Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 81

CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES Circumstances, which, if attending the commission of act, makes the act

lawful, it is justified and in accordance with law an therefore, the act is not a crime. 1.) ANYONE WHO ACTS IN DEFENSE OF HIS PERSON OR RIGHTS. Self-defense only applies to crimes against persons. 3 Elements: A.) Unlawful Aggression Without this element, there could be no self defense. If ether of the 2nd and 3rd elements is lacking, as long as there is unlawful ag gression, it constitute an incomplete self-defense, which is a mitig. circumsta nces. Aggression is a physical attack which can cause injury or even death. So if t here is no physical aggression (only verbal) there is no aggression to speak of. 2 kinds of aggression: Lawful Aggression According to rules of court, the arresting officer can use su ch force as may be reasonably necessary to effect the arrest, and because he can use force in the process of effecting the arrest, the policeman may become an a ggressor. Unlawful Aggression Aggression can either be actual or threatened.Threatened agg ression amounts to actual aggression , if threatened harm is imminent, or on pt. of happening.Its in less 1 second, you are dead. Then that s the aggression we sp eak of. BAR:You are inside your house in the 2nd floor. Then B from below shouts at you, challenging you to fight Wait there and I will kill you B was going to kill you but to beat him to it you killed him first.Is the threatened harm imminent? Ta ke note that B still has to go up. No, threatening attitude is not equivalent to an actual aggression. So it s a question of evidence, is there harm now or on the point of happening? I s there death now or on the point of happening? If answer is no, then, the threatened harm does not amount to unlawful aggressio n. It is a future aggression. You have no right to act now simply because there is a threat. Suppose A attacked B & B landed on the ground sustaining many blows. Then A lef t when A left, B stood up, chased A & attacked him B killed A. B claimed that t he killing of a A is a self-defense since it was A who attacked him first.Is B e ntitled to self-defense? No, you could only act in self-defense while aggression is still going on or is about to start. However in another scenario,when V started to hit H, that constituted unlawful a ggression, so when H shot V, he was justified in doing so as he was only acting in self-defense.But the moment B run away, the danger to A s life & limb ceased. Unlawful aggression ended. Another illustration is when A tries to run with your wallet and in order to sto p him from running away, you shoot him to death. Can you claim self defense?NO

self defense applies only if attack on one s property is coupled with attack on hi s person like when A tried to get your money and when you tried to resist, A dre w out his knife or that A entered your house and in getting your property, he tr ied to kill you but you killed him first. B) Reasonable Necessity of the means employed to prevent the aggression. Maybe it is unreasonable to use a knife when somebody attack you with a first.Bu t when 5 or 10 people attack you with their first; you use a knife against them, that is reasonable.Or when the aggressor is Manny Pacquiao or Mike Tyson.

C) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Victim of unlawful aggression, even if you defend yourself reasonable, still you cannot claim self-defense if you were the cause of the aggression, because you gave sufficient provocation. Principles: 1.) No provocation 2.) Person defending himself might have given some provocation but it is not suf ficient 3.) Person defending himself might have given sufficient provocation But his provocation was not immediate to the act of aggression, he can still inv oke self defense. There is a close co-relation between first and the 3rd element. Ex: a) I provoke A today, but he did not react. Then after 6 mos. When we met at Sa n Pedro St., and A started to attack me. So I have to defend myself. Can I cla im self defense?Yes, since provocation was not proximate/immediate to the act of aggression. It is different if I provoke and he reacted. b) B attacked and A with a club. So B is the unlawful aggressor, when A fought back and B realized that he was wounded B ran away. So there is no more aggress ion, but A pursued B and killed him.A cannot claim self defense since no more ag gression c) Suppose A was already chasing B, B started to fight back and killed A since h e knew that A was determined to kill him. A now becomes the victim and B is the accused can B claim self defense. (No, absence of 3rd element)Was there unlawf ul aggression by A? Yes, he went after B to kill him (on the 3rd stage of the f ight, A was the unlawful aggressor). Was there lack of sufficient provocation on the part of person defending himself ? No, why did A want to kill him? It was because B wanted to kill A at the 1st stage of the fight. So B s aggression earlier became a provocation on his part in the 2nd stage of the fight.

2.) DEFENSE OF RELATIVES SPOUSE,ASCENDANTS,DESCENDANTS,BROS. & SIS RELATIVES BY AFFINITY, WITH IN SAME DEGREE, PARENTS-IN-LAW, SON-IN-LAW,BROS.-INLAW, RELATIVES AND THOSE IN CONSANGUINITY WITHIN THE FOURTH CIVIL DEGREE. Pointers: 1.) Your relative must be a victim of unlawful aggression if your relative is th e aggressor and you came to their defense and to finish off their enemy, you can not claim defense of relatives. 2.) Use reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent and repel the aggr ession. 3.) I the one making the defense had no part therein

3.) DEFENSE OF STRANGERS PROVIDED THAT 1ST AND 2ND ELEMENTS OF SELF DEFENSE ARE PRESENT AND THAT PERSON DEFENDING BE NOT INDUCE BY REVENGE, RESENTMENT OR OTHER EVIL MOTIVE. 3rd element you were motivated by humanitarian sentiment and you really did it to defend the stranger. Ex: I am looking for my enemy since I want to kill him and when I saw him, he w as attacking somebody, so I entered the scene and killed him.No defense of stran ger.

4.) EMERGENCY RULE (STATE OF NECESSITY) Any person who, in order to avoid an evil/injury, does an act which causes damag e to another, provided that the ff. are present. 1.) Evil sought to be avoided actually exist. 2.) Injured feared be greater than that to avoid it 3.) No other practical and less harmful means of preventing it. No one can invoke emergency rule if he brought out the emergency himself.Ex: I am over speeding and even if apply my brakes I will still collide with the truck . (The only justifying circumstances where there is no crim. liab. But there i s civil liab. Which has to be borne by the person benefited by the act).

5.) ANY PERSON WHO ACTS: In fulfillment of duty: Use of force may be improper if person to be arrested is peacefully surrendering . When D tried to apprehend A, A fought back with a sharpened bamboo pole. D was able to evade the attack and A turned around and run away. D, a policeman, chas es A but A continued to run away with a bamboo pole. So D had to shoot him. D was accused of homicide.- D is not liable since D acted in fulfillment of his du ty to arrest A. Policeman is going to arrest you, but you don t give up, you turn your back and ru n away. The policeman has no choice but to kill you.- Self defense is not anymo re existing, but he can still rely on fulfillment of duty. PAR. 5 is the Law on self defense of property (Personal or real)--(Doctrine of s elf-help) Art. 429 Civil code,You have right to drive out people who is forcibly occupying your landThe use of force must be reasonable. A pick pocket grabbed your watch. In order to prevent him from escaping, you dr ew your gun and shot him in the leg. Is it reasonable to immobilize him? YES But if you shot him in the body and killed him. Cannot invoke self defense si nce no attack on your person. It is not reasonable based on the principle th at no one is justified to take human life simply because of a property.

In exercise of an office: Ex: executioner of bilibid prison Execution is at 3 p.m do not execute him at any other time.

6.) ANY PERSON WHO ACTS IN OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED BY A SUPERIOR FOR SO ME LAWFUL PURPOSE --even if order is illegal if it is patently legal and the subordinate is not aware of its illegality then latter is not liable since mistake of fact com mitted in good faith. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE

At the time of commission, he acted without intelligence/freedom/intent or negli gence. And therefore, there is no voluntariness. 1. AN IMBECILE OR AN INSANE PERSON, UNLESS HE ACTED DURING A LUCID INTERVAL. Legal concept of insanity is the inability to distinguish what is right from wha t is wrong. Major Criteria in Determining Existence and Insanity 1. Delusion Test Insane person believes in a state of things, the existence of which no rational person would believe. 2. Irresistible Impulse Test He can distinguish between right and wrong, but he has lost power to choose. 3. Right & Wrong Test Suffers from perverted condition of mental and moral faculties as to render him incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong. Insanity must refer to the time preceding the act constituting the crime, or at the very moment of its commission. Insanity that developed after commission of f elony does not exempt the offender. Sleep walking is considered insanity, also epilepsy. 2. A PERSON UNDER 9 YEARS OF AGE. (ALSO IF EXACTLY 9) 3. A PERSON OVER 9 AND UNDER 15, UNLESS HE ACTED WITH DISCERNMENT. Suppose, A is a wonder boy, whose mental development is advanced and can distinguish what is right from wrong. A is still exempt because law does not distinguish between a minor who is mentally advance and one who is not. Suppose the minor is over 9 up to 15, is he exempt?Conditional, which means, exempt unless he acted with discernment. Intent- desired effect of one st act Discernment- relates to moral significance that a person ascribes to the said act. Discernment is part of intelligence. In felonies committed by culpa, 3 elements are Indispensable: 1.Intelligence 2.Freedom of Action 3.Negligence Intent is wanting, but intelligence remains as an essential element. To be liabl e, he must discern the rightness with wrongness of the act. 4. ANY PERSON WHO, WHILE PERFORMING A LAWFUL ACT WITH DUE CARE, CAUSES AN INJUR Y BY MERE ACCIDENT WITHOUT FAULT OR INTENTION OF CAUSING IT.

5. ANY PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER COMPULSION OF IRRESISTIBLE FORCE. The irresistible force must be physical and must come from a 3rd person. It cann ot spring from offender himself. 6. ANY PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER THE IMPULSE OF AN UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR OF AN EQUAL/G REATER INJURY. The basis of par. 5 & 6 is the absence of freedom of action. There is intelligen ce, there is intent but there is no freedom. You were literally compelled agains t your will to count the felony. Distinction: 1. Uncontrollable fear-manner by which he was compelled to commit a crime was not through force,but through threat or intimidation. 2. Irresistible Fear-compelled to commit a crime, though use of physical force, like torture. Demon possession is not covered. It may be insanity. US vs. Caballeros Upon hearing the shooting, the poor farmer ran towards the scene of the crime. However, he was seen by the leader of the band. They struck him with the butts of their rifles and compelled him to bury the corpses. He was caught by the authorities and was charge as an accessory in the murder.B is not liable since he acted under compulsion of an irresistible force. In order to avail of 5 & 6: 1.NO POSSIBILITY OF DEFENDING HIMSELF FROM THE THREAT If threaten you with the gun, you have no obligation to fight back just to avoid committing the crime. 2. NO POSSIBILITY OF ESCAPING FROM THE THREAT If there s a chance, so you are not covered. 3. THREAT MUST BE OF EQUAL AND GREATER INJURY It must be clear, concrete and not speculated. The threatened harm must be real (not imaginary) 7. ANY PERSON WHO FAILS TO PERFORM AN ACT REQUIRED BY LAW WHEN PREVENTED BY SOM E LAWFUL AND INSUPERABLE CAUSE. Accused is a Priest. B, in the confessional, confessed to him about BEING a coconspirator in the crime of treason. If priest do not report the matter, he viol ates the law. If he reports, he violates seal of confession.Defense of Priest if he do not report, is that he was prevented by a lawful cause (secrecy of confes sion) from revealing the matter. Suppose P, a policeman, caught A without warrant since A was committing a crime. P is supposed to bring A to town and to formally charge him in court. But it ta

kes 3 to 4 days to reach the town from the barangay. So necessarily, P detained A for more than 36 hrs. By the time he reached the town, it was 48 hrs. later. S o P was charged under Art. 125.What is P is defense? Par. 7

EFFECT OF EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE: 1. Offender is exempt from crim. Lab. 2. With regards to civil lab. > Offender is 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. CIVILLY liable

imbecility/insanity minority minority with discernment compulsion of an irresistible force impulse of an uncontrollable fear

> Offender is EXEMPT from civil lab. 1. accident 2. lawful with insuperable cause 3. Other Exempting Circumstance OTHER EXEMPTING: 1. Art. 6 2. Art 7 - light felonies are punishable only when they are consummated, except those committed against persons or property. 3. Art. 16 - Accessories not liable for light felonies 4. Art. 20 - Accessory who is related to principal is exempt from crim. Lab . 5. Instigation - Public officer/private detective involves an innocent person to commit a crime and would arrest him after. - idea of committing crime came from policeman MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES If present in the commission, it would reduce/mitigate the imposable penalty si nce when he committed act with a reduction of freedom, intent or of intelligen ce.

1.) THOSE MENTIONED IN PRECEDING CHAPTER, WHEN ALL NECESSARY REQUISITE ARE NOT A TTENDANT (TO JUSTIFY OR EXEMPT) Incomplete self defense, defense of relative, state of necessity, incomplete acc ident, incomplete irresistible force, incomplete uncontrollable fear.

2.) OFFENDER IS UNDER 18 OR OVER 70. Over 9 15 16 to 17 18 to 70 Over70 Exempting Exempting if acted without discernment Mitigating if acted with discernment Mitigating Mitigating

Baptismal certificate is not competent to prove a persons age since it is not re cognized as an official document. What is competent is the official birth certi ficate. Pp. v. Tisnio. The answer to the question if whether or not A s lone testimony as to his minority would be sufficient is YES. Anyway, the prosecution will present its own evidence and it is there that we wi ll know if A is telling the truth. But if his testimony is unchallenged, then, it would suffice.

3.) OFFENDER HAS NO INTENTION TO COMMIT A WRONG AS THAT COMMITTED. Applies only to intentional felonies and not to culpable felonies. Ex: A with intent and inflicting physical injury on B, hit B with his fist. B f ell down and his head hit a concrete pavement, thereby fracturing his skull. B subsequently dies.A is liable for homicide, he is entitled to mitigating circums tance whereby he had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.

4.) HAVING ACTED UPON AN IMPULSE SO POWERFUL OF NATURALLY TO HAVE PRODUCED PASSI ON AND OBFUSCATION. Passion and obfuscation must arise from lawful sentiments. a.) A, married man, was having affair with C, A killed C since C want to part wa ys with A. A defense that he was obsfucated. Defense untenable since passion aro se from an illicit relationship. b.) Passion must not be generated by revenge. c.) Passion must not be libido 5.) SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION OR THREAT ON PART OF OFFENDED PARTY PRECEDED THE ACT. Sufficient provocation B attacked A with a piece of wood A defended himself by shooting B. when B real ized that he was slightly wounded, he turned his back and ran away, a chased , overtook him and killed him.A is not entitled to justifying circumstances of sel f defense since no unlawful aggression is present since B ran away, A cannot cla im benefit of incomplete self defense, he may avail of mitig. Circum. Sufficient provocation Supose, when A was chasing B, B was force to fight back and in the process B kil led A, can B claim self defense? No, since reason why A attacked due to the suff

icient provocation given by B earlier.B may avail and mit. Circu. Of incomplete self defense. since there was unlawful aggression on part of A. Also, means B u sed to defend himself was reasonable, but he gave sufficient provocation. Sufficient Threat When threatened act is about to happen, that is equivalent to actual aggression. That is a justifying circumstance. But if threat is in the future, then it is not equivalent to unlawful aggressi on, mitigating. Illustration: 1.)Mitigating A said you watch out days, I ll kill you one of these days, so B kill ed A. 2.)Justifying (invoke self-defense)--A told B, I ll kill you now and drew his gun. When B realized that, B drew out and shot his gun and killed A. Difference of immediate in Par 4 and Par 5. 4 immediate means no gap between the threat or provocation and crime. 5 immediate is not really literal, the immediate here is Proximate

6.) REVENGE Act was committed in vindication of a grave offense to: The one committing the felony His spouse Ascendants Descendants Legitimate, natural or adopted bros. and sisters. Relatives by affinity with in same degree (Consanguinity not included) Immediate in here means proximate. Meaning, the revenge is not done immediately but after a lapse of time, what is important is that there is a relation of caus e and effect between them. Ex: X is killed and that after funeral of X, his son A, looks for killer, after 1 month, A found killer and kill him. US vs.AMPAR:There was a party. A, who is an old man went to B who was serving le chon. B played a joke on A in presence of guest and called him Roast Pig .A left, got an ax and killed B.A acted in vindication of a grave offense committed again st him. It was just a joke but considering his age and occasion, it was somethi ng serious. 7.) OFFENDER HAD TO VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED HIMSELF TO A PERSON IN AUTHORITY OR HIS AGENT VOLUNTARILY CONFESSED HIS GUILT BEFORE THE COURT PRIOR TO PRESENTATION OF EVIDEN CE FOR PROSECUTION (Most common mitigating circumstance invoked in court). Voluntary Surrender 1.Surrender to person in authority (Art. 153), clerk of City hall is not person in authority(2006 notes). 2.To be voluntary it must be spontaneous and should show intent to submit himsel f unconditionally-1.) Due to that he acknowledge his guilt or

2.) Because he wishes to save them (police and guard) the trouble and expenses t o be necessary increased for his search and captures. Not Voluntary Surrender When A is supposed to surrender to ensure his safety his arrest being inevitabl e, the surrender is not spontaneous hence not voluntary. It took 2 years and 5 months after issuance of warrant of arrest before he surre nder. Provincial Commander announced that he would issue a shoot to kill order against A. So A was persuaded to surrender .Fact remains that he was not arrested and h e presented himself to provincial commander. Voluntary Confession of guilt Requisites: made an open court Spontaneous Prior to presentation of evidence by prosecution. A person who entered a plea of Not guilty later change his mind and withdraw the plan and change it to guilty. And that he is still entitled to mitigating circu mstance since he confessed his guilt before prosecution has laid its evidence.Th e law does not require for offender to give himself to the authorities in the mu nicipality where offense was committed.

8.) OFFENDER IS DEAF AND DUMB, BLIND, OTHERWISE SUFFERING SOME PHYSICAL DEFECT W HICH THUS RESTRICTS HIS MEANS OF ACTION, DEFENSE OR COMMUNICATION WITH HIS FELLO W BEINGS. Any physical defect by accused is automatically mitigating even if it does not h ave anything to do with the crime.

9.) SUCH ILLNESS OF OFFENDER AS WOULD DIMINISH THE EXERCISE OF THE WILL POWER O F OFFENDER WITHOUT HOWEVER DEPRIVING HIM OF CONSCIOUSNESS OF HIS ACTS. This is a mitigating circumstance which you should correlate with 12 (1) on insa nity. 2 test: 1.Test of cognition complete deprivation of intelligence in committing criminal act (Right or wrong test). 2.Test of volition Total deprivation of freedom of will, irritable impulse test, recognized test 10.) ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE OF A SIMILAR NATURE ANALOGOUS TO THOSE MENTIONED. Ex: -Old man, around 65, but he could hardly waltk. The SC gave to his benefits the circumstances analogous to Above 70 -Creditor who could not collect from the debtor. Each time he would go to debto r to collect the account, the debtor would always tell him to come back the next day. Creditor, got tired and mauled the latter.The feeling of creditor is same with passion so mitigated. -A thief who stole property. After 2 days, he was filled with remorse.Desistanc e was too late, returning the property cannot be desistance same to voluntary su rrender.

Distinctions between ordinary mitigating circumstances and privileged mitigating circumstances As to the nature of the circumstances Ordinary mitigating circumstances can be offset by aggravating circumstances. Privilege mitigating circumstance can never be offset by any aggravating circums tance.

As to effect Ordinary mitigating circumstances, if not offset, will operate to reduce the pen alty to the minimum period, provided the penalty is a divisible one. Privilege mitigating circumstances operate to reduce the penalty by one or two d egrees, depending upon what the law provides. You can easily detect whether the circumstance which mitigates the liability of the offender is privilege or not, that is, if the penalty is reduced by degree. If the penalty is lowered by one or two degrees, it is privilege; therefore, ev en if there is an aggravating circumstance, do not compensate because that would be violating the rules.The circumstances under Article 13 are generally ordinar y mitigating, except in paragraph 1, where it is privilege, Article 69 would app ly. So also, paragraph 2, in cases where the offender is below 18 years old, su ch an offender if criminally liable is entitled to the lowering of penalty by on e degree. But if over nine but under 15, he is entitled to a discretionary pena lty of at least two degrees lower. When there is a lowering of penalties by deg rees, it is a privilege. It cannot be offset by an aggravating circumstance. In bar problems, when you are given indeterminate sentences, these articles are very important.When the circumstance which mitigates criminal liability is privi leged, you give effect to it above all considerations. In other words, before y ou go into any circumstance, lower first the penalty to the proper degree. That is precisely why this circumstance is considered privileged. It takes preferen ce over all other circumstances. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES Circumstances which if attending the commission of a felony, would tend to i ncrease the prescribed penalty to the max.pd. of the prescribed penalty. 1.Taking advantage of public position a qualifying or special aggravating that shall not be offset or compensated by a mitigating circumstance. If not alleged in the information, however, but prove n during the trial, it is only appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance . The mitigating circumstance referred to in the amendment as not affecting the im position of the penalty in the maximum are only ordinary mitigating circumstance s. Privileged mitigating circumstances always lower the penalty accordingly. 2.Crime committed in contempt of or w/ insult to public authoritie not only confined to persons in authorities but also to agents of persons in a

uthority (ex: PNP superintendent) 3Disrespect due to rank, age, sex or it is committed in the dwelling of the offended party and latter did not gave provocation Rank ,Age and Sex(treated as one) Aggravating only in crimes against persons and honor, not against property like Robbery with homicide (People v. Ga, 156 SCRA 790). Teachers, professors, supervisors of public and duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities, as well as lawyers are persons in authority only for purposes of direct assault and simple resistance, but not for purposes of aggra vating circumstances in paragraph 2, Article 14. (People v. Taoan, 182 SCRA 601) . Dwelling Grule: Dwelling is aggravating when it is the dwelling of the offended party. It should also not be the dwelling of the offender. If the dwelling is both that of the offended party and the offender, dwelling is not aggravating. A garage is part of the dwelling when connected with an interior passage to the house proper. If not connected, it is not considered part of the dwelling. Dwelling need not be owned by the offended party. It is enough that he used the place for his peace of mind, rest, comfort and privacy,provided that the offende d party is considered a member of the family who owns the dwelling and equally e njoys peace of mind, privacy and comfort. The crime of adultery was committed. Dwelling was considered aggravating on the part of the paramour. The paramour is not a resident of the same dwelling. Howev er, if the paramour was also residing on the same dwelling, dwelling is not cons idered aggravating. The term dwelling includes all the dependencies necessary for a house or for rest or for comfort or a place of privacy. If the place used is on the second floor, the stairs which are used to reach the second floor is considered a dwelling bec ause the second floor cannot be enjoyed without the stairs. If the offended part y was assaulted while on the stairs, dwelling is already aggravating. For this r eason, considering that any dependency necessary for the enjoyment of a place of abode is considered a dwelling. Exceptions to the rule that it should be the dwelling of the offended party: The wife left the conjugal home and went to the house of her sister bringing her personal belongings with her. The sister accommodated the wife in the formers home. The husband went to the house of the sister-in-law and tried to persuade t he wife to come back to the conjugal home but the wife refused because she is mo re at peace in her sister's house than in the conjugal abode. It was held that d welling was aggravating although it is not owned by the offended party because t he offended party is considered as a member of the family who owns the dwelling and that dwelling is where she enjoyed privacy. Peace of mind and comfort. Even a room in a hotel if rented as a dwelling, like what the salesmen do when t hey are assigned in the provinces and they rent rooms, is considered a dwelling. A room in a hotel or motel will be considered dwelling if it is used with a ce rtain degree of permanence, where the offended party seeks privacy, rest, peace of mind and comfort. If a young man brought a woman in a motel for a short time and there he was kill ed, dwelling is not aggravating.A man was killed in the house of his common law

wife. Dwelling is aggravating in this case because the house was provided by the man.if a man has so many wives and he gave them a places of their own, each one is his own dwelling. If he is killed there, dwelling will be aggravating, provi ded that he also stays there once in a while. When he is only a visitor there, d welling is not aggravating. In the provinces where the comfort rooms are usually far from the house proper, if the offended party while answering the call of nature is killed, then dwellin g is aggravating because the comfort room is a necessary dependency of the house proper. A person while in the room of his house, maintaining the room, was shot. Dwelli ng is aggravating. If the offender entered the house and the offended party jumped out of the house , even if the offender caught up with him already out of the house, dwelling is still aggravating. The reason is because he could not have left his dwelling wer e it not for the fact that the attacker entered the house. If the offended party was inside the house and the offender was outside and the latter shot the former inside the house while he was still outside. Dwelling is still aggravating even if the offender did not enter the house. One-half of the house is used as a store and the other half is used for dwelling but there is only one entrance. If the dwelling portion is attacked, dwelling i s not aggravating because whenever a store is open for business, it is a public place and as such is not capable of being the subject of trespass. If the dwell ing portion is attacked where even if the store is open, there is another separa te entrance to the portion used for dwelling, the circumstance is aggravating. However, in case the store is closed, dwelling is aggravating since here, the st ore is not a public place as in the first case. Balcony is part of the dwelling because it is appurtenant to the house Dwelling is aggravating in robbery with homicide because the crime can be commit ted without necessarily transgressing the sanctity of the home (People v. De Los Reyes, decided October 22, 1992).

4.Abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness aggravating only when the very offended party is the one who reposed the confide nce. If the confidence is reposed by another, the offended party is different f rom the fellow who reposed the confidence and abuse of confidence in this case i s not aggravating. A mother left her young daughter with the accused because she had nobody to leav e the child with while she had to go on an errand. The accused abused the child . It was held that the abuse of confidence is not aggravating. What is present is betrayal of trust and that is not aggravating. In a case where the offender is a servant, the offended party is one of the memb ers of the family. The servant poisoned the child. It was held that abuse of c onfidence is aggravating. This is only true however, if the servant was still in the service of the family when he did the killing. It will not apply if abuse of confidence is a part of the elements of the cr ime like estafa through abuse of confidence or qualified theft.

5.In the Palace of the Executive (in Malacanang, even if President is not the re), in his presence, where public authorities engaged in discharge of duties ( if they are not there,so not aggravating) or in place dedicated to religious wo rship (if nobody is there worshipping, it is still aggravating)

6. Committed with aid of armed men or persons who afford impunity A person commits a crime since he has back up. An organized or syndicated crime group means A GROUP OF TWO OR MORE PERSONS coll aborating, confederating or mutually helping one another for purposes of gain in the commission of a crime.With this provision, the circumstance of an organized or syndicated crime group having committed the crime has been added in the Code as a special aggravating circumstance. The circumstance being special or quali fying, it must be alleged in the information and proved during the trial. Other wise, if not alleged in the information, even though proven during the trial, th e court cannot validly consider the circumstances because it is not among those enumerated under Article 14 of the Code as aggravating.

7. Crime be committed ON OCCASION of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake,epi demic or other calamity or misfortune.

8. Crime be committed in nighttime, uninhabited place or by a band attackers and armed) If all 3are present then there is 3 aggravating circumstances Band

(must be 4

Not aggravating if 100 attacked you but none is armed or when 3 are only armed . In band, there should at least be four persons. All of them should be armed. Eve n if there are four, but only three or less are armed, it is not a band. Correlate this with Article 306 - Brigandage. The crime is the band itself. The mere forming of a band even without the commission of a crime is already a crim e so that band is not aggravating in brigandage because the band itself is the w ay to commit brigandage. However, where brigandage is actually committed, band b ecomes aggravating. It is aggravating if the 4 attackers throw stones at you.

Uninhabited place It is determined not by the distance of the nearest house to the scene of the cr ime but whether or not in the place of the commission of the offense , there was a reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help. A is on board a banca, not so far away. B and C also are on board on their respe ctive bancas. Suddenly, D showed up from underwater and stabbed B. Is there an a ggravating circumstance of uninhabited place here? Yes, considering the fact th at A and C before being able to give assistance still have to jump into the wate r and swim towards B and the time it would take them to do that, the chances of B receiving some help was very little, despite the fact that there were other pe rsons not so far from the scene. Evidence tending to prove that the offender took advantage of the place and purp osely availed of it is to make it easier to commit the crime, shall be necessary .

Nighttime What if the crime started during the daytime and continued all the way to nightt ime? This is not aggravating. As a rule, the crime must begin and end during the nighttime. Crime began at day and ended at night, as well as crime began at night and ended at day is not agg ravated by the circumstance of nighttime. Darkness is what makes this circumstan ce aggravating. One evening, a crime was committed near the lamp post. The Supreme Court held that there is no aggravating circumstance of nighttime. Even if the crime was co mmitted at night, but there was light, hence, darkness was not present, no aggra vating circumstance just by the fact of nighttime alone. Even if there was darkness but the nighttime was only an incident of a chance me eting, there is no aggravating circumstance here. Nocturnity is the period of time after sunset to sunrise, from dusk to dawn. 9.By MEANS of inundation, poison,explosion, stranding of a vessel derailment of a locomotive, intentional damage , fire or by use of any other artifice inv olving great waste or ruin Fire is not aggravating in the crime of arson. Whenever a killing is done with the use of fire, as when to kill someone, you bu rn down his house while the latter is inside, this is murder. There is no such crime as murder with arson or arson with homicide. The crime c ommitted is only murder. If the victim is already dead and the house is burned, the crime is arson. It is either arson or murder. If the intent is to destroy property, the crime is arson even if someone dies as a consequence. If the intent is to kill, there is murder even if the house is burned in the process.

A and B were arguing about something. One argument led to another until A struc k B to death with a bolo. A did not know that C, the son of B was also in their house and who was peeping through the door and saw what A did. Afraid that A m ight kill him, too, he hid somewhere in the house. A then dragged B's body and poured gasoline on it and burned the house altogether. As a consequence, C was burned and eventually died too. As far as the killing of B is concerned, it is homicide since it is noted that t hey were arguing. It could not be murder. As far as the killing of C is concer ned, the crime is arson since he intended to burn the house only. 4blue 95 notes:No such crime as arson with homicide. Poison Suppose husband kills wife by poisoning her and use of poison was alleged in i nfo, is it aggravating? Yes, it is parricide and qualifying circumstances is not poison but relationship.

10.In consideration of a price, reward or promise The Supreme Court rulings before indicate that this circumstance aggravates only the criminal liability of the person who committed the crime in consideration o f the price, promise, or reward but not the criminal liability of the person who gave the price, reward or consideration. However, when there is a promise, rewa rd or price offered or given as a consideration for the commission of the crime, the person making the offer is an inducer, a principal by inducement while the person receiving the price, reward or promise who would execute the crime is a p rincipal by direct participation. Hence, their responsibilities are the same. Th ey are both principals and that is why the recent rulings of the Supreme Court a re to the effect that this aggravating circumstance affects or aggravates not on ly the criminal liability of the receiver of the price, reward or promise but al so the criminal liability of the one giving the offer.

11.offender has been previously punished (felony is not same title Reiteracion or Habituality) In habitual delinquency (1) At least three convictions are required.

(1) The crimes are limited and specified to: (a) serious physical injuries, (b) less serious physical injuries, (c) robbery, (d) theft, (e) estafa or swindling and (f) falsification. (3) There is a time limit of not more than 10 years between every conviction s computed from the first conviction or release from punishment thereof to convi ction computed from the second conviction or release therefrom to the third conv

iction and so on . . . (4) Habitual delinquency is not be offset by any mitigating by law for the crime committed, upon whether it is already the n . . .

a special aggravating circumstance, hence it can circumstance. Aside from the penalty prescribed an additional penalty shall be imposed depending third conviction, the fourth, the fifth and so o

(5) The circumstance must be alleged in the information; otherwise the court cannot acquire jurisdiction to impose additional penalty. 4blue 95 notes: Habitual delinquency, being a special or specific aggravating ci rcumstance must be alleged in the information. If it is not alleged in the infor mation and in the course of the trial, the prosecution tried to prove that the o ffender is a habitual delinquent over the objection of the accused, the court ha s no jurisdiction to consider the offender a habitual delinquent. Even if the ac cused is in fact a habitual delinquent but it is not alleged in the information, the prosecution when introducing evidence was objected to, the court cannot adm it the evidence presented to prove habitual delinquency over the objection of th e accused. Generally, the procedure you know that when the prosecutor alleges habitual deli nquency, it must specify the crimes committed, the dates when they were committe d, the court which tried the case, the date when the accused was convicted or di scharged. If these are not alleged, the information is defective. even though the details of habitual delinquency was not set forth in the informa tion, as long as there is an allegation there that the accused is a habitual del inquent, that is enough to confer jurisdiction upon the court to consider habitu al delinquency. In the absence of the details set forth in the information, the accused has the right to avail of the so-called bill of particulars. Even in a c riminal case, the accused may file a motion for bill of particulars. If the accu sed fails to file such, he is deemed to have waived the required particulars and so the court can admit evidence of the habitual delinquency, even though over a nd above the objection of the defense. If the offender had committed and was convicted of each of the crimes under each category so that no two crimes fall under the same title of the Revised Penal C ode, you have a situation where the offender is a habitual delinquent but not a recidivist because no two crimes fall under the same title of the Code. When the offender is a recidivist and at the same time a habitual delinquent, th e penalty for the crime for which he will be convicted will be increased to the maximum period unless offset by a mitigating circumstance. After determining the correct penalty for the last crime committed, an added penalty will be imposed in accordance with Article 62. 12. Accused is a recidivist (same title ) In recidivism (1) Two convictions are enough. (2) The crimes are not specified; it is enough that they may be embraced under t he same title of the Revised Penal Code. (3) There is no time limit between the first conviction and the subsequent convi ction. Recidivism is imprescriptible. (4) It is a generic aggravating circumstance which can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance. If not offset, it would only increase the penalty presc ribed by law for the crime committed to its maximum period.

(5) The circumstance need not be alleged in the information. (recidivism is stil l considered even if not allege) In recidivism, the emphasis is on the fact that the offender was previously conv icted by final judgement of a felony and subsequently found guilty of another fe lony embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. when a person commits a crime under different titles, no aggravating circumstance is present. It is i mportant that the conviction which came earlier must refer to the crime committe d earlier than the subsequent conviction. In recidivism, the crimes committed should be felonies. Recidivism cannot be had if the crime committed is a violation of a special law. Pardon does not erase recidivism, even if it is absolute because only excuses th e service of the penalty, but not the conviction. If the offender has already served his sentence and he was extended an absolute pardon, the pardon shall erase the conviction including recidivism because there is no more penalty so it shall be understood as referring to the conviction or the effects of the crime. BAR:In 1980, A committed robbery. While the case was being tried, he committed t heft in 1983. He was found guilty and was convicted of theft also in 1983. The c onviction became final because he did not appeal anymore and the trial for his e arlier crime which was robbery ended in 1984 where he was also convicted. He als o did not appeal this decision. Is the accused a recidivist? The subsequent conv iction must refer to a felony committed later in order to constitute recidivism. The reason for this is as the time the first crime was committed, there was no other crime of which he was convicted so he cannot be regarded as a repeater. BAR:In 1975, the offender committed robbery. While the same was being tried in 1 978, he committed theft. In 1980, he was convicted of theft and he did not appea l this decision. The trial for robbery ended in 1981. May the judge in imposing the penalty for robbery consider the accused a recidivist considering that he w as already convicted in 1980 for the crime of theft which is under the same titl e of the Revised Penal Code as that of robbery?No, because the robbery which was committed earlier would be decided later. It must be the other way around. Thi s is because in 1975 when he committed the robbery, there was no crime committed yet. Thus, even though in imposing the penalty for the robbery, there was alrea dy a previous conviction, if that conviction is subsequent to the commission of the robbery, he is not a recidivist. If you will interpret the definition of rec idivism, this would seem to be covered but that is not so. Quasi-recidivism This is found in Article 160. The offender must already be convicted by final ju dgement and therefore to have served the penalty already, but even at this stage , he committed a felony before beginning to serve sentence or while serving sent ence. Offender had already been convicted by final judgement. Sentence was promulgated and he was under custody in Muntinlupa. While he was in Muntinlupa, he escaped from his guard and in the course of his escape, he killed someone. The killing w as committed before serving sentence but convicted by final judgement. He become s a quasi-recidivist because the crime committed was a felony. The offender was convicted of homicide. While serving sentence in Muntinlupa, he was found smoking marijuana. He was prosecuted for illegal use of prohibited dr ugs and was convicted. Is he a quasi-recidivist? No, because the crime committed while serving sentence is not a felony. Reverse the situation. Assume that the offender was found guilty of illegal use

of prohibited drugs. While he was serving sentence, he got involved in a quarrel and killed a fellow inmate. Is he a quasi-recidivist? Yes, because while servin g sentence, he committed a felony. The emphasis is on the nature of the crime committed while serving sentence or b efore serving sentence. It should not be a violation of a special law. Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance. This cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance and the imposition of the penalty in the maximum pe riod cannot be lowered by any ordinary mitigating circumstance. When there is a privileged mitigating circumstance, the penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed shall be lowered by 1 or 2 degrees, as the case may be, but then it sh all be imposed in the maximum period if the offender is a quasi-recidivist.

Reiteracion the offender has already tasted the bitterness of the punishment. This is the ph ilosophy on which the circumstance becomes aggravating. It is necessary in order that there be reiteracion that the offender has already served out the penalty. If the offender had not yet served out his penalty, for get about reiteracion. That is why if the offender committed a subsequent felony which carries with it a penalty lighter than what he had served, reiteracion is not aggravating because the law considers that somehow, this fellow was correct ed because instead of committing a serious crime, he committed a lesser one. If he committed another lesser one, then he becomes a repeater. So, in reiteracion, the penalty attached to the crime subsequently committed sho uld be higher or at least equal to the penalty that he has already served. You will only consider the penalty in reiteracion if there is already a second c onviction. When there is a third conviction, you disregard whatever penalty for the subsequent crimes committed. Even if the penalty for the subsequent crimes c ommitted are lighter than the ones already served, since there are already two o f them subsequently, the offender is already a repeater. 13.Evident premeditation For evident premeditation to be aggravating, the following conditions must concu r: (1)The time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2)An act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination; (3)Sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution, to allow h im to reflect upon the consequences of his act. Evident premeditation shall not be considered when the crime refers to a differe nt person other than the person premeditated against (ERROR IN PERSONAE). But if the person intends to shot amock (anyone he sees on sight), then that s ev ident premeditation . There are some crimes which cannot be aggravated by evident premeditation becaus e they require some planning before they can be committed. Evident premeditatio n is part of the crime like kidnapping for ransom, robbery with force upon thing s where there is entry into the premises of the offended party, and estafa throu

gh false pretenses where the offender employs insidious means which cannot happe n accidentally. A, on Monday, thought of killing B on Friday. A knew that B is coming home only on Friday so A decided to kill B on Friday evening when he comes home. On Thursd ay, A met B and killed him. Is there evident premeditation? None but there is treachery as the attack was sudden. Can there be evident premeditation when the killing is accidental? No. In eviden t premeditation, there must be a clear reflection on the part of the offender.

While it is true that evident premeditation may be absorbed in treachery because the means, method and form of attack may be premeditated and would be resorted to by the offender. Do not consider both aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation against the offender. It is only treachery because t he evident premeditation is the very conscious act of the offender to ensure the execution. But there may be evident premeditation and there is treachery also when the atta ck was so sudden. A and B are enemies. They fought on Monday and parted ways. A decided to seek re venge. He bought a firearm and practiced shooting and then sought B. When A saw B in the restaurant with so many people, A did not dare fire at B for fear that he might hit a stranger but instead, A saw a knife and used it to stab B with al l suddenness. Evident premeditation was not absorbed in treachery because treac hery refers to the manner of committing the crime. Evident premeditation is alw ays absorbed in treachery. A person who has been courting a lady for several years now has been jilted. Bec ause of this, he thought of killing somebody. He, then bought a knife, sharpened it and stabbed the first man he met on the street. It was held that evident pr emeditation is not present. It is essential for this aggravating circumstance fo r the victim to be identified from the beginning.

14.Craft,Fraud or disguise be employed Aggravating in a case where the offenders pretended to be bona fide passengers o f a jeepney in order not to arouse suspicion, but once inside the jeepney, robbe d the passengers and the driver (People v. Lee, decided on December 20, 1991). With regard disguise, if such disguise is not successful then it is not aggravat ing 15.Advantage be taken of superior strength or means be employed to weaken the defense There must be evidence of notorious inequality of forces between the offender an d the offended party in their age, size and strength, and that the offender took advantage of such superior strength in committing the crime. The mere fact tha t there were two persons who attacked the victim does not per se constitute abus e of superior strength (People v. Carpio, 191 SCRA 12).

Where one is armed the other is not, then superior strength is apparent. With re gard weaken the defense, it is when victime is already drunk or you throw sand into his eyes. 16-17.Distinction between ignominy and cruelty Ignominy shocks the moral conscience of man while cruelty is physical. Ignominy refers to the moral effect of a crime and it pertains to the moral order, whethe r or not the victim is dead or alive. Cruelty pertains to physical suffering of the victim so the victim has to be alive. In plain language, ignominy is adding insult to injury. A clear example is a married woman being raped before the eyes of her husband. In a case where the crime committed is rape and the accused abused the victims f rom behind, the Supreme Court considered the crime as aggravated by ignominy. He nce, raping a woman from behind is ignominous because this is not the usual inte rcourse, it is something which offends the moral of the offended woman. This is how animals do it. In a case of homicide, while the victim after having been killed by the offender , the offender shoved the body inside a canal, ignominy is held aggravating. Cruelty and ignominy are circumstances brought about which are not necessary in the commission of the crime. BAR: A and B are enemies. A upon seeing B pulled out a knife and stabbed B 60 ti mes. Will that fact be considered as an aggravating circumstance of cruelty? No, there is cruelty only when there are evidence that the offender inflicted the s tab wounds while enjoying or delighted to see the victim in pain. For cruelty t o exist as an aggravating circumstance, there must be evidence showing that the accused inflicted the alleged cruel wounds slowly and gradually and that he is d elighted seeing the victim suffer in pain. In the absence of evidence to this ef fect, there is no cruelty. Sixty stab wounds do not ipso facto make them aggrava ting circumstances of cruelty. The crime is murder if 60 wounds were inflicted g radually; absence of this evidence means the crime committed is only homicide. Cruelty is aggravating in rape where the offender tied the victim to a bed and b urnt her face with a lighted cigarette while raping her laughing all the way (Pe ople v. Lucas, 181 SCRA 315) or when victim is made to suffer unnecessary pain b efore he was killed. However, if victim is already dead before the accused comm itted cruelty, then , that is not aggravating. 18.Treachery When attack is frontal ,there is no treachery There is treachery in error in personam since treachery refers to mode of attac k. Treachery refers to the employment of means, method and form in the commission o f the crime which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without ri sk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. BAR: A and B have been quarreling for some time. One day, A approached B and bef riended him. B accepted. A proposed that to celebrate their renewed friendship, they were going to drink. B was having too much to drink. A was just waiting for him to get intoxicated and after which, he stabbed B. A pretended to befriend B, just to intoxicate the latter. Intoxication is the me ans deliberately employed by the offender to weaken the defense of the offended

party. If this was the very means employed, the circumstance may be treachery an d not abuse of superior strength or means to weaken the defense. 4blue 95 notes: The essence of treachery is that by virtue of the or form employed by the offender, the offended party was not able defense. If the offended party was able to put up a defense, even ne, there is no treachery anymore. Instead some other aggravating ay be present but not treachery anymore. means, method to put up any only a token o circumstance m

A and B quarreled. However A had no chance to fight with B because A is much sma ller than B. A thought of killing B but then he cannot just attack B because of the latter's size. So, A thought of committing a crime at nighttime with the cov er of darkness. A positioned himself in the darkest part of the street where B p asses on his way home. One evening, A waited for B and stabbed B. However, B pul led a knife as well and stabbed A also. A was wounded but not mortal so he manag ed to run away. B was able to walk a few steps before he fell and died. What cri me was committed? The crime is only homicide because the aggravating circumstance is only nocturni ty and nocturnity is not a qualifying circumstance. The reason why treachery can not be considered as present here is because the offended party was able to put up a defense and that negates treachery. In the example where A pretended to befriend B and invited him to celebrate thei r friendship, if B despite intoxication was able to put up some fight against A but eventually, B died, then the attendant circumstance is no longer treachery b ut means employed to weaken the defense. In the same manner, if the offender avails of the services of men and in the co mmission of the crime, they took advantage of superior strength but somehow, the offended party fought back, the crime is still murder if the victim is killed. Although the qualifying circumstance is abuse of superior strength and not treac hery, which is also a qualifying circumstance of murder under Article 248. Treachery is out when the attack was merely incidental or accidental because in the definition of treachery, the implication is that the offender had consciousl y and deliberately adopted the method, means and form used or employed by him. S o, if A and B casually met and there and then A stabbed B, although stabbing may be sudden since A was not shown to have the intention of killing B, treachery c annot be considered present. There must be evidenced on how the crime was committed. It is not enough to sho w that the victim sustained treacherous wound. Example: A had a gunshot wound a t the back of his head. The SC ruled this is only homicide because treachery mu st be proven. It must be shown that the victim was totally defenseless. Suddenness of the attack does not by itself constitute treachery in the absence of evidence that the manner of the attack was consciously adopted by the offende r to render the offended party defenseless (People v. Ilagan, 191 SCRA 643). But where children of tender years were killed, being one year old and 12 years old, the killing is murder even if the manner of attack was not shown (People v. Gahon, decided on April 30, 1991). Treachery not appreciated where quarrel and heated discussion preceded a killing , because the victim would be put on guard (People v. Gupo). But although a qua rrel preceded the killing where the victim was atop a coconut tree, treachery wa s considered as the victim was not in a position to defend himself (People v. To ribio).

19.Unlawful entry Unlawful entry is inherent in the crime of robbery with force upon things but ag gravating in the crime of robbery with violence against or intimidation of perso ns. X enters house through the door ,commit the crime and jump out of window.No Unla wful entry since the law talks about entry and not exit,

20.As a means to the commission of the crime that a wall,roof ,floor,door or window be broken Similar to 19 but in here there is somethings that are broken.

21.crime be committed w/ aid of person under 15 or by means of a motor vehic le This circumstance is aggravating only when used in the commission of the offense . If motor vehicle is used only in the escape of the offender, motor vehicle is not aggravating. To be aggravating, it must have been used to facilitate the com mission of the crime.Aggravating when a motorized tricycle was used to commit th e crime W regards minors,read the rule on DISCERNMENT ALTERNATIVE (EXTENUATING) CIRCUMSTANCES 1.Relationship; 2.Intoxication; 3.Degree of instruction; and 4.Education. Use only the term alternative circumstance for as long as the particular circums tance is not involved in any case or problem. The moment it is given in a probl em, do not use alternative circumstance, refer to it as aggravating or mitigatin g depending on whether the same is considered as such or the other. If relation ship is aggravating, refer to it as aggravating. If mitigating, then refer to i t as such. Except for the circumstance of intoxication, the other circumstances in Article 15 may not be taken into account at all when the circumstance has no bearing on

the crime committed. So the court will not consider this as aggravating or miti gating simply because the circumstance has no relevance to the crime that was co mmitted. It is only the circumstance of intoxication which if not mitigating, is automati cally aggravating. But the other circumstances, even if they are present, but i f they do not influence the crime, the court will not consider it at all. Relat ionship may not be considered at all, especially if it is not inherent in the co mmission of the crime. Degree of instruction also will not be considered if the crime is something which does not require an educated person to understand.

Relationship Relationship is not simply mitigating or aggravating. There are specific circum stances where relationship is exempting. Among such circumstances are: (1) In the case of an accessory who is related to the principal within the relat ionship prescribed in Article 20; (2) Also in Article 247, a spouse does not incur criminal liability for a crime of less serious physical injuries or serious physical injuries if this was infli cted after having surprised the offended spouse or paramour or mistress committi ng actual sexual intercourse. (3) Those commonly given in Article 332 when the crime of theft, malicious misch ief and swindling or estafa. There is no criminal liability but only civil liab ility if the offender is related to the offended party as spouse, ascendant, or descendant or if the offender is a brother or sister or brother in law or sister in law of the offended party and they are living together. Exempting circumsta nce is the relationship. This is an absolutory cause. Sometimes, relationship is a qualifying and not only a generic aggravating circ umstance. In the crime of qualified seduction, the offended woman must be a vir gin and less than 18 yrs old. But if the offender is a brother of the offended woman or an ascendant of the offended woman, regardless of whether the woman is of bad reputation, even if the woman is 60 years old or more, crime is qualified seduction. In such a case, relationship is qualifying. Intoxication This circumstance is ipso facto mitigating, so that if the prosecution wants to deny the offender the benefit of this mitigation, they should prove that it is h abitual and that it is intentional. The moment it is shown to be habitual or in tentional to the commission of the crime, the same will immediately aggravate, r egardless of the crime committed. So the mere fact that the offender has taken one or more cases of beer of itself does not warrant a conclusion that intoxication is mitigating. There must be i ndication that because of the alcoholic intake of the offender, he is suffering from diminished self control. There is diminished voluntariness insofar as his intelligence or freedom of action is concerned. It is not the quantity of alcoh olic drink. Rather it is the effect of the alcohol upon the offender which shal l be the basis of the mitigating circumstance. In a case, there were two laborers who were the best of friends. Since it was p ayday, they decided to have some good time and ordered beer. When they drank tw o cases of beer they became more talkative until they engaged in an argument. O

ne pulled out a knife and stabbed the other. When arraigned he invoked intoxica tion as a mitigating circumstance. Intoxication does not simply mean that the o ffender has partaken of so much alcoholic beverages. The intoxication in law re quires that because of the quality of the alcoholic drink taken, the offender ha d practically lost self control. So although the offender may have partaken of two cases of beer, but after stabbing the victim he hailed a tricycle and even i nstructed the driver to the place where he is sleeping and the tricycle could no t reach his house and so he has to alight and walk to his house, then there is n o diminished self control. The Supreme Court did not give the mitigating circum stance because of the number of wounds inflicted upon the victim. There were 11 stab wounds and this, the Supreme Court said, is incompatible with the idea tha t the offender is already suffering from diminished self control.

Degree of instruction and education These are two distinct circumstances. One may not have any degree of instructio n but is nevertheless educated. Example: A has been living with professionals f or sometime. He may just be a maid in the house with no degree of instruction b ut he may still be educated. It may happen also that the offender grew up in a family of professionals, only he is the black sheep because he did not want to go to school. But it does not follow that he is bereft of education. If the offender did not go higher than Grade 3 and he was involved in a felony, he was invoking lack of degree of education. The Supreme Court held that althou gh he did not receive schooling, yet it cannot be said that he lacks education b ecause he came from a family where brothers are all professionals. So he unders tands what is right and wrong. The fact that the offender did not have schooling and is illiterate does not mit igate his liability if the crime committed is one which he inherently understand s as wrong such as parricide. In the same manner, the offender may be a lawyer who committed rape. The fact t hat he has knowledge of the law will not aggravate his liability, because his kn owledge has nothing to do with the commission of the crime. But if he committed falsification, that will aggravate his criminal liability, where he used his s pecial knowledge as a lawyer. KINDS OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES 1.Generic or those that can generally apply to all crime; 2.Specific or those that apply only to a particular crime; 3.Qualifying or those that change the nature of the crime; 4.Inherent or those that must of necessity accompany the commission of the crime . The aggravating circumstances must be established with moral certainty, with the same degree of proof required to establish the crime itself. Most important of the classification of aggravating circumstances are the qualif ying and the generic aggravating circumstances. In practice, the so-called generic aggravating circumstances are referred to sim

ply as aggravating circumstances. The so-called qualifying aggravating circumsta nces are simply referred to as qualifying circumstances. This is so because ther e is no qualifying circumstance that is not aggravating. To say qualifying aggra vating circumstance is redundant.

Distinctions between aggravating and qualifying circumstances: In aggravating circumstances 1.The circumstance can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance; 2.No need to allege this circumstance in the information, as long as it is prove n during trial. If it is proved during trial, the court would consider the same in imposing the penalty; 3.It is not an ingredient of a crime. It only affects the penalty to be imposed but the crime remains the same.

In qualifying circumstance 1.The circumstance affects the nature of the crime itself such that the offender shall be liable for a more serious crime. The circumstance is actually an ingre dient of the crime; 2.Being an ingredient of the crime, it cannot be offset by any mitigating circum stance; 3.Qualifying circumstances to be appreciated as such must be specifically allege d in the complaint or information. If not alleged but proven during the trial, i t will be considered only as generic aggravating circumstance. If this happens, they are susceptible of being offset by a mitigating circumstance(2007 REPEALED) An aggravating circumstance is qualifying when it is an ingredient of the crime. Therefore it is included in the provision of law defining the crime. If it is n ot so included, it is not qualifying. In Article 248, in the crime of murder, the law specifically mentions thereunder several circumstances which are aggravating under Article 14. All of these will qualify a killing from homicide to murder; however, you understand that only on e is qualifying.

If let us say, the accused was charged with murder. Three of these circumstance s: treachery, evident premeditation and act was done in consideration of a price , reward or promise were alleged as aggravating. Only one of these is qualifying . If any one of the three circumstances was proven, the crime was already murde r. If the other two are also proven, even if they are alleged in the informatio n or complaint, they are only to be taken as generic. If there is any mitigatin g circumstance in favor of the offender, the two other circumstances which are o therwise qualifying could be offset by the mitigating, provided the mitigating c ircumstance is not a privileged mitigating circumstance. Therefore, if there a re three of the qualifying circumstances alleged in the complaint or information , only one will qualify the crime. The others will merely be considered as gener ic. Thus, if there is any ordinary mitigating circumstance in favor of the accus ed, such will be wiped out by these circumstances, although initially they are c

onsidered as qualifying. Do not hesitate to offset on the principle that a quali fying circumstance cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance becau se only one is necessary. Even if any of the qualifying circumstances under Article 248 on murder was pro ven, if that is not the circumstance alleged in the information, it cannot quali fy the crime. Let us say, what was alleged in the information was treachery. D uring the trial, what was proven was the price, reward or promise as a considera tion for killing. The treachery was not proved. Just the same, the accused can not be convicted of murder because the circumstance proven is not qualifying but merely generic. It is generic because it is not alleged in the information at all. Correlate Article 14 with Article 62.Article 62 gives you the different rules re garding aggravating circumstances. Aggravating circumstances will not be conside red when it is the crime itself. If the crime charged is qualified trespass to d welling, dwelling is no longer aggravating. When the aggravating circumstance re fers to the material execution of the crime, like treachery, it will only aggrav ate the criminal liability of those who employed the same. A person induced another to kill somebody. That fellow killed the other guy and employed treachery. As far as the killing is concerned, the treachery will quali fy only the criminal liability of the actual executioner. The fellow who induced him becomes a co-principal and therefore, he is liable for the same crime commi tted. However, let us say, the fellow was hired to kill the parent of the one w ho hired him. He killed a stranger and not the parent. What was committed is dif ferent from what was agreed upon. The fellow who hired him will not be liable fo r the crime he had done because that was not the crime he was hired to commit.

WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE Criminally liable for grave/less grave felonies ries Light felonies principals, accomplices Only accessories are exempt from crim. Liable in light felonies regardless of wh atever crime that is a light felony it is against persons or property. PRINCIPALS 1.Direct participation - direct part in execution of the act and participated o n its resolution (conspiracy) 2.inducement (induction) directly take or induce others to commit it 3.indispensable cooperation cooperate in the commission by another act w/o which it would not have been accomplished. principals, accomplices, accesso

PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION if there is no principal by direct participati on, then there is no principal by inducement & indispensable cooperation 1.ALL PARTICIPATED IN CRIM. RESOLUTION 9:30 pm WHILE Dino & Raffy were walking along Padre Faura, S & J hit them with a rock injuring Dino.Raffy approached Dino, but suddenly Bobby, Steve & J, D & N surrounded Dino. Bobby stabbed Dino , J & D kept on hitting Dino & Raffy w/rocks Is there conspiracy? Yes - there is a presumption of conspiracy since it is ver y hard to say that there is none. But sometimes it can be proven that they do no t know each other. A has an enemy. B is also the enemy of X. A decided to maul X. B join the other and decided to kill X. one day, both of them acting independently, started looki ng for X. A saw X, immediately approached him & started to hit him. At that prec ise moment, B arrived and stabbed X. X died.No conspiracy IF 1 WENT BEYOND THE AGREEMENT & COMMITTED ANOTHER CRIME NOT CONTEMPLATED IN CON SPIRACY THE OTHER ARE ALSO LIABLE IF THERE IS A SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THE PENAL CODE DEALING WITH THAT KIND OF SITUATION. --Or when the acts done outside the contemplation of co-conspirators are neces sary & logical consequence of the intended crime. A, B, C and D conspired to commit robbery. At the point of a gun they arrested X of his belongings & then, A attacked x and killed him. This is robbery w/ homic ideArt 296 states that all of them are liable for any assault committed that he tried to prevent it. 296 applies only to robbery w/ homicide & committed by a band. So if there are o nly 3 persons, this will not apply. A, B, & C conspired to injured X. in the course of mauling X, B killed X. contem plated victim is X & the one who was killed was X (same victim.In crimes agains t persons, when victim is killed, the physical injuries are absorbed A, B, C conspired to kill X. but in the course of killing X, B also killed Y---- only B is liable since 2 crime,2 victims. It cannot be said that killing of X is absorbed in killing of Y

2.PERSONALLY CARRIED OUT THE RESOLUTION BY PERFORMING ACT W/C TEND TO ACCOMPL ISH THE OBJECTIVE All must be present, if 1 conspirator is absent, then such is not liable, but if present in planning only, he is guilty of conspiracy to commit felony w /c is not punishable. A.B.C &D conspired to murder X. Then, while crime was in progress , B left .Is B liable? Yes there was no longer a conspiracy to be repudiated since B had alr eady participated in it. PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT- by directly forcing the PDP to commit the crime , b y inducing PDP to commit a crime.

1.) Inducement was made w/ intention of procuring, meaning PBI is serious , he was really interested in committing the crime, he was not joking. 2.) W/o such inducement , the PDP would not have committed the crime. --words of inducement must be offered PRIOR to commission of crime --PDP must have no other reason to commit the crime on his own, the inducememt is the only determining factor. There was a quarrel bet A&B. At that moment, X arrived and shouted Patayin mo n a yan siya!!! . A killed B. X who uttered the shout is not a PBI since A was reall y going to stab B as there was a personal reason on the part of A. PRINCIPAL BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION the cooperation is not the execution of crime but another act other than the execution of the crime w/o w/c the cri me would not have been committed. What binds them is an agreement (conspiracy), like when A needs B to forge the s ignature, so that he (A) could steal from the bank since B is the teller.

ACCOMPLICES Persons who not being included in Art.17 cooperate in execution of offense by p revious or simultaneous acts. One can cooperate even w/o agreement,not being in conspiracy but knowing the criminal intent and latter agree, so latter become s an accomplice. Ex:SIMULTANEOUS ACTS X is a taxi driver, One night A&B hired X to take a ride. Then X overheard A&B s conversation that latter were going to commit robbery. When they reach destin

ation, A&B asked X to wait for 30 minutes We are just going to the house and rob somebody . --- A&B did not ask X to join. No agreement, but knowing about their intent t o rob, X stayed. So X is liable as accomplice. --- But if B told X Pare, we are going to rob house, you will be our driver then X is not anymore an accomplice but is now considered as a principal since ther e exist now a conspiracy. Ex.PREVIOUS ACTS B approaches X X may baril ka ba? , X reply Meron, bakit? B: in ko lang si Alex So X lent B the weapon and B killed Alex. Pwede ko hiramin, babaril

X is an accomplice since X cooperated w/ B by lending him the gun, X cooperated by a previous act. Accomplice is also liable for some crime committed by principal although penal ty is a little bit lower since in conspiracy, act of one is act of all (COLLEC TIVE LIABILITY). Other examples: A do not know B. A wanted to injure X, B wanted to kill X. When A saw X, he star ted to punch X then B entered and stabbed X. A is liable for physical injuries ( How can A concur with B whom A had no in the first place, intention to kill X) a nd B is liable for PDP.This is known as an INDIVIDUAL ACT , thereby there are 2 crimes being committed,each to his own. A wanted to injure X. A do not know B. When B saw X, B started stabbing X. A arrived and said to B I ll join you .A attacked X w/ his fist . B is liable for homic ide as PDP and A is liable for homicide as accomplice. When A saw B stabbing X, he joined the SIMULTANEOUS ACT of assaulting X, A concurred w/o any conspiracy . This is known as QUASI-COLLECTIVE LIABILITY. When we say COLLECTIVE , the act of 1 is the act of all. In QUASI-COLLECTIVE, th e other party merely joined in the simultaneous act of the other making him an a ccomplice.

ACCESSORIES 1.) He has knowledge of the commission of crime 2.) But he did not participate as principal or accomplice 3.) But he took part subsequent to the commission of a crme through the followi ng:

a.) by profiting himself or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime (liable under Fencing law) b.) in order to prevent its discovery, the accessory concealed or destroyed the body of the crime or the effects or instruments thereof ( liable also under the Fencing law) c.) harboring ,concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal (can be c onvicted even b4 the principal is even convicted) by either that accessory acts w/ abuse of public functions or whenever the author (principal) is guiltly of TREASON, PARRICIDE, MURDER, ATTEMPT TO TAKE LIFE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE or HABITUA LLY GUILTY OF SOME OTHER CRIME. The Accessory is Exempt from Criminal liability whenever: 1.) Principal is the spouse ,ascendant , descendant, legitimate ,natural or adop ted brothers and sisters, or relative by affinity 2.) Accessory concealed or destroyed body or effects of crime or harbors ,concea ls , or assisted in escape of principal (those mentioned in #1) of the crime 3.) And did not accept profit or assist principal to profit by effects of the cr ime. FENCING (PD 1612): Act of any person,who,with intent to gain for himself buy,receives or possess any article which he knows ,or would be known to him ,to have been stolen. In Fencing, the person is punished as principal and not as an accessory (before fencing, the person is punished only as accessory.) There is presumption that MERE POSSESSION of stolen article shall be prima fac ie evidence of fencing. This can be rebutted by imposing that the person do not know or could have known that such property is stolen.

CONCEPT OF PENALTY PRINCIPAL PENALTIES -Capital punishment:Death. -Afflictive penalties:Reclusion perpetua, Reclusion temporal.Perpetual or tempor ary absolute disqualification, Perpetual or temporary special disqualification, Prision mayor. -Correctional penalties:Prision correccional, Arresto mayor,Suspension, Destierro . -Light penalties:Arresto menor and Public censure. Penalties common to the three preceding classes:Fine, and Bond to keep the peace. ACCESSORY PENALTIES Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, Perpetual or temporary special disqualification, Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the profession or calling. Civil interdiction, Indemnification, Forfeiture

or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense, and payment of cos ts. Art. 26. When afflictive, correctional, or light penalty. A fine, whether impose d as a single of as an alternative penalty, shall be considered an afflictive pe nalty, if it exceeds 6,000 pesos; a correctional penalty, if it does not exceed 6,000 pesos but is not less than 200 pesos; and a light penalty if it less than 200 pesos. The following are the measures of prevention or safety which are not considered penalties under Article 24: (1) The arrest and temporary detention of accused persons as well as their d etention by reason of insanity or imbecility or illness requiring their confinem ent in a hospital. (2) The commitment of a minor to any of the institutions mentioned in art. 8 0 for the purposes specified therein. (3) Suspension from the employment or public office during the trial or in o rder to institute proceedings. (4) Fines and other corrective measures which, in the exercise of their admi nistrative disciplinary powers, superior officials may impose upon their subordi nates. (5) Deprivation of rights and reparations which the civil laws may establish in penal form. Measures of prevention not considered as penalty but merely a preventive measure s-gives justification for detaining the accused. Otherwise, the detention would violate the constitutional provision that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law. And also, the accused is presu med innocent until the contrary is proved.

RECLUSION PERPETUA Art. 27. Reclusion perpetua. Any person sentenced to any of the perpetual penalt ies shall be pardoned after undergoing the penalty for thirty years, unless such person by reason of his conduct or some other serious cause shall be considered by the Chief Executive as unworthy of pardon. 2006 NOTES: reclusion perpetua has no duration because this is an indivisible pe nalty and indivisible penalties have no durations. In People v. Conrado Lucas, GR No. 108172-73, May 25, 1994. Court divided the t ime included in the penalty of reclusion perpetua into three equal portions, wit h each portion composing a period as follows: Minimum - 20 years and one day, to 26 years and eight months; Medium - 26 years, eight months and one day, to 33 years and four months; Maximum - 34 years, four months and one day, to 40 years. Still the Supreme Court en banc held that reclusion perpetua shall remain as an indivisible penalty. GRule: Death Penalty does not carry accessory penalty, only when it is not execu ted that such has an accessory. Art 74 states that in cases where law prescribes a penalty higher than another g iven penalty w/o designating the name of the former,if such higher penalty shoul

d be death,the same penalty and the accessory penalties of Art40 shall be consid ered as the higher penalty 2006 notes:Civil interdiction and Perpetual Absolute disqualification during th e 30 yrs following the date of sentence unless such accessory penalties have bee n expressly remitted in the pardon are only inherent accessory penalties of deat h(art40). 2006 notes:penalties of r.perpetua and r.temporal shall carry with them that of civil interdiction for life or during the period of sentence and that of perpetu al absolute disqualification which the offender shall suffer even though pardone d as to principal penalty unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in pardon(art 41). Innovations on the imposition of the death penalty Aside form restoring the death penalty for certain heinous crimes, Republic Act No. 7659 made innovations on the provisions of the Revised Penal Code regarding the imposition of the death penalty: (1) Article 47 has been reworded to expressly include among the instances wh ere the death penalty shall not be imposed, the case of an offender who is below 18 years old or above 70 at the time of the commission of the offense --lowers the imposable penalty upon such offenders by at least one degree than that presc ribed for the crime. (2) In the matter of executing the death penalty, Article 81 has been amende d and, thus, directs that the manner of putting the convict to death by lethal i njection as soon as the facilities are provided, and the sentence shall be carri ed out not later that one year after the finality of judgment. (3) original provision of Article 83, anent the suspension of the execution of the death penalty for three years if the convict was a woman, has been delete d and instead, limits such suspension to last while the woman was pregnant and w ithin one year after delivery. PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT Art. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of imprisonment. O ffenders who have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the ser vice of their sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which they have undergone preventive imprisonment, if the detention priso ner agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules impose d upon convicted prisoners, except in the following cases: 1. When they are recidivists or have been convicted previously twice or more tim es of any crime; and 2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence they have failed to surrender voluntarily. If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, he shall be credited in the service of his se ntence with four-fifths of the time during which he has undergone preventive imp risonment. (As amended by Republic Act 6127, June 17, 1970). Whenever an accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to or more than the possible maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to which h e may be sentenced and his case is not yet terminated, he shall be released imme diately without prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof or the procee ding on appeal, if the same is under review. In case the maximum penalty to whic h the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty ( 30) days of preventive imprisonment. (As amended by E.O. No. 214, July 10, 1988) .

Although under Article 24, the detention of a person accused of a crime while th e case against him is being tried does not amount to a penalty, yet the law cons iders this as part of the imprisonment and generally deductible from the sentenc e.When will this credit apply? If the penalty imposed consists of a deprivation of liberty. Not all who have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be given a credit Under Article 24, preventive imprisonment of an accused who is not yet convicted , but by express provision of Article24 is not a penalty. Yet Article 29, if ul timately the accused is convicted and the penalty imposed involves deprivation o f liberty, provides that the period during which he had undergone preventive det ention will be deducted from the sentence, unless he is one of those disqualifie d under the law. -- if the accused has actually undergone preventive imprisonment, but if he has been convicted for two or more crimes whether he is a recidivist or not, or when he has been previously summoned but failed to surrender and so the court has to issue a warrant for his arrest, whatever credit he is entitled to shall be forf eited. If the offender is not disqualified from the credit or deduction provided for in Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, then the next thing to determine is wheth er he signed an undertaking to abide by the same rules and regulations governing convicts. If he signed an undertaking to abide by the same rules and regulatio ns governing convicts, then it means that while he is suffering from preventive imprisonment, he is suffering like a convict, that is why the credit is full. --But if the offender did not sign an undertaking, then he will only be subjecte d to the rules and regulations governing detention prisoners. As such, he will only be given 80% or 4/5 of the period of his preventive detention. From this provision, one can see that the detention of the offender may subject him only to the treatment applicable to a detention prisoner or to the treatment applicable to convicts, but since he is not convicted yet, while he is under pr eventive imprisonment, he cannot be subjected to the treatment applicable to con victs unless he signs and agrees to be subjected to such disciplinary measures a pplicable to convicts. --Detention prisoner has more freedom within the detention institution rather th an those already convicted. The convicted prisoner suffers more restraints and hardship than detention prisoners. Under what circumstances may a detention prisoner be released, even though the p roceedings against him are not yet terminated? Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code has been amended by a Batas Pambansa effect ive that took effect on September 20, 1980. This amendment is found in the Rule s of Court, under the rules on bail in Rule 114 of the Rules on Criminal Procedu re, the same treatment exactly is applied there. In the amendment, the law does not speak of credit. Whether the person is enti tled to credit is immaterial. The discharge of the offender from preventive imp risonment or detention is predicated on the fact that even if he would be found guilty of the crime charged, he has practically served the sentence already, bec ause he has been detained for a period already equal to if not greater than the maximum penalty that would be possibly be imposed on him if found guilty. If the crime committed is punishable only by destierro, the most the offender ma y be held under preventive imprisonment is 30 days, and whether the proceedings are terminated or not, such detention prisoner shall be discharged.

Understand the amendment made to Article 29. This amendment has been incorporat ed under Rule 114 precisely to do away with arbitrary detention. Proper petition for habeas corpus must be filed to challenge the legality of the detention of the prisoner. --If the offender has already been released, what is the use of continuing the p roceedings? The proceedings will determine whether the accused is liable or not. If he was criminally liable, it follows that he is also civilly liable. The civil liabili ty must be determined. That is why the trial must go on.

CLASSIFICATION OF PENALTIES 1.Principal penalties and accessory penalties The penalties which are both principal and accessory penalties are the following : (1) Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification (Perpetual or temporary-we refer to the duration of the disqualification) (2) Perpetual or temporary special disqualification. (special or absolute- t he nature of the disqualification) If the penalty of suspension is imposed as an accessory, its duration shall be t hat of the principal penalty. If the penalty of temporary disqualification is imposed as principal penalty,the duration is six years and one day to 12 years. penalties classified as accessory penalties need not be stated in the sentence. The accessory penalties follow the principal penalty imposed for the crime as a matter of course.

-----So in the imposition of the sentence, the court will specify only the princ ipal penalty but that is not the only penalty which the offender will suffer. P enalties which the law considers as accessory to the prescribed penalty are auto matically imposed even though they are not stated in the judgment. As to the pa rticular penalties that follow a particular principal penalty, Articles 40 to 45 of the Revised Penal Code shall govern. If asked what are the accessory penalties, do not just state the accessory penal ties. State the principal penalty and the corresponding accessory penalties. Penalties in which other accessory penalties are inherent: (1) Article 40. Death - perpetual absolute disqualification, and civil inte rdiction during 30 years following date of sentence; (2) Article 41. Reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal - civil interdict ion for life or during the period of the sentence as the case may be, and perpet ual absolute disqualification; (3) Article 42. Prision mayor - temporary absolute disqualification perpetua l special disqualification from the right of suffrage; (4) Article 43. Prision correccional - suspension from public office, from t he right to follow a profession or calling, and perpetual special disqualificati on from the rights of suffrage if the duration of said imprisonment shall exceed 18 months. (5) Article 44. Arresto - suspension of the right to hold office and the ri ght of suffrage during the term of the sentence. a convict sentenced to civil interdiction suffers certain disqualification durin g the term of the sentence. One of the disqualifications is that of making a co nveyance of his property inter vivos.

Illustration: A has been convicted and is serving the penalty of prision mayor. While serving sentence, he executed a deed of sale over his only parcel of land. A creditor moved to annul the sale on the ground that the convict is not qualified to execu te a deed of conveyance inter vivos. If you were the judge, how would you resol ve the move of the creditor to annul the sale? Civil interdiction is not an accessory penalty in prision mayor. The convict ca n convey his property. ----Confiscation or forfeiture on the instruments or proceeds of the crime is th e accessory penalty is common to all principal penalties.

2.Divisible and indivisible penalties When we talk of period, it is implying that the penalty is divisible. If, after being given a problem, you were asked to state the period in which the penalty of reclusion perpetua is to be imposed, remember that when the penalty is indivisible, there is no period. Do not talk of period, because when you tal

k of period, you are implying that the penalty is divisible because the period r eferred to is the minimum, the medium, and the maximum. If it is indivisible, t here is no such thing as minimum, medium and maximum (see table). 3.The capital punishment You were asked to state whether you are in favor or Understand that you are not taking the examination sue on the basis of social utility of the penalty. g crimes or not? This should be the premise of your against capital punishment. in Theology. Explain the is Is it beneficial in deterrin reasoning.

SUBSIDIARY PENALTY not an accessory penalty,it must be expressly stated in the sentence, but the se ntence does not specify the period of subsidiary penalty because it will only be known if the convict cannot pay the fine. The sentence will merely provide tha t in case of non-payment of the fine, the convict shall be required to save subs idiary penalty. It will then be the prison authority who will compute this. After undergoing subsidiary penalty and the convict is already released from jai l and his financial circumstances improve, can he be made to pay? --Yes, for the full amount with deduction. if convict has property to levy upon, the same shall answer for the fine, whether he likes it or not. It must be tha t the convict is insolvent to pay the fine. That means that the writ of executi on issued against the property of the convict, if any, is returned unsatisfied.

In People v. Subido, it was held that the convict cannot choose not to serve, or not to pay the fine and instead serve the subsidiary penalty. A subsidiary pen alty will only be served if the sheriff should return the execution for the fine on the property of the convict and he does not have the properties to satisfy t he writ. ----It is clearly provided under Article 39 that if the means of the convict sho uld improve, even if he has already served subsidiary penalty, he shall still be required to pay the fine and there is no deduction for that amount which the co nvict has already served by way of subsidiary penalty. Article 39 deals with subsidiary penalty. There are two situations there: (1) When there is a principal penalty of imprisonment or any other principal penalty and it carries with it a fine; and (2) When penalty is only a fine.

Therefore, there shall be no subsidiary penalty for the non-payment of damages t o the offended party. GENERAL RULE:The subsidiary penalty is not an accessory penalty that follows the principal penalty as a matter of course So even if subsidiary penalty is proper in a case, if the judge failed to state in the sentence that the convict shall be required to suffer subsidiary penalty in case of insolvency to pay the fine, that convict cannot be required to suffer the accessory penalty. The penalty imposed by the judge is fine only. The sheriff then tried to levy t he property of the defendant after it has become final and executory, but it was returned unsatisfied. The court then issued an order for said convict to suffe r subsidiary penalty. The convict was detained, for which reason he filed a pet ition for habeas corpus contending that his detention is illegal. Will the peti tion prosper? Yes. The judgment became final without statement as to subsidiary penalty, so t hat even if the convict has no money or property to satisfy the fine, he cannot suffer subsidiary penalty because the latter is not an accessory and so it must be expressly stated,or else such would result to double jeopardy. ---If the fine is prescribed with the penalty of imprisonment or any deprivation of liberty, such imprisonment should not be higher than six years or prision co rreccional. Otherwise, there is no subsidiary penalty. WHEN IS SUBSIDIARY PENALTY APPLIED 2006 notes:Differentiate Pecuniary Penalties v Pecuniary Liabilities Cost-chargeable only when: (1)to the accused only in cases of conviction, (2)in acquittal, costs are de officio each party bearing his own expense, (3)no cost a gainst RP unless law provides. Pecuniary Liabililities- in case the property of offended should not be sufficie nt for payment of all his pecuniary liabilities, the same shall be met in the fo llowing order: (1) reparation of the damage which is payable to the offended party , (2) indemnification of the consequential damages payable also to the offended party,(3) fine (4)cost of the proceedings (3&4 is payable to the government) 2006 notes: Subsidiary Penalty is the period of imprisonment that a convict has to serve when he is sentenced to a pay a fine and he cannot pay the fine.

1)If the subsidiary penalty prescribed for the non-payment of fine which goes wi th the principal penalty, the maximum duration of the subsidiary penalty is one year, so there is no subsidiary penalty that goes beyond one year. ---But this will only be true if the one year period is higher than 1/3 of the p rincipal penalty, the convict cannot be made to undergo subsidiary penalty more than 1/3 of the duration of the principal penalty and in no case will it be more than 1 year - get 1/3 of the principal penalty - whichever is lower. 2)If the subsidiary penalty is to be imposed for non payment of fine and the pri ncipal penalty imposed be fine only, which is a single penalty, that means it do es not go with another principal penalty, the most that the convict will be requ ired to undergo subsidiary imprisonment is six months, if the felony committed i s grave or less grave, otherwise, if the felony committed is slight, the maximum duration of the subsidiary penalty is only 15 days.

EXCEPTION: --If the principal penalty is destierro, this being a divisible penalty, and a p enalty with a fixed duration, the non-payment of the fine will bring about subsi diary penalty AND it will also be in the form of destierro. A convict was sentenced to suspension and fine. This is a penalty where a publi c officer anticipates public duties, he entered into the performance of public o ffice even before he has complied with the required formalities. Suppose the co nvict cannot pay the fine, may he be required to undergo subsidiary penalty? Yes, because the penalty of suspension has a fixed duration. Under Article 27, suspension and destierro have the same duration as prision correccional. So th e duration does not exceed six years. Since it is a penalty with a fixed durati on under Article 39, when there is a subsidiary penalty, such shall be 1/3 of th e period of suspension which in no case beyond one year. But the subsidiary pen alty will be served not by imprisonment but by continued suspension. If the penalty is public censure and fine even if the public censure is a light penalty, the convict cannot be required to pay the fine for subsidiary penalty f or the non-payment of the fine because public censure is a penalty that has no f ixed duration.

EFFECTS OF PENALTY Art. 30. Effects of the penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute disqualific ation. The penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification for pub lic office shall produce the following effects: 1. The deprivation of the public offices and employments which the offender may have held even if conferred by popular election. 2. The deprivation of the right to vote in any election for any popular office or to be elected to such office. 3. The disqualification for the offices or public employments and for the exerc ise of any of the rights mentioned. In case of temporary disqualification, such disqualification as is comprised in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this article shall last during the term of the sentence. 4. The loss of all rights to retirement pay or other pension for any office form erly held. Art. 31. Effect of the penalties of perpetual or temporary special disqualificat

ion. The penalties of perpetual or temporal special disqualification for public office, profession or calling shall produce the following effects: 1. The deprivation of the office, employment, profession or calling affected; 2. The disqualification for holding similar offices or employments either perpet ually or during the term of the sentence according to the extent of such disqual ification. Art. 32. Effect of the penalties of perpetual or temporary special disqualificat ion for the exercise of the right of suffrage. The perpetual or temporary specia l disqualification for the exercise of the right of suffrage shall deprive the o ffender perpetually or during the term of the sentence, according to the nature of said penalty, of the right to vote in any popular election for any public off ice or to be elected to such office. Moreover, the offender shall not be permitt ed to hold any public office during the period of his disqualification. Art. 33. Effects of the penalties of suspension from any public office, professi on or calling, or the right of suffrage. The suspension from public office, prof ession or calling, and the exercise of the right of suffrage shall disqualify th e offender from holding such office or exercising such profession or calling or right of suffrage during the term of the sentence. The person suspended from holding public office shall not hold another having si milar functions during the period of his suspension.

Art. 34. Civil interdiction Civil interdiction shall deprive the offender during the time of his sentence of the rights of parental authority, or guardianship, e ither as to the person or property of any ward, of marital authority, of the rig ht to manage his property and of the right to dispose of such property by any ac t or any conveyance inter vivos. Can a convict execute a last will and testament? Yes. Bond to keep the peace The legal effect of a failure to post a bond to keep the peace is imprisonment e ither for six months or 30 days, depending on whether the felony committed is gr ave or less grave on one hand, or it is light only on the other hand. One of the principal penalties common to the others is bond to keep the peace. There is no crime under the Revised Penal Code which carries this penalty. Bond for good behavior legal effect of failure to post a bond for good behavior is not imprisonment but destierro under Article 284 Bond for good behavior is prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the crimes of grave threats and light threats under Article 234. You cannot find this penalt y in Article 25 because Article 25 only provides for bond to keep the peace Destierro The duration of destierro is from six months and one day, to six year, which is the same as that of prision correcional and suspension.

A principal penalty. It is a punishment whereby a convict is vanished to a cert an place and is prohibited form entering or coming near that place designated in the sentence, not less than 25 Kms.. (However, the court cannot extend beyond 250 Kms). --If the convict should enter the prohibited places, he commits the crime of eva sion of service of sentence under Article 157. --But if the convict himself would go further from which he is vanished by the c ourt, there is no evasion of sentence because the 240-Km. limit is upon the auth ority of the court in vanishing the convict. Under the Revised Penal Code, destierro is the penalty imposed in the following situations: (1) When a legally married person who had surprised his or her spouse in the act of sexual intercourse with another and while in that act or immediately the reafter should kill or inflict serious physical injuries upon the other spouse, and/or the paramour or mistress.(Article 247). (1) In the crime of grave threat or light threat, when the offender is required to put up a bond for good behavior but failed or refused to do so under Article 284, (such convict shall be sentenced to destierro so that he would not be able to carry out his threat). (3) In the crime of concubinage, the penalty prescribed for the concubine is destierro under Article 334. (4) Where the penalty prescribed by law is arresto mayor, but the offender i s entitled privileged mitigating circumstance and lowering the prescribed penalt y by one degree, the penalty one degree lower is destierro. Thus, it shall be t he one imposed.

PLURALITY OF CRIME 2 TYPES OF PLURALITY OF CRIMES: 1.MATERIAL OR REAL Person performs 2/more criminal acts one after the other and he is liable for ev ery criminal act he commits since every crime is motivated by a separate crimina l intent from the other. Ex: when someone runs amok, he starts shooting people ,even those he doesn t know. He killed persons one after the other.If he is found guilty of killing 3o peopl e, there will be 30 convictions and 30 different penalties. 2.FORMAL OR IDEAL Person commits 2/more criminal acts ,there will be 2/more victims but in the eye s of the law ,only one crime was committed.

It has 3 types:

a.Special Complex crime or Composite crime b.Continuous crime or delicto continuado c.Complex crime under Art 48 Article 48: Penalty for complex Crime: When a single act constitutes 2/more grave or less grave felonies(compound crime or delicto compuesto) or an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed (complex crime proper), the same to be appl ied in its maximum.

SPECIAL COMPLEX/COMPOSITE CRIME Crime under the RPC declared as Complex without applying Article 48. A composite crime is one in which substance is made up of more than one crime, b ut which in the eyes of the law is only a single indivisible offense. Examples are robbery with homicide, robbery with rape, rape with homicide. (Thes e are crimes which in the eyes of the law are regarded only as a single indivisi ble offense).

a.Robbery with Homicide (294) When by reason of or on the occasion of robbery, the crime of homicide shall ha ve been committed. X robbed B.After taking B s money , X killed him. If you apply Art 48, there seems

to be something wrong. You cannot say there is a single act ,it is very clears that there are 2 acts which are taking of B s property nad Killing of B, and you cannot say that that one is necessary to commit the other.

b.Rape with Homicide (266-A)

DELICTO CONTINUADO It is a crime which consists of a series of acts but all coming or emanating fro m one criminal resolution. There is only one criminal resolution and it is follo wed by a series of acts. (BAR) X stole 2 roosters. So there are 2 acts of taking ,but if it turned out th at there are also 2 owners, then, there is only one crime of theft .One crime of theft involving 2 roosters since there is a single intent to steal. X did not d ivide his mind into stealing from the 2 owners. X did not even know that there a re 2 owners of the cocks.

(BAR) X is the nt contributed HELD: There is ivide his mind

class treasurer. The class decided to hold a party and each stude P100 totalling P5000.X disappeared with the money. only one crime. There was only one intent to defraud. X did not d 50 times.

2006 notes: the concept of delicto continuado although a product of the Spanish Penal code has been applied to crimes penalized under a special laws. 2006 notes:It will not be applicable when X is the cashier of a corporation, tod ay, X ran away with the money. Later X, ran away with another money and after on e week ,nothing is left.. This is not continuado since what happen today is dffe rent from the intent next week or tomorrow.

Distinction from Complex Crime (CC):

CC is governed by article 48 and penalty is maximized. DC governed by article 48 but penalty is not maximized CC ,there is only ONE act, which produces 2/more grave or less grave felonies DC, offender performs SERIES of acts. CC, there are 2 acts, one offense is NECESSARY to commit the other DC, one offense is NOT NECESSARY to commit the other.

Distinction from Transitory(Continuing) Crime: TC, ingredients of crime took place in 2/more places and the crime may be filed in the place where the crime was committed ,or where any one of its essential in gredients took place. DC,a series of acts emanating from one criminal resolution TC,issue is to determine in what place or in what court should the person be pro secuted(ex: Kidnapping). DC,issue is to determine how many crimes are committed,and whether there are 2/m ore penalties TC,applicable to Criminal Procedure(remedial law) DC is applicable to Criminal Law. Applying the concept of the continued crime , the following cases have been treated as constituting one crime only: (1) The theft of 13 cows belonging to two different persons committed by the accused at the same place and period of time (People v. Tumlos, 67 Phil. 320); (1) The theft of six roosters belonging to two different owners from the same co op and at the same period of time (People v. Jaranillo); (3) The illegal charging of fees for service rendered by a lawyer every time he collects veteran s benefits on behalf of a client who agreed that attorney s fee s shall be paid out of such benefits (People v. Sabbun, 10 SCAR 156). The colle ctions of legal fees were impelled by the same motive, that of collecting fees f or services rendered, and all acts of collection were made under the same crimin al impulse. On the other hand, the Supreme Court declined to apply the concept in the follow ing cases: (1) Two Estafa cases, one which was committed during the period from January 19 to December, 1955 and the other from January 1956 to July 1956 (People v. Dichup a, 13 Phil 306). Said acts were committed on two different occasions; (2) Several malversations committed in May, June and July 1936 and falsification s to conceal said offenses committed in August and October, 1936. The malversat ions and falsifications were not the result of one resolution to embezzle and fa lsify (People v. CIV, 66 Phil. 351); (3) Seventy-five estafa cases committed by the conversion by the agents of c ollections from the customers of the employer made on different dates. In the theft cases, the trend is to follow the single larceny doctrine, that is

taking of several things, whether belonging to the same or different owners, at the same time and place, constitutes one larceny only. Many courts have abandon ed the separate larceny doctrine, under which there was distinct larceny as to t he property of each victim. Also abandoned is the doctrine that the government has the discretion to prosecu te the accused for one offense or for as many distinct offenses as there are vic tims (Santiago v. Justice Garchitorena, decided on December 2, 1993). Here, the accused was charged with performing a single act that of approving the legaliza tion of aliens not qualified under the law. The prosecution manifested that the y would only file one information. Subsequently, 32 amended informations were f iled. The Supreme Court directed the prosecution to consolidate the cases into one offense because (1) they were in violation of the same law-Executive Order No. 324; (2) caused injury to one party only the government; and (3) they were done in the same day. 2006 notes:The concept of delito continuado has been applied to crimes under spe cial laws since in Article 10, the Revised Penal Code shall be supplementary to special laws, unless the latter provides the contrary. COMPLEX CRIME 1.COMPOUND (COMPLEX) CRIME In order for this complex crime to exist ,a single act must constitute either: a.grave or less grave felonies b.2 grave felonies c.2 less grave felonies

If a single act produces a less grave and a light felony. Then there are two pos sibilities: a.light felony will be absorved by the less grave b.there are as many light felonies as there are victims. They are treated as dif ferent crimes. You cannot complex them. They are to be prosecuted severally. a.Absorbed (BAR) P ,a policeman was engaged in the discharge of his duties. X approached hi m and hit X in the face with his fist. It caused P slight physical injuries. Und er Art 48,the crime is direct assault. But what happens to the physical injuries sustained? It is absorbed by the element of attacking or employing force, you c annot say that the crime is direct assault with slight physical injuries. b.As Many Light Felonies X threw a stone at A. the stone hit A, but the same stone hit B. You cannot say that the crime of slight physical injuries committed against A absorbed the inju ry of B that X cannot be prosecuted for double slight physical injuries because art 48 does not apply to light felonies. As such, there are 2 separate felonies of light physical injuries. Pp v Buan: X,driver while driving his vehicle recklessly bunped another vehicle

causing : death of A, serious injuriy to B and slight physical injury to C. Pros ecutor should only file one information for homicide ,serious and slight physica l injuries, cannot file 3 or less there will be double jeopardy. * there is only one crime, that is the crime RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE ., the homicide ,and physical injuries are only the effects of the imprudent act which is deter minative of the penalty and the civil liability. * Art 48 applies when a single act results of 2/more grave or less grave felonie s, but here, you cannot consider the homicide and the injury as separate, Art 48 does not apply to culpable felonies. * The felony is the imprudent act, the homicide and physical injury will only de termine the penalty. 2006 notes:it is also same with the accused thinking that his wife commits adult ery in their bed killed wife and lover which turned out that no foul play was co mmitted since lover is merely a blind masseur, so the person is guilty of simpl e imprudence or negligence (whereby an act which would otherwise constitute a gr ave or a less serious felony). 2006 notes: If one offense is light ,there is no complex crime. The resulting of fenses may be treated as separate or the light felony may be absorbed by the gra ve felony. Thus, the light felonies of damage to property and slight physical in juries both resulting from a single act of imprudence, do not constitute a comp lex crime. * They cannot be charged in one information * They are separate offenses subject to distinct penalties. Examples of Compound Crime (BAR)X throws a hand grenade to the ground and in so doing, he killed 10 people and almost killed 5 bystanders HELD: There is only one complex crime of multiple murder with multiple frustrate d murder. There is only one act of throwing the hand grenade ,although as a resu lt of that act, several grave or less grave felonies result.

(BAR) X aimed his gun towards other persons. X fired it. The bullet killed 2 peo ple. There is only one act. X did not commit 2 crime of homicide, he committed the crime of double homicide.

Aberration Ictus (BAR) X with intent to kill A and aiming his gun towards A, fired it but becaus e of poor aim, he did not hit A but instead hit and killed B. X is liable for de ath of B due to aberration ictus * the complex crime of homicide with attempted murder is committed. Mere fact of firing at A is a felony, although attempted .On the other hand, X committed hom icide because he killed B.

In this case it is not the singleness of the act but the singleness of the impul se that has been considered

2006 notes: Compound (or compound complex crime) is when there exist 2 grave/less grave felo nies. Whereby in complex ,one act is necessary means for the fulfillment of the other act. An example of compound is when you rape someone,and after raping,the victim said di ako nasarapan! so out of anger you killed her, that latter act is not a necessa ry means to the act of rape. So you commit 2 crimes, rape and homicide. An example of complex is when in order to rape a girl, you stab her first.so sta bbing her is a necessary means in order to rape her.so this is complex crime of rape with homicide.


One offense is committed as a NECESSARY means to commit the other. Ex: Estafa through falsification of commercial documents Forcible Abduction with Rape Malversation through falsification of Public document Kidnapping with Murder

The following are NOT COMPLEX Crimes: a.an INDISPENSABLE means to commit another

if offense is indispensable to commit the second ,there is no complex crime sinc e the second crime is the crime since the second crime committed is the real cri me. The first crime which is indispensable is only an element of the second crim e. It is ABSORBED. Ex: when rebellion is committed ,rebels killed the people and destroy property. They cannot be guilty of complex crime of rebellion with murder or physical inju ries with homicide since the common crime is absorbed since you cannot convict a person of rebellion without killing. So ,the killing and the destruction is not only necessary but indispensable.

b.means to CONCEAL the other Ex: If X goes to the house of Y and kills Y and in order to conseal the crime of murder, X burns the house down, here, there is no complex crime ,there are 2 separate crimes: Murder and Arson. c.DIRECT means to commit the other X,in order to kill Y, who was inside his house,forcibly entered the house of Y and killed him in there. As such, trespass to dwelling was the main intent to ki ll, it was only incidental.It was the direct means effected to kill Y.So, the cr ime there is Murder aggravated by Unlawful entry.

2006 notes: complex crime (art48) is 1 bullet and it killed many and not many bu llets. 2006 notes:cannot complex grave/less grave with light felony, it must be separat e 2006 notes:no complex if felony and crime under special law. The following are COMPLEX Crimes: In People v. Jose, there were four participants here. They abducted the woman, after which, the four took turns in abusing her. It was held that each one of the four became liable not only for his own rape but also for those committed by the others. Each of the four offenders was convicted of four rapes. In the ey es of the law, each committed four crimes of rape. One of the four rapes commit ted by one of them was complexed with the crime of abduction. The other three r apes are distinct counts of rape. The three rapes are not necessary to commit th e other rapes. Therefore, separate complaints/information. In People v. Pabasa, the Supreme Court through Justice Aquino ruled that there i s only one count of forcible abduction with rape committed by the offenders who

abducted the two women and abused them several times. This was only a dissentin g opinion of Justice Aquino, that there could be only one complex crimeof abduct ion with rape, regardless of the number of rapes committed because all the rapes are but committed out of one and the same lewd design which impelled the offend er to abduct the victim. 2006 notes: In adultery, each intercourse constitutes one crime. Apparently, th e singleness of the act is not considered a single crime. Each intercourse brin gs with it the danger of bringing one stranger in the family of the husband. Article 48 also applies in cases when out of a single act of negligence or impru dence, two or more grave or less grave felonies resulted, although only the firs t part thereof (compound crime). The second part of Article 48 does not apply, referring to the complex crime proper because this applies or refers only to a d eliberate commission of one offense to commit another offense. However, a light felony may result from criminal negligence or imprudence, toget her with other grave or less grave felonies resulting there from and the Supreme Court held that all felonies resulting from criminal negligence should be made subject of one information only. The reason being that, there is only one infor mation and prosecution only. Otherwise, it would be tantamount to splitting the criminal negligence similar to splitting a cause of action which is prohibited in civil cases. Although under Article 48, a light felony should not be included in a complex cr ime, yet by virtue of this ruling of the Supreme Court, the light felony shall b e included in the same information charging the offender with grave and/or less grave felonies resulting from the negligence of reckless imprudence and this run s counter to the provision of Article 48. So while the Supreme Court ruled that the light felony resulting from the same c riminal negligence should be complexed with the other felonies because that woul d be a blatant violation of Article 48, instead the Supreme Court stated that an additional penalty should be imposed for the light felony. This would mean two penalties to be imposed, one for the complex crime and one f or the light felony. It cannot separate the light felony because it appears tha t the culpa is crime itself and you cannot split the crime

Art 49: In case in which the felony committed is different from that which the o ffender intended to commit, the ff rules shall be observed: 1.if penalty prescribed for felony committed be higher than that corresponding t o the offense which the accused intended to commit. The penalty corresponding to the latter shall be imposed in its maximum period. A attacked someone whom he thought was B,stranger and killed him. But when A loo ked at victim it was his father. 1.felony commited is Parricide 2.felony intended is Homicide

So if A is found guilty of parricide, the court will not impose RP to death but only RT in its maximum period

2.if penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower than that correspondin g to the one which the accused intended to commit, the penalty for the former sh all be imposed in its maximum period. a.A wanted to kill his father. So A shot him but when he looked closely, it turn ed out that victim was not his father but B, someone who looks like his father. 1.crime intended-parricide punishable by RP to D 2.crime committed- homicide punishable by RT A commit homicide since he killed a stranger. But the penalty of RT should be ma ximize. Artcle 49 is Applicable only in Error in Personae

Article 49 is not applicable to situation under 4(1) which are Praeter Intention em, and Aberratio Ictus which are under Article 48. 4blue 95 notes:In Art 48 ,the imposable penalty is based on the HIGHER penalty t o be maximized. While in 49, it is based on LOWER penalty to be maximized. Praeter Intentionem A intended only to commit slight physical injuries (punishable by Arresto Menor) on B. However B died, so the felony committed by A is homicide punishable by RT . HELD: A should be prosecuted for homicide since that s the crime committed but one A is found guilty, the penalty should be A Menor (due to mitigating cicum that he did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that committed) Aberratio Ictus A with poor aim did not kill B(whom he intends to kill) but killed C. A is liabl e for killing C, Art 48 will prevail since it is a complex crime where a single act produces 2/more grave/less grave felonies 1.consummated homicide of C 2.attempted homicide of B Since it is a complex crime, correct penalty is NOT based on lower offense, but on higher offense in its MAXIMUM period,as such penalty should be based on comsu mmated homicide which should be maximized. RULES IN PENALTIES Master this Graduated Scale: SCALE NO. 1

1. Death, 2. Reclusion perpetua, 3. Reclusion temporal, 4. Prision mayor, 5. Prision correccional, 6. Arresto mayor, 7. Destierro, 8. Arresto menor, 9. Public censure, 10. Fine. SCALE NO. 2 1. 2. 3. to 4. 5. Perpetual absolute disqualification, Temporal absolute disqualification Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the right follow a profession or calling, Public censure, Fine.

Apply it in this table (articles 50-57): -4 Accessory -3 Accomplice -2 -1 Principal attempted Frustrated Consummated 4blue 95 lecture: it means that if it is a consummated act,for example, the RPC penalizes it as reclusion temporal, then the accomplice is one degree lower from principal ;and accessory is two degrees lower than the principal. 4blue 95 lecture:if it is frustrated,then the penalty of principal is one degree lower from the principal in consummated ,and the principal in attempted is two degrees lower than in principal in consummated. 2006 notes:The order in the table is not applicable if RPC prescribes a specific rule on graduation (like in abduction whereby the accomplice is parents or guar dian ,it is the same penalty with the principal even if accomplice) Article 60 R PC. When there is a privilege mitigating circumstance in favor of the offender, it w ill lower the penalty by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law dependin g on what the particular provision of the Revised Penal Code states. When the penalty prescribed for the crime committed is a divisible penalty and t here are two or more ordinary mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circum stances whatsoever, the penalty next lower in degree shall be the one imposed RULES IN GRADUATING PENALTIES (ART 61) For purposes of graduating penalties to be imposed upon persons guilty as princi pals of any frustrated or attempted felony or as accomplices or accessories ,the ff rules shall be observed: 1.when penalty prescribed is single and indivisible (which is only Death and Rec lusion Perpetua), the penalty next lower in degree shall be that imposed 2.when it is composed of 2 indivisible penalties, or of one or more divisible pe nalties to be imposed to their full extent, the penalty next lower in degree sha ll be that immediately following the lesser of the penalties prescribe in the gr aduated scale 3.repealed. 4.when penalty prescribed is composed of several periods, corresponding to diffe rent divisible penalties, the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of period immediately following the minimum prescribed and of the two next followin g, which shall be taken from the penalty prescribed, if possible ,otherwise, fro m the penalty immediately following in the graduated scale. 5.when the law prescribed a penalty for a crime in some manner,not specially pro vided for in the 4 preceding rules, the courts proceeding by analogy, shall impo se the corresponding penalties upon those guilty as principals of the frustrated felony or of attempt to commit the same, and upon accomplices and accessories.

RULES IN INDIVISIBLE PENALTY (ART 63) . In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstanc es that may have attended the commission of the deed. In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible p enalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof: 1. only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied. 2. neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied. 3. attended by some mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating circums tance, the lesser penalty shall be applied. 4. both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the act, the court shall reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideratio n of their number and importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in acc ordance with the preceding rules, according to the result of such compensation. EFFECT OF MITIGATING/AGGRAVATING (ART 62) Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken into account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty in conform ity with the following rules: 1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially pu nishable by law or which are included by the law in defining a crime and prescri bing the penalty therefor shall not be taken into account for the purpose of inc reasing the penalty. 2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstance inhere nt in the crime to such a degree that it must of necessity accompany the commiss ion thereof. 4blue 95: aggravating is maximized,but in 1&2,an aggravating will not increase s ince it constitutes the crime itself like fire in arson is not aggravating; it is included by law like when X commited robbery whereby dwelling is not aggravat ing ;and that it is inherent in a crime like evident premeditation is not aggrav ating in robbery. 3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the moral attributes of the offender, or from his private relations with the offended party, or from any other personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate the liabili ty of the principals, accomplices and accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant. 4blue 95:Personal Cause is like A is minor,B is not,then they commit crime. Mino rity is personal to A not to B so only A can use it. 4. The circumstances which consist in the material execution of the act, or in t he means employed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the lia bility of those persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of the execut ion of the act or their cooperation therein. 4blue 95: Material execution is when X hired B to kill A and B told X the manner of how he will kill A,as such, even if X was not the one who kill A still he kn ows the material execution. 5Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects: (a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provid

ed by law for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional p enalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods; (b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty prov ided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalt y of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods; and (c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the addi tional penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in i ts minimum period. Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two penalties t o be imposed upon the offender, in conformity herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years. For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed to be habitual delinqu ent, is within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last convic tion of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo(robbery), hurto (theft), estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener. Art. 66. Imposition of fines. In imposing fines the courts may fix any amount wi thin the limits established by law; in fixing the amount in each case attention shall be given, not only to the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, but mo re particularly to the wealth or means of the culprit. 4blue 95 notes:When there are mitigating circumstance and aggravating circumstan ce and the penalty is only fine, when it is only ordinary mitigating circumstanc e and aggravating circumstance, apply Article 66. --Because you determine the i mposable fine on the basis of the financial resources or means of the offender. But if the penalty would be lowered by degree, there is a privileged mitigating circumstance or the felony committed is attempted or frustrated, * provided it is not a light felony against persons or property * because if it is a light felony and punishable by fine, it is not a crime at a ll unless it is consummated. So, if it is attempted or frustrated, do not go on e degree lower because it is not punishable unless it is a light felony against person or property where the imposable penalty will be lowered by one degree or two degrees.

Article 75


With respect to the penalty of fine, if felony committed is only attempted or fr ustrated or because there is an accomplice or an accessory participation, the fi ne is lowered by deducting 1/4 of the maximum amount of the fine from such maxim um without changing the minimum amount prescribed by law. Illustration: If the penalty prescribed is a fine ranging from P200.00 to P500.00, but the fel ony is frustrated so that the penalty should be imposed one degree lower, 1/4 of P500.00 shall be deducted therefrom. This is done by deducting P125.00 from P5 00.00, leaving a difference of P375.00. The penalty one degree lower is P375.00 . To go another degree lower, P125.00 shall again be deducted from P375.00 and tha t would leave a difference of P250.00. Hence, the penalty another degree lower is a fine ranging from P200.00 to P250.00. If at all, the fine has to be lowered further, it cannot go lower than P200.00. So, the fine will be imposed at P200.00. This rule applies when the fine has t

o be lowered by degree. ordinary mitigating or aggravating circumstance would affect the penalty which i s in the form of a fine it is discretionary upon the court to apply the fine taking into consideration t he financial means of the offender to pay the same. In other words, it is not only the mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances t hat the court shall take into consideration, but primarily, the financial capabi lity of the offender to pay the fine. (For the same crime, the penalty upon an a ccused who is poor may be less than the penalty upon an accused committing the s ame crime but who is wealthy) For instance, when there are two offenders who are co-conspirators to a crime, a nd their penalty consists of a fine only, and one of them is wealthy while the o ther is a pauper, the court may impose a higher penalty upon the wealthy person and a lower fine for the pauper. ARTICLES CONFLICT WITH ORDINARY MITIGATING Article 69:Privilege Mitigating A penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law shall be impos ed if the deed is not wholly excusable by reason of the lack of some of the cond itions required to justify the same or to exempt from criminal liability in the several cases mentioned in Article 11 and 12, provided that the majority of such conditions be present. The courts shall impose the penalty in the period which may be deemed proper, in view of the number and nature of the conditions of exem ption present or lacking. 4blue 95:Art 69 speaks about Privilege Mitigating which means if as example in i ncomplete self defense, if majority of the elements is present, then apply Art69 coz if only minimal is present,then Art 13:Ordinary Mitigating

Article 68: Minor Offender When the offender is a minor under eighteen years and his case is one coming und er the provisions of Article 80 (so dapat grave or less grave): 1. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years of age, who is not exempted f rom liability by reason of the court having declared that he acted with discernm ent, a discretionary penalty shall be imposed, but always lower by two degrees a t least than that prescribed by law for the crime which he committed. 2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age the penalty next l ower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper peri od. 4blue 95:if it is not grave or lessgrave which means it is a light felony, don t l ess it using Art68, mitigate it ordinarily using Art13.

CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE (P.D. 603) 2006 notes:Applies to all crimes,not merely grave or less grave When may a minor be committed to a reformatory (Repeal of Article 80)? If the minor is between 9 -18 years old and acted with discernment, sentence mus t first be suspended under the following conditions: (1)Crime committed is not punishable by death or r.perpetua; (2)He is availing of the benefit of suspension for the first time; (3)He must still be a minor at the time of promulgation of the sentence.

Under P.D. 603, if you are a minor which means less than 18 or above 9 years of age, upon commission, trial and conviction (below 21 at time of conviction) of o ffense, you are entitled to a suspended sentence and serve time in a welfare ins titution like DSWD or gov t agency, not in prison. There is automatic suspension, no need for minor to apply But to enjoy suspended sentence, the accused must be a minor at time of commiss ion, trial, conviction and application for suspended sentence under P.D. 603 Those DISQUALIFIED from availing of suspended sentence are the following: 1) Those convicted of an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment; 2) Those who have previously availed of suspended sentence; and 3) Those convic ted for an offense by the military tribunals. If the youthful offender has shown good behavior, he will be released, and his r ecords shall remain confidential and order its dismissal. If he is found to be incorrigible, he will be sent back to court for pronounceme nt of judgment, in which case he will be read his sentence of conviction and ser ve sentence, although the period of preventive imprisonment will be deducted fro m his actual sentence. 2006 notes:Recommendation alone is not sufficient ,it should be based on concret e and evidentiary fact that such offender has renewed. 2006 notes: If above 21, then Appy PD 968: Adult Offender

2006 notes: this law repeals Art 80 of the RPC

Time included in its entirety Penalties Arresto 4 2 years,4 10 years,8 8 yearsMayor Absolute disqualification and 6 years,2 months Prision correccional,10day 17years,4 temporal to820day 617 14monthsandmonths to 12years 4and4 Destierro 12years mayor, dayandmaximumtoandand months month Reclusionand1 dayand mediumtoperiod8months2 month Time included1in its minimumperiodyears and 4Special temporary disqualification 114years 20 2 6 suspension 12 1 years years and (computation is not applicable in this penalty) 4 months and 2 to 2 and 1 day to 6 month 1 monthmonths1day to 64months months 21 11 to10 days 1 to 30 days Arresto Menor 30 20 Illustration of Art 64: If crime committed is parricide, penalty is reclusion perpetua. The accused, af ter committing parricide, voluntarily surrendered and pleaded guilty of the crim e charged upon arraignment. It was also established that he was intoxicated, an d no aggravating circumstances were present. What penalty would you impose?Recl usion perpetua, because it is an indivisible penalty. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, penalty to be imposed shall be one degree lower to be imposed in t he proper period. Do not apply this when there is one aggravating circumstance. There are about four mitigating circumstances and one aggravating circumstance. Court offsets the aggravating circumstance against the mitigating circumstance and there still remains three mitigating circumstances. Because of that, the ju dge lowered the penalty by one degree. Is the judge correct?No. In such a case when there are aggravating circumstances, no matter how many mitigating circumst ances there are, after offsetting, do not go down any degree lower. The penalty prescribed by law will be the penalty to be imposed, but in the mini mum period. Cannot go below the minimum period when there is an aggravating cir cumstance. Go into the lowering of the penalty by one degree if the penalty is divisible. So do not apply the rule in paragraph 5 of Article 64 to a case where the penalt y is divisible. 2006 notes:there s bigger possibility of going down rather than going up. PENALTIES WITH THREE PERIODS (ART 64) In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of three different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 an d 77, the court shall observe for the application of the penalty the following r ules, according to whether there are or are not mitigating or aggravating circum stances: 1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall i mpose the penalty prescribed by law in its medium period. 2. When only a mitigating circumstances is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its minimum period. 3. When an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, the y shall impose the penalty in its maximum period.

4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court sha ll reasonably offset those of one class against the other according to their rel ative weight. 5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circum stances are present, the court shall impose the penalty next lower to that presc ribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable, according to the number and nature of such circumstances. 6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating circumstances, the c ourts shall not impose a greater penalty than that prescribed by law, in its max imum period. 7. Within the limits of each period, the court shall determine the extent of the penalty according to the number and nature of the aggravating and mitigating ci rcumstances and the greater and lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime. FORMULA : 1.example penalty is reclusion temporal which has a duration of from 12 years an d 1 day as the minimum, to 20 yrs as the maximum (MEMORIZE THE PENALTY IN ITS E NTIRETY). 2.subtract maximum of R Temporal and the maximum years of Prision Mayor (the pe nalty next lower in rank) 20-12=8 3.divide the difference by 3, thus : 8/3= 2 yrs and 8 months If mahirap i-divide ng 3,then convert it,like 5 yrs and 6 months to 3 yrs and 30 months. 4.use minimum of 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal as the minimum of the minimum period, then add 2 yrs and 8 months to the minimum (disregard the 1 day ) to get the maximum of the minimum period. We have 14 yrs and 8 months as the maximum of the minimum period.The range of th e minimum period is therefore 12 yrs and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months. 5.Use the maximum of the minimum period as the minimum of the medium period, and add 1 day to distinguish it from the maximum of the minimum period: 14 yrs,8 m onths and 1 day. Then add 2 yrs and 8 months to the minimum of the medium period (disregarding 1 day), we have 17 yrs and 4 months as the maximum of the medium period. The rang e of the medium period is 14 yrs, 8 months and 1 day to 17 yrs and 4 months 6.Use the maximum of the medium period as the minimum of the maximum period and add 1 day to distinguish it from the maximum of the medium period We have 17 yrs,4 months and 1 day. Then add 2 yrs and 8 months to the minimum o f the maximum period (disregarding the 1day) and we have 20 years. Hence, the r ange of the maximum period is 17 yrs, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years. Art. 65. Rule in cases in which the penalty is not composed of three periods. In cases in which the penalty prescribed by law is not composed of three periods (2 periods or one), the courts shall apply the rules contained in the foregoing articles, dividing into three equal portions of time included in the penalty pre scribed, and forming one period of each of the three portions. Prision correctional in its medium and maximum. The duration of prision correct ional is 6 months and 1 day to 6 years. Subtracting the bigger from the smaller would result to: 6 yrs-6 months =5 yrs and 6 months / 3= 1 yr and 10 months Minimum: 5 mos and 1 day to 2 yrs and 4 mos. Medium: 2 yrs,4 mos and 1 day to 4 yrs and 2 months Maximum:4 yrs,2 mos and 1 day to 6 years But since it is in its medium and maximum periods ,the duration is 2 years, 4 mo nths and 1 day to 6 years, the time included in that penalty should be divided i nto 3 equal periods as follows:

5 yrs & 12 mos (or 6 yrs) -2 yrs & 4 mos 3 yrs & 8 mos.( 1 yr,2 mos & 20 days) -3yrs & 6 mos 2mos or 60 days Duration of each portion after dividing the duration of penalty into 3 equal po rtions is 1 yr, 2 months and 20 days. Since the minimum prescribed by law is 2 yrs and 4 months,and duration of each p ortion is 1 yr, 2 mos and 2o days, the time comprised in the minimum is from 2 y rs ,4 mos and 1 day to 3 yrs, 6 months and 20 days. 2 ys,4 mos (& 1 day )-- minimum of minimum 1yr,2mos & 20days duration of each portion 3 yrs,6mos& 20 days maximum of the minimum To obtain minimum of medium, add 1 day to the maximum of minimum and make it the minimum of medium, so its : 3 yrs, 6 mos and 21 days ,therefore ,add to durati on of each portion, the maximum would now be 4 years, 9 mos and 10 days. Follow same step to get the maximum which is from 4 years, 9 months and 11 days to 6 years. 4blue 95: first subtract bigger to lower,then divide by 3 and start the minimum with a month and a day.

SUCCESSIVE SERVICE OF PENALTIES (ART 70) 1. If convict has to serve two or more penalties, he must serve them SIMULTANEO USLY if nature of penalties permit. (2 or more) MATERIAL ACCUMULATION SYSTEM 2. Otherwise, he shall serve them SUCCESSIVELY in order of their respective s everity, for purposes of being granted pardon. 3. THREE FOLD RULE :Notwithstanding such rule, maximum duration of convict s se ntence shall not be more than three-fold corresponding to the most severe of pen alties imposed upon him. (4 or more) JURIDICAL ACCUMULATION

BAR:If John Villanuueva, the accused was convicted of four crimes with the follo wing penalties as mentioned hereunder, and applying the three-fold rule under Ar ticle 70 of RPC, what is the appropriate penalty to be imposed on the accused. * Homicide 18 yrs, 3 mos, 1 day x 3 = 54 yrs., 9 mos, and 3 days * Frustrated robbery -- 10 yrs, 2 mos, 1 day * Less serious physical inj.-- 2 mos. * Slight physical injuries -- 10 days * _______________________________________________ * TOTAL 28 yrs., 7 mos., and 12 days - 40 years ANSWER: Applying Article 70 under three-fold rule, the appropriate penalty to be imposed on the accused Mr. Villanueva is 28 years, 7 mos, and 12 days because it is th e lowest penalty. It cannot be 54 years, 9 mos, and 3 days which is obtained by multiplying by 3 t he penalty for the most serious crime because it is more than 40 years which is the maximum. Neither can it be 40 years because if you add up all the penalties applying the Material accumulation system, the total is only 28 yrs, 7 mos, and 12 days which is less than 40 years, the maximum provided by law under the three -fold rule. * 4. Such maximum period shall in no case exceed 40 years.

* 5. For purposes of this rule, the duration of perpetual penalties shall be computed at thirty (30) years. 2006 notes:For the purpose of applying the respective severity of the penalties shall be determined in accordance with the following scale: 1. Death, 2. Reclusion perpetua, 3. Reclusion temporal, 4. Prision mayor, 5. Prision correccional, 6. Arresto mayor, 7. Arresto menor, 8. Destierro, 9. Perpetual absolute disqualification, 10 Temporal absolute disqualification. 11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling, and 12. Public censure. The THREE-FOLD RULE can only be applied if the convict is to serve four or more sentences successively. It is in the service of the penalty, not in the imposition of the penalty, that the Three-Fold rule is to be applied. This rule is intended for the benefit of the convict and so, you will only apply this provided the sum total of all the penalties imposed would be greater than the product of the most severe penalty multiplied by three but in no case will t he penalties to be served by the convict be more than 40 years. (The chronology of the penalties as provided in Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code shall be followed).

2005 notes:Indivisible penalties are given equivalent of 30 years. It does not a pply to the penalty prescribed but to the penalty imposed as determined by the c ourt. 2005 notes: The three fold rule is also applicable to penalties although it were imposed by different courts at different times as long as it shall not exceed t he most severe. Do not consider the totality of the imprisonment the convict is sentenced to but consider the totality or the duration of the imprisonment that the convict will be required to serve under the Three-Fold Rule. If the totality of the imprisonment under this rule does not exceed six years, t hen, even if the totality of all the sentences without applying the Three-Fold R ule will go beyond six years, the convict shall be required to undergo subsidiar y penalty if he could not pay the fine. Illustration:A collector of NAWASA collected from 50 houses within a certain loc ality. When he was collecting NAWASA bills, the charges of all these consumers was a minimum of 10. The collector appropriated the amount collected and so was charged with estafa. He was convicted. Penalty imposed was arresto mayor and a fine of P200.00 in each count. If you were the judge, what penalty would you impose? May the convict be required to undergo subsidiary penalty in case he is insolvent to pay the fine? The Three-Fold Rule should not applied by the court. In this case of 50 counts of estafa, the penalty imposed was arresto mayor and a fine of P200.00. Arresto mayor + P200.00 x 50. Arresto Mayor is six months x 50 = 25 years. P200.00 x 5 0 = P10,000.00. ---Thus, I would impose a penalty of arresto mayor and a fine of P200.00 multipl ied by 50 counts and state further that as a judge, I am not in the position to apply the Three-Fold Rule because the Three-Fold Rule is to be given effect when the convict is already serving sentence in the penitentiiary. It is the prison authority who will apply the Three-Fold Rule. For the purposes of subsidiary penalty, apply the Three-Fold Rule if the penalty is arresto mayor and a fine of P200.00 multiplied by 3. --This means one year and six months only. So, applying the Three- Fold Rule, th e penalty does not go beyond six years. Hence, for the non- payment of the fine of P10,000.00, the convict shall be required to undergo subsidiary penalty. (T his is because the imprisonment that will be served will not go beyond six years . It will only be one year and six months, since in the service of the sentence , the Three-Fold Rule will apply). IF 3 FOLD RULE TURNED OUT TO BE LONGER,THEN DON T APPLY IT. GRADUATED SCALE (ART 71) Due to presence of principal,accomplice and accessory In the case in which the law prescribed a penalty lower or higher by one or more degrees than another given penalty, the rules prescribed in Article 61 shall be observed in graduating such penalty. The lower or higher penalty shall be taken from the graduated scale in which is comprised the given penalty. The courts, i n applying such lower or higher penalty, shall observe the following graduated s cales: SCALE NO. 1 1. Death, 2. Reclusion perpetua, 3. Reclusion temporal, 4. Prision mayor, 5. Prision correccional,

6. Arresto mayor, 7. Destierro, 8. Arresto menor, 9. Public censure, 10. Fine. SCALE NO. 2 1. 2. 3. to 4. 5. Perpetual absolute disqualification, Temporal absolute disqualification Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the right follow a profession or calling, Public censure, Fine.

In homicide under Article 249, the penalty is reclusion temporal. One degree lo wer, if homicide is frustrated, or there is an accomplice participating in homic ide, is prision mayor, and two degrees lower is prision correccional. --This is true if the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code is a whole di visible penalty -- one degree or 2 degrees lower will also be punished as a whol e. But generally, the penalties prescribed by the Revised Penal Code are only in periods, like prision correcional minimum, or prision correcional minimum to me dium.

(BAR) what penalty follows Arresto Mayor? It depends, if under art 71 which is graduation of penalties, then Destierro. If under art 70, which is the successi ve service of sentence ,then it is Arresto Menor. 4blue 95 says that if it pertains to successive order (OF SEVERITY) or service o f sentence,then 70 but if graduated (due to presence of principal,accomplice and accessory)then it is 71.

(BAR) A,B&C are charged with a crime. A,principal, B accomplice and C accessory. Suppose all of them are found guilty. If penalty of A is A.Mayor, what is penal ty of B and C? HELD:Since issue is graduation of penalty (since Principal, Accomplice and Acces sory), article to be applied is 71. Although the penalty is prescribed by the Revised Penal Code as a period, such p enalty should be understood as a degree in itself and the following rules shall govern: 1.When the penalty prescribed by the Revised Code is made up of a period, like p rision correccional medium, the penalty one degree lower is prision correccional minimum, and the penalty two degrees lower is arresto mayor maximum. In other words, each degree will be made up of only one period because the penalty prescr ibed is also made up only of one period. 2.When the penalty prescribed by the Code is made up of two periods of a given p

enalty, every time such penalty is lowered by one degree you have to go down als o by two periods. If the penalty prescribed for the crime is prision correccional medium to maximu m, the penalty one degree lower will be arresto mayor maximum to prision correcc ional minimum, and the penalty another degree lower will be arresto mayor minimu m to medium. Every degree will be composed of two periods. When the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code is made up of three period s of different penalties, every time you go down one degree lower, you have to g o down by three periods. The penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code is prision mayor maximum to rec lusion temporal medium, the penalty one degree lower is prision correccional max imum to prision mayor medium. Another degree lower will be arresto mayor maximu m to prision correccional medium. These rules have nothing to do with mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Th ese rules refer to the lowering of penalty by one or two degrees. As to how mit igating or aggravating circumstances may affect the penalty, the rules are found in Articles 63 and 64.

(BAR) A is charged criminally n all 3. 1st crime he was sentenced to 2nd crime he was sentenced to 3rd crime he was sentenced to

for 3 separate offenses, and he was found guilty i 6 months of a. mayor 6 yrs of destierro 5 days of a.menor

HELD: Since this is an issue of succession, then A will serve his penalties as f ollows: 1st he has to serve the penalty of 6 months of arresto mayor 2nd he has to serve 5 days of arresto menor 3rd he will now serve the penalty of destierro EXECUTION /SERVICE OF PENALTIES 2006 notes: Complex Penalty (Art 77) is a penalty composed of 3 distinct penalti es each one has a period (like treason) Art. 78. When and how a penalty is to be executed. except by virtue of a final judgment. No penalty shall be executed

A penalty shall not be executed in any other form than that prescribed by law, n or with any other circumstances or incidents than those expressly authorized the reby. In addition to the provisions of the law, the special regulations prescribed for the government of the institutions in which the penalties are to be suffered sh all be observed with regard to the character of the work to be performed, the ti me of its performance, and other incidents connected therewith, the relations of the convicts among themselves and other persons, the relief which they may rece ive, and their diet. The regulations shall make provision for the separation of the sexes in differen t institutions, or at least into different departments and also for the correcti on and reform of the convicts. Art. 79. Suspension of the execution and service of the penalties in case of ins anity. When a convict shall become insane or an imbecile after final sentence ha s been pronounced, the execution of said sentence shall be suspended only with r egard to the personal penalty, the provisions of the second paragraph of circums tance number 1 of Article 12 being observed in the corresponding cases. If at any time the convict shall recover his reason, his sentence shall be execu ted, unless the penalty shall have prescribed in accordance with the provisions of this Code. The respective provisions of this section shall also be observed if the insanity or imbecility occurs while the convict is serving his sentence.

2005 notes: Art 81 and 82 are already repealed. 2005 notes: These articles is already amended by RA 8059 and RA 8177, like the m anner of execution from electrocution to lethal injection, but some parts are st ill true like the death sentence should be carried out not earlier than 1 yr nor later than 18 months after judgment has become final. Within 1 yr it should be carried out, unless he will be pardoned by the President or commute his sentenc e. So there will be no prolonged delay. 2005 notes: law saysthat the death sentence shall be executed with preference to any other. This jibes with Art 70 since in executing with 2/more penalties you start at most severe going to less severe.

EXECUTION OF PRINCIPAL PENALTIES. Art. 83. Suspension of the execution of the death sentence(BAR). The death sente nce shall not be inflicted upon a woman within the three years next following th e date of the sentence or while she is pregnant, nor upon any person over sevent y years of age. In this last case, the death sentence shall be commuted to the p enalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties provided in Article 40 .

Death Penalty should be suspended when: 1.if the woman is pregnant. Let us not kill the fetus, it is the mother who is g uilty not the child 2.a woman within one year after delivery. Let us allow her to nurse the child. A fter one year after delivery ,let us kill her with impunity. 3.When the convict is over 70 years old. Art 47 states that the death penalty shall not be imposed in all cases in which it must be imposed under existing laws except when 1.the guilty person is below 18 at time of commission of the crime 2.or is more than 70 years of age 3.or which upon appeal or automatic review of the case by the SC ,the required m ajority vote is not obtained for the imposition of the death penalty in which ca se the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua. 2005 notes: reconciling 47 and 83 with regard the accused is over 70 is that in 47 when accused is over 70 he should not be sentenced to death there should be a n automatic commutation to r perpetua while in 83 ,the death penalty should be s uspended. 2005 notes:as such ,it could be both, reprieve and suspension. 2005 notes:Suppose you are 69 yrs of age when you were convicted by lower court then you appeal it,but it was affirmed. You are safe when judgment becomes final since 47 state that it should be commuted to r perpetua, but still the Presiden t has to commute it, it is not automatic, while you are waiting for his official act, the execution will be suspended, that is how to reconcile 47 with 83. 2005 notes:Old age can never be a privilege mitigating except when the imposable penalty is death.(unlike in minory whereby it could be ordinary or privilege mi tigating) 2005 notes:It is only a privilege, but if he is sentenced to rec perpetua, it wi ll not be commuted INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW Indeterminate Sentence Law governs whether the crime is punishable under the Rev ised Penal Code or a special Law. It applies only when the penalty served is im prisonment. If not by imprisonment, then it does not apply. In applying it ,pen alty arrived at by the court after applying the mitigating and aggravating circu mstances that should be the basis. The minimum and the maximum referred to in the Indeterminate Sentence Law are no t periods. So, do not say, maximum or minimum period. It refer to the duration of the sentence which the convict shall serve as a minimum, and when we say maxi mum, for purposes of ISLAW, we refer to the maximum limit of the duration that t he convict may be held in jail. Courts are required to fix a minimum and a maximum of the sentence that they are to impose upon an offender when found guilty of the crime charged. So, wheneve r the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable, there is always a minimum and ma ximum of the sentence that the convict shall serve. APPLICATION * First, the court shall sentence accused to an INDETERMINATE sentence by firs t determining MAXIMUM taking into account the following: a) Degree of participat ion of accused; b) Stage of execution of crime; and c) Attendant circumstances. * Second, after finding maximum, look for the MINIMUM which is found within a ny of the range of the next lower penalty. Advantage of Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL) is after serving the minimum, one can apply for parole and can leave prison and live a normal life, but subject, of course, to supervision of parole officer.

PROBLEM:Assuming that the penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal, and the ac cused X was 17 years old when he committed the offense, and there is one mitigat ing and no aggravating circumstance attending the commission of the crime, answ er the following: (a) What is the exact range of the maximum of the Indeterminate Sentence of X, a nd why? If I were the judge, I will first look for the maximum, taking into acco unt the attendant circumstances in the commission of the crime. Considering that homicide is punishable with reclusion temporal, and since X was a minor when he committed the offense, the penalty should be one degree lower, or prision mayor . And since there is one mitigating circumstance present and no aggravating, the maximum should be within the range of prision mayor in its minimum period, or exactly within the range of 6 years, one day to 8 years. (b) What is the exact range of the minimum of the Indeterminate Sentence of X, and why? After finding the maximum, I ll look for the minimum by simply going one degree lower from prision mayor, which is prision correccional. Therefore, the minimum of the penalty to be imposed on X is within any of the range of prision correccional, which is six months and one day to six years. (c)If you are a very strict judge, what is the most serious, or highest penalty you can impose on X?If I were a very strict judge, the highest penalty, or most serious penalty, I can impose on X is 6 years up to 8 years. This means that aft er serving 6 years, accused can be released on parole subject to terms and con ditions of the Board of Pardon and Parole, and under supervision of a parole off icer. (d)If you are a very lenient judge, what is the least serious, or lowest penalty you can impose on X?If I were a very lenient judge, the lowest penalty, or leas t serious penalty, I can impose on X is 6 months and one day to six years and on e day. IF CRIME IS A VIOLATION OF REVISED PENAL CODE the court will impose a sentence that has a minimum and maximum. The maximum of the indeterminate sentence will be arrived at by taking into acco unt the attendant mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances according to Artic le 64 of the Revised Penal Code. In arriving at the minimum of the indeterminate sentence, the court will take in to account the penalty prescribed for the crime and go one degree lower. (This is true only if the mitigating circumstance taken into account is only an ordinary mitigating circumstance. If the mitigating circumstance is privileged, you cannot follow the law in so far as fixing the minimum of the indeterminate sentence is concerned; otherwise, it may happen that the maximum of the indeterm inate sentence is lower than its minimum). 2006 notes:always focus on the maximum and the attendant circumstances. 2006 notes:penalty is based on graver offense.

IF THE CRIME IS A VIOLATION OF SPECIAL LAW 2006 notes: In determining the applicable penalty according to the Indeterminate Sentence Law, there is no need to mention the number of years, months and days; it is enough that the name of the penalty is mentioned while the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applied. In fixing the maximum of the indeterminate sentence, the court will impose the p enalty within the range of the penalty prescribed by the special law, as long as it will not exceed the limit of the penalty.

In fixing the minimum, the court can fix a penalty anywhere within the range of penalty prescribed by the special law, as long as it will not be less than the m inimum limit of the penalty under said law. No mitigating and aggravating circu mstances are taken into account. The Indeterminate Sentence Law shall not apply to: (1) Persons convicted of offense punishable with death penalty or life imprisonm ent; 2006 notes: if r.temporal, ISLAW is applicable since what is controlling is pena lty actually imposed. (2) Persons convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason; (3) Persons convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition, espionage; (4) Persons convicted of piracy; (5) Persons who are habitual delinquents; (6) Persons who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence; (7) Those who have been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive and sh all have violated the term thereto; (8) Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year, but not t o those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of the approval of Indet erminate Sentence Law. (9) Destierro (since although not mention in ISLAW ,this is by mere analogy sinc e no imprisonment is involve) EXTINCTION OF LIABILITY

CRIMINAL LIABILITY Criminal liability is totally extinguished as follows: (1) By the death of the convict as to personal penalties; and as to pecuniar y penalties, liability therefore is extinguished only when the death of the offe nder occurs before final judgment (2) (3) ; (4) (5) (6) By service of sentence; By amnesty which completely extinguished the penalty and all its effects By absolute pardon; By prescription of the crime; By prescription of the penalty;

(7) By the marriage of the offended women as in the crimes of rape, abductio n, seduction and acts of lasciviousness.

Criminal liability is partially extinguished as follows: (1) (2) By conditional pardon; By commutation of sentence;

(3) For good conduct, allowances which the culprit may earn while he is serv ing sentence;

(4) (5)

Parole; and Probation.

***re-election to public office is not one of the grounds by which criminal liab ility is extinguished. This is only true to administrative cases but not crimin al cases.

I.Total extinction of criminal liability

Death of the offender Where the offender dies before final judgment, his death extinguishes both his c riminal and civil liabilities. So while a case is on appeal, the offender dies, the case on appeal will be dismissed. The offended party may file a separate c ivil action under the Civil Code if any other basis for recovery of civil liabil ity exists as provided under Art 1157 Civil Code. (People v. Bayotas, decided o n September 2, 1994) Amnesty and pardon : the effects of amnesty as well as absolute pardon are n ot the same. Amnesty erases not only the conviction but also the crime itself. So that if an offender was convicted for rebellion and he qualified for amnesty, and so he wa s given an amnesty, then years later he rebelled again and convicted, is he a re cidivist? No. Because the amnesty granted to him erased not only the convictio n but also the effects of the conviction itself. Suppose, instead of amnesty, what was given was absolute pardon, then years late r, the offended was again captured and charged for rebellion, he was convicted, is he a recidivist? Yes. Pardon, although absolute does not erase the effects of conviction. Pardon only excuses the convict from serving the sentence. exception :when the pardon was granted when the convict had already served the s entence such that there is no more service of sentence to be executed then the p ardon shall be understood as intended to erase the effects of the conviction. So if the convict has already served the sentence and in spite of that he was gi ven a pardon that pardon will cover the effects of the crime and therefore, if h e will be subsequently convicted for a felony embracing the same title as that c rime, he cannot be considered a recidivist, because the pardon wipes out the eff ects of the crime. But if he was serving sentence when he was pardoned, that pardon will not wipe o ut the effects of the crime, unless the language of the pardon absolutely reliev e the offender of all the effects thereof. Considering that recidivism does not

prescribe, no matter how long ago was the first conviction, he shall still be a recidivist. Illustrations: When the crime carries with it moral turpitude, the offender even if granted par don shall still remain disqualified from those falling in cases where moral turp itude is a bar. Pedro was prosecuted and convicted of the crime of robbery and was sentenced to six years imprisonment or prision correccional. After serving sentence for thre e years, he was granted absolute pardon. Ten years later, Pedro was again prose cuted and convicted of the crime of theft, a crime embraced in the same title, t his time he shall be a recidivist. On the other hand, if he has served all six years of the first sentence, and his name was included in the list of all those granted absolute pardon, pardon shall relieve him of the effects of the crime, and therefore even if he commits theft again, he shall not be considered a recid ivist. In Monsanto v. Factoran, Jr., 170 SCRA 191, it was held that absolute pardon doe s not ipso facto entitle the convict to reinstatement to the public office forfe ited by reason of his conviction. Although pardon restores his eligibility for appointment to that office, the pardoned convict must reapply for the new appoin tment . Pardon becomes valid only when there is a final judgment. If given before this, it is premature and hence void. There is no such thing as a premature amnesty, because it does not require a final judgment; it may be given before final judg ment or after it. Prescription of crime and prescription of the penalty Prescription of the crime begins, as a general rule on the day the crime was com mitted, unless the crime was concealed, not public, in which case, the prescript ion thereof would only commence from the time the offended party or the governme nt learns of the commission of the crime. Commission of the crime is public -- This does not mean alone that the crime was w ithin public knowledge or committed in public. Illustration: In the crime of falsification of a document that was registered in the proper re gistry of the government like the Registry of Property or the Registry of Deeds of the Civil registry, the falsification is deemed public from the time the fals ified document was registered or recorded in such public office so even though, the offended party may not really know of the falsification, the prescriptive pe riod of the crime shall already run from the moment the falsified document was r ecorded in the public registry. So in the case where a deed of sale of a parcel of land which was falsified was recorded in the corresponding Registry of Prope rty, the owner of the land came to know of the falsified transaction only after 10 years, so he brought the criminal action only then. The Supreme Court ruled that the crime has already prescribed. From the moment the falsified document i s registered in the Registry of Property, the prescriptive period already commen ced to run. When a crime prescribes, the State loses the right to prosecute the offender, he nce, even though the offender may not have filed a motion to quash on this groun

d the trial court, but after conviction and during the appeal he learned that at the time the case was filed, the crime has already prescribed, such accused can raise the question of prescription even for the first time on appeal, and the a ppellate court shall have no jurisdiction to continue, if legally, the crime has indeed prescribed. The prevailing rule now is, prescription of the crime is not waivable, the earli er jurisprudence to the contrary had already been abrogated or overruled. Moreo ver, for purposes of prescription, the period for filing a complaint or informat ion may not be extended at all, even though the last day such prescriptive perio d falls on a holiday or a Sunday. For instance, light felony prescribes in 60 days or two months. If the 60th day falls on a Sunday, the filing of the complaint on the succeeding Monday is alre ady fatal to the prosecution of the crime because the crime has already prescrib ed. The rules on Criminal Procedure for purposes of prescription is that the filing of the complaint even at the public prosecutor s office suspends the running of th e prescriptive period, but not the filing with the barangay. So the earlier rul ings to the contrary are already abrogated by express provision of the Revised R ules on Criminal Procedure.

The prescription of the crime is interrupted or suspended (1) When a complaint is filed in a proper barangay for conciliation or mediation as required by Chapter 7, Local Government Code, but the suspension of the pre scriptive period is good only for 60 days. After which the prescription will re sume to run, whether the conciliation or mediation is terminated for not; (2) When criminal case is filed in the prosecutor s office, the prescription of t he crime is suspended until the accused is convicted or the proceeding is termin ated for a cause not attributable to the accused. But where the crime is subject to Summary Procedure, the prescription of the cri me will be suspended only when the information is already filed with the trial c ourt. It is not the filing of the complaint, but the filing of the information in the trial which will suspend the prescription of the crime. On the prescription of the penalty, the period will only commence to run when th e convict has begun to serve the sentence. Actually, the penalty will prescribe from the moment the convict evades the service of the sentence. So if an accus ed was convicted in the trial court, and the conviction becomes final and execut ory, so this fellow was arrested to serve the sentence, on the way to the penite ntiary, the vehicle carrying him collided with another vehicle and overturned, t hus enabling the prisoner to escape, no matter how long such convict has been a fugitive from justice, the penalty imposed by the trial court will never prescri be because he has not yet commenced the service of his sentence. For the penalt y to prescribe, he must be brought to Muntinlupa, booked there, placed inside th

e cell and thereafter he escapes. Whether it is prescription of crime or prescription of penalty, if the subject c ould leave the Philippines and go to a country with whom the Philippines has no extradition treaty, the prescriptive period of the crime or penalty shall remain suspended whenever he is out of the country. When the offender leaves for a country to which the Philippines has an extraditi on treaty, the running of the prescriptive period will go on even if the offende r leaves Philippine territory for that country. Presently the Philippines has a n extradition treaty with Taiwan, Indonesia, Canada, Australia, USA and Switzerl and. So if the offender goes to any of these countries, the prescriptive period still continues to run. In the case of the prescription of the penalty, the moment the convict commits a nother crime while he is fugitive from justice, prescriptive period of the penal ty shall be suspended and shall not run in the meantime. The crime committed do es not include the initial evasion of service of sentence that the convict must perform before the penalty shall begin to prescribe, so that the initial crime o f evasion of service of sentence does not suspend the prescription of penalty, i t is the commission of other crime, after the convict has evaded the service of penalty that will suspend such period.


Prescription of crime.

a)Crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal -- presc ribes in twenty (20) years. b)Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties (prision mayor) fifteen (15) years. prescribes in

c)Crimes punishable by a correctional penalty (prision correccional) prescribes in ten (10) years, except arresto mayor which prescribes in five (5) years. d)Crime of libel or other similar offense prescribes in one (1) year. prescribes in six (6) months.

e)Crime of oral defamation and slander by deed

f)Light offenses prescribe in two (2) months. If penalty is a compound one, the highest (or higher) penalty shall be the basis of the application of the Rules. In computing the period, the first day is excl uded while the last day is included.


Rules in computing Prescription of offense: a)Prescription commences to run -- from the discovery thereof by the offended p arty, the authorities or the agents. (eg. If a person witnesses the crime but only tells the authorities 20 years lat er, prescription only commences to run on the day he told the authorities).. b)Prescription is interrupted -- when proceedings are instituted. (Upon filing of the proper Complaint with the Fiscal s Office or filing of the Inf ormation in court of competent jurisdiction. Report to the police not included). c)Prescription begins to run again when proceedings are terminated without accu sed being convicted or acquitted; or proceedings unjustifiably stopped through r eason or cause not imputable to the offender. (eg. Unjustifiably stopped for any reason like when accused evades arrest or proceedings must be stopped; Article 91 also applies to special law.) d)If accused fails to move to quash before pleading, deemed as waiver of objecti ons on prescription of crime or offense. Also, prescription of crime does not ta ke away the court s jurisdiction but only absolves the offender and acquits him d ue to passage of time which bars filing of criminal case against accused. 4blue95 notes: Criminal law follows the DISCOVERY Rule and not the constructive notice rule (however, if crime was committed publicly, discovery rule is not app licable.) 4blue95 notes: Constructive Notice Rule is applicable only where transactions pe rtain to deeds, documents and transactions involving possession of real property recorded in Registry of Deeds. ARTICLE 92. When and how penalties prescribe: a)Death and reclusion perpetua in twenty (20) years. b)Other afflictive penalties (prision mayor) in fifteen (15) years. c)Correctional penalties (prision correcional) in ten (10) years. d)Light penalties in one (1) year. ARTICLE 93. Computation of prescription of penalty: a)Period of prescription of penalty shall commence to run from the date when the culprit shall evade the service of his sentence. b)It shall be interrupted if the defendant surrenders, is captured, or should go to some foreign country where government has no extradition treaty, or should c ommit another crime before the expiration of the period of prescription. Note: Elements: 1)Penalty must be final. 2)Convict evades the sentence and has not given himself up. 3)Penalty has prescribed because of lapse of time from date of evasion of servic e of sentence. Interruption of period 1)If defendant is Captured. 2)If he Surrenders. 3)If he should Go into a foreign country where Philippines has no extradition tr eaty. If he Commits another crime before expiration of period of prescription.

Marriage In the case of marriage, do not say that it is applicable for the crimes under Article 344. It is only true in the crimes of rape, abduction, seduction and a cts of lasciviousness. Do not say that it is applicable to private crimes becau se the term includes adultery and concubinage. Marriages in these cases may eve n compound the crime of adultery or concubinage. It is only in the crimes of abduction, seduction and acts of lasciviousness that the marriage by the offender with the offended woman shall extinguish civil lia bility, not only criminal liability of the principal who marries the offended wo man, but also that of the accomplice and accessory, if there are any. Co-principals who did not themselves directly participate in the execution of th e crime but who only cooperated, will also benefit from such marriage, but not w hen such co-principal himself took direct part in the execution of the crime. 2007 notes:in crime of rape, the marriage of an offender to victim would only ex tinguish the liability of that offender but not of the other co-principal,accomp lice and accessory. Marriage as a ground for extinguishing civil liability must have been contracted in good faith. The offender who marries the offended woman must be sincere in the marriage and therefore must actually perform the duties of a husband after t he marriage, otherwise, notwithstanding such marriage, the offended woman, altho ugh already his wife can still prosecute him again, although the marriage remain s a valid marriage. Do not think that the marriage is avoided or annulled. The marriage still subsists although the offended woman may re-file the complaint. The Supreme Court ruled that marriage contemplated must be a real marriage and not one entered to and not just to evade punishment for the crime committed beca use the offender will be compounding the wrong he has committed.

II.Partial extinction of criminal liability 1.Good conduct allowance Art. 97. Allowance for good conduct. The good conduct of any prisoner in any pen al institution shall entitle him to the following deductions from the period of his sentence: 1. During the first two years of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deducti on of five days for each month of good behavior; 2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of eight days for each month of good behavior; 3. During the following years until the tenth year, inclusive, of his imprisonme nt, he shall be allowed a deduction of ten days for each month of good behavior; and 4. During the eleventh and successive years of his imprisonment, he shall be all owed a deduction of fifteen days for each month of good behavior. Art. 98. Special time allowance for loyalty. A deduction of one-fifth of the per iod of his sentence shall be granted to any prisoner who, having evaded the serv ice of his sentence under the circumstances mentioned in Article 58 of this Code , gives himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of a proclamation announcing the passing away of the calamity or catastrophe to in

said article. Art. 99. Who grants time allowances. Whenever lawfully justified, the Director o f Prisons shall grant allowances for good conduct. Such allowances once granted shall not be revoked. A convict who escapes the place of confinement on the occasion of disorder resul ting from a conflagration, earthquake or similar catastrophe or during a mutiny in which he has not participated and he returned within 48 hours after the procl amation that the calamity had already passed, such convict shall be given credit of 1/5 of the original sentence from that allowance for his loyalty of coming b ack. Those who did not leave the penitentiary under such circumstances do not g et such allowance for loyalty. Article 158 refers only to those who leave and r eturn. 2.Commutation of Sentence Art. 96. Effect of commutation of sentence. The commutation of the original sent ence for another of a different length and nature shall have the legal effect of substituting the latter in the place of the former 3.Conditional Pardon Art. 95. Obligation incurred by person granted conditional pardon. Any person wh o has been granted conditional pardon shall incur the obligation of complying st rictly with the conditions imposed therein otherwise, his non-compliance with an y of the conditions specified shall result in the revocation of the pardon and t he provisions of Article 159 shall be applied to him. 4.Parole This correspondingly extinguishes service of sentence up to the maximum of the i ndeterminate sentence. This is the partial extinction referred to, so that if t he convict was never given parole, no partial extinction.

5.Presidential Decree No. 968 (Probation Law) Among the different grounds of partial extinction of criminal liability, the mos t important is probation. An application for probation is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the trial court that renders the judgment. For the offender to apply in such court, he s hould not appeal such judgment. It is a manner of disposing of an accused who have been convicted by a trial cou rt by placing him under supervision of a probation officer, under such terms and conditions that the court may fix. This may be availed of before the convict b egins serving sentence by final judgment and provided that he did not appeal any more from conviction. Only those whose penalty does not exceed six years of imprisonment are those qua lified for probation. If the penalty is six years plus one day, he is no longer qualified for probation. If the offender was convicted of several offenses the basis for determining whet her the penalty disqualifies the offender from probation is the term of the indi

vidual imprisonment and not the totality of all the prison terms imposed in the decision. So even if the prison term would sum up to more than six years, if none of the i ndividual penalties exceeds six years, the offender is not disqualified by such penalty from applying for probation. On the other hand, without regard to the penalty, those who are convicted of sub version or any crime against the public order are not qualified for probation Probation is only a privilege. So even if the offender may not be disqualified of probation, yet the court believes that because of the crime committed it was not advisable to give probation because it would depreciate the effect of the cr ime, the court may refuse or deny an application for probation. (EX:the courts d o not grant an application for probation for violation of the Dangerous Drugs La w). GENERAL RULE :a recidivist cannot be given the benefit of Probation Law . Exception: If the earlier conviction refers to a crime the penalty of which doe s not exceed 30 days imprisonment or a fine of not more than P200.00, such convi ct is not disqualified of the benefit of probation. (provided that the penalty of the current crime committed does not go beyond six years and the nature of th e crime committed by him is not against public order, national security or subve rsion). 2006 notes: Under Probation Law, filing of application for probation shall be d eemed a waiver of the right to appeal, however, such waiver is revocable, hence ,accused may withdraw his application and instead opt to pursue appeal from conv iction. RULE ON APPEAL WITH REGARD PROBATION: 2006 notes: PD 968 is for adult offenders. Persons who have been granted of the benefit of probation cannot avail thereof f or the second time. Probation is only available once and this may be availed on ly where the convict starts serving sentence and provided he has not perfected a n appeal. If the convict perfected an appeal, he forfeits his right to apply fo r probation. If the offender would appeal (after 15 days)the conviction of the trial court an d the appellate court reduced the penalty to say, less than six years, that conv ict can still file an application for probation, because the earliest opportunit y for him to avail of probation came only after judgment by the appellate court. 2006 notes: as long as w/in 15 days,you may change your stance from appeal to pr obation (and vice versa) 2006 notes: as long as no previous criminal record, you may apply probation. Onc e granted, then no more. Whether a convict who is otherwise qualified for probation may be give the benef it of probation or not, the courts are always required to conduct a hearing. If the court denied the application for probation without the benefit of the heari ng, where as the applicant is not disqualified under the provision of the Probat ion Law, but only based on the report of the probation officer, the denial is co rrectible by certiorari, because it is an act of the court in excess of jurisdic tion or without jurisdiction, the order denying the application therefore is nul

l and void. Consider not only the probationable crime, but also the probationable penalty. If it were the non-probationable crime, then regardless of the penalty, the conv ict cannot avail of probation. Generally, the penalty which is not probationable is any penalty exceeding six y ears (so dapat lampas 6 yrs and not 6 yrs) of imprisonment. Offenses which are not probationable are those against natural security, those against public order and those with reference to subversion. Offenders who are under preventive imprisonment, that because a crime committed is not bailable or the crime committed, although bailable, they cannot afford to put up a bail, upon promulgation of the sentence, naturally he goes back to det ention, that does not mean that they already start serving the sentence even aft er promulgation of the sentence, sentence will only become final and executory a fter the lapse of the 15-day period, unless the convict has waived expressly his right to appeal or otherwise, he has partly started serving sentence and in tha t case, the penalty will already be final and exeuctory, no right to probation c an be applied for.

Probation shall be denied if the court finds: (1) That the offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be provi ded most effectively by his commitment to an institution; (2) That there is undue risk that during the period of probation the offende r will commit another crime; or (3) Probation will depreciate the seriousness of the crime.

The probation law imposes two kinds of conditions: I Mandatory conditions: (1) The convict must report to the Probation Officer (PO) designated in the court order approving his application for Probation within 72 hours from receipt of Notice of such order approving his application; and (2) The convict, as a probationer, must report to the PO at least once a mon th during the period of probation unless sooner required by the PO. These conditions being mandatory, the moment any of these is violate, the probat ion is cancelled.

II.Discretionary conditions: The trial court which approved the application for probation may impose any cond ition which may be constructive to the correction of the offender, provided the same would not violate the constitutional rights of the offender and subject to this two restrictions: (1) the conditions imposed should not be unduly restrict ive of the probationer; and (2) such condition should not be incompatible with t he freedom of conscience of the probationer

2006 notes: as such, pardon is not applicable if it exceed 6 yrs, or party has p revious criminal record, or has avail probation already or is convicted under th e Dangerous Drugs Act.

CIVIL LIABILITY PERSON CIVILLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. Art. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. The exemption from c riminal liability established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 12 and in subdivision 4 of Article 11 of this Code does not include exemption from civ il liability, which shall be enforced subject to the following rules: First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article 12, the civil liability f or acts committed by an imbecile or insane person, and by a person under nine ye ars of age, or by one over nine but under fifteen years of age, who has acted wi thout discernment, shall devolve upon those having such person under their legal authority or control, unless it appears that there was no fault or negligence o n their part. Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor un der his authority, legal guardianship or control, or if such person be insolvent , said insane, imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own property, excepti

ng property exempt from execution, in accordance with the civil law. Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11, the persons for who se benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have received. The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, the proportionate amount for wh ich each one shall be liable. When the respective shares cannot be equitably det ermined, even approximately, or when the liability also attaches to the Governme nt, or to the majority of the inhabitants of the town, and, in all events, whene ver the damages have been caused with the consent of the authorities or their ag ents, indemnification shall be made in the manner prescribed by special laws or regulations. Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of Article 12, the persons u sing violence or causing the fears shall be primarily liable and secondarily, or , if there be no such persons, those doing the act shall be liable, saving alway s to the latter that part of their property exempt from execution. Art. 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietor s of establishments. In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, ta vernkeepers, and any other persons or corporations shall be civilly liable for c rimes committed in their establishments, in all cases where a violation of munic ipal ordinances or some general or special police regulation shall have been com mitted by them or their employees. Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods taken by ro bbery or theft within their houses from guests lodging therein, or for the payme nt of the value thereof, provided that such guests shall have notified in advanc e the innkeeper himself, or the person representing him, of the deposit of such goods within the inn; and shall furthermore have followed the directions which s uch innkeeper or his representative may have given them with respect to the care and vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in case of robbery wit h violence against or intimidation of persons unless committed by the innkeeper' s employees. Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall also apply to employers, teacher s, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies commit ted by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the dischar ge of their duties. Under Articloe 102, two conditions must be present before liability attaches to the inkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors: (1) The guest must have informed the management in advance of his having brought to the premises certain valuables aside from the usual personal belongings of t he guest; and (2) The guest must have followed the rules and regulations prescribed by the man agement of such inn, tavern, or similar establishment regarding the safekeeping of said valuables. The Supreme Court ruled that even though the guest did not obey the rules and re gulations prescribed by the management for safekeeping of the valuables, this do es not absolve management from the subsidiary civil liability. Non-compliance w ith such rules and regulations but the guests will only be regarded as contribut ory negligence, but it won t absolve the management from civil liability. Liability specially attaches when the management is found to have violated any l aw or ordinance, rule or regulation governing such establishment. Even if the crime is robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons or committed by the inkeeper s employees, management will be liable, otherwise, not liable because there is duress from the offender, liable only for theft and forc e upon things. Under Article 103, the subsidiary liability of an employer or master for the cri me committed by his employee or servant may attach only when the following requi

sites concur: (1) The employer must be engaged in business or in trade or industry while the a ccused was his employee; (2) At the time the crime was committed, the employee-employerr relationship mus t be existing between the two; (3) The employee must have been found guilty of the crime charged and accordingl y held civilly liable; (4) The writ of execution for the satisfaction of the civil liability was return ed unsatisfied because the accused-employee does not have enough property to pay the civil liability. When these requisites concur, the employer will be subsidiarily civilly liable f or the full amount that his employee was adjudged civilly liable. It is already settled in jurisprudence that there is no need to file a civil action against t he employer in order to enforce the subsidiary civil liability for the crime com mitted by his employee, it is enough that the writ of execution is returned unsa tisfied. There is no denial of due process of law because the liability of the employer is subsidiary and not primary. He will only be liable if his employee does not have the property to pay his civil liability, since it is the law itsel f that provides that such subsidiary liability exists and ignorance of the law i s not an excuse. Civil liability of the offender falls under three categories: (1) Restitution and restoration; (2) Reparation of the damage caused; and (3) Indemnification of consequential damages. Restitution or restoration Restitution or restoration presupposes that the offended party was divested of p roperty, and such property must be returned. If the property is in the hands of a third party, the same shall nevertheless be taken away from him and restored to the offended party, even though such third party may be a holder for value and a buyer in good faith of the property, excep t when such third party buys the property from a public sale where the law prote cts the buyer. For example, if a third party bought a property in a public auction conducted by the sheriff levied on the property of a judgment creditor for an obligation, th e buyer of the property at such execution sale is protected by law. The offende d party cannot divest him thereof. So the offended party may only resort to rep aration of the damage done from the offender. Some believed that this civil liability is true only in crimes against property, this is not correct. Regardless of the crime committed, if the property is ill egally taken from the offended party during the commission of the crime, the cou rt may direct the offender to restore or restitute such property to the offended party. It can only be done if the property is brought within the jurisdiction of that court. For example, in a case where the offender committed rape, during the rape, the o ffender got on of the earrings of the victim. When apprehended, the offender wa s prosecuted for rape and theft. When the offender was asked why he got on of t he earrings of the victim, the offender disclosed that he took one of the earrin gs in order to have a souvenir of the sexual intercourse. Supreme Court ruled

that the crime committed is not theft and rape but rape and unjust vexation for the taking of the earring. The latter crime is not a crime against property, th is is a crime against personal security and liberty under Title IX of Book II of the RPC. And yet, the offender was required to restore or restitute the earrin g to the offended woman. Property will have to be restored to the offended party even this would require the taking of the property from a third person. Where personal property was div ested from the offended party pursuant to the commission of the crime, the one w ho took the same or accepted the same would be doing so without the benefit of t he just title. So even if the property may have been bought by the third person , the same may be taken from him and restored to the offended party without an o bligation on the part of the offended party to pay him whatever he paid. The right to recover what he has paid will be against the offender who sold it t o him. On the other hand, if the crime was theft or robbery, the one who receiv ed the personal property becomes a fence, he is not only required to restitute t he personal property but he incurs criminal liability in violation of the Anti-F encing Law. If the property cannot be restituted anymore, then the damage must be repaired, requiring the offender to pay the value thereof, as determined by the court. Th at value includes the sentimental value to the offended party, not only the repl acement cost. In most cases, the sentimental value is higher than the replaceme nt value. But if what would be restored is brand new, then there will be an all owance for depreciation, otherwise, the offended party is allowed to enrich hims elf at the expense of the offender. So there will be a corresponding depreciati on and the offended party may even be required to pay something just to cover th e difference of the value of what was restored to him. The obligation of the offender transcends to his heirs, even if the offender die s, provided he died after judgment became final, the heirs shall assume the burd en of the civil liability, but this is only to the extent that they inherit prop erty from the deceased, if they do not inherit, they cannot inherit the obligati ons. The right of the offended party transcends to heirs upon death. The heirs of th e offended party step into the shoes of the latter to demand civil liability fro m the offender. Reparation of the damage caused In case of human life, reparation of the damage cause is basically P50,000.00 va lue of human life, exclusive of other forms of damages. This P50,000.00 may als o increase whether such life was lost through intentional felony or criminal neg ligence, whether the result of dolo or culpa. Also in the crime of rape, the da mages awarded to the offended woman is generally P30,000.00 for the damage to he r honor. In earlier rulings, the amount varied, whether the offended woman is y ounger or a married woman. Supreme Court ruled that even if the offended woman does not adduce evidence or such damage, court can take judicial notice of the f act that if a woman was raped, she inevitably suffers damages. Under the Revise d Rules on Criminal Procedure, a private prosecutor can recover all kinds of dam ages including attorney s fee. The only limitation is that the amount and the nat ure of the damages should be specified. The present procedural law does not all ow a blanket recovery of damages. Each kind of damages must be specified and th e amount duly proven. Indemnification of consequential damages

Indemnification of consequential damages refers to the loss of earnings, loss of profits. This does not refer only to consequential damages suffered by the off ended party; this also includes consequential damages to third party who also su ffer because of the commission of the crime. Civil Indemnity ex delicto is different from damages enunciated in the Civil Cod e in that the former can be awarded w/o need of further proof than the fact o f commission of felony itself while the actual/compensatory damages (in Civil Code) to be recoverable must be additionally established with reasonable degree . In civil liability ex delicto, you can recover it only when the criminal case went on and led to a conviction, since when you desisted from prosecuting, the n the case ends there and you cannot recover ( not unless you file an entirely n ew civil action ). The offender carnapped a bridal car while the newly-weds were inside the church. Since the car was only rented, consequential damage not only to the newly-weds but also to the entity which rented the car to them. For Frustrated Murder, no basis since frustrated ,so person is entitled only to amounts of actual expenses duly proven in the court. Moral damages may be recovered in the following cases:Seduction, abduction and r ape,Adultery and concubinage,Illegal or arbitrary detention,lllegal search,Libel , slander and defamation,Malicious prosecution and Physical injuries (includes loss of earning capacity,actual and compensatory). EXTINCTION OF CIVIL LIABILITY. Civil liability of the offender is extinguished in the same manner as civil obli gation is extinguished but this is not absolutely true. Under civil law, a civi l obligation is extinguished upon loss of the thing due when the thing involved is specific. This is not a ground applicable to extinction of civil liability i n criminal case if the thing due is lost, the offender shall repair the damages caused. When there are several offenders, the court in the exercise of its discretion sh all determine what shall be the share of each offender depending upon the degree of participation as principal, accomplice or accessory. If within each class o f offender, there are more of them, such as more than one principal or more than one accomplice or accessory, the liability in each class of offender shall be s ubsidiary. Anyone of the may be required to pay the civil liability pertaining to such offender without prejudice to recovery from those whose share have been paid by another. Ex: A thief gave his girlfriend a ring worth P50T, later on, they broke up an d the girl sold the ring at P20T. Later, it was established that the ring was st olen and it was given to her but she being in good faith sold it to a stranger. The Civil liability of the girl is to pay the P20T , since she is liable only to the amount in extent of her participation. With regard heirs of the accused, they are only liable upto amount that they in herited from the accused. If all the principals are insolvent, the obligation shall devolve upon the accom plice(s) or accessory(s). But whoever pays shall have the right of covering the share of the obligation from those who did not pay but are civilly liable. To relate with Article 38, when there is an order or preference of pecuniary (mo netary) liability, therefore, restitution is not included here.

There is not subsidiary penalty for non-payment of civil liability. Obligation to satisfy civil liability. Except in case of extinction of his civil liability as provided in the next preceding article the offender shall continue to be obliged to satisfy the civil liability resulting from the crime committed by him, notwithstanding the fact that he has served his sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty or other rights, or has not been required to serve the sa me by reason of amnesty, pardon, commutation of sentence or any other reason. 4BLUE 95 notes: in criminal procedure, unlike in civil procedure, only the accus ed could appeal since if it is an acquittal then it is immediately executory. Ho wever, if before appeal his sentence is light, it could be possible that after a ppeal, the accused sentence could be increased. 4BLUE 95 notes: in criminal procedure, the offended party can only appeal only w ith regard damages. (Wala ring third party complaint.. sa criminal procedure) 4BLUE 95 notes: in criminal procedure, if what was alleged was only HOMICIDE, bu t during trial ,it was proven that it was MURDER, the accused cannot be convicte d of MURDER since it is higher than Homicide, so homicide pa rin. Preference in the payment of the civil liabilities. The civil liabilities of a person found guilty of two or more offenses shall be satisfied by following the chronological order of the dates of the judgments ren dered against him, beginning with the first in order of time.

?? ?? ?? ??

Похожие интересы