does not make any distinction among the
various moments when the surrender may occur.
- The law does not require a person to surrender to the
authorities where the offense was committed.
- Surrender through an intermediary is mitigating.
- The surrender must be by reason of the commission of
the crime for which the defendant is prosecuted
- Intention to surrender, without actually surrendering,
is not mitigating.
Warrant of arrest and voluntary surrender
- If there is a no showing that warrant has been served
or that it is unserved because of failure to locate the
accused, his subsequent surrender is deemed
mitigating.
- There is no voluntary surrender if the warrant of arrest
shows that the accused was in fact arrested
- However, the law does not require that the surrender
be prior to the order of arrest. The mere filing of
information and/or the issuance of the warrant of
arrest will not automatically make the surrender
involuntary.
o What is required is that it has not yet been
served on him
Acts not considered voluntary surrender:
- Warrant of arrest shows that offender was in fact
arrested
- The accused surrendered only after having served the
warrant of arrest
- The accused went into hiding but surrendered only
upon realizing that the forces of the law were closing
in
- Accused surrendered only when they knew they were
completely surrounded and there was no chance of
escape
- The search of the accused lasted for years
- When the accused was arrested in his boarding house
and pretended to say that he was on his way to the
municipal building to surrender (haha LOL)
- When the accused does not go into hiding, but does
not surrender himself either, even if he accompanies
the chief of police to the scene of the crime.
- When the accused reports the incident but does not
own up to the responsibility for killing the deceased.
PLEA OF GUILTY
Requisites:
a. The offender spontaneously confessed his guilt
jo valles
 Conditional plea of guilty, or pleading guilty provided
that a certain penalty be imposed, is not mitigating.
b. The confession was made in open court, that is,
before the competent court that is to try the case.
o Extra-judicial confession is not mitigating
c. Confession is made prior to the presentation of
evidence for the prosecution
- It must be made at the first opportunity
- It must be made before the trial begins
- If made on appeal, it is not mitigating.
- Withdrawal of plea of guilty and pleading
guilty is still mitigating as long as it is done
before presentation of evidence by
prosecution
However, plea of guilty is not mitigating in culpable felonies
and in crimes punished by special laws.
PLEADING DURING PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
This is not mitigating. However, the death penalty imposed is
changed to life imprisonment because such admission of guilt
indicates his submission to law and a moral disposition on his
part to reform.
PLEA OF GUILTY TO AMENDED INFORMATION
This is still mitigating because the case is based entirely on
new information and no evidence has yet been presented.
It is still mitigating even if the amended information is lesser
than that charged in the original information.
- However, plea of guilty to a lesser offense
than that charged is not mitigating.
- The plea of guilty must be to the offense
charged.
SEARCHING INQUIRY
Where the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense the court
shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and
full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and shall
require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise
degree of culpability.
Paragraph 8
DEAF AND DUMB, BLIND, OR OTHERWISE
SUFFERING FROM PHYSICAL DEFECT
The basis is diminution of the element of voluntariness.
The defect must be of such nature as to restrict means of
action, defense, or communication with fellow beings.
- This paragraph does not distinguish between educated
and uneducated deaf-mute or blind persons
Paragraph 9
ILLNESS OF THE OFFENDER
The basis is diminution of intelligence and intent
Requisites:
a. The illness of the offender must diminish the exercise
of his will power
b. Such illness should not deprive the offender of
consciousness of his acts.
This paragraph refers only to diseases of pathological state
that trouble the conscience or will.
- However, a diseased mind, not amounting to insanity,
may give place to mitigation.
o A defendant who committed the crime while
suffering from some illness of the body,
mind, nerves, or moral faculty.
o This was applied to a mother who killed her
child the day following her delivery because
she was under the influence of a puerperal
fever
Illnesses considered mitigating
- Mild behavior disorder
- Feeble mindedness (may also fall under Par 8)
- Schizo-affective disorder or psychosis
- Mistaken belief of the accused that killing of a witch
is for public good.
- - Accused is over 18 years old
Paragraph 10
OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES OF SIMILAR OR
ANALOGOUS NATURE
SOME ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCES
PARAGRAPH ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCE
2 Over 60 y/o with failing sight
5 Outraged feeling of owner of an animal,
which was taken for ransom
6 Outraged feeling of creditor
6 Impulse of jealous feeling
6 Esprit de corps
9 Manifestations of Battered Wife Syndrome
1 Extreme poverty (incomplete justification
of state of necessity)
7 Voluntary restitution of stolen property
7 Testifying for prosecution = plea of guilty
Note: Extreme poverty may mitigate crimes against property
but not crimes of violence like murder.
- Restitution in malversation is a mitigating
circumstance
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES PERSONAL
Mitigating circumstances personal to the offender shall only
mitigate the liability of the persons to whom such
circumstances are attendant. Examples would be mitigating
circumstances that arise from:
a. Moral attributes of the offender
Example: acting on an impulse that produced passion
b. Private relations of the offender and the offended
Example: robbery against a spouse
c. Any other personal cause
Example: age
NOT EXEMPTING OR MITIGATING
- Mistake in the blow
- Mistake in identity
- Entrapment of accused
- Condition of running amuck
- Not resisting arrest is not analogous to voluntary
surrender
- Performance of a righteous action
jo valles
 7. ARTICLE 14
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES alleged in the information and proven beyond Shall only serve to aggravate the liability of principals,
These are circumstances, if attendance in the commission of reasonable doubt. accomplice and accessories to whom the circumstances are
the crime, serve to increase the penalty without exceeding the 4. INHERENT attendant.
maximum penalty provided by law for the offense. By necessity, this accompanies the commission of the
- This is based on the greater perversity of the offender crime. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE BASED ON
as shown by: o Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery, KNOWLEDGE
a. Motivating power theft, estafa, adultery, and concubinage The following circumstances shall serve to aggravate the
b. Place of commission liability of only those who had knowledge of them at the
c. Means and ways employed AGGRAVATING BUT DO NOT INCREASE PENALTY time of execution of the act or their cooperation therein:
d. Personal circumstance so the offender or offended 1. Those that constitute a crime punished by special law a. Material execution of the act
party o Arson, destruction b. Means employed to accomplish it
e. Time 2. Included by the law in defining a crime and
prescribing penalties therefore. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE NOT PRESUMED
4 KINDS OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE o In robbery in an inhabited house, the The aggravating circumstance should be proved as fully as the
1. GENERIC following shall not be considered: crime itself in order to increase the penalty.
This generally applies to all crimes. ▪ Act committed in the dwelling of the - It is never presumed.
(1,2,3,4,5,6,9,10,18,19,20, except by means of motor offended (par 3)
vehicles) ▪ Committed after unlawful entry (par ARTICLE 14
• If it is not alleged, it may be proved during the trial 18) The following are aggravating circumstances:
over the objection of the offense and may be ▪ Destruction of wall, roof, floor, or 1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public
appreciated in imposing the sentence. In such case, it window (Par 19) position.
serves only to aid the court in fixing the limits of the 3. An aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime 2. That the crime be committed in contempt or with
penalty. It does not change the nature of the crime. and necessarily accompanies the commission thereof. insult to the public authorities.
2. SPECIFIC o Evident premeditation in theft,robbery, estafa, 3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard
This applies only to particular crimes. (15,16,17,21) adultery of the respect due the offended party on account of his
3. QUALIFYING o Taking advantage of public position in rank, age, or sex, or that is be committed in the
This changes the nature of the crime. (6 treachery; and 13 bribery, malversation, etc. dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not
evident premeditation) given provocation.
• This must be alleged in the information because it is AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE PERSONAL TO 4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or
an integral part of the offense. Otherwise, it is only OFFENDER obvious ungratefulness.
generic. Aggravating circumstances that arise from: 5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the
• These need not be preceded by the words a. Moral attributes of offender Chief Executive or in his presence, or where public
aggravating/qualifying. It is enough that they are b. Private relations of the offended party authorities are engaged in the discharge of their
c. Other personal cause duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship.
jo valles
6. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in
an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such
circumstances may facilitate the commission of the
offense.
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall
have acted together in the commission of an offense,
it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band.
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a
conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or
other calamity or misfortune.
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed
men or persons who insure or afford impunity.
9. That the accused is a recidivist.
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one
crime, shall have been previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime embraced in the same title
of this Code.
10. That the offender has been previously punished by an
offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater
penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches
a lighter penalty.
11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a
price, reward, or promise.
12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation,
fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or
international damage thereto, derailment of a
locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice
involving great waste and ruin.
13. That the act be committed with evidence
premeditation.
14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed.
15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or
means be employed to weaken the defense.
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
17. There is treachery when the offender commits any of
the crimes against the person, employing means,
methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend
directly and specially to insure its execution, without
risk to himself arising from the defense which the
offended party might make.
18. That means be employed or circumstances brought
about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the
act.
19. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.
20. There is an unlawful entry when an entrance of a
crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken.
21. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons
under fifteen years of age or by means of motor
vehicles, motorized watercraft, airships, or other
similar means. (As amended by RA 5438).
22. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime
be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not
necessary for its commissions.
Paragraph 1
TAKING ADVANTAGE OF PUBLIC POSITION
Based on greater perversity of the offender as shown in the
means employed and his personal circumstance
WHEN AGGRAVATING
This aggravating circumstance is applicable only to a public
officer who takes advantage of his public position.
o It must be proven that he used his influence, prestige,
or ascendancy that his office gives him
o It must be shown that the crime would not have been
committed had he not occupied his position.
WHEN NOT AGGRAVATING
• When a public officer commits a common crime
independent of his official functions and does acts not
connected with the duties of his office, he should be
punished as a private individual without this
aggravating circumstance.
• When the crime could have been committed had the
perpetrator not been a public officer
• Failure of an officer in his duties as such is
tantamount to abusing office
o When the VP voluntarily joins a band of
brigands, such act increases his liability.
• It is not aggravating when the act is an integral
element of the offense
o Example: malversation and falsification by
public officers
UNIFORMS
- Wearing the fatigue uniform and being armed is not
sufficient to establish that such officer took advantage
of his position.
- In the same way, the non-wearing of uniform does not
sufficiently disprove that the official did not take
advantage of his position, if the offended party was
aware that he was a policeman
Paragraph 2
CONTEMPT/ W/ INSULT TO PUBLIC AUTHORITY
Based on greater perversity of the offender as shown by his
lack of respect for public authority
Requisites:
1. The public authority is in the exercise of his
function
PUBLIC AUTHORITY is a person in authority; he
is directly vested with jurisdiction or the power to
govern and execute the laws.
o Councilor, mayor, governor, barangay
captain, and barangay chairman
This circumstance cannot be availed of if the crime
was performed in the presence of the AGENT OF A
PERSON IN AUTHORITY. He is a person who is
charged with the maintenance of public order and the
protection of security of life and property.
o Barrio councilman, barrio policeman,
barangay leader, or any person who comes to
the aid of persons in authority.
jo valles
 2. The crime is not directed towards the public
authority
The crime becomes direct assault if directed towards
the public authority
3. The offender knows him to be a public authority
The absence of this requisite indicates lack of
intention to insult the public officer.
4. His presence has not prevented the perpetrator to
commit the crime
Paragraph 3
(1)INSULT/DISRESPECT OF RANK, AGE, OR SEX
(2) CRIME IN THE DWELLING OF THE OFFENDED
Based on greater perversity of the offender, as shown by
the personal circumstances of the offender and the place
of commission of the crime
There are 4 circumstances contemplated in this paragraph.
Their concurrence has the weight of one aggravating
circumstance only.
- This provision is applicable only to crimes against
person or honor.
- Hence, this will not apply in robbery with homicide
because homicide is a mere incident of robbery, a
crime against property.
INSULT/DISRESPECT OF RANK, AGE, OR SEX
To be considered as aggravating, it is not enough that the
crime is directed against a person of high rank, an person of
old or tender age, or against a woman.
- There must be proof that the accused deliberately
intend to offend or insult the rank, age, or sex of the
offended party.
DISRESPECT ON ACCOUNT OF RANK
RANK refers to a high social position or standing. For this
circumstance to apply there must be a difference in the social
condition of the offender and the offended party.
- There must be proof that the accused intended to
insult the rank of the victim
DISRESPECT ON ACCOUNT OF AGE
This applies both to victims of tender and old age.
- When the injuries inflicted without any thought or
intention to insult the person on account of his or her
age, the circumstance is not considered aggravating.
DISRESPECT ON ACCOUNT OF SEX
This refers only to the female sex.
- Killing a woman is not attended by this aggravating
circumstance of the offender did not manifest any
specific insult or disrespect towards her sex.
- Disregard of sex is absorbed in treachery.
NOT APPLICABLE IN THE FOLLOWING:
a. The offender acted with passion and obfuscation. The
offender could not have been conscious that his act
was done with respect to the offended party.
b. There exists a relationship between the offender and
the offended party.
c. When the condition of being a woman is
indispensable in the commission of the crime.
CRIME IS COMMITTED IN THE DWELLING OF
THE OFFENDED
DWELLING is the building or structure, exclusively used for
rest and comfort. Hence, a combination of house and store
cannot qualify as a dwelling place.
- This includes dependencies, foot of the staircase, and
the enclosure under the house.
Dwelling, as distinguished from domicile, may be temporary.
Hence, the following may also be considered as a dwelling
place such that crimes committed against the dweller therein
will be aggravating:
a. Boarding house
b. Paternal home where the victims were guests at the
time and did not reside
c. The victims were guests in the house of another
person.
Dwelling is not included in treachery.
WHAT AGGRAVATES THE COMMISSION OF THE
CRIME IN ONE’S DWELLING
a. The abuse of confidence which the offended party
reposed in the offender by opening the door to him.
b. The violation of the sanctity of the home by
trespassing therein with violence against the will of
the owner.
o The reason why this is aggravating is because
the law accords the sanctity of privacy in the
human abode.
Requisite:
The offended party must not have given provocation.
If the offended party gave provocation, then the fact that the
offense occurred in his dwelling does not make it as an
aggravating circumstance.
The provocation referred to must be:
a. Sufficient
b. Given by the owner of the dwelling
c. Immediate to the commission of the crime
WHEN CIRCUMSTANCE APPLIES
1. When the offended party did not give provocation and
the crime against him transpired in his dwelling
2. Even if the offender did not enter the dwelling, but the
victim was shot from under the house.
- Also, it is enough that the victim was attacked inside
his house, although the assailant devised means to
attack him from outside the house.
3. Even if the killing took place outside the dwelling, as long
as the commission of the crime began in the dwelling.
- In abduction or illegal detention where the victim
was taken from his or her house and carried away to
another place, dwelling is aggravating.
4. When the deceased has 2 houses where he used to live,
the commission of the crime in any of them is
aggravating.
5. When the husband kills his wife in a house solely
occupied by her even if it is not the conjugal home.
WHEN THE CIRCUMSTANCE DOES NOT APPLY
a. When both the offender and the offended
occupy the same house.
EXCEPT: If adultery took place in the conjugal
dwelling of the spouses, the dwelling is
jo valles
 considered as an aggravating circumstance with
respect to the crime of adultery.
▪ But if the wife, her paramour, and the
offended party all lived under the
same roof, dwelling is not
aggravating.
b. When robbery is committed with force upon
things, because the entering the dwelling is
inherent or is part of the definition of the crime.
o However, dwelling is aggravating in robbery
with violence against or intimidation of
persons.
c. In crimes of trespass to dwelling
d. When the owner gave sufficient and immediate
provocation
e. When the crime was committed in the dwelling
that does not belong to the offended party.
f. When the crime is committed in the portion of the
structure which is not used for rest or comfort.
(Example: 2nd floor is used as a store)
Paragraph 4
(1)ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE
(2) OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS
Based on greater perversity of the offender as shown by the
means and ways employed
ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE
Requisites:
1. The offended party trusted the offender
The circumstance does not avail if the trust was
reposed by a person other than the offended party.
(parents, friends, etc)
2. The offender abused such trust by committing a
crime against the offended party
3. The abuse of confidence facilitated the commission
of the crime.
The confidence reposed could not have facilitated the
commission of the crime if the offended party could
resists, although unsuccessfully, the commission of
the crime.
OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS
The ungratefulness must be obvious, manifest and clear.
Paragraph 5
COMMISSION OF THE CRIME IN THE FOLLOWING
PLACES:
This is based on the greater perversity of the offender, as
shown by the place of the commission of the crime.
In any of the following, the offender must have intention to
commit the crime when he entered the place.
1. PALACE OF THE CHIEF EXCECUTIVE
o This is aggravating even if there is a state or
official function being held.
2. ANY PLACE WHERE THE CHIEF EXEC IS
PRESENT
o The chief executive need not be in
Malacanang.
o His presence in any place where the crime is
committed is enough to constitute the
aggravating circumstance
o His mere presence is enough, even though at
such time that the crime was committed, he
was not in the discharge of his functions
3. ANY PLACE WHERE PUBLIC OFFICERS ARE
ENGAGED IN THE DISCHHARGE OF THEIR
DUTIES
o The public officer must be engaged in the
performance of a duty
o The place referred to is the place where the
officer was engaged in the performance of his
duty. (His office)
PARAGRAPH 2 VS PARAGRAPH 5
PARAGRAPH 2 PARAGRAPH 5
Public authorities in the exercise of duty
Duties outside the office Duties in the office
Officer not the offended Officer may be the
offended
4. PLACE DEDICATED TO RELIGIOUS
WORSHIP
This does not include cemeteries since they are not
dedicated to the worship of God.
Paragraph 6
Based on the time and place of commission of the crime and
means and ways employed
COMMISSION OF THE CRIME IN THE FOLLOWING
INSTANCES: NIGHTTIME, UNINHABITED PLACE,
BY A BAND
Requisites to be aggravating:
a. It facilitated the commission of the crime; or
Nighttime may facilitate the commission of the crime
when because of the darkness of the night, the crime
can be perpetrated unmolested, or interference may be
avoided, or there would be greater certainty in
attaining the ends of the offender.
b. Sought for by the offender to insure the
commission of the crime or for the purpose of
impunity; or
This exists when the offender sought for it or waited
or lingered until night time to realize the crime with
more ease.
jo valles
 o This is absent when the notion to commit the
crime was conceived only shortly before its
commission or when the crime was
committed at night upon a mere casual
encounter.
o This is not necessary when a and c are
present.
c. When the offender took advantage thereof for the
purpose of impunity
“For purpose of impunity” means that he wanted to
prevent his being recognized, or to secure himself
against detection and punishment.
NIGHTTIME
This is the period of darkness beginning at the end of dusk
and ending at dawn. Nights are from sunset to sunrise.
- The crime must be begin and be accomplished at
nighttime
- The crime must be committed in the darkness of the
night. Hence, when the place of the crime is
illuminated by light, nighttime is not aggravating.
- Nighttime by and of itself is not aggravating
- It must be shown that the offender sought for it and
took advantage of it to commit the crime
UNINHABITED PLACE
It is a place where there are no houses at all, at a considerable
distance from town, or the houses are scattered at a great
distance from each other.
- This should not be considered when the place where
the crime happened could be seen or the voice of the
victim could be heard.
- The determining factor is whether or not in the place
of the commission of the crime, there was a
reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some
help
BY A BAND
A crime is committed by a band whenever more than 3
armed malefactors shall have acted together in the
commission of the offense.
- By this definition, a crime is not committed by a band
when only one of the several men committed the
crime.
o All of them must have direct participation in
the perpetration of the crime. Hence, if one
of the 4 is a principal by inducement, there is
no band.
- At least 3 should also be armed. (Stone is considered
an arm)
BAND AND OTHER FELONIES
1. This is not aggravating in brigandage because it is
inherent in the said crime.
2. The aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of
superior strength is absorbed by the generic
aggravating circumstance of the commission of the
offense by a band.
3. This is not available in crimes against chastity.
4. This is considered in crimes against property and
crimes against persons
5. It is considered in illegal detention and treason.
Paragraph 7
COMMISSION OF THE CRIME ON THE OCCASION
OF CONFLAGRATION, SHIPWRECK,
EARTHQUAKE, EPIDEMIC, OR OTHER CALAMITY
OR MISFORTUNE
This has reference to the time of the commission of the crime
The reason for this aggravation is that this is a debased form
of calamity met in one who, in the midst of a great calamity,
instead of lending aid to the afflicted, adds to their suffering
by taking advantage of their misfortune to despoil them.
- If the accused is provoked by the offended party to
commit the crime during calamity or misfortune, there
is no aggravation because the accused did not take
advantage.
The phrase other calamity or misfortune does not include
chaotic conditions after liberation.
- An exception is the ruling in the case of People vs
Penjan
Paragraph 8
CRIME IS COMMITTED WITH THE AID OF (1)
ARMED MEN OR (2) PERSONS WHO INSURE OR
AFFORD IMPUNITY.
Requisites:
1. The armed men took part directly or indirectly
The casual presence of armed men near the place
where the crime was committed does not constitute as
an aggravating circumstance.
2. The accused availed himself of their aid or relied
upon them when the crime was committed
AID OF ARMED MEN EMPLOYMENT OF A BAND
Present even if one of Requires that at least 4 armed
the offenders merely malefactors act together
relied on the aid of the
armed men; actual aid is
not necessary
Note: armed women also included
WHEN CIRCUMSTANCE NOT APPLICABLE
1. The offender and the offended were equally armed
jo valles
 2. When the accused and those who cooperated with him
in the commission of the crime acted under the same
plan and for the same purpose
Paragraph 9
THE ACCUSED IS A RECIDIVIST
A RECIDIVIST is one who, at the time of trial for one
crime, shall have previously been convicted by final judgment
of another crime embraced in the same title of the RPC.
Requisites:
1. The offender is on trial for an offense
Note that the basis is the time of the trial, and not the
time of the commission of the crime.
2. Previously convicted by final judgment of another
crime
o There is not recidivism if the subsequent
conviction is for an offense committed before
the offense involved in the prior conviction.
o Person is not a recidivist if the conviction of
the prior crime was on December 30, and the
conviction of the latter crime was on
December 23 of the same year.
▪ At the time of the commission of trial
for the 2nd crime, he was not yet
convicted.
3. The first and second offenses are embraced in the
same title of the RPC
a. Title 10: Crimes against property- robbery and
theft
b. Title 8: Crimes against persons- homicide and
physical injuries.
4. The offender is convicted of the new offense
Additional Notes:
a. There is recidivism no matter how many years have
intervened between the first and second felonies.
b. Pardon does not prevent a former conviction from
being considered as an aggravating circumstance.
o Pardon for a preceding offense does not
obliterate the fact that the accused is a
recidivist upon his conviction of a second
offense embraced in the same title of the
RPC.
o Amnesty, however, extinguished the penalty
and all its effects.
Paragraph 10
REITERACION OR HABITUALITY
The basis is the greater perversity of the offender as shown by
his inclination to crimes
Requisites:
1. The accused is on trial for offense
2. He has previously served sentence for another
offense to which the law attaches equal penalty,
greater penalty, or lighter penalty for 2 or more
crimes.
o It is essential for the offender to serve the
sentence.
o What is contemplated is the penalty
attached by law to thee offense, and not
the penalty actually imposed.
o Hence, if two different crimes were
punished by prision mayor but the other
one was imposed with the maximum
period and the other only for the
minimum, there is still habituality.
3. He is convicted of the new offense
RECIDIVISM VS REITERACION
RECIDIVISM REITERACION
Final judgment is sufficient Offender must have served
Offenses in the same title Offenses MUST NOT be in
the same title of the RPC
Always an aggravating Not always aggravating, such
circumstance unless given as when the first offense was
amnesty a crime against property and
the subsequent offense a
crime against persons.
4 FORMS OF REPETITION:
a. Recidivism
b. Reiteracion or habituality
c. Multi-recidivism or habitual delinquency
HABITUAL DELINQUENCY arises when a
person, within a period of 10 years from his last
release or conviction for the crimes below is found
guilty of the same crimes for the 3rd time or oftener.
o serious or less serious physical injuries, theft,
estafa, robbery, falsification
d. Quasi-recidivism
QUASI-RECIDIVISM arises when a person
commits a felony after having been convicted by final
judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence or
while serving the same.
Paragraph 11
CRIME COMMITTED IN CONSIDERATION OF A
PRIICE, REWARD OR PROMISE
The basis is the greater perversity of the offender as shown by
the motivating power
Requisite:
1. There must be 2 or more principals:
jo valles
 a. One who offers the price- he directly induces the o There should be actual intent to kill, and the The prosecution must prove:
latter to commit the crime; principal by use of the fire should be purposely adopted as a. The time when the offender determined to commit
a means to that end. the crime
inducement o Without intent, it is plain arson o This is essential for the computation of the
b. One who accepts the price- he directly commits b. By means of explosion lapse of time for reflection
the crime o There should be actual intent to kill, and the b. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has
2. The price, reward or promise must be for the use of the explosion should be purposely clung to his determination
purpose of inducing another to perform the deed. adopted as a means to that end. o This must be based on external acts and not
o Without intent to kill, it is a crime involving presumed from lapse of time
o It should not be taken as an aggravating
destruction. o It must be shown that it was deliberately
circumstance if the reward was given after the c. By means of derailment of locomotive planned and the person persistently and
commission of the crime as an appreciation o There should be actual intent to kill, and the continuously followed his plan.
This aggravating circumstance affects equally the offeror and derailment of locomotive should be purposely c. A sufficient lapse of time between the
the acceptor. adopted as a means to that end. determination and execution, to allow him to
o If only property is damaged as a result of reflect upon the consequences of his act and to allow
Paragraph 12 derailment, it is merely damage to means of his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will.
CRIME COMMITTED BY MEANS OF communication. o 3 hours or less was considered sufficient
a. INUNDATION o If there is no intent to kill but someone dies, it o However, in People v Dumdum, 1 hour was
b. FIRE is complex crime of damage to means of held to be sufficient
communication with homicide o In People v Crisostomo, 2 hours was not
c. POISON o When there is intent to kill and someone dies, enough
d. EXPLOSION it is murder.
e. STRANDING OF A VESSEL OR When this aggravating circumstance already qualifies the CONSPIRACY PRESUPPOSES PREMEDITATION
INTERNATIONAL DAMAGE THERETO crime to murder, it shall no longer be taken into consideration When conspiracy is directly established with proof of the
f. DERAILMENT OF A LOCOMOTIVE for the purpose of raising the penalty. The means become part attendant deliberation and selection of the method, the time
of the definition of a particular crime. and the means of executing the crime, the existence of evident
g. OR BY THE USE OF ANY OTHER ARTIFICE
premeditation can be taken for granted.
INVOLVING GREAT WASTE AND RUIN. Paragraph 13 - Premeditation may not be appreciated if the
The basis is the ways and means employed CRIME COMMITTED WITH EVIDENT conspiracy is only implied
PREMEDITATION PREMEDITATION AND REWARD
AS A GENERIC CIRCUMSTANCE The basis is the ways of committing the crime They can co-exist but premeditation is absorbed by the reward
Unless used by the offender as a means to accomplish the PREMEDITATION or promise.
criminal purpose, any of these circumstances cannot be The execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool
considered to increase the penalty or to change the nature of thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the PLAN TO KILL A PARTICULAR PERSON NOT
the offense. criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a NECESSARY
calm judgment. a. If there was a plan to kill a particular person and a
AS A QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE - This may be considered as to the principal by different person was killed, there is no evident
When used as a means to kill another person, the crime is inducement. premeditation as an aggravating circumstance.
qualified murder. Requisites of evident premeditation
a. By means of fire Premeditation must be evident, not merely suspected.
jo valles
 b. If there was a plan to kill any person, and a person
was actually killed, evident premeditation as an
aggravating circumstance exists.
c. Where the victim belonged to the class designated by
the accused, premeditation as an aggravating
circumstance also exists.
PREMEDITATION IN ROBERY W/ HOMICIDE
GENERAL RULE: This is not considered because
premeditation is inherent in robbery.
EXCEPTION: It may be an aggravating circumstance if it is
shown that there was premeditation as to the killing of the
victim.
When the death of the victim was only incident to the robbery,
premeditation is disregarded.
Paragraph 14
CRAFT, FRAUD, OR DISGUISE BE EMPLOYED
The basis is the means employed
(Intellectual or mental means to carry out the crime)
CRAFT (Astucia)
• This involves chicanery or intellectual trickery and
cunning on the part of the accused.
o Pretending to be the lover of the servant to
gain access to the house
o Pretending to be a passenger in a cab to kill
the driver
• Craft is not appreciated independently as an
aggravating circumstance when it is an element of an
offense.
FRAUD (Fraude)
• This involves insidious words or machinations used to
induce the victim to act in a manner which would
enable the offender to carry out the design
CRAFT VS FRAUD
CRAFT FRAUD
The act of the use was done There is direct inducement by
in order not to arouse insidious words or
suspicion the victim machinations
DISGUISE (Disfraz) o However this is not considered in parricide
• Resorting to any device to conceal identity because being a woman is inherent in such
o But if the victim recognizes the accused, crime.
disguise is not aggravating
• This constitutes superficial but effective WHEN THERE IS NO TAKING ADVANTAGE
dissembling to avoid identification 1. One attacks with passion and obfuscation
o When one is easily recognizable, it was not 2. When the encounter arose unexpectedly
considered to be a disguise. Tanga lang siya. 3. When the attack was made alternatively
• Examples: 4. When one acted as principal and the other as
o Wearing a mask to conceal identity accomplice
o Use of assumed name in the publication of a o It must appear that the accused cooperated
libel together in some way designed to weaken the
o Covering face with handkerchief so as not to defense
be recognized CRIMES WHEN ABUSE OF STREGNTH IS
CRAFT DISGUISE AGGRAVATING
misrepresentation as to the Use of props to conceal 1. Coercion and forcible abduction, when greatly in
identity of the accused to identity excess of what is required to commit the offense
avoid suspicion 2. Illegal detention
More mental or intellectual More physical 3. Robbery with rape
4. Multiple rape
Paragraph 15 5. Robbery with homicide
The basis is the means employed
ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH ELEMENT OF BAND ABUSE OF STRENGTH
This means using purposely excessive force out of proportion This is appreciated based on This is appreciated based on
to that means of defense available to the person attacked. the number of perpetrators. the relative physical strength
- This is absorbed by treachery a. There must be at least of the accused vis a vis the
Evidence of relative strength is necessary. It must be shown 4 malefactors victim.
that the accused was physically stronger than the victim and b. All must be armed
that they abused such superiority.
• Numerical superiority does not always amount to MEANS EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN THE DEFENSE
taking advantage of superior strength. It must be This is applicable only in crimes against persons.
shown that: - Sometimes applicable in crimes against both persons
a. There is a marked difference of physical strength and property
between the accused and the victim. OR This aggravating circumstance is absorbed by treachery.
b. The aggressors are armed in such a way that is not
proportionate to that if the victim, if ever he was Examples:
also armed. 1. One throws sand to the eyes of the other and attacks
• When a man attacks a woman with a weapon, it may the latter
be considered as abuse of superior strength 2. One throws a cloak over the head of the other and
attacks the latter
jo valles
 3. When the accused made the deceased intoxicated
o However, if it is shown that the victim was in
a state of intoxication such that he cannot put
up any sort of defense, treachery may be
considered.
Paragraph 16
TREACHERY (ALEVOSIA)
The basis is the means employed
TREACHERY
This occurs when the offender commits any of the crimes
against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in
the execution thereof, which tend directly and specially to
insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might make.
Element of surprise marks the presence of treachery.
- The offended party was not given the opportunity to
make the defense
In treachery, the identity of the victim is not necessary.
That is, the perpetrator is liable for his acts even if the
victim of the attack was not the person whom he intended
to kill.
Requisites:
1. At the time of the attack, the victim was not in a
position to defend himself
2. Offender consciously adopted the particular means,
method or form of attack employed by him
RULES
a. Available only to crimes against persons
b. Means methods, and forms need not insure the
accomplishment or consummation of the crime
o The law speaks only of insuring its execution
▪ The accused attacked the victim
unexpectedly and the wounds
inflicted would have caused death,
had there been no obstacles during
the execution.(frustrated murder
with alevosia)
▪ Even if the murder was not
consummated, alevosia applies
o The treacherous character does not depend on
the result, but the means itself
c. The mode of attack is consciously adopted
o This can be inferred from the circumstances
o The mode of attack must be thought of, and
not a product of unexpected turn of events
o The accused must make preparations to
ensure its execution
o Treachery cannot be appreciated when there
is nothing to show that the accused pondered
upon the mode or method of killing the
deceased or remove or diminish any risk to
himself that may arise from the defense of the
victim.
WHEN THERE IS TREACHERY
1. Shooting the victim from a distance
2. Surprise attacks
3. Shooting or wounding from the back
o But treachery may also exist even if the attack
is face to face, as when the attack was so
sudden and unexpected and the victim did not
have the time to prepare or defend himself.
4. Deliberate, sudden, and unexpected attack of the
victim from behind and without giving him an
opportunity to defend himself.
5. Shooting the victim whose hands were raised in plea
of his life and in showing that he does not want to
fight
6. Killing a woman asking for mercy
WHEN THERE IS NO TREACHERY
1. Attack preceded by warning
2. Accused gave the deceased a chance to prepare
3. Shooting was preceded by heated discussion
4. The victim had provoked the assailant. He should
have expected retaliation.
PROOF OF TREACHERY
This must be proven as fully as the crime itself
- Treachery cannot be presumed
- The suddenness of the attack does not, of itself,
suffice to support the finding of alevosia
EXAMPLESS OF ALEVOSIA
GENERAL RULE: In the absence of proof, there is no
alevosia.
- The victim is not totally without opportunity to
defend himself
- The witness did not see how the crime began and
developed so as to show that there was treachery or
that the accused completely deprived him of defense
- The encounter was merely accidental. The accused
could not have planned the treachery.
- Decision to kill was sudden
- Perpetrator hid behind a tree not to insure the
commission of the crime, but because he was scared
that the victim might have a gun with him.
EXCEPTIONS:
Circumstances that clearly show that the victim was rendered
defenseless
- Both hands were tied. Victim had no way to defend
himself
- Treachery is appreciated in the killing of a child even
if the manner of attack was not shown.
MUST TREACHERY BE PRESENT AT THE
BEGINNING OF THE ASSAULT?
It depends.
a. When the aggression is continuous, treachery must
be present at the beginning of the assault.
b. If the assault was not continuous, or that there was
interruption, it is sufficient that treachery was
present at the moment the fatal blow was given.
Note:
- Intent to kill is not necessary in murder with treachery
(People v Cagoco)
jo valles
 - Intent to kill is necessary in murder by means of fire
(US v Burns)
- Treachery, evident premeditation, and use fo superior
strength are absorbed in treason by killings.
- Treachery absorbs use of superior strength, aid of
armed men, by a band, and means to weaken the
defense.
- Craft is included in and absorbed by treachery
- Treachery is inherent in murder by poisoning
- Treachery cannot co-exist with passion or obfuscation
Some rules:
1. When there is conspiracy, treachery is considered
against all the offenders.
2. When it is not shown that the principal by induction
directed the killer to adopt the means and methods he
adopted, treachery cannot be considered as to the
principal by induction.
Paragraph 17
ADD IGNOMINY TO THE NATURAL EFFECTS
The basis is the means employed
IGNOMINY
This is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which
adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the
crime.
- There must be clear showing that the effect is more
humiliating or puts the offended party to shame,
adding moral suffering
- Hence, it presupposes that the victim survives after
the commission of the crime. A dead person cannot be
humiliated.
This is applicable in:
1. Crimes against chastity
2. Less serious physical injuries
3. Light coercion
4. Grave coercion
5. Murder
Paragraph 18
CRIME COMMITTED AFTER AN UNLAWFUL
ENTRY
The basis is the means and ways employed
There is UNLAWFUL ENTRY when an entrance is effected
by a way not intended for the purpose.
- Unlawful entry is a means to effect entrance, not
escape
Examples:
• Entering through the window, which is not proper
entrance into the house
• Rape committed in a house after entry into window
• Murder when the accused entered through the window
o In this case, dwelling and unlawful entry are
taken separately as aggravating circumstances
• Robbery with violence against or intimidation of
persons
o However, not applicable in robbery with force
upon things because unlawful entry is an
element of the crime.
Paragraph 19
WALL, ROOF, FLOOR, DOOR, OR WINDOW
BROKEN
The basis is the means and ways employed
Breaking of the parts of the structure above must be as a
means to the commission of the crime.
- The circumstance applies if the part of the structure
was resorted to as a means to enter, not to escape.
- Cutting of the canvas of the tent where soldiers are
sleeping and thereafter said soldiers were murdered.
Note: what aggravates is the act of breaking. Hence, it is not
necessary that the offender should have entered the building.
Difference with Paragraph 18:
d. In 18, there is no breaking. In 19, there is
breaking.
e. In 18, there must be actual entry. In 19, there
may or may not be entry.
Paragraph 20
The basis is the means and ways employed
CRIME IS COMMITTED WITH THE AID OF:
PERSONS UNDER 15 YEARS OF AGE
The reason for this is because this practice is resorted to by
professional criminals to avail themselves of minors taking
advantage of their irresponsibility.
MOTOR VEHICLES, AIRSHIPS, OR SIMILAR MEANS
The use of motor vehicles is aggravating when it is used to:
a. Going to the crime scene
b. Carrying away the effects of the crime
c. Facilitating escape
It is also AGGRAVATING when:
a. Used as a means for the flight or concealment of the
offender.
b. It plays an important role in the commission of the
crime
It is NOT AGGRAVATING when:
a. The use is merely incidental and not purposely sought
to facilitate the commission of the offense or to render
the escape easier.
b. When there is no showing that it was used to facilitate
the commission of the crime or that that without it, the
crime would not have been committed
OTHER SIMILAR MEANS
This refers to motorized vehicles or other efficient means of
transportation similar to automobile or airplane
Paragraph 21
WRONG DONE DELIERATELY AUGMENTED BY
CAUSING ANOTHER WRONG NOT NECESSARY
The basis is the ways employed
CRUELTY
This exists when the culprit enjoys and delights in making his
victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing him unnecessary
physical pain in the consummation of the criminal act.
Requisites:
jo valles
 1. Injury is deliberately increased by causing the other
wrong
2. The other wrong is unnecessary for the execution of
the purpose of the offender.

TO BE AGGRAVATING
It must be shown that:
a. The wrong done was intended to prolong the
suffering of the victim, causing him unnecessary
physical pain.
o Hence, this cannot arise when the acts are
committed after the person died. A dead
person cannot feel pain.
o This must be proved, not assumed
b. The accused enjoyed and delighted in such

Note:
a. Number of wounds alone does not show cruelty.
o It could merely be caused by multiple
assailants
o Mere fact of inflicting various successive
wounds upon a person to cause his death,
without appreciable time to show that the
offender wanted to prolong the suffering of
his victim, is not sufficient.

jo valles
 8. ARTICLE 15
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE
 ARTICLE 15
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES are those which
must be taken into consideration as aggravating or
mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime
and the other conditions attending its commission. They are
the: (R.I.D)
a. Relationship
• The alternative circumstance of relationship shall
be taken into consideration when the offended
party is the:
o Spouse
o ascendant, descendant
o legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or
sister, or
o relative by affinity in the same degrees of
the offender
b. Intoxication
• The intoxication of the offender shall be taken
into consideration as a mitigating circumstances
when the offender has committed a felony in a
state of intoxication, if the same is not:
o habitual or
o subsequent to the plan to commit said
felony
But when the intoxication is habitual or
intentional, it shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance.
c. Degree of instruction and education of the
offender.
RELATIONSHIP
• Stepparents and stepchildren are included by
analogy as similar to that of ascendant and
descendant.
o Hence, when a stepmother murders her
stepdaughter, it is aggravating. The
stepmother has the duty to give a
mother’s affection, care and protection to
her stepdaughter.
• Relationship of adopted parent and adopted child
is also included.
• Uncle and niece relationships are not covered.
RELATIONSHIP: MITIGATING OR AGGRAVATING
The law is silent in this respect.
• Relationship is mitigating in crimes against
property. (R.U.F.A) Article 332
o Robbery
o Usurpation
o Fraudulent insolvency
o Arson
• No criminal, but only civil, (hence, exempting)
liability shall result from the commission of the
following crimes when committed or caused mutually
by spouses, ascendants, descendants, and ascendants,
or relatives by affinity in the same line; brothers and
sisters and brothers and sisters-in-law, if living
together: (S.T.E.M) Article 332
o Theft
o Swindling or Estafa
o Malicious mischief
• Relationship is aggravating in crimes against
persons in cases where the offended party is:
o A relative of a higher degree than the
offender
o A relative of the same level as the offender
• But when the crime against persons is that of serious
physical injuries, the relationship is always
aggravating.
o This is true if the offended party is the parent,
child (legitimate or illegitimate), or any of his
ascendants or descendants, or spouse.
o It must not be inflicted upon his child by
excessive chastisement.
• The ordinary, rule applies in case of less serious or
slight physical injuries.
o It is mitigating if the offended party is of
lower degree
o It is aggravating if the offended party is a
relative of a higher degree
• Relationship is always aggravating in crimes against
chastity.
• When the crime against persons is homicide or
murder, the relationship is aggravating even if the
victim of the crime is a relative of lower degree.
• Relationship mitigating in trespass to dwelling.
• Relationship by affinity should not be deemed to
aggravate the crime, unless the offended party is of a
higher level than the offender.
• But relationship is neither mitigating nor aggravating
when relationship is an element of the offense.
o Parricide, adultery, concubinage
INTOXICATION
The accused must be under the state of intoxication during
the time the crime was committed.
MITIGATING
To be a mitigating circumstance, it must be shown that at the
time of the commission of the criminal act, he has taken such
quantity of alcoholic drinks as to blur his reason and deprive
him of a certain degree of control. It must diminish the
agent’s capacity to know the justice of his acts and his will
to act accordingly. When one is under the influence of liquor,
exercise of free will is diminished
- Such state of intoxication must be proved
In addition, intoxication is mitigating if:
a. If the intoxication is not habitual
o in the absence of proof to the contrary, it is
presumed to be non-habitual and
unintentional
b. If the intoxication is not subsequent to the plan to
commit a felony
AGGRAVATING
It is aggravating because it is intentional-one resorted to
liquor to bolster his courage to commit the crime.
a. If the intoxication is habitual
- A habitual drunkard is one given to intoxication
by excessive use of intoxicating drinks
- The habit should be actual and confirmed
- It is unnecessary that the matter be continuous or
of daily occurrence
- Examples when it was held that the accused was a
habitual drunkard:
o Witness testified that he saw that accused
drunk 12 times or more
o Before committing the crime, they drank
for 3 hours and they often had a drinking
party.
b. If the intoxication is intentional or subsequent to the
plan to commit a felony
- It is intentional when the offender drinks liquor
fully knowing its effects, to find the liquor a
stimulant to commit a crime or a means to
suffocate any remorse.
- The offender drank liquor AFTER he had planned
the commission of the crime.
Non-habitual intoxication, lack of instruction and
obfuscation are not to be taken separately.
- They count as one mitigating circumstance
DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION & EDUCATION
MITIGATING
- Generally, low degree of instruction or education
is mitigating
o It must be proved positively and not
merely based on deduction or inference
- This applies to one who has not received any
instruction
- Lack of sufficient instruction is not mitigating instruction was considered
when the offender is a city resident who can sign mitigating.
his name. o Murder (it is forbidden by natural law,
- Illiteracy and lack of intelligence are necessary to which every rational being is endowed to
invoke the alternative circumstance of lack of know and feel)
instruction. The latter is to be determined by the ▪ But it was considered mitigating
court. when murder was a result of the
o It may be gauged from his appearance, belief of the accused on
demeanor and manner of answering witchcraft.
questions.
- This is mitigating in almost all crimes except: AGGRAVATING
o Crimes against property (estafa, theft, - High degree of instruction or education becomes
robbery, arson, etc) aggravating if the offender avails himself of his
▪ However, in US v Maqui, lack of learning in committing the crime.
instruction was mitigating in theft o A lawyer, with abuse of his education or
of large cattle committed by a learning, commits estafa
member of an uncivilized tribe o A doctor prepares a certain kind of poison
of Igorots to be undetectable in order to kill his
▪ In People v Mantawar lack of victim
instruction was held to be
mitigating in robbery with
homicide.
▪ However, it was held in another
case that lack of instruction
should not be mitigating in
robbery with homicide because
robbery and killing are, by their
nature, just as wrong to the
ignorant as they are to the
enlightened.
o Crimes against chastity (rape, aadultery,
etc)
o Treason (love of country should be
natural, however unlettered or uncultured
the citizen may be)
▪ However, in People v Marasigan,
when the schooling of the
accused (who was charged with
treason) was confined in studying
and finishing caton only, lack of
 9. In-Class Notes
(Includes Recitations)
 AUGUST 6, 2018
1. What is criminal law?
2. What are the sources of criminal laws?
3. What is the difference between Criminal Law and
Civil Law?
The primary difference between the two lies on the
party injured. Criminal law deals with cases wherein
the primary injured party (PIP) is the Republic or the
State. The state is the PIP because the state has the
duty to protect its people as well as their safety and
security, and in criminal cases, laws are violated and
the peace and security are both affected.
On the other hand, Civil law deals with cases wherein
the primary injured party is an individual in his
personal character. These cases affect only the life,
liberty, and property of a particular person.
4. When the PIP is the State, does the family of the
injured person have the right to participate in the
hearings or trials?
YES, since every criminal proceeding has a civil
aspect, the family of the aggrieved party has the right
to participate in the proceedings. As a general rule, a
public prosecutor represents the State, but the family
may seek the services of a private prosecutor with the
permission of the public prosecutor.
5. What is QUANTUM OF PROOF?
Quantum of proof is simply amount of proof needed
to win a case.
Criminal Proof beyond reasonable doubt
Civil Preponderance of evidence
Administrative Sufficiency of evidence
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is proof that
overcomes every possibility of doubt, enough to give
the judge moral certainty to find the accused guilty.
6. Who has the power to define and punish crimes?
The state, through it legislative branch, has the power
to define and punish crimes. The power of the
legislative in enacting crimes is supreme, plenary, and
comprehensive.
7. If a lower penalty is imposed, would it be
considered as an ex post facto law?
NO. An ex post facto law is a retroactive law that is
prejudicial to the accused.
8. Are there things like criminal city/municipal
ordinances?
YES. However, these are binding only in places
within their territorial jurisdiction, and not in the
whole country.
AUGUST 8, 2018
9. What are the characteristics of criminal law?
10. Two Brazilian women got married in El Nido. May
they be prosecuted in the Philippines?
YES. Art 14 of the Civil Code provides that penal
laws are obligatory upon all those who live and
sojourn in the Philippine Territory. The only
exceptions to this rules are treaty stipulations, laws of
preferential application, and international laws. The
actions of the 2 Brazilian women do not fall in any of
these exceptions. Hence, they may be prosecuted.
11. Suppose A and B got married in the Philippines.
After a year, they go to the US to file for a divorce,
which was subsequently granted. Thereafter B and
C got married in the US. May B and C be
prosecuted in the Philippines?
The marriage of A and B are valid both in the
Philippines and in the US. Their divorce, however,
was valid only in the US but not in the Philippines. It
would then logically follow that the marriage of B and
C is valid in the US but not in the Philippines.
As far as the Philippines is concerned, the second
marriage of B to C is bigamous. However, they may
not be prosecuted here because the crime was
committed in the US and the Philippines has no
jurisdiction there. Art 14 of the Civil Code as well as
Article 2 provide that penal laws are applicable only
in the Philippine territory unless the actions fall
within the exceptions enumerated in the said
provisions. Since this bigamous marriage is not within
such exception, B and C may not be prosecuted.
12. Suppose in the immediately preceding example B
and C got married in front of a consular
representative in Malaysia. May they be
prosecuted in the Philippines?
YES. Art 17 of the Civil Code provides that forms
and solemnities of a contract shall be governed by the
laws of the country in which they were executed. In
the present case, the contract of marriage was
executed in front of a Philippine consul, which is an
extension of the Philippine territory. Therefore,
Philippine laws will govern and thee parties may be
prosecuted in the Philippines.
13. Can domestic servants or drivers of ambassadors
be prosecuted?
NO. The immunity of ambassadors against suits
covers that of their servants and/or drivers.
14. Overseas Filipino Workers have taken refuge in a
Philippine Embassy abroad. During the duration
of their stay, a labor attaché was pimping on the
women. May the said labor attaché be prosecuted
in the Philippines if he comes home?
NO. Paragraph 4, Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code
provides that Philippine penal laws will apply against
public officers or employees who commit a crime in
 places outside the Philippine territory if such they
commit the offense during the exercise of their
functions.
In the present case, the labor attaché did not commit
the offense in the performance of his duties. Hence,
he may not be prosecuted.
Either expect to get called every day or just prepare so you
don’t have to worry about being called or not.
Article 5
Walden and Sean
Recite Art 5
What are the requisites for the first paragraph of art 5?
What is the situation contemplated in Par 1 Art 5?
-is there a case?
-how can there be a case when there is no crime punishing it?
This is a case wherein a complaint was filed against a person
for allegedly committing a criminal offense. But after hearings
and proceedings, the judge determines, based on the law, that
the accused is actually not guilty or that the evidence is
adduced is not sufficient to convict the accused. However, the
judge determines that it should be punished.
What must the judge do?
What kind of report? Separate? Or just a statement?
This should be embodied in a decision, copies of which shall
bbe furnished to the DOJ, Senate President, speaker of the
house
Does the president have legislative powers under the 1987
constitution? What does the president do in terms of
legislation
The president signs bills into laws, and he may also
recommend laws to the Congress.
What are the requisites of Paragraph 2 of art 5? (4)
Is it possible that instead of recommending executive
clemency, the judge asks the president to amend the law and
decrease the penalty.
Yes. It is not just exeutive clemency but erecmmendation the
remdial changes
Provided, no law against spitting. Judge convinced the
congress to pass a law against it. 1st offense. 15000 fine plus 1
yr
2nd 30k plus 2yrs prison
3rd offense 45k plus 3 yrs prison
.a person caught and prosecuted for this crime. The judge
thinks first offense too much. Is the judge justidifed in
recommending the amendment law when the penalty is too
high. (there was an epidemic of spitting)
NO. although article 10 provides the suppletory nature of the
RPC to special laws, the juidge is not justified because
penalties are not deemed excessive if intended to enforce a
public policy. In this case, the special penal law was enacted
to discourage a certain behavior.
Article 6
Edward, Maddie, Jabagat
Recite article 6
What are the requisites for attempted felony
A woman lived on the 3rd floor of a condo
She lives in a studio with a terrace/balcony
One night as she slept, somebody roke into the house through
the balcony
She woke up becaue she felt a weight on top of her, covering
her mouth and her nose with a handkerchief. She could smell
some kind of chemical.
She kicked the man in between his legs. The man panicked,
got off, and scampered out of the balcony.
She was able to identify the perpetrator.
Based on the facts, what crime can we prosecute the man?
- Trespassing
a. Can we prosecute him for attempted rape?
Not even attempted rape.
Commenced the commission directly by overt acts- this first
element has not been met. The overt act, although external,
does not have a direct connection with the crime intended to
be committed. The acts performed could be in relation to other
crimes like kidnapping or theft. By this act, we cannot
logically conclude that there was an intention to rape or have
sexual intercourse.
b. Can this be an example of an indeterminate offense?
An indeterminate offense is where the purpose of the
offense in performing an act is not certain .
We can tell from the facts that the felony could be
trespassing. We could already determine that he is at least
liable for trespassing. So vague that could not prosecute a
person for any crime due to a very ambiguous intent.
How would you progress the facts so that we can say that
the execution stage is already that of attempted rape?
-successfully took off clothing.
What is the subjective phase of the crime? How is it
different from the objective phase?
- Control vs no control
- Attempted vs frustrated and consummated
What if he was able to successfully remove all clothings
and able to successfully penetrate and the woman woke
up? Can he argue that he is only guilty of attempted rape
because he voluntary deisisted?
No. voluntary desistance is only applicable when the acts
of execution have not been performed and has already
crossed over the objective phase. A had already
performed all the acts of execution which produced the
crime before he desisted.
KIM; PATH OF RIGHTEOUSNESS RETURN
How would you change the facts so the perpetrator could
argue that he voluntarily desisted?
What are the elements of a frustrated felony?
Distinguish frustrated and attempted felony
- All acts of execution
- Subjective vs objective phase
- But in both, the desired felony or result was not
accomplished
Progress the facts so that the perpetrator so that the man
commits frustrated rape
No such thing as a frustrated rape. The mere penetration,
although not full, consummates the crime of rape.
RAPE IS NOT A MATERIAL CRIME, BECAUSE IT
DOES NOT ADMIT OF THE VARIOUS STAGES OF
EXECUTION.
My own recit
Points a gun:
A points a gun, fires his gun, and misses, it is only an
overt act. But did it cross over subjected phase? If it did,
could it be argued that it was frustrated or consummated?
Remember: in gun crimes, concept: mortal wound needed
to be frustrated: an exception is that: kldslkg
Jed’s recit: page 110
When is a crime considered to be consummated?
What are the factors to help us determine the stage of
execution?
There was no fire but there was smoke whatv stage of
execution?
Other than the nature of the crime, what are the other
factors that can guide us in the determination of the
stage of execution of the crime?
Aside from the nature, we consider the elements of the
crime as well as the manner of its commission.
ARTICLE 7
Recite article 7
What is a light felony?
These are infractions of the law for the commission of
which the penalty of arresto menor (imprisonment from 1-
30 days) or a fine not exceeding 200, or both, is provided.
ARTICLE 8
Recite Article 8
Is there a crime of proposal to commit sedition?
NO. Among the crimes for which the mere conspiracy to
commit it is punishable, only sedition has no proposal
counterpart.
What are the elements of conspiracy?
1. 2 or more persons come to an agreement
2. The agreement concerns the commission of a felony
3. The execution of the felony is decided upon
What are the elements of proposal to commit fraud?
1. A person has deicded to commit a felony
In the talipapa,
Jose is a rice vendor
Pedro is a vegetable vendor
Juan is a meat vendor
Carlos is the notorious pickpocketer
Maria was pickpocketed
Maria was in the store of Juan, buying meat. Carlos
took her wallet from her bag, and Maria shouted,
“MAGNANAKAW”. Jose immediately started
running after Carlos. Pedro also ran after Carlos. Juan
ran after Carlos and brought his knife with him.
Jose apprehended Carlos and tied his hands behind his
back. Pedro punched and kicked Carlos. When Juan
arrived, Juan stabbed Carlos. Carlos died.
2. He proposes its execution to another
Are Jose, Pedro, and Juan liable for the death of Carlos?
To make them liable for the death of Carlos, there must have
been conspiracy as a means of incurring a criminal liability,
because the acts attributed to each of them are different. Jose
was liable for tying of the hands of Carlos; Pedro for punching
and kicking; and Juan for stabbing.
However, in this case, the unity of criminal purpose or
common design among the accused is not present. There is no
showing of acquiescence among the accused to kill Carlos.
Hence, there is no conspiracy here and therefore they are not
solidarily liable for the death of Carlos. Each of them is liable
only for the acts that he or she committed.
How would you change the facts to show that there is
conspiracy?
For example, Jose suggests that Carlos be killed with Juan
stabbing the latter, and Juan and Pedro agrees. Thereafter,
Jose apprehends Carlos and ties his hands behind his back.
Pedro punches and kicks Carlos. When Juan arrives, Juan
stabbs Carlos. Carlos dies. In this case, there is conspiracy.
What is the best proof of conspiracy?
The best proof is the agreement between and among the
parties to commit the crime and decide to commit the crime.
What if, Jose, Pedro and Juan agree to kill Carlos in a
drinking session, is there conspiracy?
Yes, there is conspiracy. They have satisfied all the elements
of conspiracy.
1. 2 or more persons come to an agreement
2. The agreement concerns the commission of a felony
3. The execution of the felony is decided upon
SITTING DOWN- ASK ROCK
Article 9
Recite Article 9.
What is the relevance of Art 9?
Art 9 is relevant in understanding compound acts in Article
48. A compound act produces two or more grave or less grave
felonies.
Article 10
Recite Article 10.
What is the purpose of the general rule that those crimes
that are punishable by the special laws are not subject to
the provisions of the RPC?
Article 11
What are the factors affecting criminal liability?
1. Justifying circumstances
2. Exempting circumstances and absolutory causes
3. Mitigating circumstances
4. Aggravating circumstances
5. Alternative circumstances
The person who successfully invokes self-defense is free from
criminal and civil liability.
Recite Article 11
What are the similarities among the first 3 justifying
circumstances?
They all talk about the protection of one’s person or rights.
They are also similar in the following grounds:
a. Lawful aggression
b. Reasonable necessity of the means used to prevent or
repel it.
What are the differences among the first 3 justifying
circumstances?
They differ in the third requisite that must be present in order
that it may be invoked as a justifying circumstance.
a. Self-defense- lack of sufficient provocation on the
part of the person defending himself.
b. Defense of a relative- in case the provocation was
given by the person attacked, that the one making
defense had no part therein.
c. Defense of a stranger- person defending be not
induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil
motive
A and B are siblings. They both hate C, their mortal
enemy. A, the older brother, tells B to provoke C to attack
A. Once he is provoked and once he attacks you (A), I will
defend you and kill him. Then we will both be happy. Can
A invoke defense of a relative?
No, A may not invoke the defense of a relative as a justifying
circumstance. He does not meet the third requisite, which is
the he must have no part in the provocation.
What if B provoked C, and A comes into the picture and in
the guise of defending B, kills C. Can A invoke defense of a
stranger?
Who are deemed to be spouses?
Legal spouses are contemplated by the provision of law.
Who are deemed to be ascendants and descendants?
Legitimate or illegitimate ascendants and descendants are
covered.
Does the law cover illegitimate siblings?
Yes. The law covers only legitimate, natural, and adopted
siblings. Illegitimate siblings are covered under natural
siblings.
Who are the relatives by affinity as contemplated in Art
11?
◼ When the law says defense of person or right, what right is
Who are deemed to be strangers?
Those not included in the enumeration in paragraph 2.
What is provocation?
Provocation is an act done that causes or elicits some kind of
response from another to whom such act is directed.
How is it sufficient?
A provocation is sufficient if it is proportionate to the act of
aggression and adequate to stir the aggressor to its
commission. That is, when something is done, the response
should be commensurate.
When is there lack of sufficient provocation?
There is lack of sufficient provocation when there is
1. No provocation at all
2. There was provocation, but it was not sufficient
3. It was sufficient, but it was not given by the person
defending himself
4. The provocation was given by the person defending
himself but it was not the proximate and immediate to
the act of aggression.
What is unlawful aggression?
Does it require an actual attack?
NO.
Does there have to be a danger in one’s life?
No. It could be a peril against one’s life, limb, or property.
Can one who shoots another for stealing fighting cocks
after he had warned them, invoke defense of property?
No. In the defense of property, there must be an attack or an
unlawful aggression on the person charged with the property.
Is it necessary that there be
being referred to?
The right to defend one’s chastity, property, and home.
What are the requisites for the second requisite under Pars 1-3
of Art 11?
-reasonableness of the course of action taken
- Reasonableness of the means employed
Does the law require perfect equality of the means
employed?
No. What is contemplated by the law is rational equivalence.
The emergency, and the instinct (more than reason) that
impels the defense, and the proportionality rests upon the
imminent danger of the injury.
How does the law construe an individual defending
himself?
A person defending himself is not deemed by the law to be
completely rational during the attack.
Are you expected to run away when attacked?
One is expected to stand on ground when attacked. Requiring
the person to run away would risk that person being attacked
from behind.
Is slapping on the face an unlawful aggression?
Yes. The face represents the person and his dignity. Slapping
it is a serious personal attack. It is a physical assault coupled
with a defiance of an individual’s personality.
Is spitting on the face an unlawful aggression?
Yes
What is a battered woman syndrome?
- A battered woman is one who is repeatedly subjected
to 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
- Victim-survivors who suffer from battered woman
syndrome do not incur criminal or civil liability
notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements
for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the
RPC.
- This may be invoked by any woman in any form of
intimate relationship with a man
What is the difference between a battered woman and a
woman physically abused invoking unlawful aggression?
a. There is no need of aggression. Because of the cycle,
even if there is no severe beatings done to her. The
woman may pre-empt the attack. The attack may not
even be imminent.
b. There is a need of actual or imminent aggression.
FACTS
• The 80 year-old mother of A was hospitalized. B,
the sister of A was also hospitalized.
• Mom was about to be discharged. Medication cost
for the mom and sis totaled 1M.
• The hospital did not want to discharge the mom on
grounds of non-payment.
• The woman did not want to issue a check, but
issued, these checks were dishonored, A case was
filed for violating BP 22.
• She invoked Paragraph 4 as defense because:
hospital was refusing to allow the mom to use
hospital facilities and service (aircon, TV, delay
delivery of food, mother was threatening to
commit suicide).
ISSUE
Are the provisions of the RPC applicable in this case?
May Paragraph 4 be invoked?
In relation to Article 10, RPC is not applicable to cases
governed by special laws, however it may supplement the
special law. BP 22 does not expressly prescribe the suppletory
application of the provisions of the RPC. In the absence of
contrary provision in BP 22, the general provisions of the
RPC which, by their nature are necessarily applicable.
May the said defense be invoked?
a. There is evil sought to be avoided does not actually
exist: the suicide to be committed by the mom is
merely speculative. There is no showing that it will
indeed be committed.
b. The injury feared is greater than that done to avoid it.
The death of the mom is greater injury as compared to
the penalty under BP 22. However, it does not meet
the requirement that the greater evil should not be
brought about by the violation of law of the actor. The
second requisite is not met.
c. There are other practical and less harmful means of
preventing it. There could have been negotiations like
IOUs, post-dated checks, take out a loan, pay on
installments.
AA shoplifted from a grocery. BB arrested AA . AA tried
to run away. The guard chased after him, fired a warning
shot. The shoplifter continued to run, the guard shots the
shoplifter. He was tried for homicide. May the guard
invoke the fulfillment of the duty?
No, the guard may not invoke fulfillment of duty. Shooting a
thief who refused to be arrested is not justified because while
the guard acted in the performance of his duty to secure the
premises, but he exceeded the fulfillment of his duty by
shooting the deceased.
GROUP QUIZ
What is the first thing to ask when there are several people
involved?
- Is there conspiracy? In the case, there is no
conspiracy. There was no showing of a unity of
purpose; there is no showing of a common design.
- This is important to determine because of there is
conspiracy, the liability will be solidary.
- If there is no conspiracy, their liability is individual
and will depend on their respective participation.
Was there unlawful aggression on the part of Tranquilano?
 - Yes, there was unlawful aggression on his part when
he boxed Leonardo 5x after the latter did not pay the
regular amount.
Can Johnny invoke defense of a stranger in defending
Leonardo?
- No, the requisites are not present. There was no
unlawful aggression on the part of Tranquilino
because Tranquilino has already been disarmed, there
was no reasonable necessity of the means employed,
and there was no provocation on the part of Johnny.
Is the refusal to pay the correct fare a sufficient
provocation?
It is a sufficient provocation, considering that Tranquiliano is
a tricycle driver.
Article 12
What is an exempting circumstance?
An exempting circumstance is a circumstance where a crime
is committed, but there is no criminal liability because of
absence of conditions that constitute free will or voluntariness.
Differentiate from justifying circumstance?
In justifying circumstance, there is no crime and no criminal
liability. In exempting circumstance, there is a crime but no
criminal liability. In the former, there is no civil liability
except in Par 4. In the latter, there is civil liability except in
Paragraph 4 and 7.
To whom does the burden of proof belong? Why?
The burden of proof belongs to the accused. This does not
violate the principle of presumption of innocence of the
accused because by invoking Art 12 as an exempting
circumstance, one effectively admits the commission of the
crime, but claims exemption because of Art 12.
What is insanity?
It is the total deprivation of intelligence or reason, or the total
deprivation of the freedom of the will.
May temporary insanity be invoked?
No. according to People vs Renegado, temporary insanity may
not be invoked. It seems an incredible defense for the person
to recall all other events except for the instance of the crime
itself.
What is lucid interval?
It is a temporary period of sanity.
What happens when it is established that a person is insane?
A person established to be insane during the time of the
commission of the crime, he shall be acquitted and shall be
confined in a hospital or asylum establish for such persons
afflicted. When a person has been adjudged insane, he is
presumed to be insane.
What is imbecility?
Imbecility is one who, mature in age, but has mental
development comparable to that children between 2-7. He is
deprived completely of reason
Intervention program
This is a program for the rehabilitation of the child in conflict
with the law, for reintegration into his or family and/or
community. It includes a series of activities designed to
address issues that caused the child to commit an offense.
Can actual intelligence of the child overrule the provision
of the law that those below 15years old lack of
intelligence?
What is the difference between intelligence and
discernment?
How is discernment established?
Discernment is mental in nature, and is manifested in the
outward actions of the actor. It is evident in the manner of
committing the crime as well as the conduct of the actor after
the commission of the crime.
How is the age established?
The best evidence is the certificate of live birth. In its absence,
a baptismal certificate may be presented. In the absence of
either of the forgoing, testimonies of any person allowed to
give testimony under the Rules of Evidence may suffice.
Is the age determined in the same proceeding as the trial
for criminal action?
The determination of the age of the accused may be
established in a summary proceeding filed before the Family
Court which shall render its decision within 24 hours.
Differentiate Par 4 of Art 11 and Art 12.
The difference is that in the former, the actions of the
perpetrator were done in order to avoid an equal or greater
injury. There is a state of necessity. However, in the latter, the
actions of the perpetrator are a result of accident.
The gate of the subdivision is on a one-way road. To go to
another direction, another gate must be used. Other
vehicles counter-flow instead of going to the other gate.
What if another car (b) decides to enter the gate, does not
look to the other direction because he knew that the road
was one way. There was a head-on collision. May car B
invoke accident under article 4?
No, he may not. There is negligence on the part of the driver
of car B. Knowing that every now and then there are cars that
counter-flow and even if it was a one-way road, he should
have exercised extra care to determine whether or not there is
another car that he could have possibly collided with.
How could you say that the force is irresistible?
A force is irresistible if it reduces the actor to a mere
instrument who acts not only without his will but against his
will.
A man approached a waterfall and thought that what he
saw was a diwata. He raised paragraph 5 as a defense.
That is, the beauty of the woman was irresistible and
reduced him to a mere instrument. May he invoke said
defense?
No. He may not. The compulsion referred to in Paragraph 5 is
must be by means of physical force, it must be irresistible, and
such force must come from a different person. In this case, the
force was neither physical nor coming from a third person. It
came from his own personal and internal urges. Therefore, the
defense of irresistible force may not be invoked.
There was a sniper positioned at a vantage point. The
gunman told the teller to deposit 100k in his account or
else he will shoot her. May the teller invoke irresistible
force?
No. There is no irresistible force employed. There was mere
threat.
Distinguish between irresistible force and uncontrollable
fear.
Irresistible force is caused by physical force coming from a
third person. On the other hand, uncontrollable fear is caused
by threats or intimidation by a third person.
ARTICLE 13
What are mitigating circumstances?
These are circumstances, when present, do not extinguish the
crime, but reduce the penalty because of the diminution of
either freedom of action, intelligence, or intent, or lesser
perversity of the offender.
Distinguish mitigating, justifying, and exempting
circumstances.
In justifying circumstances, there is no crime and no criminal
liability. There is no civil liability, except in Par 4. In
exempting circumstances, there is a crime but no criminal
liability because of the absence of negligence or intent. Lastly,
in mitigating circumstances, there is a crime, but the penalty is
lowered.
What are the 2 classes mitigating circumstances?
Ordinary and privileged mitigating circumstances
Ordinary- susceptible of being offset by aggravating
circumstances and if not offset by aggravating circumstances,
produces only the effect of applying the penalty in its
minimum period.
Privileged- cannot be offset by aggravating circumstances ad
produces the effect of imposing upon the offender the penalty
lower by one or two degrees than that provided by law.
What are the ordinary mitigating circumstances?
These are the ones enumerated in Art 13 of the RPC.
What are the privileged mitigating circumstances?
Minors aged 15-18; voluntary release of the person illegally
detained within 3 days without the offender attaining his
purpose and before the institution of criminal action;
abandonment without justification of the spouse who
committed adultery.
When does Art 13, Paragraph 1 apply?
a. Self-defense A11,P1
b. Defense of a relative A11,P2
c. Defense of stranger A11,P3
d. State of necessity A11,P4
e. Performance of duty A11,P5
f. Obedience to order of superior A11,P6
g. Minors 15 and above to 18 A12,P3
h. Causing injury by mere accident A12,P4
i. Uncontrollable fear A12,P6
What happens if there is unlawful aggression, reasonable
necessity, but there was sufficient provocation on the part
of the person making the defense?
In this case, the requisites of the self-defense are not all
present. Self-defense may not be invoked. However, this can
become a privileged mitigating circumstance.
If there is only one out of three requisites for self-defense
present, what happens?
There is only ordinary mitigating circumstance.
If a police officer was in the performance of the duty but
exceeds the performance thereof, what is the effect?
There is only 1 out of 2 requisites present in this case. still, it
was ruled by the SC that 1 is the majority of 2, and therefore
there is privileged mitigating circumstance.
Requisites of Paragraph 4
Differentiate sufficient provocation as self-defense with
sufficient provocation as self-defense.
Requisites paragraph 5
a. There be a grave offense done to:
o The person committing the felony
o His spouse
o Ascendants, descendants
o Legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or
sisters or relatives by affinity within the same
degree
▪ This also applies to the surviving
spouse of a deceased relative
b. The felony is committed in vindication of such grave
offense.
Requisites paragraph 6
a. The accused acted upon an impulse
b. The impulse is so powerful that it naturally produced
passion or obfuscation in him.
What is passion
What is obfuscation
Confused or clouded mind or judgment.
Nagdilim ang paningin
Differentiate passion or obfuscation and vindication
The difference lies in the cause of action. In the latter, there is
a grave offense committed by another that caused the person
to commit the crime. In passion or obfuscation, there is a
lawful or unjust act that caused the action.
Also, in the former, the act causing the passion or obfuscation
must immediately precede the crime committed by the
offender. In the latter, there is more time allowed under the
law to invoke it as a mitigating circumstance.
Requisites of voluntary surrender
a. Offender had not actually been arrested
b. Offender surrendered himself to a person of authority
or his agents
o If he surrenders only the weapon, it is not
deemed to be a voluntary surrender.
c. Surrender was voluntary
When is surrender spontaneous?
It is spontaneous if the offender surrenders as a result of his
own volition, without being affected by external
circumstances. He must have surrendered because he
acknowledges his guilt or in order to save the government
from the expenses for pursuing him he acknowledged his guilt
or that he wants to save them the trouble and expenses
incurred in his search and capture
Can it be voluntary if a warrant has already been issued?
Yes. If the warrant has only been issued but not yet served,
the surrender may still be voluntary.
Recite paragraph 8
Deaf- a person who cannot hear
Deaf and Dumb- a person who cannot hear and speak
Is it enough to prove that the person is deaf, dumb or
blind?
No, it is not enough. It should be proven that the defect is of
such nature as to restrict means of action, defense, or
communication with fellow beings
Recite Paragraph 9 What are aggravating circumstances that depend on the
The person knows the consequences of his actions however, knowledge of the offender?
he does not have complete control over his actions.
The following circumstances shall serve to aggravate the
Recite Paragraph 10
liability of only those who had knowledge of them at the
Article 14 time of execution of the act or their cooperation therein:
Recite. a. Material execution of the act
b. Means employed to accomplish it
What are the 4 kinds of aggravating circumstances?
1. GENERIC
Paragraph 1
This generally applies to all crimes.
Who is covered in Paragraph 1?
2. SPECIFIC
Any person employed by the government, not necessarily one
This applies only to particular crimes. (15,16,17,21)
who has public authority. It is not limited to those who are
3. QUALIFYING
considered to be persons in authority. It covers those who
This changes the nature of the crime. (6 treachery; and 13
have public positions, and those who take advantage of the
evident premeditation)
influence, prestige, or ascendancy that his office gives him.
4. INHERENT
By necessity, this accompanies the commission of the
Paragraph 2
crime.
What are the requisites?
1. The public authority is in the exercise of his function
Is there a possibility that the penalty provided be
2. The crime is not directed towards the public authority
increased by one or two degrees in the presence of a
3. The offender knows him to be a public authority
qualifying circumstance?
4. His presence has not prevented the perpetrator to
Yes.
commit the crime
What are aggravating circumstances personal to the
offender? What is the difference in the persons covered in
Aggravating circumstances that arise from: paragraphs 1 and 2?
a. Moral attributes of offender In P1, all persons holding public positions are covered,
b. Private relations of the offended party including persons in authority and their agents. However, in
c. Other personal cause paragraph 2, only those persons in authority are covered.
These shall only serve to aggravate the liability of principals,
accomplice and accessories to whom the circumstances are Paragraph 3- dissect
attendant. Rank refers to the position or social standing. It does not
Age pertains to both old and tender age.
Sex refers only to the female sex.
Dwelling refers to the building or structure, exclusively used
for rest and comfort.
What is in the employer employee relationship that
negates the aggravating circumstance?
When will a crime committed in the dwelling not
appreciated against the accused?
The offended party must not have given provocation.
If the offended party gave provocation, then the fact that the
offense occurred in his dwelling does not make it as an
aggravating circumstance.
The provocation referred to must be:
a. Sufficient
b. Given by the owner of the dwelling
c. Immediate to the commission of the crime
Paragraph 4
What are the requisites?
1. The offended party trusted the offender
2. The offender abused such trust by committing a crime
against the offended party
3. The abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of
the crime.
Distinguish abuse of confidence from betrayal of trust.
There is betrayal of trust when the confidence is given by a
minor who can defend himself or herself, or when a parent
entrusts a minor to the care of another person, and such person
abuses the child. The confidence given should be capable of
facilitating the commission of the crime. On the other hand,
there is abuse of confidence pertains to the confidence given
by the minor.
When can you say that the confidence given facilitated the
commission of the crime?
Crime couldn’t have been committed without such
confidence.
Abuse of confidence as differentiated from obvious
ungratefulness
In the former, the victim must have reposed confidence in the
perpetrator. Such confidence or trust is not required in the
latter. What sets them apart is in the latter, something must
have been done by the victim in favor of the perpetrator and
the latter is expected to be grateful for such.
Paragraph 5
Is it necessary for the president to be present when the
crime is committed in the Palace?
No, the commission of the crime in this place is enough.
Is the palace referred to the house of the president?
The palace referred to is the official residence of the president,
which is the Malacanang Palace.
For this circumstance to be invoked, must the crime be
directed to the president?
No, his mere presence is enough for this circumstance to be
aggravating.
What are the places dedicated for religious worship?
Churches and chapels are included. Cemeteries are not
included. Malls that hold masses are included only at the
momentary time of worship.
Paragraph 6
What is contemplated by law when it says nighttime?
This is the period of darkness beginning at the end of dusk
and ending at dawn. Nights are from sunset to sunrise.
What is contemplated by law when it says uninhabited
place?
It is a place where there are no houses at all, at a considerable
distance from town, or the houses are scattered at a great
distance from each other.
What is contemplated by law when it says by a band?
A crime is committed by a band whenever more than 3
armed malefactors shall have acted together in the
commission of the offense.
Is it enough for the prosecution to prove nighttime alone?
It must be shown that the offender sought for it and took
advantage of it to commit the crime. Also, the crime must be
begin and be accomplished at nighttime. The crime must be
committed in the darkness of the night. Hence, when the place
of the crime is illuminated by light, nighttime is not
aggravating. Also, the prosecution must prove that the night
time facilitated the commission of the crime.
When can you say that night time and uninhabited place
facilitated the commission of the crime?
Nighttime may facilitate the commission of the crime when
because of the darkness of the night, the crime can be
perpetrated unmolested, or interference may be avoided, or
there would be greater certainty in attaining the ends of the
offender.
When is night time sought for?
When the offender sought for it or waited or lingered until
night time to realize the crime with more ease.
Paragraph 7
What is conflagration? How is it different from
inundation?
Conflagration is an extensive fire that destroys a great deal of offenders merely relied on malefactors act together 2. He has previously served sentence for another offense
land or property. Inundation, on the other hand, involves the aid of the armed men; to which the law attaches equal penalty, greater
flooding. actual aid is not necessary penalty, or lighter penalty for 2 or more crimes.
o It is essential for the offender to serve the
If there are at least 4 armed men involved, what is the sentence.
What is a shipwreck? aggravating circumstance? 3. He is convicted of the new offense
What is contemplated by the law is a situation wherein a If there are 4 armed men, the aid of armed men is absorbed in
crime is committed when the vessel runs aground. employment of a band. If there are 3 armed men or less, aid of Distinguish 9 from 10.
armed men may be the aggravating circumstance. RECIDIVISM REITERACION
What is an epidemic? Final judgment is sufficient Offender must have served
Offenses in the same title Offenses MUST NOT be in
This is a widespread occurrence of an infectious disease in a Paragraph 9
the same title of the RPC
community at a particular time. What is a recidivist? Always an aggravating Not always aggravating, such
A recidivist is one who, at the time of trial for one crime, shall circumstance unless given as when the first offense was
Is it enough to establish the existence of conflagration, have previously been convicted by final judgment of another amnesty a crime against property and
shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or crime embraced in the same title of the RPC. the subsequent offense a
misfortune to be aggravating? crime against persons.
No. the prosecution must prove that the offender, instead of What are the requisites?
rendering aid, takes advantage of their misfortune to despoil 1. The offender is on trial for an offense What penalty is contemplated by this paragraph?
the afflicted. 2. Previously convicted by final judgment of another The law talks about penalties attached by law, and not the
crime ones actually imposed. They may be different.
Paragraph 8 3. The first and second offenses are embraced in the
What is meant by armed? same title of the RPC
A person is armed when he carries anything that may be 4. The offender is convicted of the new offense
considered a weapon. It may not necessarily be a gun. Sir said, do not bother to write answers that involve paragraph
Examples include a golf club, bat, dagger, bolo, or a gun. If a person is convicted of concubinage and was previously 11 of Art 14 (and onwards). WAG BIBO.
convicted of bigamy, may recidivism be appreciated?
What is meant when the law says that the armed men Bigamy is a crime against civil status. Concubinage is a crime
must be directly or indirectly involved in the commission against chastity. They do not fall in the same title, hence,
of a crime? recidivism may not be appreciated.

Differentiate aid of armed men and by a band. Paragraph 10

AID OF ARMED MEN EMPLOYMENT OF A BAND What are the requisites?
Present even if one of the Requires that at least 4 armed 1. The accused is on trial for offense