3criminal Law Book1

Codal Provisions and Notes in CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I by RENE CALLANTA
*** CULLED FROM THE BOOKS OF REYES, GREGORIO, PALATTAO & SANDOVAL
WITH EXCERPTS FROM ORTEGA NOTES
CRIMINAL LAW – A branch of municipal law which defines crimes, treats of their nature and
provides for their punishment.
Legal Basis of Punishment
The power to punish violators of criminal law comes within the police power of the state.
It is the injury inflicted to the public which a criminal action seeks to redress, and not the injury
to the individual.
* The objective of the punishment is two-fold: absolute and relative. The absolute theory is to
inflict punishment as a form of retributive justice. It is to destroy wrong in its effort to annihilate
right, to put an end to the criminal activity of the offender.
On the other hand, the relative theory purports to prevent the offender from further
offending public right or to the right to repel an imminent or actual aggression, exemplary or by
way of example to others not to follow the path taken by the offender and ultimately for
reformation or to place him under detention to teach him the obligations of a law-abiding citizen.
Power to Enact Penal Laws
Only the legislative branch of the government can enact penal laws. While the President
may define and punish an act as a crime, such exercise of power is not executive but legislative
as he derives such power from the law-making body. It is in essence, an exercise of legislative
power by the Chief Executive.
Limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws
1. Must be general in application.
2. Must not partake of the nature of an ex post facto law.
3. Must not partake of the nature of a bill of attainder.
4. Must not impose cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines.
Characteristics of Criminal Law: (G.T.P.)
1. GENERAL – the law is binding to all persons who reside in the Philippines
Generality of criminal law means that the criminal law of the country governs all persons within the
country regardless of their race, belief, sex, or creed. However, it is subject to certain exceptions brought
about by international agreement. Ambassadors, chiefs of states and other diplomatic officials are
immune from the application of penal laws when they are in the country where they are assigned.
* Note that consuls are not diplomatic officers. This includes consul-general, vice-consul or any consul in
a foreign country, who are therefore, not immune to the operation or application of the penal law of the
country where they are assigned. Consuls are subject to the penal laws of the country where they are
assigned.
* It has no reference to territory. Whenever you are asked to explain this, it does not include territory. It
refers to persons that may be governed by the penal law.
Exceptions to general application of criminal law:

a) principles of public international law
b) treaties or treaty stipulations
c) laws of preferential application
2. TERRITORIAL – the law is binding to all crimes committed within the National Territory of
the Philippines
Exception to Territorial Application: Instances enumerated under Article 2.
1
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
Territoriality means that the penal laws of the country have force and effect only within its territory. It
cannot penalize crimes committed outside the same. This is subject to certain exceptions brought about
by international agreements and practice. The territory of the country is not limited to the land where its
sovereignty resides but includes also its maritime and interior waters as well as its atmosphere.
Terrestrial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over land.
Fluvial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over maritime and interior waters.
Aerial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over the atmosphere.
The Archipelagic Rule
All bodies of water comprising the maritime zone and interior waters abounding different islands
comprising the Philippine Archipelago are part of the Philippine territory regardless of their breadth, depth,
width or dimension.
What Determines Jurisdiction in a Criminal Case?

1. Place where the crime was committed;
2. The nature of the crime committed; and
3. The person committing the crime.
3. PROSPECTIVE (Prospectivity)– the law does not have any retroactive effect.
Exception to Prospective Application: when new statute is favorable to the accused.
This is also called irretrospectivity.
* Acts or omissions will only be subject to a penal law if they are committed after a penal law had already
taken effect. Vice-versa, this act or omission which has been committed before the effectivity of a penal
law could not be penalized by such penal law because penal laws operate only prospectively.
* The exception where a penal law may be given retroactive application is true only with a
repealing law. If it is an original penal law, that exception can never operate. What is contemplated by
the exception is that there is an original law and there is a repealing law repealing the original law. It is the
repealing law that may be given retroactive application to those who violated the original law, if the
repealing penal law is more favorable to the offender who violated the original law. If there is only one
penal law, it can never be given retroactive effect.
Effect of repeal of penal law to liability of offender

A repeal is absolute or total when the crime punished under the repealed law has been decriminalized
by the repeal. Because of the repeal, the act or omission which used to be a crime is no longer a crime.
An example is Republic Act No. 7363, which decriminalized subversion.
A repeal is partial or relative when the crime punished under the repealed law continues to be a crime
inspite of the repeal. This means that the repeal merely modified the conditions affecting the crime under
the repealed law. The modification may be prejudicial or beneficial to the offender. Hence, the following
rule:
Consequences if repeal of penal law is total or absolute
(1) If a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law, the same shall be dismissed,
even though the accused may be a habitual delinquent. This is so because all persons accused
of a crime are presumed innocent until they are convicted by final judgment. Therefore, the
accused shall be acquitted.
(2) If a case is already decided and the accused is already serving sentence by final judgment, if the convict
is not a habitual delinquent, then he will be entitled to a release unless there is a reservation
clause in the penal law that it will not apply to those serving sentence at the time of the repeal.
But if there is no reservation, those who are not habitual delinquents even if they are already
serving their sentence will receive the benefit of the repealing law. They are entitled to release.
This does not mean that if they are not released, they are free to escape. If they escape, they
commit the crime of evasion of sentence, even if there is no more legal basis to hold them in the
penitentiary. This is so because prisoners are accountabilities of the government; they are not
supposed to step out simply because their sentence has already been, or that the law under which
they are sentenced has been declared null and void.
2
If they are not discharged from confinement, a petition for habeas corpus should be filed to test
the legality of their continued confinement in jail.
If the convict, on the other hand, is a habitual delinquent, he will continue serving the sentence in
spite of the fact that the law under which he was convicted has already been absolutely repealed.
This is so because penal laws should be given retroactive application to favor only those who are
not habitual delinquents.
Consequences if repeal of penal law is partial or relative
(1) If a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law, and the repealing law is more
favorable to the accused, it shall be the one applied to him. So whether he is a habitual
delinquent or not, if the case is still pending in court, the repealing law will be the one to apply
unless there is a saving clause in the repealing law that it shall not apply to pending causes of
action.
(2) If a case is already decided and the accused is already serving sentence by final judgment, even if the
repealing law is partial or relative, the crime still remains to be a crime. Those who are not
habitual delinquents will benefit on the effect of that repeal, so that if the repeal is more lenient to
them, it will be the repealing law that will henceforth apply to them.
Express or implied repeal. – Express or implied repeal refers to the manner the repeal is done.
Express repeal takes place when a subsequent law contains a provision that such law repeals an earlier
enactment. For example, in Republic Act No. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), there is an
express provision of repeal of Title V of the Revised Penal Code.
Implied repeals are not favored. It requires a competent court to declare an implied repeal. An implied
repeal will take place when there is a law on a particular subject matter and a subsequent law is passed
also on the same subject matter but is inconsistent with the first law, such that the two laws cannot stand
together, one of the two laws must give way. It is the earlier that will give way to the later law because the
later law expresses the recent legislative sentiment. So you can have an implied repeal when there are
two inconsistent laws. When the earlier law does not expressly provide that it is repealing an earlier law,
what has taken place here is implied repeal. If the two laws can be reconciled, the court shall always try to
avoid an implied repeal.
For example, under Article 9, light felonies are those infractions of the law for the commission of which a
penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding P200.00 or both is provided. On the other hand, under
Article 26, a fine whether imposed as a single or an alternative penalty, if it exceeds P6,000.00 but is not
less than P 200.00, is considered a correctional penalty. These two articles appear to be inconsistent. So
to harmonize them, the Supreme Court ruled that if the issue involves the prescription of the crime, that
felony will be considered a light felony and, therefore, prescribes within two months. But if the issue
involves prescription of the penalty, the fine of P200.00 will be considered correctional and it will prescribe
within 10 years. Clearly, the court avoided the collision between the two articles.
Consequences if repeal of penal law is express or implied
(1) If a penal law is impliedly repealed, the subsequent repeal of the repealing law will revive the original
law. So the act or omission which was punished as a crime under the original law will be revived
and the same shall again be crimes although during the implied repeal they may not be
punishable.
(2) If the repeal is express, the repeal of the repealing law will not revive the first law, so the act or
omission will no longer be penalized.
* These effects of repeal do not apply to self-repealing laws or those which have automatic termination.
An example is the Rent Control Law which is revived by Congress every two years.
* When there is a repeal, the repealing law expresses the legislative intention to do away with such law,
and, therefore, implies a condonation of the punishment. Such legislative intention does not exist in a
self-terminating law because there was no repeal at all.
* In Co v. CA, decided on October 28, 1993, it was held that the principle of prospectivity of statutes also
applies to administrative rulings and circulars.
Theories of Criminal Law
1. CLASSICAL THEORY – Man is essentially a moral creature with an absolute free will to
choose between good and evil and therefore more stress is placed upon the result of the
felonious act than upon the criminal himself.
3
* The purpose of penalty is retribution. The offender is made to suffer for the wrong he has done. There
is scant regard for the human element of the crime. The law does not look into why the offender
committed the crime. Capital punishment is a product of this kind of this school of thought. Man is
regarded as a moral creature who understands right from wrong. So that when he commits a wrong, he
must be prepared to accept the punishment therefore.
2. POSITIVIST THEORY – Man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon

which conditions him to do wrong in spite of or contrary to his volition.
(Crime is essentially a social and natural phenomenon)
* The purpose of penalty is reformation. There is great respect for the human element because the
offender is regarded as socially sick who needs treatment, not punishment. Crimes are regarded as social
phenomena which constrain a person to do wrong although not of his own volition
ECLECTIC OR MIXED PHILOSOPHY

> This combines both positivist and classical thinking. Crimes that are economic and social and nature
should be dealt with in a positivist manner; thus, the law is more compassionate. Heinous crimes should
be dealt with in a classical manner; thus, capital punishment.
Sources of Criminal Law

1. The Revised Penal Code
2. Special Penal Laws – Acts enacted of the Philippine Legislature punishing offenses or
omissions.
Construction of Penal Laws

1. Criminal Statutes are liberally construed in favor of the offender. This means that no person
shall be brought within their terms who is not clearly within them, nor should any act be
pronounced criminal which is not clearly made so by statute.
2. The original text in which a penal law is approved in case of a conflict with an official
translation.
3. Interpretation by analogy has no place in criminal law
BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW

DOCTRINE OF PRO REO
Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of two interpretations – one lenient
to the offender and one strict to the offender – that interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the
offender will be adopted.
* This is in consonance with the fundamental rule that all doubts shall be construed in favor of the
accused and consistent with presumption of innocence of the accused. This is peculiar only to criminal
law.
NULLUM CRIMEN, NULLA POENA SINE LEGE
There is no crime when there is no law punishing the same. This is true to civil law countries, but not to
common law countries.
Because of this maxim, there is no common law crime in the Philippines. No matter how wrongful, evil or
bad the act is, if there is no law defining the act, the same is not considered a crime.
Common law crimes are wrongful acts which the community/society condemns as contemptible, even
though there is no law declaring the act criminal.
Not any law punishing an act or omission may be valid as a criminal law. If the law punishing an act is
ambiguous, it is null and void.
ACTUS NON FACIT REUM, NISI MENS SIT REA
The act cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal. This is true to a felony characterized by dolo,
but not a felony resulting from culpa. This maxim is not an absolute one because it is not applied to
culpable felonies, or those that result from negligence.
UTILITARIAN THEORY OR PROTECTIVE THEORY
The primary purpose of the punishment under criminal law is the protection of society from actual and
potential wrongdoers. The courts, therefore, in exacting retribution for the wronged society, should direct
4
the punishment to potential or actual wrongdoers, since criminal law is directed against acts and omissions
which the society does not approve. Consistent with this theory, the mala prohibita principle which
punishes an offense regardless of malice or criminal intent, should not be utilized to apply the full
harshness of the special law.
* In Magno v CA, decided on June 26, 1992, the Supreme Court acquitted Magno of violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 when he acted without malice. The wrongdoer is not Magno but the lessor who
deposited the checks. He should have returned the checks to Magno when he pulled out the equipment.
To convict the accused would defeat the noble objective of the law and the law would be tainted with
materialism and opportunism.
MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA

Violations of the Revised Penal Code are referred to as malum in se, which literally means, that the act is
inherently evil or bad or per se wrongful. On the other hand, violations of special laws are generally referred
to as malum prohibitum.
* Note, however, that not all violations of special laws are mala prohibita. While intentional felonies are
always mala in se, it does not follow that prohibited acts done in violation of special laws are always mala
prohibita. Even if the crime is punished under a special law, if the act punished is one which is inherently
wrong, the same is malum in se, and, therefore, good faith and the lack of criminal intent is a valid
defense; unless it is the product of criminal negligence or culpa.
* Likewise when the special laws requires that the punished act be committed knowingly and willfully,
criminal intent is required to be proved before criminal liability may arise.
* When the act penalized is not inherently wrong, it is wrong only because a law punishes the same.
For example, Presidential Decree No. 532 punishes piracy in Philippine waters and the special law
punishing brigandage in the highways. These acts are inherently wrong and although they are punished
under special law, the acts themselves are mala in se; thus, good faith or lack of criminal intent is a
defense.
Mala in se vs. Mala prohibita

Crimes mala in se Crimes mala prohibita
Those so serious in their effects on society Those violations of mere rules of
as to call for almost unanimous convenience designed to secure a more
condemnation of its members; orderly regulation of the affairs of society
Criminal intent necessary Criminal intent is not necessary
Refers generally to felonies defined and Refers generally to acts made criminal by
penalized by the Revised Penal Code special laws
Distinction between crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code and crimes punished under
special laws
1. As to moral trait of the offender
In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the moral trait of the offender is considered.
This is why liability would only arise when there is dolo or culpa in the commission of the
punishable act.
In crimes punished under special laws, the moral trait of the offender is not considered; it is
enough that the prohibited act was voluntarily done.
2. As to use of good faith as defense
In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, good faith or lack of criminal intent is a valid
defense; unless the crime is the result of culpa
In crimes punished under special laws, good faith is not a defense
3. As to degree of accomplishment of the crime
In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the degree of accomplishment of the crime is
taken into account in punishing the offender; thus, there are attempted, frustrated, and
consummated stages in the commission of the crime.
5
In crimes punished under special laws, the act gives rise to a crime only when it is consummated;
there are no attempted or frustrated stages, unless the special law expressly penalize the mere
attempt or frustration of the crime.
4. As to mitigating and aggravating circumstances
In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are
taken into account in imposing the penalty since the moral trait of the offender is considered.
In crimes punished under special laws, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not taken
into account in imposing the penalty.
5. As to degree of participation
In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, when there is more than one offender, the
degree of participation of each in the commission of the crime is taken into account in imposing
the penalty; thus, offenders are classified as principal, accomplice and accessory.
In crimes punished under special laws, the degree of participation of the offenders is not
considered. All who perpetrated the prohibited act are penalized to the same extent. There is no
principal or accomplice or accessory to consider.
Test to determine if violation of special law is malum prohibitum or malum in se
Analyze the violation: Is it wrong because there is a law prohibiting it or punishing it as such? If you
remove the law, will the act still be wrong?
If the wording of the law punishing the crime uses the word “willfully”, then malice must be proven. Where
malice is a factor, good faith is a defense.
In violation of special law, the act constituting the crime is a prohibited act. Therefore culpa is not a basis
of liability, unless the special law punishes an omission.
When given a problem, take note if the crime is a violation of the Revised Penal Code or a special law.
CODAL PROVISIONS OF THE R.P.C.
Art. 1. This Code shall take effect on January 1, 1932.
Art. 2. Application of its provisions. -- Except as provided in the treaties and laws
of preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only
within the Philippine Archipelago including its atmosphere, its interior waters and
Maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine

Islands or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine
Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these
islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in

the exercise of their functions; or (Some of these crimes are bribery, fraud against national
treasury, malversation of public funds or property, and illegal use of public funds; e.g., A judge
who accepts a bribe while in Japan.)
5. Should commit any crimes against the national security and the law of
nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code. (These crimes include treason,
espionage, piracy, mutiny, inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals, correspondence with
hostile country, flight to enemy’s country and violation of neutrality)
6
● Rules as to crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessels:
1. FRENCH RULE – Such crimes are not triable in the courts of that country, unless their
commission affects the peace and security of the territory or the safety of the state is
endangered.
2. ENGLISH RULE – Such crimes are triable in that country, unless they merely affect things
within the vessel or they refer to the internal management thereof. (This is applicable in the
Philippines)
● Requirements of “an offense committed while on a Philippine Ship or Airship”

1. Registered with the Philippine Bureau of Customs
2. Ship must be in the high seas or the airship must be in international airspace.
* Under international law rule, a vessel which is not registered in accordance with the laws of any country
is considered a pirate vessel and piracy is a crime against humanity in general, such that wherever the
pirates may go, they can be prosecuted.
● US v. Bull
A crime which occurred on board of a foreign vessel, which began when the ship was in a
foreign territory and continued when it entered into Philippine waters, is considered a continuing
crime. Hence within the jurisdiction of the local courts.
Two situations where the foreign country may not apply its criminal law even if a crime was
committed on board a vessel within its territorial waters and these are:
(1) When the crime is committed in a war vessel of a foreign country, because war vessels are part of
the sovereignty of the country to whose naval force they belong;
(2) When the foreign country in whose territorial waters the crime was committed adopts the French
Rule, which applies only to merchant vessels, except when the crime committed affects the
national security or public order of such foreign country.
When public officers or employees commit an offense in the exercise of their functions
As a general rule, the Revised Penal Code governs only when the crime committed pertains to the
exercise of the public official’s functions, those having to do with the discharge of their duties in a foreign
country. The functions contemplated are those, which are, under the law, to be performed by the public
officer in the Foreign Service of the Philippine government in a foreign country.
Exception: The Revised Penal Code governs if the crime was committed within the Philippine Embassy
or within the embassy grounds in a foreign country. This is because embassy grounds are considered an
extension of sovereignty.
Art 3. Definitions. -- Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of
fault (culpa).
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and there is fault
when the wrongful results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack
of skill.
● Acts – an overt or external act

● Omission – failure to perform a duty required by law.
* To be considered as a felony there must be an act or omission; a mere imagination no matter how wrong
does not amount to a felony. An act refers to any kind of body movement that produces change in the
outside world.
* In felony by omission however, there must be a law requiring the doing or the performance
of an act. Thus, mere passive presence at the scene of the crime, mere silence and failure to
give the alarm, without evidence of agreement or conspiracy is not punishable.
Example of an omission: failure to render assistance to anyone who is in danger of dying or is in

an uninhabited place or is wounded - abandonment.
7
● Felonies - acts and omissions punishable by the Revised Penal Code

● Offense- crimes punished under special law
● Misdemeanor- minor infraction of law, such as violation of ordinance
● Crime - acts and omissions punishable by any law
● HOW FELONIES ARE COMMITTED:
1. by means of deceit (dolo) - There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate
intent.
Requisites:
a. freedom
b. intelligence
c. intent
Examples: murder, treason, and robbery.
2. by means of fault (culpa) - There is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
IMPRUDENCE - deficiency of action; e.g. A was driving a truck along a road. He hit B
because it was raining - reckless imprudence.
NEGLIGENCE - deficiency of perception; failure to foresee impending danger, usually

involves lack of foresight
Requisites:
1. Freedom
2. Intelligence
3. Imprudence, negligence, lack of skill or foresight
4. Lack of intent
Intentional felonies vs. Culpable Felonies

Intentional Felonies Culpable Felonies
Act or omission is malicious Act or omission is not malicious
Offender has the intention to cause an Offender has no intention to cause injury
injury to another
Act performed or omission incurred with Act or omission results from imprudence,
deliberate intent negligence, lack or foresight or lack of skill
VOLUNTARINESS comprehends the concurrence of freedom of action, intelligence and the fact that the
act was intentional. In culpable felonies, there is no voluntariness if either freedom, intelligence or
imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill is lacking. Without voluntariness, there can be no
dolo or culpa, hence, there is no felony.
CRIMINAL INTENT
> Criminal Intent is not deceit. Do not use deceit in translating dolo, because the nearest translation is
deliberate intent.
In criminal law, intent is categorized into two:

(1) General criminal intent; and
(2) Specific criminal intent.
GENERAL CRIMINAL INTENT is presumed from the mere doing of a wrong act. This does not require
proof. The burden is upon the wrong doer to prove that he acted without such criminal intent.
SPECIFIC CRIMINAL INTENT is not presumed because it is an ingredient or element of a crime, like
intent to kill in the crimes of attempted or frustrated homicide/parricide/murder. The prosecution has the
burden of proving the same.
Criminal intent is not necessary in these cases:
(1) When the crime is the product of culpa or negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of
foresight or lack of skill;
(2) When the crime is a prohibited act under a special law or what is called malum prohibitum.
Distinction between intent and discernment
8
Intent is the determination to do a certain thing, an aim or purpose of the mind. It is the design to resolve
or determination by which a person acts.
On the other hand, discernment is the mental capacity to tell right from wrong. It relates to the moral
significance that a person ascribes to his act and relates to the intelligence as an element of dolo, distinct
from intent.
Distinction between intent and motive
Intent is demonstrated by the use of a particular means to bring about a desired result – it is not a state of
mind or a reason for committing a crime.
On the other hand, motive implies motion. It is the moving power which impels one to do an act. When
there is motive in the commission of a crime, it always comes before the intent. But a crime may be
committed without motive.
* If the crime is intentional, it cannot be committed without intent. Intent is manifested by the instrument
used by the offender. The specific criminal intent becomes material if the crime is to be distinguished from
the attempted or frustrated stage.
* Criminal intent is on the basis of the act, not on the basis if what the offender says.
* Look into motive to determine the proper crime which can be imputed to the accused
● MISTAKE OF FACT - is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused
injury to another. He is not criminally liable.
a. Requisites:
1. that the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed
them to be;
2. intention of the accused is lawful;
3. mistake must be without fault of carelessness.
* Mistake of fact would be relevant only when the felony would have been intentional or through dolo, but
not when the felony is a result of culpa. When the felony is a product of culpa, do not discuss mistake of
fact
* It exists when a person who in the exercise of due diligence, acts under the influence of an
erroneous appreciation of facts, which if true would relieve him from criminal responsibility.
* It is an omission or commission performed by the individual which is the result of a

misconception or misapprehension of events or facts before him which in law is considered
voluntary. The accused performed acts or omissions which would be lawful, had it been true as
he perceived them to be. To be an absolutory cause, the mistake of facts as committed must
originate from legitimate sentiment or intention. The further requirement in order to escape
criminal responsibility, must be, that the mistake of facts was done without negligence. The good
faith of the offender maybe derived from the sequence of events, before, during and after the
alleged mistake of facts. If at anytime there is a showing that the actor was at fault for not
exercising ordinary prudence, then he will be liable criminally, not however for dolo, but for
culpa.
Example: United States v. Ah Chong.

Ah Chong being afraid of bad elements, locked himself in his room by placing a
chair against the door. After having gone to bed, he was awakened by somebody who
was trying to open the door. He asked the identity of the person, but he did not receive a
response. Fearing that this intruder was a robber, he leaped out of bed and said that he
will kill the intruder should he attempt to enter. At that moment, the chair struck him.
Believing that he was attacked, he seized a knife and fatally wounded the intruder.
MENS REA
The technical term mens rea is sometimes referred to in common parlance as the gravamen of the
offense. To a layman, that is what you call the “bullseye” of the crime. This term is used synonymously
with criminal or deliberate intent, but that is not exactly correct.
* Mens rea of the crime depends upon the elements of the crime. You can only detect the mens rea of a
crime by knowing the particular crime committed. Without reference to a particular crime, this term is
9
meaningless. For example, in theft, the mens rea is the taking of the property of another with intent to
gain. In falsification, the mens rea is the effecting of the forgery with intent to pervert the truth. It is not
merely writing something that is not true; the intent to pervert the truth must follow the performance of the
act.
* In criminal law, we sometimes have to consider the crime on the basis of intent. For example, attempted
or frustrated homicide is distinguished from physical injuries only by the intent to kill. Attempted rape is
distinguished from acts of lasciviousness by the intent to have sexual intercourse. In robbery, the mens
rea is the taking of the property of another coupled with the employment of intimidation or violence upon
persons or things; remove the employment of force or intimidation and it is not robbery anymore.
REAL CONCEPT OF CULPA
Under Article 3, it is clear that culpa is just a modality by which a felony may be committed. A felony may
be committed or incurred through dolo or culpa. Culpa is just a means by which a felony may result.
The concept of criminal negligence is the inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person
performing or failing to perform an act. If the danger impending from that situation is clearly manifest, you
have a case of reckless imprudence. But if the danger that would result from such imprudence is not
clear, not manifest nor immediate you have only a case of simple negligence.
Art. 4. Criminal liability.-- Criminal liability shall be incurred:
1. By any person committing a felony, although the wrongful act done be

different from that which he intended.
In the first paragraph, two elements must be present:

1. A felony committed; and
2. The felony committed resulted in the commission of another felony.
* The requirement however, must be, that the resulting other felony or felonies must be direct,
material and logical consequence of the felony committed even if the same is not intended or
entirely different from what was in the mind of the offender.
● DOCTRINE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE – such adequate and efficient cause as, in the
natural order of events, and under the particular circumstances surrounding the case, which
would necessarily produce the event.
Requisites:
a. the direct, natural, and logical cause
b. produces the injury or damage
c. unbroken by any sufficient intervening cause
d. without which the result would not have occurred
● Proximate Cause is negated by:

a. Active force, distinct act, or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the
accused, which serves as a sufficient intervening cause.
b. Resulting injury or damage is due to the intentional act of the victim.
● Requisite for Presumption that the blow was cause of the death – Where there has been an
injury inflicted sufficient to produce death followed by the demise of the person, the
presumption arises that the injury was the cause of the death. Provided:
a. victim was in normal health
b. death ensued within a reasonable time
* Even if other causes cooperated in producing the fatal result as long as the wound inflicted is
dangerous, that is, calculated to destroy or endanger life, the actor is liable. This is true even
though the immediate cause of death was erroneous or unskillful medical treatment, refusal of
the victim to submit to surgical operation, or that the deceased was suffering from tuberculosis,
heart disease or other internal malady or that the resulting injury was aggravated by infection.
* There must however be no efficient intervening cause.
10
* Article 4, paragraph 1 presupposes that the act done is the proximate cause of the resulting felony. It
must be the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the felonious act.
PROXIMATE CAUSE is that cause which sets into motion other causes and which unbroken by any
efficient supervening cause produces a felony without which such felony could not have resulted. As a
general rule, the offender is criminally liable for all the consequences of his felonious act, although not
intended, if the felonious act is the proximate cause of the felony or resulting felony. A proximate cause is
not necessarily the immediate cause. This may be a cause which is far and remote from the consequence
which sets into motion other causes which resulted in the felony.
* In criminal law, as long as the act of the accused contributed to the death of the victim, even if the victim
is about to die, he will still be liable for the felonious act of putting to death that victim.
* proximate cause does not require that the offender needs to actually touch the body of the offended
party. It is enough that the offender generated in the mind of the offended party the belief that made him
risk himself.
* The one who caused the proximate cause is the one liable. The one who caused the immediate cause
is also liable, but merely contributory or sometimes totally not liable.
● CAUSES WHICH PRODUCE A DIFFERENT RESULT:
a. MISTAKE IN IDENTITY OF THE VICTIM – injuring one person who is mistaken for
another e.g., A intended to shoot B, but he instead shot C because he (A) mistook C for
B.
In ERROR IN PERSONAE, the intended victim was not at the scene of the crime. It was the actual
victim upon whom the blow was directed, but he was not really the intended victim
How does error in personae affect criminal liability of the offender?
* Error in personae is mitigating if the crime committed is different from that which was intended. If the
crime committed is the same as that which was intended, error in personae does not affect the criminal
liability of the offender.
* In mistake of identity, if the crime committed was the same as the crime intended, but on a different
victim, error in persona does not affect the criminal liability of the offender. But if the crime committed was
different from the crime intended, Article 49 will apply and the penalty for the lesser crime will be applied.
In a way, mistake in identity is a mitigating circumstance where Article 49 applies. Where the crime
intended is more serious than the crime committed, the error in persona is not a mitigating circumstance
* In any event, the offender is prosecuted for the crime committed not for the crime intended.
b. MISTAKE IN BLOW – hitting somebody other than the target due to lack of skill or
fortuitous instances (this is a complex crime under Art. 48) e.g., B and C were walking
together. A wanted to shoot B, but he instead injured C.
In ABERRATIO ICTUS, a person directed the blow at an intended victim, but because of poor aim, that
blow landed on somebody else. In aberratio ictus, the intended victim as well as the actual victim are both
at the scene of the crime.
* If the actor intended the commission of several felonies with a single act, it is not called
aberratio ictus or mistake of blow, simply because there was no mistake.
* Distinguish this from error in personae, where the victim actually received the blow, but he was mistaken
for another who was not at the scene of the crime. The distinction is important because the legal effects
are not the same.
* In aberratio ictus, the offender delivers the blow upon the intended victim, but because of poor aim the
blow landed on somebody else. You have a complex crime, unless the resulting consequence is not a
grave or less grave felony. You have a single act as against the intended victim and also giving rise to
another felony as against the actual victim. If the resulting physical injuries were only slight, then you
cannot complex. In other words, aberratio ictus, generally gives rise to a complex crime. This being so,
the penalty for the more serious crime is imposed in the maximum period.
c. INJURIOUS RESULT IS GREATER THAN THAT INTENDED – causing injury

graver than intended or expected (this is a mitigating circumstance due to lack of intent to
commit so grave a wrong under Art. 13) e.g., A wanted to injure B. However, B died.
11
In PRAETER INTENTIONEM, it is mitigating only if there is a notable or notorious disparity between the
means employed and the resulting felony. In criminal law, intent of the offender is determined on the basis
employed by him and the manner in which he committed the crime. Intention of the offender is not what is
in his mind; it is disclosed in the manner in which he committed the crime.
* In praeter intentionem, it is essential that there is a notable disparity between the means employed or
the act of the offender and the felony which resulted. This means that the resulting felony cannot be
foreseen from the acts of the offender. If the resulting felony can be foreseen or anticipated from the
means employed, the circumstance of praeter intentionem does not apply.
* Intent to kill is only relevant when the victim did not die. This is so because the purpose of intent to kill is
to differentiate the crime of physical injuries from the crime of attempted homicide or attempted murder or
frustrated homicide or frustrated murder. But once the victim is dead, you do not talk of intent to kill
anymore. The best evidence of intent to kill is the fact that victim was killed.
● In all these instances the offender can still be held criminally liable, since he is motivated by
criminal intent.
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against

persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual
means.
● Requisites:
a. Act would have been an offense against persons or property
b. Act is not an actual violation of another provision of the Code or of a special penal law
c. There was criminal intent
d. Accomplishment was inherently impossible; or inadequate or ineffectual means were
employed.
● Notes:
* Offender must believe that he can consummate the intended crime, a man stabbing another
who he knew was already dead cannot be liable for an impossible crime.
* The law intends to punish the criminal intent.
* There is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime.
● Felonies against persons: parricide, murder, homicide, infanticide, physical injuries, RAPE etc.
● Felonies against property: robbery, theft, usurpation, swindling, etc.
● INHERENT IMPOSSIBILITY: A thought that B was just sleeping. B was already dead. A
shot B. A is liable. If A knew that B is dead and he still shot him, then A is not liable.
inherent impossibility, this means that under any and all circumstances, the crime could not
have materialized. If the crime could have materialized under a different set of facts, employing the same
mean or the same act, it is not an impossible crime; it would be an attempted felony.
Legal impossibility occurs where the intended act, even if completed, would not
amount into a crime.
Factual impossibility occurs when an extraneous circumstances is unknown to the

actor or beyond his control to prevent the consummation of the intended crime.
* Under Art. 4, par. 2, the law does not make any distinction between factual or physical
impossibility and legal impossibility. (pp vs. intod)
● Employment of inadequate means: A used poison to kill B. However, B survived because

A used small quantities of poison - frustrated murder.
● Ineffectual means: A aimed his gun at B. When he fired the gun, no bullet came out
because the gun was empty. A is liable.
12
* Whenever you are confronted with a problem where the facts suggest that an impossible crime was
committed, be careful about the question asked. If the question asked is: “Is an impossible crime
committed?”, then you judge that question on the basis of the facts. If really the facts constitute an
impossible crime, then you suggest than an impossible crime is committed, then you state the reason for
the inherent impossibility.
* If the question asked is “Is he liable for an impossible crime?”, this is a catching question. Even though
the facts constitute an impossible crime, if the act done by the offender constitutes some other crimes
under the Revised Penal Code, he will not be liable for an impossible crime. He will be prosecuted for the
crime constituted so far by the act done by him. The reason is an offender is punished for an impossible
crime just to teach him a lesson because of his criminal perversity. Although objectively, no crime is
committed, but subjectively, he is a criminal. That purpose of the law will also be served if he is
prosecuted for some other crime constituted by his acts which are also punishable under the RPC.
* By its very nature, an impossible crime is a formal crime. It is either consummated or not
committed at all. There is therefore no attempted or frustrated impossible crime. At this stage, it
would be best to distinguish impossible crime from attempted or frustrated felony. The evil
intent is attempted or frustrated felony is possible of accomplishment, while in impossible crime,
it cannot be accomplished because of its inherent impossibility. In attempted or frustrated felony,
what prevented its accomplishment is the intervention of a certain cause or accident
independent of the will of the perpetrator or offender.
Unconsummated felonies (Attempted and frustrated felonies) vs. Impossible crimes

Attempted of Frustrated Felony Impossible Crime
Intent is not accomplished Intent is not accomplished
Intent of the offender possible of Intent of the offender, cannot be
accomplishment accomplished
Accomplishment is prevented by the Intent cannot be accomplished because it
intervention of certain cause or accident in is inherently impossible of accomplishment
which the offender had no part or because the means employed by the
offender is inadequate or ineffectual
Art 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but which
are not covered by the law, and in cases of excessive penalties. –
Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress
and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision and shall
report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons
which induce the court to believe that said act should be made subject of
legislation.
In the same way the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the
Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without
suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the
provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive
penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by
the offense.
NO CRIME UNLESS THERE IS A LAW PUNISHING IT
When a person is charged in court, and the court finds that there is no law applicable, the court will acquit
the accused and the judge will give his opinion that the said act should be punished.
Article 5 covers two situations:

(1) The court cannot convict the accused because the acts do not constitute a crime. The proper
judgment is acquittal, but the court is mandated to report to the Chief Executive that said act be
made subject of penal legislation and why.
(2) Where the court finds the penalty prescribed for the crime too harsh considering the conditions
surrounding the commission of he crime, the judge should impose the law (Dura lex sed lex). The
most that he could do is to recommend to the Chief Executive to grant executive clemency.
13
● Paragraph 2 does not apply to crimes punishable by special law, including profiteering, and
illegal possession of firearms or drugs. There can be no executive clemency for these
crimes.
Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. - Consummated felonies, as

well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution
and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs
all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but
which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will
of the perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony

directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance.
● Development of a crime
1. Internal acts – intent and plans; usually not punishable
2. External acts
a. Preparatory Acts – acts tending toward the crime
b. Acts of Execution – acts directly connected the crime
* Mere intention is therefore, not punishable. For as long as there is no physical form of the
internal acts, the same is outside the inquiry of criminal law.
Stages of Commission of a Crime

Attempt Frustrated Consummated
● Overt acts of execution ● All acts of execution are ● All the acts of execution
are started present are present
● Not all acts of execution ● Crime sought to be ● The result sought is
are present committed is not achieved achieved
● Due to reasons other than ● Due to intervening causes
the spontaneous independent of the will of
desistance of the the perpetrator
perpetrator
* There are three stages in the commission of felonies or crimes committed by means of dolo.
Again, they do not refer to felonies committed by means of culpa. It is essentially incompatible
with the elements of negligence as another means to commit felony.
DESISTANCE
Desistance on the part of the offender negates criminal liability in the attempted stage. Desistance is true
only in the attempted stage of the felony. If under the definition of the felony, the act done is already in the
frustrated stage, no amount of desistance will negate criminal liability.
* The spontaneous desistance of the offender negates only the attempted stage but not necessarily all
criminal liability. Even though there was desistance on the part of the offender, if the desistance was made
when acts done by him already resulted to a felony, that offender will still be criminally liable for the felony
brought about his act. What is negated is only the attempted stage, but there may be other felony
constituting his act.
* The desistance referred to under Article 6 has reference to the crime intended to be
committed. It has no reference to the crime actually committed by the offender before the
desistance.
In deciding whether a felony is attempted or frustrated or consummated, there are three

criteria involved:
14
(1) The manner of committing the crime;
(2) The elements of the crime; and
(3) The nature of the crime itself.
MANNER OF COMMITTING A CRIME
For example, let us take the crime of bribery. Can the crime of frustrated bribery be committed? No.
(Incidentally, the common concept of bribery is that it is the act of one who corrupts a public officer.
Actually, bribery is the crime of the receiver not the giver. The crime of the giver is corruption of public
official. Bribery is the crime of the public officer who in consideration of an act having to do with his official
duties would receive something, or accept any promise or present in consideration thereof.)
The confusion arises from the fact that this crime requires two to commit -- the giver and the receiver. The
law called the crime of the giver as corruption of public official and the receiver as bribery. Giving the idea
that these are independent crimes, but actually, they cannot arise without the other. Hence, if only one side
of the crime is present, only corruption, you cannot have a consummated corruption without the
corresponding consummated bribery. There cannot be a consummated bribery without the corresponding
consummated corruption. If you have bribery only, it is only possible in the attempted stage. If you have a
corruption only, it is possible only in the attempted stage. A corruptor gives money to a public officer for
the latter not to prosecute him. The public officer received the money but just the same, arrested him. He
received the money to have evidence of corruption. Do not think that because the corruptor has already
delivered the money, he has already performed all the acts of execution, and, therefore, the corruption is
already beyond the attempted stage. That thinking does away with the concept of the crime that it requires
two to commit. The manner of committing the crime requires the meeting of the minds between the giver
and the receiver.
When the giver delivers the money to the supposed receiver, but there is no meeting of the minds, the only
act done by the giver is an attempt. It is not possible for him to perform all the acts of execution because in
the first place, the receiver has no intention of being corrupted.
Similarly, when a public officer demands a consideration by official duty, the corruptor turns down the
demand, there is no bribery.
If the one to whom the demand was made pretended to give, but he had reported the matter to higher
authorities, the money was marked and this was delivered to the public officer. If the public officer was
arrested, do not think that because the public officer already had the money in his possession, the crime is
already frustrated bribery, it is only attempted bribery. This is because the supposed corruptor has no
intention to corrupt. In short, there is no meeting of the minds. On the other hand, if there is a meeting of
the minds, there is consummated bribery or consummated corruption. This leaves out the frustrated stage
because of the manner of committing the crime.
But indirect bribery is always consummated. This is because the manner of consummating the crime does
not admit of attempt or frustration.
You will notice that under the Revised Penal Code, when it takes two to commit the crime, there could
hardly be a frustrated stage. For instance, the crime of adultery. There is no frustrated adultery. Only
attempted or consummated. This is because it requires the link of two participants. If that link is there, the
crime is consummated; if such link is absent, there is only an attempted adultery. There is no middle
ground when the link is there and when the link is absent.
There are instances where an intended felony could already result from the acts of execution already
done. Because of this, there are felonies where the offender can only be determined to have performed all
the acts of execution when the resulting felony is already accomplished. Without the resulting felony, there
is no way of determining whether the offender has already performed all the acts or not. It is in such
felonies that the frustrated stage does not exist because without the felony being accomplished, there is
no way of stating that the offender has already performed all the acts of execution. An example of this is
the crime of rape. The essence of the crime is carnal knowledge. No matter what the offender may do to
accomplish a penetration, if there was no penetration yet, it cannot be said that the offender has performed
all the acts of execution. We can only say that the offender in rape has performed all the acts of execution
when he has effected a penetration. Once there is penetration already, no matter how slight, the offense is
consummated. For this reason, rape admits only of the attempted and consummated stages, no frustrated
stage. This was the ruling in the case of People v. Orita.
In rape, it requires the connection of the offender and the offended party. No penetration at all, there is
only an attempted stage. Slightest penetration or slightest connection, consummated. You will notice this
from the nature of the crime requiring two participants.
15
This is also true in the crime of arson. It does not admit of the frustrated stage. In arson, the moment any
particle of the premises intended to be burned is blackened, that is already an indication that the premises
have begun to burn. It does not require that the entire premises be burned to consummate arson.
Because of that, the frustrated stage of arson has been eased out. The reasoning is that one cannot say
that the offender, in the crime of arson, has already performed all the acts of execution which could
produce the destruction of the premises through the use of fire, unless a part of the premises has begun
to burn. If it has not begun to burn, that means that the offender has not yet performed all the acts of
execution. On the other hand, the moment it begins to burn, the crime is consummated. Actually, the
frustrated stage is already standing on the consummated stage except that the outcome did not result. As
far as the stage is concerned, the frustrated stage overlaps the consummated stage.
Because of this reasoning by the Court of Appeals in People v. Garcia, the Supreme Court followed the
analysis that one cannot say that the offender in the crime of arson has already performed all the acts of
execution which would produce the arson as a consequence, unless and until a part of the premises had
begun to burn.
BUT In US v. Valdez, the offender had tried to burn the premises by gathering jute sacks laying these
inside the room. He lighted these, and as soon as the jute sacks began to burn, he ran away. The
occupants of the room put out the fire. The court held that what was committed was frustrated arson.
This case was much the way before the decision in the case of People v. Garcia was handed down and
the Court of Appeals ruled that there is no frustrated arson. But even then, the analysis in the case of US
v. Valdez is correct. This is because, in determining whether the felony is attempted, frustrated or
consummated, the court does not only consider the definition under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code,
or the stages of execution of the felony. When the offender has already passed the subjective stage of the
felony, it is beyond the attempted stage. It is already on the consummated or frustrated stage depending
on whether a felony resulted. If the felony did not result, frustrated.
The attempted stage is said to be within the subjective phase of execution of a felony. On the subjective
phase, it is that point in time when the offender begins the commission of an overt act until that point
where he loses control of the commission of the crime already. If he has reached that point where he can
no longer control the ensuing consequence, the crime has already passed the subjective phase and,
therefore, it is no longer attempted. The moment the execution of the crime has already gone to that point
where the felony should follow as a consequence, it is either already frustrated or consummated. If the
felony does not follow as a consequence, it is already frustrated. If the felony follows as a consequence, it
is consummated.
The trouble is that, in the jurisprudence recognizing the objective phase and the subjective phase, the
Supreme Court considered not only the acts of the offender, but also his belief. That although the offender
may not have done the act to bring about the felony as a consequence, if he could have continued
committing those acts but he himself did not proceed because he believed that he had done enough to
consummate the crime, Supreme Court said the subjective phase has passed. This was applied in the
case of US v. Valdez, where the offender, having already put kerosene on the jute sacks, lighted the
same, he had no reason not to believe that the fire would spread, so he ran away. That act demonstrated
that in his mind, he believed that he has performed all the acts of execution and that it is only a matter of
time that the premises will burn. The fact that the occupant of the other room came out and put out the fire
is a cause independent of the will of the perpetrator.
The ruling in the case of US v. Valdez is still correct. But in the case of People v. Garcia, the situation is
different. Here, the offender who put the torch over the house of the offended party, the house being a
nipa hut, the torch which was lighted could easily burn the roof of the nipa hut. But the torch burned out.
In that case, you cannot say that the offender believed that he had performed all the acts of execution.
There was not even a single burn of any instrument or agency of the crime.
The analysis made by the Court of Appeals is still correct: that they could not demonstrate a situation
where the offender has performed all the acts of execution to bring about the crime of arson and the
situation where he has not yet performed all the acts of execution. The weight of the authority is that the
crime of arson cannot be committed in the frustrated stage. The reason is because we can hardly
determine whether the offender has performed all the acts of execution that would result in arson, as a
consequence, unless a part of the premises has started to burn. On the other hand, the moment a particle
or a molecule of the premises has blackened, in law, arson is consummated. This is because
consummated arson does not require that the whole of the premises be burned. It is enough that any part
of the premises, no matter how small, has begun to burn.
There are also certain crimes that do not admit of the attempted or frustrated stage, like physical injuries.
One of the known commentators in criminal law has advanced the view that the crime of physical injuries
can be committed in the attempted as well as the frustrated stage. He explained that by going through the
definition of an attempted and a frustrated felony under Article 6, if a person who was about to give a fist
blow to another raises his arms, but before he could throw the blow, somebody holds that arm, there would
be attempted physical injuries. The reason for this is because the offender was not able to perform all the
acts of execution to bring about physical injuries.
16
On the other hand, he also stated that the crime of physical injuries may be committed in the frustrated
stage when the offender was able to throw the blow but somehow, the offended party was able to sidestep
away from the blow. He reasoned out that the crime would be frustrated because the offender was able to
perform all the acts of execution which would bring about the felony were it not for a cause independent of
the will of the perpetrator.
The explanation is academic. You will notice that under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of physical
injuries is penalized on the basis of the gravity of the injuries. Actually, there is no simple crime of physical
injuries. You have to categorize because there are specific articles that apply whether the physical injuries
are serious, less serious or slight. If you say physical injuries, you do not know which article to apply. This
being so, you could not punish the attempted or frustrated stage because you do not know what crime of
physical injuries was committed.
Questions & Answers
1. Is there an attempted slight physical injuries?
If there is no result, you do not know. Criminal law cannot stand on any speculation or ambiguity;
otherwise, the presumption of innocence would be sacrificed. Therefore, the commentator’s
opinion cannot stand because you cannot tell what particular physical injuries was attempted or
frustrated unless the consequence is there. You cannot classify the physical injuries.
2. A threw muriatic acid on the face of B. The injuries would have resulted in deformity were
it not for timely plastic surgery. After the surgery, B became more handsome. What crime is committed?
Is it attempted, frustrated or consummated?
The crime committed here is serious physical injuries because of the deformity. When there is
deformity, you disregard the healing duration of the wound or the medical treatment required by the
wound. In order that in law, a deformity can be said to exist, three factors must concur:
(1) The injury should bring about the ugliness;
(2) The ugliness must be visible;
(3) The ugliness would not disappear through natural healing process.
Along this concept of deformity in law, the plastic surgery applied to B is beside the point. In law, what is
considered is not the artificial or the scientific treatment but the natural healing of the injury. So the fact
that there was plastic surgery applied to B does not relieve the offender from the liability for the physical
injuries inflicted. The crime committed is serious physical injuries. It is consummated. In determining
whether a felony is attempted, frustrated or consummated, you have to consider the manner of committing
the felony, the element of the felony and the nature of the felony itself. There is no real hard and fast rule.
ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME

In the crime of estafa, the element of damage is essential before the crime could be consummated. If there
is no damage, even if the offender succeeded in carting away the personal property involved, estafa
cannot be considered as consummated. For the crime of estafa to be consummated, there must be
misappropriation already done, so that there is damage already suffered by the offended party. If there is
no damage yet, the estafa can only be frustrated or attempted.
On the other hand, if it were a crime of theft, damage or intent to cause damage is not an element of theft.
What is necessary only is intent to gain, not even gain is important. The mere intent to derive some profit
is enough but the thinking must be complete before a crime of theft shall be consummated. That is why we
made that distinction between theft and estafa.
If the personal property was received by the offender, this is where you have to decide whether what was
transferred to the offender is juridical possession or physical possession only. If the offender did not
receive the personal property, but took the same from the possession of the owner without the latter’s
consent, then there is no problem. That cannot be estafa; this is only theft or none at all.
In estafa, the offender receives the property; he does not take it. But in receiving the property, the
recipient may be committing theft, not estafa, if what was transferred to him was only the physical or
material possession of the object. It can only be estafa if what was transferred to him is not only material
or physical possession but juridical possession as well.
When you are discussing estafa, do not talk about intent to gain. In the same manner that when you are
discussing the crime of theft, do not talk of damage.
17
The crime of theft is the one commonly given under Article 6. This is so because the concept of theft
under the Revised Penal Code differs from the concept of larceny under American common law. Under
American common law, the crime of larceny which is equivalent to our crime of theft here requires that the
offender must be able to carry away or transport the thing being stolen. Without that carrying away, the
larceny cannot be consummated.
In our concept of theft, the offender need not move an inch from where he was. It is not a matter of
carrying away. It is a matter of whether he has already acquired complete control of the personal property
involved. That complete control simply means that the offender has already supplanted his will from the
will of the possessor or owner of the personal property involved, such that he could exercise his own
control on the thing.
Illustration:
I placed a wallet on a table inside a room. A stranger comes inside the room, gets the wallet and puts it in
his pocket. I suddenly started searching him and I found the wallet inside his pocket. The crime of theft is
already consummated because he already acquired complete control of my wallet. This is so true when he
removed the wallet from the confines of the table. He can exercise his will over the wallet already, he can
drop this on the floor, etc.
But as long as the wallet remains on the table, the theft is not yet consummated; there can only be
attempted or frustrated theft. If he has started lifting the wallet, it is frustrated. If he is in the act of trying to
take the wallet or place it under, attempted.
“Taking” in the concept of theft, simply means exercising control over the thing.
If instead of the wallet, the man who entered the room pretended to carry the table out of the room, and
the wallet is there. While taking the table out of the room, I apprehended him. It turned out that he is not
authorized at all and is interested only in the wallet, not the table. The crime is not yet consummated. It is
only frustrated because as far as the table is concern, it is the confines of this room that is the container.
As long as he has not taken this table out of the four walls of this room, the taking is not complete.
A man entered a room and found a chest on the table. He opened it found some valuables inside. He took
the valuables, put them in his pocket and was arrested. In this case, theft is consummated.
But if he does not take the valuables but lifts the entire chest, and before he could leave the room, he was
apprehended, there is frustrated theft.
If the thing is stolen from a compound or from a room, as long as the object has not been brought out of
that room, or from the perimeter of the compound, the crime is only frustrated. This is the confusion raised
in the case of US v. Diño compared with People v. Adio and People v. Espiritu.
In US v. Diño, the accused loaded boxes of rifle on their truck. When they were on their way out of the
South Harbor, they were checked at the checkpoint, so they were not able to leave the compound. It was
held that what was committed was frustrated Theft.
In People v. Espiritu, the accused were on their way out of the supply house when they were
apprehended by military police who found them secreting some hospital linen. It was held that what was
committed was consummated theft.
The emphasis, which was erroneously laid in some commentaries, is that, in both cases, the offenders
were not able to pass the checkpoint. But why is it that in one, it is frustrated and in the other, it is
consummated?
In the case of US v. Diño, the boxes of rifle were stocked file inside the compound of the South Harbor.
As far as the boxes of rifle are concerned, it is the perimeter of the compound that is the container. As
long as they were not able to bring these boxes of rifle out of the compound, the taking is not complete.
On the other hand, in the case of People v. Espiritu, what were taken were hospital linens. These were
taken from a warehouse. Hospital linens were taken from boxes that were diffused or destroyed and
brought out of the hospital. From the moment they took it out of the boxes where the owner or the
possessor had placed it, the control is complete. You do not have to go out of the compound to complete
the taking or the control.
This is very decisive in the problem because in most problems given in the bar, the offender, after having
taken the object out of the container changed his mind and returned it. Is he criminally liable? Do not
make a mistake by saying that there is a desistance. If the crime is one of theft, the moment he brought it
out, it was consummated. The return of the thing cannot be desistance because in criminal law,
desistance is true only in the attempted stage. You cannot talk of desistance anymore when it is already in
the consummated stage. If the offender has already acquired complete control of what he intended to
take, the fact that he changed his mind and returned the same will no longer affect his criminal liability. It
18
will only affect the civil liability of the crime because he will no longer be required to pay the object. As far
as the crime committed is concerned, the offender is criminally liable and the crime is consummated theft.
Illustration:
A and B are neighbors. One evening, A entered the yard of B and opened the chicken coop where B
keeps his fighting cocks. He discovered that the fighting cocks were not physically fit for cockfighting so
he returned it. The crime is consummated theft. The will of the owner is to keep the fighting cock inside
the chicken coop. When the offender succeeded in bringing the cock out of the coop, it is clear that his will
completely governed or superseded the will of the owner to keep such cock inside the chicken coop.
Hence, the crime was already consummated, and being consummated, the return of the owner’s property
is not desistance anymore. The offender is criminally liable but he will not be civilly liable because the
object was returned.
When the receptacle is locked or sealed, and the offender broke the same, in lieu of theft, the crime is
robbery with force upon things. However, that the receptacle is locked or sealed has nothing to do with the
stage of the commission of the crime. It refers only to whether it is theft or robbery with force upon things.
NATURE OF THE CRIME ITSELF

In crimes involving the taking of human life – parricide, homicide, and murder – in the definition of the
frustrated stage, it is indispensable that the victim be mortally wounded. Under the definition of the
frustrated stage, to consider the offender as having performed all the acts of execution, the acts already
done by him must produce or be capable of producing a felony as a consequence. The general rule is that
there must be a fatal injury inflicted, because it is only then that death will follow.
If the wound is not mortal, the crime is only attempted. The reason is that the wound inflicted is not
capable of bringing about the desired felony of parricide, murder or homicide as a consequence; it cannot
be said that the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would produce parricide, homicide
or murder as a result.
An exception to the general rule is the so-called subjective phase. The Supreme Court has decided cases
which applied the subjective standard that when the offender himself believed that he had performed all
the acts of execution, even though no mortal wound was inflicted, the act is already in the frustrated stage.
● Stages of a Crime does not apply in:
1. Offenses punishable by Special Penal Laws, unless the otherwise is provided for.
2. Formal crimes (e.g., slander, adultery, etc.)
3. Impossible Crimes
4. Crimes consummated by mere attempt. Examples: attempt to flee to an enemy country,

treason, corruption of minors.
5. Felonies by omission
6. Crimes committed by mere agreement. Examples: betting in sports (endings in

basketball), corruption of public officers.
* In criminal law, you are not allowed to speculate, not to imagine what crime is intended, but apply the
provisions of the law on the facts given.
Test to determine whether attempted or frustrated stage:
The first test is what we call the subjective phase. The second test is what is referred to as
the objective phase. When the subjective and objective phases in the commission of the crime
are both present, there is a consummated felony.
As suggested, the subjective phase is the portion of the execution of the felony starting from
the point where he has control over his acts. If it reaches the point where he has no more
control over his acts, the subjective phase in the commission of the crime is completed.
For as long as he has control over his acts, the subjective phase in the commission of the crime
is not yet over. If a person while performing acts that are within the subjective phase is
19
interrupted such that he is not able to perform all acts of execution, the crime committed would
be attempted.
On the other hand, the objective phase covers that the period of time where the subjective
phase has ended and where the offender has no more control over the effects of his criminal
acts.
If the subjective phase is completed or has already passed, but the felony was not produced
nonetheless, the crime committed as a rule would be frustrated.
● Applications:
a. A put poison in B’s food. B threw away his food. A is liable - attempted murder.1
b. A stole B’s car, but he returned it. A is liable - (consummated) theft.
c. A aimed his gun at B. C held A’s hand and prevented him from shooting B - attempted
murder.
d. A inflicted a mortal wound on B. B managed to survive - frustrated murder.
e. A intended to kill B by shooting him. A missed - attempted murder.
f. A doused B’s house with kerosene. But before he could light the match, he was caught -
attempted arson.
g. A cause a blaze, but did not burn the house of B - frustrated arson.
h. B’s house was set on fire by A - (consummated) arson.
i. A tried to rape B. B managed to escape. There was no penetration - attempted rape.
j. A got hold of B’s painting. A was caught before he could leave B’s house - frustrated
robbery.2
Art. 7. When light felonies are punishable. -- Light felonies are punishable only
when they have been consummated with the exception of those committed
against persons or property.
A LIGHT FELONY is a violation of a penal law which is punished by a penalty of imprisonment

of not more than thirty days or arresto menor or a fine of not more than P200.00 or both, upon
the discretion of the court.
● Examples of light felonies: slight physical injuries; theft(php 5.00 or less); alteration of
boundary marks; alarms and scandals; simple slander; malicious mischief(not exceed php
200.00); and intriguing against honor.
● In commission of crimes against properties and persons, every stage of execution is

punishable but only the principals and accomplices are liable for light felonies, accessories
are not.
Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. -- Conspiracy and proposal to

commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially
provides a penalty therefore.
1
The difference between murder and homicide will be discussed in Criminal Law II. These crimes are found
in Articles 248 and 249, Book II of the Revised Penal Code.
2
The difference between theft and robbery will be discussed in Criminal Law II. These crimes are found in
Title Ten, Chapters One and Three, Book II of the Revised Penal Code.
20
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony
proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
● Conspiracy is punishable in the following cases: treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition,

coup d’ etat, arson(PD 1613) and monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade.
● Conspiracy to commit a crime is not to be confused with conspiracy as a means of

committing a crime. In both cases there is an agreement but mere conspiracy to commit a
crime is not punished EXCEPT in treason, rebellion, or sedition. Even then, if the treason is
actually committed, the conspiracy will be considered as a means of committing it and the
accused will all be charged for treason and not for conspiracy to commit treason.
Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit a Crime

CONSPIRACY PROPOSAL
Elements ● Agreement among 2 or more ● A person has decided to commit a crime
persons to commit a crime ● He proposes its commission to another
● They decide to commit it
Crimes 1. Conspiracy to commit sedition 1. Proposal to commit treason
2. Conspiracy to commit rebellion 2. Proposal to commit rebellion or
3. Conspiracy to commit treason insurrection
● In proposal, only the person proposing or the proponent is criminally liable
● Mere conspiracy in combination in restraint of trade (Art. 186), and brigandage (Art. 306).
Two ways for conspiracy to exist:
(1) There is an agreement.
(2) The participants acted in concert or simultaneously which is indicative of a meeting of the minds
towards a common criminal goal or criminal objective. When several offenders act in a
synchronized, coordinated manner, the fact that their acts complimented each other is indicative of
the meeting of the minds. There is an implied agreement.
Two kinds of conspiracy:
(1) Conspiracy as a crime; and

(2) Conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability
When conspiracy itself is a crime, no overt act is necessary to bring about the criminal liability. The mere
conspiracy is the crime itself. This is only true when the law expressly punishes the mere conspiracy;
otherwise, the conspiracy does not bring about the commission of the crime because conspiracy is not an
overt act but a mere preparatory act. Treason, rebellion, sedition, and coup d’etat are the only crimes
where the conspiracy and proposal to commit to them are punishable.
When the conspiracy is only a basis of incurring criminal liability, there must be an overt act done before
the co-conspirators become criminally liable.
When the conspiracy itself is a crime, this cannot be inferred or deduced because there is no overt act. All
that there is the agreement. On the other hand, if the co-conspirator or any of them would execute an
overt act, the crime would no longer be the conspiracy but the overt act itself.
If the conspiracy is only a basis of criminal liability, none of the co-conspirators would be liable, unless
there is an overt act. So, for as long as anyone shall desist before an overt act in furtherance of the crime
was committed, such a desistance would negate criminal liability. For as long as none of the conspirators
has committed an overt act, there is no crime yet. But when one of them commits any overt act, all of
them shall be held liable, unless 1)a co-conspirator was absent from the scene of the crime or 2)he
showed up, but he tried to prevent the commission of the crime
As a general rule, if there has been a conspiracy to commit a crime in a particular place, anyone who did
not appear shall be presumed to have desisted. The exception to this is if such person who did not
appear was the mastermind.
21
conspiracy as a crime, must have a clear and convincing evidence of its existence. Every crime must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
When the conspiracy is just a basis of incurring criminal liability, however, the same may be deduced or
inferred from the acts of several offenders in carrying out the commission of the crime. The existence of a
conspiracy may be reasonably inferred from the acts of the offenders when such acts disclose or show a
common pursuit of the criminal objective.
* Conspiracy is a matter of substance which must be alleged in the information, otherwise, the court will
not consider the same.
In People v. Laurio, 200 SCRA 489, it was held that it must be established by positive and conclusive
evidence, not by conjectures or speculations.
In Taer v. CA, 186 SCRA 5980, it was held that mere knowledge, acquiescence to, or approval of the act,
without cooperation or at least, agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute a conspiracy. There
must be an intentional participation in the crime with a view to further the common felonious objective.
* A conspiracy is possible even when participants are not known to each other.
* Proposal is true only up to the point where the party to whom the proposal was made has not yet
accepted the proposal. Once the proposal was accepted, a conspiracy arises. Proposal is unilateral, one
party makes a proposition to the other; conspiracy is bilateral, it requires two parties.
* There is conspiracy when the offenders acted simultaneously pursuing a common criminal design; thus,
acting out a common criminal intent.
* Even though there was conspiracy, if a co-conspirator merely cooperated in the commission of the
crime with insignificant or minimal acts, such that even without his cooperation, the crime could be carried
out as well, such co-conspirator should be punished as an accomplice only.
COMPOSITE CRIMES
Composite crimes are crimes which, in substance, consist of more than one crime but in the eyes of the
law, there is only one crime. For example, the crimes of robbery with homicide, robbery with rape, robbery
with physical injuries.
In case the crime committed is a composite crime, the conspirator will be liable for all the acts committed
during the commission of the crime agreed upon. This is because, in the eyes of the law, all those acts
done in pursuance of the crime agreed upon are acts which constitute a single crime.
As a general rule, when there is conspiracy, the rule is that the act of one is the act of all. This principle
applies only to the crime agreed upon.
The exception is if any of the co-conspirator would commit a crime not agreed upon. This happens when
the crime agreed upon and the crime committed by one of the co-conspirators are distinct crimes.
Exception to the exception: In acts constituting a single indivisible offense, even though the
co-conspirator performed different acts bringing about the composite crime, all will be liable for such crime.
They can only evade responsibility for any other crime outside of that agreed upon if it is proved that the
particular conspirator had tried to prevent the commission of such other act.
* The rule would be different if the crime committed was not a composite crime.
Art. 9. Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment
or penalties which in any of their are afflictive, in accordance with Article 25 of this
Code.
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in
their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with the above-mentioned
article.
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which he
penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both is provided.
22
● Capital punishment - death penalty.
● Penalties (imprisonment):
Grave - six years and one day to reclusion perpetua (life);
Less grave - one month and one day to six years;
Light - arresto menor (one day to 30 days).
Felonies are classified as follows:

(1) According to the manner of their commission
Under Article 3, they are classified as, intentional felonies or those committed with deliberate
intent; and culpable felonies or those resulting from negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of
foresight or lack of skill.
(2) According to the stages of their execution
Under Article 6., felonies are classified as attempted felony when the offender commences the
commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which
should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance; frustrated felony when the offender commences the commission of a felony as a
consequence but which would produce the felony as a consequence but which nevertheless do
not produce the felony by reason of causes independent of the perpetrator; and, consummated
felony when all the elements necessary for its execution are present.
(3) According to their gravity
Under Article 9, felonies are classified as grave felonies or those to which attaches the capital
punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive; less grave felonies or those to
which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period was correccional; and light
felonies or those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty is arresto menor.
* While Article 3 classifies the crimes into Intentional and Culpable, a third class can be grouped
with it – that is, those defined and penalized by special laws which include crime punished by
city or municipality ordinances. They are generally referred to as mala prohibita. As a rule, intent
to commit the crime is not necessary. It is sufficient that the offender has the intent to
perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law. The act alone, irrespective of the motives,
constitutes the offense. Good faith is not a defense.
Why is it necessary to determine whether the crime is grave, less grave or light?
To determine whether these felonies can be complexed or not, and to determine the prescription of the
crime and the prescription of the penalty. In other words, these are felonies classified according to their
gravity, stages and the penalty attached to them. Take note that when the Revised Penal Code speaks of
grave and less grave felonies, the definition makes a reference specifically to Article 25 of the Revised
Penal Code. Do not omit the phrase “In accordance with Article 25” because there is also a classification
of penalties under Article 26 that was not applied.
If the penalty is fine and exactly P200.00, it is only considered a light felony under Article 9.
If the fine is imposed as an alternative penalty or as a single penalty, the fine of P200.00 is considered a
correctional penalty under Article 26.
If the penalty is exactly P200.00, apply Article 26. It is considered as correctional penalty and it prescribes
in 10 years. If the offender is apprehended at any time within ten years, he can be made to suffer the fine.
In the case of light felonies, crimes prescribe in two months. If the crime is correctional, it prescribes in ten
years, except arresto mayor, which prescribes in five years.
Art. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this code. --Offenses which are or in
the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions
of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter
should specially provide the contrary.
23
● For Special Laws: Penalties should be imprisonment, and not reclusion perpetua, etc.
● Offenses that are attempted or frustrated are not punishable, unless otherwise stated.
● Plea of guilty is not mitigating for offenses punishable by special laws.
● No minimum, medium, and maximum periods for penalties.
● No penalty for an accessory or accomplice, unless otherwise stated.
● Provisions of RPC applicable to special laws:

a. Art. 16 Participation of Accomplices
b. Art. 22 Retroactivity of Penal laws if favorable to the accused
c. Art. 45 Confiscation of instruments used in the crime
* You will only apply the provisions of the Revised Penal Code as a supplement to the special law, or
simply correlate the violated special law, if needed to avoid an injustice. If no justice would result, do not
give suppletorily application of the Revised Penal Code to that of special law.
* In People v. Rodriguez, it was held that the use of arms is an element of rebellion, so a rebel cannot be
further prosecuted for possession of firearms. A violation of a special law can never absorb a crime
punishable under the Revised Penal Code, because violations of the Revised Penal Code are more
serious than a violation of a special law. But a crime in the Revised Penal Code can absorb a crime
punishable by a special law if it is a necessary ingredient of the crime in the Revised Penal Code.
In the crime of sedition, the use of firearms is not an ingredient of the crime. Hence, two prosecutions can
be had: (1) sedition; and (2) illegal possession of firearms.
* But do not think that when a crime is punished outside of the Revised Penal Code, it is already a special
law. For example, the crime of cattle-rustling is not a mala prohibitum but a modification of the crime theft
of large cattle. So Presidential Decree No. 533, punishing cattle-rustling, is not a special law. It can
absorb the crime of murder. If in the course of cattle rustling, murder was committed, the offender cannot
be prosecuted for murder. Murder would be a qualifying circumstance in the crime of qualified cattle
rustling. This was the ruling in People v. Martinada.
* If a special law is an amendment to a provision of the RPC, the act is considered a felony and
consequently the provisions of the RPC are made applicable to such special law.
The amendments of Presidential Decree No. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) by Republic Act
No. 7659, which adopted the scale of penalties in the Revised Penal Code, means that mitigating and
aggravating circumstances can now be considered in imposing penalties. Presidential Decree No. 6425
does not expressly prohibit the suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code. The stages of the
commission of felonies will also apply since suppletory application is now allowed.
* In conclusion, any Special Law that uses the nomenclature of the Revised Penal Code in the
imposition of penalties makes such Special Law a felony.
CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

There are five circumstances affecting criminal liability:
(1) Justifying circumstances;
(2) Exempting circumstances;
(3) Mitigating circumstances;
(4) Aggravating circumstances; and
(5) Alternative circumstances.

There are two others which are found elsewhere in the provisions of the Revised Penal Code:
(1) Absolutory cause; and
(2) Extenuating circumstances.

24
* In justifying and exempting circumstances, there is no criminal liability. When an accused invokes them,
he in effect admits the commission of a crime but tries to avoid the liability thereof. The burden is upon
him to establish beyond reasonable doubt the required conditions to justify or exempt his acts from
criminal liability. What is shifted is only the burden of evidence, not the burden of proof.
* Justifying circumstances contemplate intentional acts and, hence, are incompatible with dolo.
Exempting circumstances may be invoked in culpable felonies.
ABSOLUTORY CAUSE
* The effect of this is to absolve the offender from criminal liability, although not from civil liability.
1 ) Article 20 provides that the penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who
are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural and adopted brothers
and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees with the exception of accessories who profited
themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
2) Article 89 provides how criminal liability is extinguished:
a. Death of the convict as to the personal penalties, and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is
extinguished if death occurs before final judgment;
b. Service of the sentence;
c. Amnesty;
d. Absolute pardon;
e. Prescription of the crime;
f. Prescription of the penalty; and
g. Marriage of the offended woman as provided in Article 344.
3) Under Article 247, a legally married person who kills or inflicts physical injuries upon his or her spouse
whom he surprised having sexual intercourse with his or her paramour or mistress in not criminally liable.
4) Under Article 219, discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence of the ward by their guardian
is not penalized.
5) Under Article 332, in the case of theft, swindling and malicious mischief, there is no criminal liability but
only civil liability, when the offender and the offended party are related as spouse, ascendant, descendant,
brother and sister-in-law living together or where in case the widowed spouse and the property involved is
that of the deceased spouse, before such property had passed on to the possession of third parties.
6) Under Article 344, in cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness, and rape, the marriage of
the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action.
7) Any person who entered another’s dwelling to prevent serious harm to himself, the occupants
of the dwelling or a third person rendered some service to humanity or justice, or entered cafes,
taverns, inns and other public houses while the same were open. (Art. 280, par. 3)
* Absolutory cause has the effect of an exempting circumstance and they are predicated on lack of
voluntariness like instigation. Instigation is associated with criminal intent. Do not consider culpa in
connection with instigation. If the crime is culpable, do not talk of instigation. In instigation, the crime is
committed with dolo. It is confused with entrapment.
* Entrapment is not an absolutory cause. Entrapment does not exempt the offender or mitigate his
criminal liability. But instigation absolves the offender from criminal liability because in instigation, the
offender simply acts as a tool of the law enforcers and, therefore, he is acting without criminal intent
because without the instigation, he would not have done the criminal act which he did upon instigation of
the law enforcers.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INSTIGATION AND ENTRAPMENT
In instigation, the criminal plan or design exists in the mind of the law enforcer with whom the person
instigated cooperated so it is said that the person instigated is acting only as a mere instrument or tool of
the law enforcer in the performance of his duties.
25
On the other hand, in entrapment, a criminal design is already in the mind of the person entrapped. It did
not emanate from the mind of the law enforcer entrapping him. Entrapment involves only ways and means
which are laid down or resorted to facilitate the apprehension of the culprit.
Entrapment is not an absolutory cause because in entrapment, the offender is already committing a crime.
The element which makes instigation an absolutory cause is the lack of criminal intent as an element of
voluntariness.
If the instigator is a law enforcer, the person instigated cannot be criminally liable, because it is the law
enforcer who planted that criminal mind in him to commit the crime, without which he would not have been
a criminal. If the instigator is not a law enforcer, both will be criminally liable, you cannot have a case of
instigation. In instigation, the private citizen only cooperates with the law enforcer to a point when the
private citizen upon instigation of the law enforcer incriminates himself. It would be contrary to public
policy to prosecute a citizen who only cooperated with the law enforcer. The private citizen believes that
he is a law enforcer and that is why when the law enforcer tells him, he believes that it is a civil duty to
cooperate.
If the person instigated does not know that the person is instigating him is a law enforcer or he knows him
to be not a law enforcer, this is not a case of instigation. This is a case of inducement, both will be
criminally liable.
In entrapment, the person entrapped should not know that the person trying to entrap him was a law
enforcer. The idea is incompatible with each other because in entrapment, the person entrapped is
actually committing a crime. The officer who entrapped him only lays down ways and means to have
evidence of the commission of the crime, but even without those ways and means, the person entrapped
is actually engaged in a violation of the law.
Instigation absolves the person instigated from criminal liability. This is based on the rule that a person
cannot be a criminal if his mind is not criminal. On the other hand, entrapment is not an absolutory cause.
It is not even mitigating.
In case of SOMNAMBULISM or one who acts while sleeping, the person involved is definitely acting
without freedom and without sufficient intelligence, because he is asleep. He is moving like a robot,
unaware of what he is doing. So the element of voluntariness which is necessary in dolo and culpa is not
present. Somnambulism is an absolutory cause. If element of voluntariness is absent, there is no criminal
liability, although there is civil liability, and if the circumstance is not among those enumerated in Article 12,
refer to the circumstance as an absolutory cause.
Mistake of fact is an absolutory cause. The offender is acting without criminal intent. So in mistake of
fact, it is necessary that had the facts been true as the accused believed them to be, this act is justified. If
not, there is criminal liability, because there is no mistake of fact anymore. The offender must believe he is
performing a lawful act.
EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES
* The effect of this is to mitigate the criminal liability of the offender. In other words, this has the same
effect as mitigating circumstances, only you do not call it mitigating because this is not found in Article 13.
* The concealment of honor by mother in the crime of infanticide is an extenuating circumstance but not in
the case of parricide when the age of the victim is three days old and above.
* In the crime of adultery on the part of a married woman abandoned by her husband. Abandonment by
the husband does not justify the act of the woman. It only extenuates or reduces criminal liability. When
the effect of the circumstance is to lower the penalty there is an extenuating circumstance.
Distinctions between justifying circumstances and exempting

circumstances
In justifying circumstances –
(1) The circumstance affects the act, not the actor;
(2) The act complained of is considered to have been done within the bounds of law; hence, it is
legitimate and lawful in the eyes of the law;
(3) Since the act is considered lawful, there is no crime, and because there is no crime, there is no
criminal;
26
(4) Since there is no crime or criminal, there is no criminal liability as well as civil liability.
In exempting circumstances –
(1) The circumstances affect the actor, not the act;
(2) The act complained of is actually wrongful, but the actor acted without voluntariness. He is a mere
tool or instrument of the crime;
(3) Since the act complained of is actually wrongful, there is a crime. But because the actor acted
without voluntariness, there is absence of dolo or culpa. There is no criminal;
(4) Since there is a crime committed but there is no criminal, there is civil liability for the wrong done.
But there is no criminal liability. However, in paragraphs 4 and 7 of Article 12, there is neither
criminal nor civil liability.
* When you apply for justifying or exempting circumstances, it is confession and avoidance and burden of
proof shifts to the accused and he can no longer rely on weakness of prosecution’s evidence
Art. 11: Justifying Circumstances - those wherein the acts of the actor are in
accordance with law, hence, he is justified. There is no criminal and civil liability
because there is no crime.
● SELF-DEFENSE
* Reason for lawfulness of self-defense: because it would be impossible for the State to protect
all its citizens. Also a person cannot just give up his rights without any resistance being offered.
* Since the justifying circumstances are in the nature of defensive acts, there must be always unlawful
aggression. The reasonableness of the means employed depends on the gravity of the aggression. If the
unlawful aggressor was killed, this can only be justified if it was done to save the life of the person
defending or the person being defended. The equation is “life was taken to save life.”
Rights included in self-defense:

1. Defense of person
2. Defense of rights protected by law
3. Defense of property:
> The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has a right to exclude any person from
the enjoyment or disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may
be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical
invasion or usurpation of his property. (Art. 429, New Civil Code)
4. Defense of chastity
ELEMENTS:
1. UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION - is a physical act manifesting danger to life or limb; it

is either actual or imminent.
a. Actual/real aggression - Real aggression presupposes an act positively strong,

showing the wrongful intent of the aggressor, which is not merely threatening or
intimidating attitude, but a material attack. There must be real danger to life a
personal safety.
b. Imminent unlawful aggression - it is an attack that is impending or on the point of

happening. It must not consist in a mere threatening attitude, nor must it be
merely imaginary. The intimidating attitude must be offensive and positively
strong.
* Do not confuse unlawful aggression with provocation. What justifies the killing of a supposed unlawful
aggressor is that if the offender did not kill the aggressor, it will be his own life that will be lost.
27
* To give rise to self-defense, the aggression must not be a lawful one like the attack of a
husband against a paramour of his wife whom he surprised in an uncompromising situation, or a
chief of police who threw stones at the accused who was running away to elude arrest of a
crime committed in his presence. Their aggression was not considered unlawful.
* Where there is an agreement to fight, there is no unlawful aggression. Each of the protagonists
is at once assailant and assaulted, and neither can invoke the right of self-defense, because
aggression which is an incident in the fight is bound to arise from one or the other of the
combatants. Exception: Where the attack is made in violation of the conditions agreed upon,
there may be unlawful aggression.
* Unlawful aggression in self-defense, to be justifying, must exist at the time the defense is
made. It may no longer exist if the aggressor runs away after the attack or he has manifested a
refusal to continue fighting. If the person attacked allowed some time to elapse after he suffered
the injury before hitting back, his act of hitting back would not constitute self-defense, but
revenge.
* The unlawful aggression must come from the person who was attacked by the accused. It
follows that when the source of the unlawful aggression is not known, then unlawful aggression
cannot be considered present in the resolution of the case. This observation is true only in
self-defense. Obviously, it cannot apply to defense of relatives and strangers.
▪ A light push on the head with the hand is not unlawful aggression, but a slap on
the face is, because his dignity is in danger.
▪ A police officer exceeding his authority may become an unlawful aggressor.
▪ The nature, character, location, and extent of the wound may belie claim of
self-defense.
* When the aggressors runs away, the one making a defense has no more right to invoke
self-defense. (People vs. Alconga)
2. REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO PREVENT

OR REPEL IT;
* It contemplates two situations that may arise while the aggression is taking place. The first is
to repel an actual aggression. The second is to prevent an imminent or impending aggression.
Requisites:
1) Means were used to prevent or repel
2) Means must be necessary and there is no other way to prevent or repel it
3) Means must be reasonable – depending on the circumstances, but generally proportionate to
the force of the aggressor.
* The rule here is to stand your ground when in the right which may invoked when the defender
is unlawfully assaulted and the aggressor is armed with a weapon.
* Where the accused is “where he has the right to be” the law does not require him to retreat
when assaulted, but rather to “stand ground when in the right.” (U.S. vs. Damen)
* The rule is more liberal when the accused is a peace officer who, unlike a private person,
cannot run away.
* The reasonable necessity of the means employed to put up the defense.

> The gauge of reasonable necessity is the instinct of self-preservation, i.e. a person did
not use his rational mind to pick a means of defense but acted out of self-preservation,
using the nearest or only means available to defend himself, even if such means be
disproportionately advantageous as compared with the means of violence employed by
the aggressor.
28
* Reasonableness of the means depends on the nature and the quality of the weapon used,
physical condition, character, size and other circumstances.
* Whether or not the means employed is reasonable will depend upon the place, occasion and
other circumstances. More often, it is the nature and quality of weapon used by the aggressor. It
is also dictated by the physical condition, size and sex of the person defending himself.
3. LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION ON THE PART OF THE PERSON

DEFENDING HIMSELF.
* For provocation to be considered serious by the court, the degree must be sufficient and must
at all times be immediate to the unlawful aggression. (Castanares vs. Court of Appeals, 92 SCRA
567)
* When no provocation at all was given to the aggressor by the person defending himself.
* When even if provocation was given by the person defending himself, such was not sufficient
to cause violent aggression on the part of the attacker, i.e. the amount of provocation was not
sufficient to stir the aggressor into the acts which led the accused to defend himself.
* When even if the provocation were sufficient, it was not given by the person defending himself.
* When even if provocation was given by the person defending himself, the attack was not
proximate or immediate to the act of provocation.
* Sufficient means proportionate to the damage caused by the act, and adequate to stir one to
its commission.
A. KINDS OF SELF-DEFENSE
1. Self-defense of chastity - to be entitled to complete self-defense of chastity, there

must be an attempt to rape, mere imminence thereof will suffice.
Honor of a woman in respect of her defense is equated with her virginity
2. Defense of property - an attack on the property must be coupled with an attack on

the person of the owner, or of one entrusted with the care of such property.
* This can only be invoked if the life and limb of the person making the defense is also the subject of
unlawful aggression. Life cannot be equal to property.
3. Self-defense in libel - physical assault may be justified when the libel is aimed at a
person’s good name, and while the libel is in progress, one libel deserves another.
* In order however, that one may invoke this novel doctrine, the defamatory statements made
by the accused must be a fair answer to the libel made by the supposed offended party and
must be related to the imputation made. (pp vs. Chua Hong) In conclusion, if the answer which is
libelous is excessive, it will not constitute self-defense.
*Burden of proof - on the accused (sufficient, clear and convincing evidence; must rely
on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution)
● DEFENSE OF RELATIVE
Elements:
1. unlawful aggression
2. reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack;
3. in case provocation was given by the person attacked, that the person making the defense
had no part in such provocation.
29
Relatives entitled to the defense:
1. spouse
2. ascendants
3. descendants
4. legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters
5. relatives by affinity in the same degree (2nd degree)
6. relatives by consanguinity within the 4th civil degree.
▪ The third element need not take place. The relative defended may even be the original
aggressor. All that is required to justify the act of the relative defending is that he takes
no part in such provocation.
▪ General opinion is to the effect that all relatives mentioned must be legitimate, except in
cases of brothers and sisters who, by relatives by nature, may be illegitimate.
▪ The unlawful aggression may depend on the honest belief of the person making the
defense.
* If the person being defended is already a second cousin, you do not invoke defense of relative anymore.
It will be defense of stranger. This is vital because if the person making the defense acted out or revenge,
resentment or some evil motive in killing the aggressor, he cannot invoke the justifying circumstance if the
relative defended is already a stranger in the eyes of the law. On the other hand, if the relative defended
is still within the coverage of defense of relative, even though he acted out of some evil motive, it would
still apply. It is enough that there was unlawful aggression against the relative defended, and that the
person defending did not contribute to the unlawful aggression.
* Mistake of fact can be the basis of defending a relative. If the defender believes in good faith
the events presented to him and he acts accordingly, he is entitled to the benefit of defense of
relatives, even if later on, the events would actually show that they were different.
● DEFENSE OF STRANGER
Elements
1. unlawful aggression
2. reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack;
3. the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive.
*** A relative not included in defense of relative is included in defense of stranger.
*** Be not induced by evil motive means that even an enemy of the aggressor who comes to
the defense of a stranger may invoke this justifying circumstances so long as he is not
induced by a motive that is evil.
● STATE OF NECESSITY
A. Art. 11, Par. 4 provides:

Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes
damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present:
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of

preventing it.
* The term damage to another refers to injury to persons and prejudice or damage to property.
30
* The term evil, means harmful, injurious, disastrous, and destructive. As contemplated, it must
actually exist. If it is merely expected or anticipated, the one acting by such notion is not in a
state of necessity.
* A state of necessity exists when there is a clash between unequal rights, the lesser right giving
way to the greater right. Aside from the 3 requisites stated in the law, it should also be added
that the necessity must not be due to the negligence or violation of any law by the actor.
* The state of necessity must not have been created by the one invoking the justifying circumstances.
* The person for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion
to the benefit which may have been received. This is the only justifying circumstance which
provides for the payment of civil indemnity. Under the other justifying circumstances, no civil
liability attaches. The courts shall determine, in their sound discretion, the proportionate amount
for which one is liable.
* Civil liability referred to in a state of necessity is based not on the act committed but on the benefit
derived from the state of necessity. So the accused will not be civilly liable if he did not receive any benefit
out of the state of necessity. On the other hand, persons who did not participate in the damage or injury
would be pro tanto civilly liable if they derived benefit out of the state of necessity.
● FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE
Elements:
1. that the accused acted in the performance of a duty, or in the lawful exercise of a right or
office;
2. that the injury caused or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due
performance of the duty, or the lawful exercise of such right or office.
* A police officer is justified in shooting and killing a criminal who refuses to stop when ordered
to do so, and after such officer fired warning shots in the air.
* shooting an offender who refused to surrender is justified, but not a thief who refused to be
arrested.
* The accused must prove that he was duly appointed to the position he claimed he was
discharging at the time of the commission of the offense. It must be made to appear not only
that the injury caused or the offense committed was done in the fulfillment of a duty, or in the
lawful exercise of a right or office, but that the offense committed was a necessary consequence
of such fulfillment of duty, or lawful exercise of a right or office.
* A mere security guard has no authority or duty to fire at a thief, resulting in the latter’s death.
● OBEDIENCE TO A SUPERIOR ORDER
Elements:
1. there is an order;
2. the order is for a legal purpose;
3. the means used to carry out said order is lawful.
* The person giving the order must act within the limitations prescribed by law. The subordinate
taking the order must likewise act within the bounds of law. (People vs. Oanis)
* The subordinate who is made to comply with the order is the party which may avail of this
circumstance. The officer giving the order may not invoke this.
* The subordinate’s good faith is material here. If he obeyed an order in good faith, not being
aware of its illegality, he is not liable. However, the order must not be patently illegal. If the order
is patently illegal this circumstance cannot be validly invoked.
* The reason for this justifying circumstance is the subordinate’s mistake of fact in good faith.
31
* Even if the order be patently illegal, the subordinate may yet be able to invoke the exempting
circumstances of having acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force, or under the impulse
of an uncontrollable fear.
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
● Exempting circumstances (non-imputability) are those ground for exemption from

punishment because there is wanting in the agent of the crime of any of the conditions which
make the act voluntary, or negligent.
● Basis: The exemption from punishment is based on the complete absence of intelligence,
freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on the part of the accused.
● A person who acts WITHOUT MALICE (without intelligence, freedom of action or intent) or
WITHOUT NEGLIGENCE (without intelligence, freedom of action or fault) is NOT
CRIMINALLY LIABLE or is EXEMPT FROM PUNISHMENT.
● There is a crime committed but no criminal liability arises from it because of the complete
absence of any of the conditions which constitute free will or voluntariness of the act.
● Burden of proof: Any of the circumstances is a matter of defense and must be proved by
the defendant to the satisfaction of the court.
Art. 12. CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY. The

following are exempt from criminal liability:
1. AN IMBECILE OR INSANE PERSON, unless the latter has acted during a lucid
interval.
● When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a
felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement on one of the hospital or asylums
established for persons thus afflicted. He shall not be permitted to leave without first
obtaining the permission of the same court.
● Requisites:
a. Offender is an imbecile
b. Offender was insane at the time of the commission of the crime
● IMBECILITY OR INSANITY
a. Basis: complete absence of intelligence, and element of voluntariness.
b. Definition :
An imbecile is one who while advanced in age has a mental development comparable to that
of children between 2 and 7 years of age.
An insane is one who acts with complete deprivation of intelligence/reason or without the
least discernment or with total deprivation of freedom of the will.
* The insanity that is exempting is limited only to mental aberration or disease of the mind and must
completely impair the intelligence of the accused.
the two tests for exemption on grounds of insanity:
(1) The test of cognition, or whether the accused acted with complete deprivation of intelligence in
committing said crime; and
(2) The test of volition, or whether the accused acted in total deprivation of freedom of will.
● An imbecile is exempt in all cases from criminal liability (no lucid interval). The insane is not
so exempt if it can be shown that he acted during a lucid interval. In the latter, loss of
consciousness of ones acts and not merely abnormality of mental faculties will qualify ones
acts as those of an insane.
32
● Procedure: court is to order the confinement of such persons in the hospitals or asylums
established. Such persons will not be permitted to leave without permission from the court.
The court, on the other hand, has no power to order such permission without first obtaining
the opinion of the DOH that such persons may be released without danger.
● Presumption is always in favor of sanity. The defense has the burden to prove that the
accused was insane at the time of the commission of the crime. For the ascertainment such
mental condition of the accused, it is permissible to receive evidence of the condition of his
mind during a reasonable period both before and after that time. Circumstantial evidence
which is clear and convincing will suffice. An examination of the outward acts will help reveal
the thoughts, motives and emotions of a person and if such acts conform to those of people
of sound mind.
● Insanity at the time of the commission of the crime and not that at the time of the trial will
exempt one from criminal liability. In case of insanity at the time of the trial, there will be a
suspension of the trial until the mental capacity of the accused is restored to afford him a fair
trial.
● Evidence of insanity must refer to the time preceding the act under prosecution or to the very
moment of its execution. Without such evidence, the accused is presumed to be sane when
he committed the crime. Continuance of insanity which is occasional or intermittent in nature
will not be presumed. Insanity at another time must be proved to exist at the time of the
commission of the crime. A person is also presumed to have committed a crime in one of the
lucid intervals. Continuance of insanity will only be presumed in cases wherein the accused
has been adjudged insane or has been committed to a hospital or an asylum for the insane.
● Instances of Insanity:
a. Dementia praecox (Schizoprenia) is covered by the term insanity because homicidal attack
is common in such form of psychosis. It is characterized by delusions that he is being
interfered with sexually, or that his property is being taken, thus the person has no control
over his acts.
b. Kleptomania or presence of abnormal, persistent impulse or tendency to steal, to be

considered exempting, will still have to be investigated by competent psychiatrist to
determine if the unlawful act is due to the irresistible impulse produced by his mental
defect, thus loss of will-power. If such mental defect only diminishes the exercise of his
willpower and did not deprive him of the consciousness of his acts, it is only mitigating.
c. Epilepsy which is a chronic nervous disease characterized by convulsive motions of the

muscles and loss of consciousness may be covered by the term insanity. However, it
must be shown that commission of the offense is during one of those epileptic attacks.
● Reyes: Feeblemindedness is not imbecility because the offender can distinguish right from
wrong. An imbecile and an insane to be exempted must not be able to distinguish right from
wrong.
● Relova: Feeblemindedness is imbecility.
● Crimes committed while in a dream, by a somnambulist are embraced in the plea of insanity.
Hypnotism, however, is a debatable issue.
● Crime committed while suffering from malignant malaria is characterized by insanity at times
thus such person is not criminally liable.
2. A PERSON UNDER NINE YEARS OF AGE.
● MINORITY
a. Requisite: Offender is under 9 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime.
There is absolute criminal irresponsibility in the case of a minor under 9-years of age.
b. Basis: complete absence of intelligence.
33
● Under nine years to be construed nine years or less. Such was inferred from the next
subsequent paragraph which does not totally exempt those over nine years of age if he acted
with discernment.
* If a youth committed homicide on his 9th birthday – meaning, he was exactly nine years old at
that time and he acted with discernment, it would seem that, following the policy that penal laws
are to be strictly construed against the Government and liberally in favor of the accused, he
should be exempt from criminal liability.
● Presumptions of incapability of committing a crime is absolute.
● Age is computed up to the time of the commission of the crime. Age can be established by
the testimonies of families and relatives.
● Senility or second childhood is only mitigating.
● 4 periods of the life of a human being:
Age Criminal Responsibility

9 years and below Absolute irresponsibility
Between 9 and 15 Conditional responsibility
years old Without discernment – no liability With Discernment – mitigated liability
Between 15 and 18 Mitigated responsibility
years old
Between 18 and 70 Full responsibility
years old
Over 70 years old Mitigated responsibility
3. A PERSON OVER NINE YEARS OF AGE AND UNDER FIFTEEN, UNLESS HE

HAS ACTED WITH DISCERNMENT, in which case, such minor shall be proceeded
against in accordance with the provisions of article 80 of this Code.
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in

conformity with the provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall commit
him to the care and custody of his family who shall be charged with his
surveillance and education; otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some
institution or person mentioned in said article 80.
● QUALIFIED MINORITY: Basis: complete absence of intelligence
● Such minor over 9 years and under 15 years of age must have acted without discernment to
be exempted from criminal liability. If with discernment, he is criminally liable.
● Presumption is always that such minor has acted without discernment. The prosecution is
burdened to prove if otherwise.
● Discernment means the mental capacity of a minor between 9 and 15 years of age to fully
appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act and the mental capacity to understand the
difference between right and wrong. Such is shown by: (1) manner the crime was committed
(i.e. commission of the crime during nighttime to avoid detection; taking the loot to another
town to avoid discovery), or (2) the conduct of the offender after its commission (i.e. elation of
satisfaction upon the commission of his criminal act as shown by the accused cursing at the
victim).
* An accused who knows the morality of his acts, or can appreciate the consequences of his
action has acted with discernment.
● If such minor is adjudged to be criminally liable, he is charged to the custody of his family,
otherwise, to the care of some institution or person mentioned in article 80. This is because
of the court’s presupposition that the minor committed the crime without discernment.
34
* A youthful offender can only be confined in a reformatory upon order of the court. Under the
amendment to Presidential Decree No. 603, Presidential Decree No. 1179 requires that before a youthful
offender may be given the benefit if a suspension of sentence, there must be an application filed with the
court which should pronounce sentence. Note that the commitment of the offender in a reformatory is just
a consequence of the suspension of the sentence. If the sentence is not suspended, there is no
commitment in a reformatory. The commitment is in a penitentiary, since suspension of sentence requires
certain conditions:
(1) The crime committed should not be punishable by reclusion perpetua or death penalty;
(2) The offender should not have been given the benefit of a suspended sentence before. This
means he is a first timer;
(3) He must be below 18 years old because a youthful offender is one who is below 18.
How does the minority of the offender affect his criminal liability?
(1) If the offender is within the bracket of nine years old exactly or less, he is exempt from
criminal liability but not from civil liability. This type of offenders are absolutely exempt. Even if the
offender nine years or below acted with discernment, this should not be taken against him
because in this age bracket, the exemption is absolute.
(2) If over nine but below 15, a distinction has to be made whether the offender acted with or without
discernment. The burden is upon the prosecution to prove that the offender acted with
discernment. It is not for the minor to prove that he acted without discernment. All that the minor
has to show is that he is within the age bracket. If the prosecution would want to pin criminal
liability on him, it has to prove that the crime was committed with discernment. Here, if the
offender was exempt from criminal liability because the prosecution was not able to prove that the
offender acted with discernment, he is only civilly liable but he will be committed to the surveillance
of his parents who will be required to report to the court periodically on the progress or
development of the offender.
If the offender is proven to have acted with discernment, this is where the court may give him the
benefit of a suspended sentence. He may be given the benefit of a suspended sentence under
the conditions mentioned earlier and only if he would file an application therefor.
* Suspension of sentence is not automatic. If the youthful offender has filed an application therefor.
(3) If at the time the judgment is to be promulgated he is already above 18, he cannot avail of a
suspended sentence. The reason is because if the sentence were to be suspended, he would be
committed in a reformatory. Since he cannot be committed to a reformatory anymore because he
is not less than 18 years old, he would have to be committed to a penitentiary. That means
promulgation of the sentence shall not be suspended. If the sentence should not be suspended,
although the minor may be qualified, the court will promulgate the sentence but the minor shall be
entitled to the reduction of the penalty by at least two degrees.
When the offender is over nine but below 15, the penalty to be imposed is discretionary on the
court, but lowered by at least two degrees. It may be lowered by three or four degrees, depending
upon whether the court deems best for the interest of the offender. The limitation that it should be
lowered by at least two degrees is just a limitation on the power of the court to reduce the penalty.
It cannot be less than two degrees.
(4) If the offender is 15 years old and above but below 18, there is no exemption anymore but he
is also given the benefit of a suspended sentence under the conditions stated earlier and if at the
time the sentence is promulgated, he is not 18 years old or over yet. If the sentence is
promulgated, the court will impose a penalty one degree lower.
● Allegation of “with intent to kill” in the information is sufficient allegation of discernment as

such conveys the idea that he knew what would be the consequences of his unlawful act.
Thus is the case wherein the information alleges that the accused, with intent to kill, willfully,
criminally and feloniously pushed a child of 8 1/2 years of age into a deep place. It was held
that the requirement that there should be an allegation that she acted with discernment
should be deemed amply met.
35
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an
injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.
● ACCIDENT (DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA): Basis: lack of negligence and intent.
● Elements:
a. A person is performing a lawful act
b. Exercise of due dare
c. He causes injury to another by mere accident
d. Without fault or intention of causing it.
* Under Article 12, paragraph 4, the offender is exempt not only from criminal but also from civil liability.
This paragraph embodies the Latin maxim “damnum absque injuria”.
● Discharge of a firearm in a thickly populated place in the City of Manila being prohibited by
Art. 155 of the RPC is not a performance of a lawful act when such led to the accidental
hitting and wounding of 2 persons.
● Drawing a weapon/gun in the course of self-defense even if such fired and seriously injured
the assailant is a lawful act and can be considered as done with due care since it could not
have been done in any other manner.
Problem:
A, armed with .38 caliber and B, who has no weapon, robbed a store; but in the course
thereof, were seen by P, a policeman who was armed with a .45 caliber gun, and when he
demanded for the surrender of A and B, A shot him but missed, and so P repelled the attack. In
the exchange of shots, A was killed, together with B, and C the owner of the store. The three
were killed by the bullets fired from a .45 caliber. In such case, P is not liable for the death of A
due to self-defense as all the three (3) elements were present. He is not also liable for the death
of B, not because of self-defense because the latter being weaponless can not commit unlawful
aggression, but because of performance of duty. For the death of C, the store owner, P, is also
not criminally liable obviously not because of self-defense nor of fulfillment of duty but because
of accident provided for in par. 1 of Art. 12.
● With the fact duly established by the prosecution that the appellant was guilty of negligence,
this exempting circumstance cannot be applied because application presupposes that there
is no fault or negligence on the part of the person performing the lawful act.
● Accident happens outside the sway of our will, and although it comes about some act of our
will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences. If the consequences are
plainly foreseeable, it will be a case of negligence.
● The accused, who, while hunting saw wild chickens and fired a shot can be considered to be
in the performance of a lawful act executed with due care and without intention of doing harm
when such short recoiled and accidentally wounded another. Such was established
because the deceased was not in the direction at which the accused fired his gun.
● The chauffeur, who while driving on the proper side of the road at a moderate speed and with
due diligence, suddenly and unexpectedly saw a man in front of his vehicle coming from the
sidewalk and crossing the street without any warning that he would do so, in effect being run
over by the said chauffeur, was held not criminally liable, it being by mere accident.
* The infliction of the injury by mere accident does not give rise to a criminal or civil liability, but the
person who caused the injury is duty bound to attend to the person who was injured. If he would abandon
him, it is in that abandonment that the crime arises which is punished under the second paragraph of
Article 275.
36
5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force.
● IRRESISTIBLE FORCE: Basis: complete absence of freedom, an element of voluntariness
● Elements:
a. That the compulsion is by means of physical force
b. That the physical force must be irresistible.
c. That the physical force must come from a third person
● Force, to be irresistible, must produce such an effect on an individual that despite of his
resistance, it reduces him to a mere instrument and, as such, incapable of committing a
crime. It compels his member to act and his mind to obey. It must act upon him from the
outside and by a third person. He must act not only without a will but also against his will.
● Baculi, who was accused but not a member of a band which murdered some American
school teachers and was seen and compelled by the leaders of the band to bury the bodies,
was not criminally liable as accessory for concealing the body of the crime. Baculi acted
under the compulsion of an irresistible force.
● Irresistible force can never consist in an impulse or passion, or obfuscation. It must consist
of an extraneous force coming from a third person.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an

equal or greater injury.
● UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR: Basis: complete absence of freedom
● Elements
a. that the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than, or at least equal to that w/c he is
required to commit
b. that it promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have
succumbed to it.
● Duress, to be a valid defense, should be based on real, imminent or reasonable fear for
one’s life or limb. It should not be inspired by speculative, fanciful or remote fear.
* The fear must be grave, actual, serious and of such kind that majority of men would succumb
to such moral compulsion. The latter must be such as to leave a reasonable fear for one’s life or
limb and not speculative, fanciful or remote fear. (Pp vs. Parula, 88 Phil 615)
● Threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must leave no opportunity to the
accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat.
● Duress is the use of violence or physical force.
● There is uncontrollable fear is when the offender employs intimidation or threat in compelling
another to commit a crime, while irresistible force is when the offender uses violence or
physical force to compel another person to commit a crime.
● “an act done by me against my will is not my act”
* The offender must be totally deprived of freedom. If the offender has still freedom of choice, whether to
act or not, even if force was employed on him or even if he is suffering from uncontrollable fear, he is not
exempt from criminal liability because he is still possessed with voluntariness. In exempting
circumstances, the offender must act without voluntariness.
* The distinction between irresistible force and uncontrollable fear is that, in the former, the
offender uses violence or physical force to compel another person to commit a crime; while in
the latter, the offender employs threat or intimidation to compel another to commit a crime.
Since the actor acted without freedom, he incurs no criminal liability.
37
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by
some lawful or insuperable cause.
● LAWFUL OR INSUPERABLE CAUSE: Basis: acts without intent, the third condition of
voluntariness in intentional felony
● Elements:
a. That an act is required by law to be done
b. That a person fails to perform such act
c. That his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause
● Examples of lawful cause:
a. Priest can’t be compelled to reveal what was confessed to him
b. No available transportation – officer not liable for arbitrary detention
c. Mother who was overcome by severe dizziness and extreme debility, leaving child to die
– not liable for infanticide
● To be an EXEMPTING circumstance – INTENT IS WANTING
● INTENT – presupposes the exercise of freedom and the use of intelligence
● Distinction between justifying and exempting circumstance:

a. Exempting – there is a crime but there is no criminal. Act is not justified but the actor is not
criminally liable.
General Rule: There is civil liability
Exception: Par 4 (causing an injury by mere accident) and Par 7 (lawful cause)
b. Justifying – person does not transgress the law, does not commit any crime because
there is nothing unlawful in the act as well as the intention of the actor.
Distinction between Exempting and Justifying Circumstances

Exempting Circumstance Justifying Circumstance
Existence There is a crime but there is no There is no crime, the act is justified
of a crime criminal, the actor is exempted
from liability of his act
● Absolutory Causes – are those where the act committed is a crime but for some reason of
public policy and sentiment, there is no penalty imposed.
● Exempting and Justifying Circumstances are absolutory causes.
● Other examples of absolutory causes:

1) Art 6 – spontaneous desistance
2) Art 20 – accessories exempt from criminal liability
3) Art 19 par 1 – profiting one’s self or assisting offenders to profit by the effects of the crime
● Instigation v. Entrapment
INSTIGATION ENTRAPMENT
Instigator practically induces the would-be The ways and means are resorted to for
accused into the commission of the offense the purpose of trapping and capturing the
and himself becomes co-principal lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal
plan.
Accused will be acquitted NOT a bar to accused’s prosecution and
conviction
Absolutory cause NOT an absolutory cause
38
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
● Definition – Those circumstance which reduce the penalty of a crime
● Effect – Reduces the penalty of the crime but does not erase criminal liability nor change the
nature of the crime
● Kinds of Mitigating Circumstance:

Privileged Mitigating Ordinary Mitigating
Offset by any Cannot be offset by any aggravating Can be offset by a generic
aggravating circumstance aggravating circumstance
circumstance
Effect on the Has the effect of imposing the If not offset, has the effect of
penalty penalty by 1 or 2 degrees lower than imposing the penalty in the
that provided by law minimum period
Kinds Minority, Incomplete Self-defense, Those circumstances
two or more mitigating enumerated in paragraph 1 to 10
circumstances without any of Article 13
aggravating circumstance (has the
effect of lowering the penalty by one
degree)
IN RELATION TO THE I.S.L.
Privilege mitigating circumstance will apply over and above all other considerations. When you arrive at
the correct penalty, that is the time when you find out whether the Indeterminate Sentence Law will apply
or not.
For purposes of lowering the penalty by one or two degrees, the age of the offender at the time of the
commission of the crime shall be the basis, not the age of the offender at the time the sentence is to be
imposed. But for purposes of suspension of the sentence, the age of the offender at the time the crime
was committed is not considered, it is the age of the offender at the time the sentence is to be
promulgated.
Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. --
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to
justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not
attendant
● Justifying circumstances
a. Self-defense/defense of relative/defense of stranger – unlawful aggression must be

present for Art 13 to be applicable. Other 2 elements not necessary. If 2 requisites are
present – considered a privileged mitigating circumstance.
Example: Juan makes fun of Pedro. Pedro gets pissed off, gets a knife and tries to stab
Juan. Juan grabs his own knife and kills Pedro. Incomplete self-defense because
although there was unlawful aggression and reasonable means to repel was taken, there
was sufficient provocation on the part of Juan. But since 2 elements are present, it
considered as privileged mitigating.
How, if at all, may incomplete self-defense affect the criminal liability of the offender?
If the question specifically refers to incomplete self-defense, defense of relative or defense of stranger, you
have to qualify your answer.
First, to have incomplete self-defense, the offended party must be guilty of unlawful aggression. Without
this, there can be no incomplete self-defense, defense of relative, or defense of stranger.
Second, if only the element of unlawful aggression is present, the other requisites being absent, the
offender shall be given only the benefit of an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
39
Third, if aside from the element of unlawful aggression another requisite, but not all, are present, the
offender shall be given the benefit of a privileged mitigating circumstance. In such a case, the imposable
penalty shall be reduced by one or two degrees depending upon how the court regards the importance of
the requisites present. Or absent.
b. State of Necessity (par 4) avoidance of greater evil or injury; if any of the last 2
requisites is absent, there’s only an ordinary Mitigating Circumstance.
Example: While driving his car, Juan sees Pedro carelessly crossing the street. Juan
swerves to avoid him, thus hitting a motorbike with 2 passengers, killing them instantly.
Not all requisites to justify act were present because harm done to avoid injury is greater.
Considered as mitigating.
c. Performance of Duty (par 5)

Example: Juan is supposed to arrest Pedro. He thus goes to Pedro’s hideout. Juan sees
a man asleep. Thinking it was Pedro, Juan shot him. Juan may have acted in the
performance of his duty but the crime was not a necessary consequence thereof.
Considered as mitigating.
● Exempting circumstance
a. Minority over 9 and under 15 – if minor acted with discernment, considered Privilege
mitigating
Example: 13 year old stole goods at nighttime. Acted with discernment as shown by the
manner in which the act was committed.
* If the offender is proven to have acted with discernment, this is where the court may give him
the benefit of a suspended sentence. He may be given the benefit of a suspended sentence
under the conditions mentioned earlier and only if he would file an application therefor.
b. Causing injury by mere accident – if 2nd requisite (due care) and 1st part of 4th requisite
(without fault – thus negligence only) are ABSENT, considered as mitigating because the
penalty is lower than that provided for intentional felony.
Example: Police officer tries to stop a fight between Juan and Pedro by firing his gun in
the air. Bullet ricocheted and killed Petra. Officer willfully discharged his gun but was
unmindful of the fact that area was populated.
c. Uncontrollable fear – only one requisite present, considered mitigating
Example: Under threat that their farm will be burned, Pedro and Juan took turns guarding
it at night. Pedro fired in the air when a person in the shadows refused to reveal his
identity. Juan was awakened and shot the unidentified person. Turned out to be a
neighbor looking for is pet. Juan may have acted under the influence of fear but such fear
was not entirely uncontrollable. Considered mitigating.
2. That the offender is UNDER 18 YEARS of age or OVER 70 YEARS. In the case of
a minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art
192 of PD 903
● Applicable to:
a. Offender over 9, under 15 who acted with discernment
b. Offender over 15, under 18

c. Offender over 70 years
● Age of accused which should be determined as his age at the date of commission of crime,
not date of trial
40
● VARIOUS AGES AND THEIR LEGAL EFFECTS
a. under 9 – exemptive circumstance

b. over 9, below 15 – exemptive; except if acted with discernment
c. minor delinquent under 18 – sentence may be suspended (PD 603)
d. under 18 – privileged mitigating circumstance
e. 18 and above – full criminal responsibility
f. 70 and above – mitigating circumstance; no imposition of death penalty; execution
of death sentence if already imposed is suspended and commuted.
* If the minor acted with discernment( age 9-15 ), he is entitled to a privileged mitigating
circumstance and by source of authority of Article 68, the penalty is reduced by two degrees
from that prescribed by law for the crime committed. If the offender is over fifteen and under
eighteen years of age, discernment is no longer in issue but the offender is entitled to a
privileged mitigating circumstance and the reduction is only by one degree. (Garcia vs. Madrigal,
857 Phil. 651)
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that

committed (Praeter Intentionem)

● Can be used only when the facts prove to show that there is a notable and evident
disproportion between means employed to execute the criminal act and its consequences
* Intent is an indispensable element of the crime. When the intent is less than the actual act
committed, reason and fair play dictate that a mitigated responsibility be imposed upon the
offender.
● Intention: as an internal act, is judged by the proportion of the means employed to the evil
produced by the act, and also by the fact that the blow was or was not aimed at a vital part of
the body.
● Judge by considering (1) the weapon used, (2) the injury inflicted and (3) the attitude of mind
when the accuser attacked the other.
Example: Pedro stabbed Tomas on the arm. Tomas did not have the wound treated, so he
died from loss of blood.
● Not applicable when offender employed brute force
Example: Rapist choked victim. Brute force of choking contradicts claim that he had no
intention to kill the girl.
● Art 13, par 3 addresses itself to the intention of the offender at the particular moment when
he executes or commits the criminal act, not to his intention during the planning stage.
● In crimes against persons – if victim does not die, the absence of the intent to kill reduces the
felony to mere physical injuries. It is not considered as mitigating. Mitigating only when the
victim dies.
Example: As part of fun-making, Juan merely intended to burn Pedro’s clothes. Pedro
received minor burns. Juan is charged with physical injuries. Had Pedro died, Juan would be
entitled to the mitigating circumstance.
● Not applicable to felonies by negligence. Why? In felonies through negligence, the offender
acts without intent. The intent in intentional felonies is replaced by negligence, imprudence,
lack of foresight or lack of skill in culpable felonies. There is no intent on the part of the
offender which may be considered as diminished.
● Basis of par 3: intent, an element of voluntariness in intentional felony, is diminished
41
Praeter intentionem
The common circumstance given in the bar of praeter intentionem, under paragraph 3, means that there
must be a notable disproportion between the means employed by the offender compared to that of the
resulting felony. If the resulting felony could be expected from the means employed, this circumstance
does not avail. This circumstance does not apply when the crime results from criminal negligence or
culpa. When the crime is the product of reckless imprudence or simple negligence, mitigating
circumstances does not apply. This is one of the three instances where the offender has performed a
felony different from that which he intended. Therefore, this is the product of intentional felony, not a
culpable one.
4. That the SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION OR THREAT on the part of the offended

party immediately preceded the act.
● Provocation – any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party, capable of
exciting, inciting or irritating anyone.
● Basis: diminution of intelligence and intent
● Requisites:
a. Provocation must be sufficient.
1. Sufficient – adequate enough to excite a person to commit the wrong and must
accordingly be proportionate to its gravity.
2. Sufficiency depends on:
▪ the act constituting the provocation
▪ the social standing of the person provoked
▪ time and place provocation took place

3. Example: Juan likes to hit and curse his servant. His servant thus killed him. There’s
mitigating circumstance because of sufficient provocation.
4. When it was the defendant who sought the deceased, the challenge to fight by the
deceased is NOT sufficient provocation.
b. It must originate from the offended party

1. Why? Law says the provocation is “on the part of the offended party”
2. Example: Tomas’ mother insulted Petra. Petra kills Tomas because of the insults. No
Mitigating Circumstance because it was the mother who insulted her, not Tomas.
3. Provocation by the deceased in the first stage of the fight is not Mitigating
Circumstance when the accused killed him after he had fled because the deceased
from the moment he fled did not give any provocation for the accused to pursue and
attack him.
c. Provocation must be immediate to the act., i.e., to the commission of the crime by the
person who is provoked
1. Why? If there was an interval of time, the conduct of the offended party could not
have excited the accused to the commission of the crime, he having had time to
regain his reason and to exercise self-control.
2. Threat should not be offensive and positively strong because if it was, the threat to
inflict real injury is an unlawful aggression which may give rise to self-defense and
thus no longer a Mitigating Circumstance
* The commission of the felony must be immediate to the threat or provocation in order that this
circumstance be mitigating. If there is sufficient break of time before the provocation or threat and the
consequent commission of the crime, the law presupposes that during that interval, whatever anger or
diminished self control may have emerged from the offender had already vanished or disappeared.
* This is the correct interpretation of paragraph 4, Article 13. As long as the offender at the time he
committed the felony was still under the influence of the outrage caused by the provocation or threat, he is
acting under a diminished self control. This is the reason why it is mitigating.
* You have to look at two criteria:
(1) If from the element of time, there is a material lapse of time stated in the problem and there is
nothing stated in the problem that the effect of the threat or provocation had prolonged and
42
affected the offender at the time he committed the crime, then you use the criterion based on the
time element.
(2) However, if there is that time element and at the same time, facts are given indicating that at the
time the offender committed the crime, he is still suffering from outrage of the threat or provocation
done to him, then he will still get the benefit of this mitigating circumstance.
* In People v. Diokno, a Chinaman eloped with a woman. Actually, it was almost three days before
accused was able to locate the house where the Chinaman brought the woman. Here, sufficient
provocation was one of the mitigating circumstances considered by the Supreme Court in favor of the
accused.
5. That the act was committed in the IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF A GRAVE

OFFENSE to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sisters, or relatives by
affinity within the same degree.
* This has reference to the honor of a person. It concerns the good names and reputation of the
individual. (Pp vs. Anpar, 37 Phil. 201)
Requisites:
1. there’s a grave offense done to the one committing the felony etc.
2. that the felony is committed in vindication of such grave offense.
* Lapse of time is allowed between the vindication and the one doing the offense (proximate
time, not just immediately after)
Example: Juan caught his wife and his friend in a compromising situation. Juan kills his friend the
next day – still considered proximate.
PROVOCATION VINDICATION
Made directly only to the person Grave offense may be also against the
committing the felony offender’s relatives mentioned by law
Cause that brought about the provocation Offended party must have done a grave
need not be a grave offense offense to the offender or his relatives
Necessary that provocation or threat May be proximate. Time interval allowed
immediately preceded the act. No time
interval
● More lenient in vindication because offense concerns the honor of the person. Such is more
worthy of consideration than mere spite against the one giving the provocation or threat.
Vindication of a grave offense
* The word “offense” should not be taken as a crime. It is enough if what was imputed or what was done
was wrong. In considering whether the wrong is a grave one upon the person who committed the crime,
his age, education and social status will be considered.
* Here, in vindication of a grave offense, the vindication need not be done by the person upon whom the
grave offense was committed. So, unlike in sufficient threat or provocation where the crime should be
inflicted upon the very person who made the threat or provocation, here, it need not be the same person
who committed the grave offense or who was offended by the wrong done by the offended party.
* The word “immediate” here does not carry the same meaning as that under paragraph 4. The word
“immediate” here is an erroneous Spanish translation because the Spanish word is “proxima” and not
“immediatementa.” Therefore, it is enough that the offender committed the crime with the grave offense
done to him, his spouse, his ascendant or descendant or to his brother or sister, whether natural, adopted
or legitimate and that is the proximate cause of the commission of the crime.
* It would seem that the rule is that, the court must consider the lasting effect and influence of
the grave offense to the offender when he resorted to commit the crime to vindicate such grave
offense.
43
● Vindication of a grave offense and passion and obfuscation can’t be counted separately and
independently
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have

produced PASSION OR OBFUSCATION
* Passion and obfuscation refer to emotional feeling which produces excitement so powerful as
to overcome reason and self-control. It must come from prior unjust or improper acts. The
passion and obfuscation must emanate from legitimate sentiments.
● Passion and obfuscation is mitigating: when there are causes naturally producing in a person
powerful excitement, he loses his reason and self-control. Thereby dismissing the exercise of
his will power.
● PASSION AND OBFUSCATION are Mitigating Circumstances only when the same arise from
lawful sentiments (not Mitigating Circumstance when done in the spirit of revenge or
lawlessness)
● Requisites for Passion & Obfuscation

a. The offender acted on impulse powerful enough to produce passion or obfuscation
b. That the act was committed not in the spirit of lawlessness or revenge
c. The act must come from lawful sentiments
● Act which gave rise to passion and obfuscation

a. That there be an act, both unlawful and unjust
b. The act be sufficient to produce a condition of mind
c. That the act was proximate to the criminal act
d. The victim must be the one who caused the passion or obfuscation
● Example: Juan saw Tomas hitting his (Juan) son. Juan stabbed Tomas. Juan is entitled to
Mitigating Circumstance of P&O as his actuation arose from a natural instinct that impels a
father to rush to the rescue of his son.
● The obfuscation must be caused by unlawful act
● The exercise of a right or a fulfillment of a duty is not the proper source of P&O.
Example: A policeman arrested Juan as he was making a public disturbance on the streets.
Juan’s anger and indignation resulting from the arrest can’t be considered passionate
obfuscation because the policeman was doing a lawful act.
● The act must be sufficient to produce a condition of mind. If the cause of the loss of
self-control was trivial and slight, the obfuscation is not mitigating.
Example: Juan’s boss punched him for not going to work the other day. Cause is slight.
● There could have been no Mitigating Circumstance of P&O when more than 24 hours
elapsed between the alleged insult and the commission of the felony, or several hours have
passed between the cause of the P&O and the commission of the crime, or at least ½ hours
intervened between the previous fight and subsequent killing of deceased by accused.
● Not mitigating if relationship is illegitimate
● The passion or obfuscation will be considered even if it is based only on the honest belief of
the offender, even if facts turn out to prove that his beliefs were wrong.
● Passion and obfuscation cannot co-exist with treachery since that means the offender has
had time to ponder his course of action.
● PASSION AND OBFUSCATION arising from one and the same cause should be treated as
only one mitigating circumstance
44
● Vindication of grave offense can’t co-exist w/ PASSION AND OBFUSCATION

PASSION AND OBFUSCATION IRRESITIBLE FORCE
Mitigating Exempting
No physical force needed Requires physical force
From the offender himself Must come from a 3rd person
Must come from lawful sentiments Unlawful
PASSION AND OBFUSCATION PROVOCATION

Produced by an impulse which may be Comes from injured party
caused by provocation
Offense, which engenders perturbation of Must immediately precede the commission
mind, need not be immediate. It is only of the crime
required that the influence thereof lasts
until the crime is committed
Effect is loss of reason and self-control on Same
the part of the offender
* there is a ruling to the effect that if the offender is given the benefit of paragraph 4, he cannot be given
the benefit of paragraph 5 or 6, or vice-versa. Only one of the three mitigating circumstances should be
given in favor of the offender.
* However, in one case, one of the mitigating circumstances under paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 stands or arises
from a set of facts, and another mitigating circumstance arises from another set of facts. Since they are
predicated on different set of facts, they may be appreciated together, although they arose from one and
the same case. Hence, the prohibition against considering all these mitigating circumstances together and
not as one applies only if they would be taken on the basis of the same set of facts.
* If the case involves a series of facts, then you can predicate any one of these circumstances on one fact
and the other on another fact and so on.
7. That the offender had VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED himself to a person in

authority or his agents, or that he had VOLUNTARILY CONFESSED HIS GUILT
before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution.
● 2 Mitigating Circumstances present:

a) voluntarily surrendered
b) voluntarily confessed his guilt
● If both are present, considered as 2 independent mitigating circumstances. Mitigate penalty

to a greater extent
● REQUISITES OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER:

a) offender not actually arrested
b) offender surrendered to a person in authority or the latter’s agent
c) surrender was voluntary
● Surrender must be spontaneous – shows his interest to surrender unconditionally to the

authorities
● Spontaneous – emphasizes the idea of inner impulse, acting without external stimulus. The
conduct of the accused, not his intention alone, after the commission of the offense,
determines the spontaneity of the surrender.
Example: Surrendered after 5 years, not spontaneous anymore.

Example: Surrendered after talking to town councilor. Not V.S. because there’s an external
stimulus
● Conduct must indicate a desire to own the responsibility
45
● Not mitigating when warrant already served. Surrender may be considered mitigating if
warrant not served or returned unserved because accused can’t be located.
* “The law does not require that the accused surrender prior to the order of arrest,” what
matters is the spontaneous surrender of the accused upon learning that a warrant of arrest had
been issued against him and that voluntary surrender is obedience to the order of arrest is
issued against him. (Pp vs. Cahilig, 68 Phil. 740)
● Surrender of person required. Not just of weapon.
● Person in authority – one directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a

member of some court/government/corporation/board/commission. Barrio captain/chairman
included.
● Agent of person in authority – person who by direct provision of law, or by election, or by

appointment by competent authority is charged with the maintenance of public order and the
protection and security of life and property and any person who comes to the aid of persons
in authority.
● RPC does not make distinction among the various moments when surrender may occur.
● Surrender must be by reason of the commission of the crime for which defendant is charged
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
The essence of voluntary surrender requires that the offender, after having committed the crime, had
evaded the law enforcers and the law enforcers do not know of his whereabouts. In short, he continues to
elude arrest. If, under this circumstance, the offender would come out in the open and he gives himself
up, his act of doing so will be considered as indicative of repentance and he also saves the government
the time and the expense of looking for him.
As a general rule, if after committing the crime, the offender did not flee and he went with the responding
law enforcers meekly, voluntary surrender is not applicable.
However, there is a ruling that if after committing the crime, the offender did not flee and instead waited for
the law enforcers to arrive and he surrendered the weapon he used in killing the victim, the ruling was that
voluntary surrender is mitigating. In this case, the offender had the opportunity to go into hiding, the fact
that he did not flee is voluntary surrender.
However, if he comes out from hiding because he is seriously ill and he went to get medical treatment, the
surrender is not considered as indicative of remorse or repentance. The surrender here is only done out of
convenience to save his own self. Hence, it is not mitigating.
Even if the offender may have gone into hiding, if the law enforcers had already known where he is hiding
and it is just a matter of time before he is flushed out of that place, then even if the law enforcers do not
know exactly where he was hiding and he would come out, this is not voluntary surrender.
Whether or not a warrant of arrest had been issued against the offender is immaterial and irrelevant. The
criterion is whether or not the offender had gone into hiding or had the opportunity to go into hiding and the
law enforcers do not know of his whereabouts. If he would give up, his act of surrendering under such
circumstance indicates that he is willing to accept the consequences of the wrong he has done and also
thereby saves the government the effort, the time and the expenses to be incurred in looking for him.
Surrender to be considered voluntary and thus mitigating, must be spontaneous, demonstrating an

intent to submit himself unconditionally to the person in authority or his agent in authority, because (1) he
acknowledges his guilt (2) he wishes to save the government the trouble and expenses of searching and
capturing him. Where the reason for the surrender of the accused was to insure his safety, his arrest by
policemen pursuing him being inevitable, the surrender is not spontaneous.
Q. If the accused escapes from the scene of the crime in order to seek advice from a lawyer, and
the latter ordered him to surrender voluntarily to the authorities, which the accused followed by
surrendering himself to the municipal mayor, will his surrender be considered mitigating?
A. The answer is yes, because he fled to the scene of a crime not to escape but to seek legal
advice.
Q. Supposing that after the accused met a vehicular accident causing multiple homicide because
of reckless imprudence, he surrenders to the authorities immediately thereafter, will his
surrender mitigate his criminal liability because of Art. 13?
46
A. The answer is no, because in cases involving felonies committed by means of culpa, the court
is authorized under Art. 365 to impose a penalty upon offender without regard to the rules on
mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
● REQUISITES FOR PLEA OF GUILTY

a) offender spontaneously confessed his guilt
b) confession of guilt was made in open court (competent court)
c) confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution
● To be mitigating, the plea of guilty must be without conditions. But conditional plea of guilty
may still be mitigating if the conditions imposed by the accused are found to be meritorious.
● Plea of guilty not applicable to special law.
● plea made after arraignment and after trial has begun does not entitle accused to have plea
considered as Mitigating Circumstance
● plea in the RTC in a case appealed from the MTC is not mitigating - must make plea at the
first opportunity
● plea during the preliminary investigation is no plea at all
● even if during arraignment, accused pleaded not guilty, he is entitled to Mitigating

Circumstance as long as he withdraws his plea of not guilty to the charge before the fiscal
could present his evidence
● plea to a lesser charge is not Mitigating Circumstance because to be voluntary plea of guilty,
must be to the offense charged
● plea to the offense charged in the amended info, lesser than that charged in the original info,
is Mitigating Circumstance
● present Rules of Court require that even if accused pleaded guilty to a capital offense, its
mandatory for court to require the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused being likewise
entitled to present evidence to prove, inter alia, Mitigating Circumstance
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering from some
PHYSICAL DEFECT w/c thus restricts his means of action, defense or
communication w/ his fellow beings.
● Basis: one suffering from physical defect which restricts him does not have complete
freedom of action and therefore, there is diminution of that element of voluntariness.
* The law says that the offender is deaf and dumb, meaning not only deaf but also dumb, or
that he is blind, meaning in both eyes, but even if he is only deaf and not dumb, or dumb only
but not deaf, or blind only in one eye, he I still entitled to a mitigating circumstance under this
article as long as his physical defects restricts his means of action, defense communication with
his fellowmen. The restriction however, must relate to the mode of committing the crime.
● No distinction between educated and uneducated deaf-mute or blind persons
● The physical defect of the offender should restrict his means of action, defense or
communication with fellow beings, this has been extended to cover cripples, armless people
even stutterers.
● The circumstance assumes that with their physical defect, the offenders do not have a
complete freedom of action therefore diminishing the element of voluntariness in the
commission of a crime.
* The physical defect that a person may have must have a relation to the commission of the crime. Not
any physical defect will affect the crime. It will only do so if it has some relation to the crime committed.
47
This circumstance must also have a bearing on the crime committed and must depend on how the crime
was committed.
9. Such ILLNESS of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power
of the offender w/o depriving him of consciousness of his acts.
● Basis: diminution of intelligence and intent

● Requisites:
a) illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of his will-power
b) such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts
* If the illness not only diminishes the exercise of the offender’s will power but deprives him of
the consciousness of his acts, it becomes an exempting circumstance to be classified as insanity
or imbecility.
● deceased mind, not amounting to insanity, may give place to mitigation
* Feeblemindedness of the accused who, in a fit of jealousy, stabbed his wife, then carried her
up to the house, laid her on the floor and then lay down beside her, warrants the finding in his
favor of this mitigating circumstance. (Pp vs. Formigones, 87 Phil. 658)
10. And ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE of a similar nature and analogous to those
above-mentioned
● Examples of “any other circumstance”:

a) defendant who is 60 years old with failing eyesight is similar to a case of one over 70
years old
b) outraged feeling of owner of animal taken for ransom is analogous to vindication of grave
offense
c) impulse of jealous feeling, similar to PASSION AND OBFUSCATION
d) voluntary restitution of property, similar to voluntary surrender
e) extreme poverty, similar to incomplete justification based on state of necessity
f) esprit de corps is similar to passion or obfuscation
Analogous cases
* The act of the offender of leading the law enforcers to the place where he buried the instrument of the
crime has been considered as equivalent to voluntary surrender. The act of a thief in leading the
authorities to the place where he disposed of the loot has been considered as analogous or equivalent to
voluntary surrender.
* Stealing by a person who is driven to do so out of extreme poverty is considered as analogous to

incomplete state of necessity. However, this is not so where the offender became impoverished because
of his own way of living his life. If his lifestyle is one of having so many vices, as a result of which he
became poor, his subsequent stealing because of his poverty will not be considered mitigated by
incomplete state of necessity.
● NOT analogous:
a) killing wrong person
b) not resisting arrest not the same as voluntary surrender
c) running amuck is not mitigating
● MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE which arise from:
a) moral attributes of the offender

48
Example: Juan and Tomas killed Pedro. Juan acted w/ PASSION AND OBFUSCATION.
Only Juan will be entitled to Mitigating Circumstance
b) private relations with the offended party

Example: Juan stole his brother’s watch. Juan sold it to Pedro, who knew it was stolen.
The circumstance of relation arose from private relation of Juan and the brother. Does not
mitigate Pedro.
c) other personal cause

Example: Minor, acting with discernment robbed Juan. Pedro, passing by, helped the
minor. Circumstance of minority, mitigates liability of minor only.
Shall serve to mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices and accessories to whom the
circumstances are attendant.
● Circumstances which are neither exempting nor mitigating

a) mistake in the blow
b) mistake in the identity of the victim
c) entrapment of the accused
d) accused is over 18 years old
e) performance of a righteous action

Example: Juan saved the lives of 99 people but caused the death of the last person, he is still
criminally liable
Note: Under the Rules of Court on plea bargaining, the accused is allowed to negotiate with
the prosecution during his arraignment, to enter a plea for a lesser offense, or for the
consideration of mitigating circumstances under Art. 13; for the prosecution to forego or delete
aggravating circumstances, without regard to the rules and jurisprudence mentioned above.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
● Definition – Those circumstance which raise the penalty for a crime without exceeding the
maximum applicable to that crime.
● Basis: The greater perversity of the offense as shown by:

a) the motivating power behind the act
b) the place where the act was committed
c) the means and ways used
d) the time
e) the personal circumstance of the offender
f) the personal circumstance of the victim
● Kinds:
a) Generic – generally applicable to all crimes
b) Specific – apply only to specific crimes (ignominy – for chastity crimes; treachery – for
persons crimes)
c) Qualifying – those that change the nature of the crime (evident premeditation – becomes
murder)
d) Inherent – necessarily accompanies the commission of the crime; it is an ele ment of

the crime committed (evident premeditation in theft, estafa)
QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING GENERIC AGGRAVATING

CIRCUMSTANCE CIRCUMSTANCE
49
Gives the proper and exclusive name, Increase penalty to the maximum, without
places the author thereof in such a exceeding limit prescribed by law
situation as to deserve no other penalty
than that specifically prescribed by law
Can’t be offset by Mitigating Circumstance May be compensated by Mitigating
Circumstance
Must be alleged in the information. Integral Need not be alleged. May be proved over
part of the offense the objection of the defense. Qualifying if
not alleged will make it generic
● Aggravating Circumstances which DO NOT have the effect of increasing the penalty:
1) which themselves constitute a crime specifically punishable by law or which are included
in the law defining a crime and prescribing the penalty thereof
Example: breaking a window to get inside the house and rob it
2) aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such degree that it must of necessity
accompany the commission thereof
Example: evident premeditation inherent in theft, robbery, estafa, adultery and

concubinage
● Aggravating circumstances are not presumed. Must be proved as fully as the crime itself in
order to increase the penalty.
Art 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The following are aggravating circumstances:
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his PUBLIC POSITION
● Requisite:
a. The offender is a public officer
b. The commission of the crime would not have been possible without the powers, resources and
influence of the office he holds.
* A public officer is any person who, by (1) direct provision of the law, (2) popular election or
(3) appointment by competent authority shall take part in the performance of public functions in
the Government of the Philippine Islands or shall perform in said Government or in any of its
branches, public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official of any rank or class.
● Essential - Public officer used the influence, prestige or ascendancy which his office gives
him as the means by which he realized his purpose.
* If the accused could have perpetrated the crime without occupying his position, then there is
no abuse of public position.
● Failure in official duties is tantamount to abusing of office
* When the public position is an element of the offense like Bribery (Direct – Article 210, Indirect
– 211, or Qualified Bribery – Sec. 4, R.A. 7659), this circumstance can not be taken into
consideration.
● Wearing of uniform is immaterial – what matters is the proof that he indeed took advantage of
his position
Taking advantage of public position
Article 62 was also amended by the Republic Act No. 7659. The legal import of this amendment is that the
subject circumstance has been made a qualifying or special aggravating that shall not be offset or
compensated by a mitigating circumstance. If not alleged in the information, however, but proven during
the trial, it is only appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance.
50
* Under Sec. 23, 1 (a) of R.A. 7659, when in the commission of the crime, advantage was taken
by the offender of his public position, the penalty to be imposed shall be in its maximum
regardless of mitigating circumstances.
2. That the crime be committed IN CONTEMPT OF OR WITH INSULT TO THE

PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
● Requisites:
a. The offender knows that a public authority is present
b. The public authority is engaged in the exercise of his functions
c. The public authority is not the victim of the crime
d. The public authority’s presence did not prevent the criminal act
● Example: Juan and Pedro are quarrelling and the municipal mayor, upon passing by,
attempts to stop them. Notwithstanding the intervention and the presence of the mayor, Juan
and Pedro continue to quarrel until Juan succeeds in killing Pedro.
● Person in authority – public authority who is directly vested with jurisdiction, has the power
to govern and execute the laws
● Examples of Persons in Authority

a. Governor
b. Mayor
c. Barangay captain
d. Councilors
e. Government agents
f. Chief of Police
● Rule not applicable when committed in the presence of a mere agent.
● Agent – subordinate public officer charged with the maintenance of public order and
protection and security of life and property
Example: barrio vice lieutenant, barrio councilman
3. That the act be committed:
(1) with insult or in disregard of the respect due to the offended party on account
of his (A) RANK, (B) AGE, (C) SEX or
● circumstances (rank, age, sex) may be taken into account only in crimes against persons or
honor, it cannot be invoked in crimes against property
● Rank – refers to a high social position or standing by which to determine one’s pay and
emoluments in any scale of comparison within a position
● Age – the circumstance of lack of respect due to age applies in case where the victim is of
tender age as well as of old age (age of the offended party)
● Sex – refers to the female sex, not to the male sex; not applicable when
a. The offender acted w/ PASSION AND OBFUSCATION
b. there exists a relation between the offender and the victim (but in cases of divorce
decrees where there is a direct bearing on their child, it is applicable)
c. the condition of being a woman is indispensable in the commission of the crime (Ex.
Parricide, rape, abduction)
● Requisite of disregard to rank, age, or sex

a. Crimes must be against the victim’s person or his honor
b. There is deliberate intent to offend or insult the respect due to the victim’s rank, age, or sex
51
NOTE: While nighttime is absorbed in treachery, the aggravating circumstance of

disregard of sex and age cannot be similarly absorbed, as Treachery refers to the manner of the
commission of the crime, while the latter pertains to the relationship of the victim with the
offender.(Pp vs. Lapaz, 171 SCRA 539)
(2) that it be committed in the DWELLING of the offended party, if the latter has not
given provocation.
● Dwelling – must be a building or structure exclusively used for rest and comfort (combination
house and store not included)
a. may be temporary as in the case of guests in a house or bedspacers
b. basis for this is the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode
● dwelling includes dependencies, the foot of the staircase and the enclosure under the house
● Elements of the aggravating circumstance of dwelling

a. Crime occurred in the dwelling of the victim
b. No provocation on the part of the victim
● Requisites for Provocation: ALL MUST CONCUR

a. given by the owner of the dwelling
b. sufficient
c. immediate to the commission of the crime
* Dwelling will only be aggravating if 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.
* 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. The rule that dwelling, in order to be aggravating must be owned by the
offended party is no longer absolute. Dwelling can be aggravating even if it is not owned by the offended
party, provided that the offended party is considered a member of the family who owns the dwelling and
equally enjoys peace of mind, privacy and comfort.
* Dwelling should not be understood in the concept of a domicile. A person has more than one dwelling.
* Dwelling is not limited to the house proper. All the appurtenances necessary for the peace and comfort,
rest and peace of mind in the abode of the offended party is considered a dwelling.
When dwelling may and may not be considered

When it may be considered When it may not be considered
● although the offender fired the shot from ● If the offended party has given
outside the house, as long as his victim provocation
was inside ● If both the offender and the
● even if the killing took place outside the offended party are occupants of the
dwelling, so long as the commission began same dwelling
inside the dwelling ● In robbery with force upon things, it
● when adultery is committed in the dwelling is inherent
of the husband, even if it is also the
dwelling of the wife, it is still aggravating
because she and her paramour committed
a grave offense to the head of the house
● In robbery with violence against persons,
robbery with homicide, abduction, or illegal
detention
* The victim should be the owner, occupant or lessee of the house. However, in People vs.
Balansi, 187 SCRA 566, it was held that the victim need not be the owner or occupant of the
dwelling where he was shot, since, “the stranger, as an invited guest, is sheltered by the same
52
roof and protected by the same intimacy of life it affords. It may not be his house, but it is, even
for a brief moment, home to him.”
* While this aggravating circumstance cannot be considered in Trespass to Dwelling or Robbery

in an Inhabited House as it is included necessarily in these crimes (Art. 62), it can be considered
in Robbery with Homicide because this kind of Robbery can be committed without the necessity
of transgressing the sanctity of the house. (Pp vs. Pareja, 265 SCRA 429)
* 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 is 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 dwelling
portion is attacked where even if the store is open, there is another separate entrance to the portion used
for dwelling, the circumstance is aggravating. However, in case the store is closed, dwelling is aggravating
since here, the store is not a public place as in the first case.
4. That the act be committed with (1) ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE or (2) OBVIOUS
UNGRATEFULNESS
Requisites of Abuse of Confidence Requisite of Obvious Ungratefulness

a) Offended party has trusted the offender a) ungratefulness must be obvious, that is, there
must be something which the offender
b) Offender abused such trust should owe the victim a debt of gratitude for
c) Abuse of confidence facilitated the Note: robbery or theft committed by a visitor

commission of the crime in the house of the offended party is
aggravated by obvious ungratefulness
● Example: A jealous lover, already determined to kill his sweetheart, invited her for a ride and
during that ride, he stabbed her
● Abuse of confidence is inherent in:

a. malversation
b. qualified theft
c. estafa by conversion
d. misappropriation
e. qualified seduction
* Do not confuse this with mere betrayal of trust. This is aggravating only when the very offended party is
the one who reposed the confidence. If the confidence is reposed by another, the offended party is
different from the fellow who reposed the confidence and abuse of confidence in this case is not
aggravating.
5. That the crime be committed in the PALACE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, or in

his presence, or when PUBLIC AUTHORITIES ARE ENGAGED IN THE DISCHARGE
OF THEIR DUTIES, or in a PLACE DEDICATED TO RELIGIOUS WORSHIP.
● Requirements of the aggravating circumstance of public office:
a. The crime occurred in the public office
b. Public authorities are actually performing their public duties
● A polling precinct is a public office during election day
● Nature of public office should be taken into account, like a police station which is on duty 24
hrs. a day
● place of the commission of the felony (par 5): if it was committed in Malacañang palace or a
church it is aggravating, regardless of whether State or official; functions are being held.
* The President or Chief of Executive need not be in the Palace to aggravate the liability of the
offender.
53
● as regards other places where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties,
there must be some performance of public functions
* The accused must have the intention to commit the crime in such place so that if the meeting
of the offender and the victim was only casual, this circumstance cannot be considered.
* However, in a place which is dedicated to religious worship, any offense committed thereat
even if no ceremony is taking place, is aggravated by this circumstance.
● Requisites for aggravating circumstances for place of worship:
a. The crime occurred in a place dedicated to the worship of God regardless of religion
b. Offender must have decided to commit the crime when he entered the place of worship
When Paragraph 2 and 5 of Article 14 are applicable

Committed in the presence of the Chief Committed in contempt of Public Authority
Executive, in the Presidential Palace or a (Par. 2, Art 14)
place of worship(Par. 5, Art. 14)
Public authorities are performing of their Same
duties when the crime is committed
When crime is committed in the public Outside the office (still performing duty)
office, the officer must be performing his
duties, except in the Presidential Palace
Public authority may be the offended party Public authority is not be the offended
party
6. (A) That the crime be committed (1) in the NIGHTTIME, or (2) in an

UNINHABITED PLACE (3) by a BAND, whenever such circumstances may facilitate
the commission of the offense.
● Nighttime, Uninhabited Place or by a Band Aggravating when:

a. it facilitated the commission of the crime
b. especially sought for by the offender to insure the commission of the crime or for the purpose of
impunity
c. when the offender took the advantage thereof for the purpose of impunity
d. commission of the crime must have began and accomplished at nighttime
▪ Impunity – means to prevent the accused’s being recognized or to secure himself

against detection or punishment or to facilitate his escape more easily.
● Nighttime begins at the end of dusk and ending at dawn; from sunset to sunrise
* commission of the crime must begin and be accomplished in the nighttime
* when the place of the crime is illuminated by light, nighttime is not aggravating
* absorbed by Treachery
* Even if there was darkness but the nighttime was only an incident of a chance meeting, there is no
aggravating circumstance here. It must be shown that the offender deliberately sought the cover of
darkness and the offender purposely took advantage of nighttime to facilitate the commission of the
offense, to insure his immunity from capture, or otherwise to facilitate his getaway.(pp vs. pareja, 265 scra
429)
● Uninhabited Place – one where there are no houses at all, a place at a considerable
distance from town, where the houses are scattered at a great distance from each other
54
Requisites:
a. The place facilitated the commission or omission of the crime
b. Deliberately sought and not incidental to the commission or omission of the crime
c. Taken advantage of for the purpose of impunity
* While there is no hard and fast rule on the matter , a place where there are no people or
houses within a distance of 200 meters or less is considered uninhabited. (Pp vs. Egot, 130 SCRA
134)
● What should be considered here is whether in the place of the commission of the offense,
there was a reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help
6. (B) - Whenever more than 3 armed malefactors shall have acted together in the
commission of an offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a BAND.
● Requisites:
a. Facilitated the commission of the crime
b. Deliberately sought
c. Taken advantage of for the purposes of impunity
d. There must be four or more armed men
● If one of the four-armed malefactors is a principal by inducement, they do not form a band
because it is undoubtedly connoted that he had no direct participation,
* Where more than three armed malefactors participated in the commission of the offense, if the
aggrupation did not facilitate the commission of the crime, it will not be considered as
aggravating because of the language of the law which requires that such circumstance must
have facilitated the commission of the offense.
* When the two (2) groups are almost similarly armed, like where the group of the offended
party numbered five (5) but only three (3) were armed so that there is no band, while the
offenders were four (4) who were all armed and therefore constituted a band, there is no band
as aggravating circumstance as it did not facilitate the commission of the crime. Likewise, if the
meeting is casual, the homicide committed by the killers comprising a band is not aggravated.
● Arms is not limited to firearms, sticks and stones included
● Band is inherent in robbery committed in band and brigandage
* 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 crime so that band is not aggravating in brigandage
because the band itself is the way to commit brigandage. However, where brigandage is actually
committed, band becomes aggravating.
● It is not considered in the crime of rape
● It has been applied in treason and in robbery with homicide
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck,

earthquake, epidemic or other CALAMITY OR MISFORTUNE
● Requisites:
55
a. Committed when there is a calamity or misfortune
1. Conflagration
2. Shipwreck
3. Epidemic
b. Offender took advantage of the state of confusion or chaotic condition from such misfortune
● Basis: Commission of the crime adds to the suffering by taking advantage of the misfortune.
● based on time
● offender must take advantage of the calamity or misfortune
Distinction between Paragraphs 7 and 12 of Article 14

Committed during a calamity or misfortune Committed with the use of wasteful means
Crime is committed DURING any of the Crime is committed BY using fire, inundation,
calamities explosion or other wasteful means
8. That the crime be committed with the AID OF (1) ARMED MEN OR (2) PERSONS
WHO INSURE OR AFFORD IMPUNITY
● based on the means and ways of committing the crime
● Requisites:
a. that armed men or persons took part in the commission of the crime, directly or indirectly
b. that the accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime was committed
* If the accused relied on the presence of armed men, availing himself of the aid of the latter,
his liability is aggravated. However, where it appeared that appellants were not merely present
at the scene of the crime but were in conspiracy with the assailant, shooting the victim and
leaving the scene together after apparently accomplishing their purpose clearly evincing
conspiracy, this circumstance cannot be appreciated. (Pp vs. Umbrero, 196 SCRA 821)
* There must be no unity of purpose between the offender and the armed men present in the
commission of the crime. The existence of conspiracy will make the armed men liable as
principals by direct participation.
● Exceptions:
a. when both the attacking party and the party attacked were equally armed
b. not present when the accused as well as those who cooperated with him in the
commission of the crime acted under the same plan and for the same purpose.
c. Casual presence, or when the offender did not avail himself of any of their aid nor did not
knowingly count upon their assistance in the commission of the crime
WITH THE AID OF ARMED MEN BY A BAND

Present even if one of the offenders merely Requires more than 3 armed malefactors
relied on their aid. Actual aid is not who all acted together in the commission
necessary of an offense
● if there are more than 3 armed men, aid of armed men is absorbed in the employment of a
band.
* If the accused, upom assurance of policemen A and B that they would not patrol the area so
that he could theft or robbery thereat, the commission of burglary in the said area where no
routine patrolling was done is aggravated by the aid of persons who insure or afford
impunity.
9. That the accused is a RECIDIVIST
● Recidivist – one who at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously
convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the RPC
56
* It is important that the conviction which came earlier must refer to the crime committed earlier than the
subsequent conviction.
● Basis: Greater perversity of the offender as shown by his inclination to commit crimes
● Requisites:
a. offender is on trial for an offense
b. he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime
c. that both the first and the second offenses are embraced in the same title of the RPC (not
special law)
d. the offender is convicted of the new offense
● What is controlling is the time of the trial, not the time of the commission of the offense. At
the time of the trial means from the arraignment until after sentence is announced by the
judge in open court.
● When does judgment become final? (Rules of Court)

a. after the lapse of a period for perfecting an appeal
b. when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served
c. defendant has expressly waived in writing his right to appeal
d. the accused has applied for probation
● Example of Crimes embraced in the Same title of the RPC

a. robbery and theft – title 10
b. homicide and physical injuries – title 8
* In recidivism, the crimes committed should be felonies. Recidivism cannot be had if the crime committed
is a violation of a special law.
● Q: The accused was prosecuted and tried for theft, robbery and estafa. Judgments were
read on the same day. Is he a recidivist?
A: No. Because the judgment in any of the first two offenses was not yet final when he was
tried for the third offense
● Recidivism must be taken into account no matter how many years have intervened between
the first and second felonies
● Pardon does not obliterate the fact that the accused was a recidivist, but amnesty extinguishes
the penalty and its effects
* 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.
● To prove recidivism, it must be alleged in the information and with attached certified copies of
the sentences rendered against the accused
● Exceptions: if the accused does not object and when he admits in his confession and on the
witness stand
10. That the offender has been previously punished for an offense to which the
law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it
attaches a lighter penalty
● REITERACION OR HABITUALITY – it is essential that the offender be previously

punished; that is, he has served sentence.
57
● Par. 10 speaks of penalty attached to the offense, not the penalty actually imposed
* in reiteracion, the penalty attached to the crime subsequently committed should be higher or at least
equal to the penalty that he has already served. If that is the situation, that means that the offender was
never reformed by the fact that he already served the penalty imposed on him on the first conviction.
However, if he commits a felony carrying a lighter penalty; subsequently, the law considers that somehow
he has been reformed but if he, again commits another felony which carries a lighter penalty, then he
becomes a repeater because that means he has not yet reformed.
* You will only consider the penalty in reiteracion if there is already a second conviction. When there is a
third conviction, you disregard whatever penalty for the subsequent crimes committed. Even if the penalty
for the subsequent crimes committed are lighter than the ones already served, since there are already two
of them subsequently, the offender is already a repeater.
* However, if there is only a second conviction, pay attention to the penalty attached to the crime which
was committed for the second crime. That is why it is said that reiteracion is not always aggravating. This
is so because if the penalty attached to the felony subsequently committed is not equal or higher than the
penalty already served, even if literally, the offender is a repeater, repetition is not aggravating.
REITERACION RECIDIVISM
Necessary that offender shall have served Enough that final judgment has been
out his sentence for the first sentence rendered in the first offense
Previous and subsequent offenses must Same title
not be embraced in the same title of the
Code
Not always an aggravating circumstance Always aggravating
* Thus, if A has been convicted of Murder, and after grant of parole committed Homicide, he
labors under this paragraph (10) known as reiteracion, but he is also suffering from recidivism
(recidencia). In such a case, he will be considered only as recidivist, and par. 10 will no longer
apply to him.
● 4 FORMS OF REPETITION
a. Recidivism – generic
b. Reiteracion or Habituality – generic
c. Multiple recidivism or Habitual delinquency – extraordinary aggravating
d. Quasi-Recidivism – special aggravating
Distinctions between recidivism and habitual delinquency

In recidivism –
(1) Two convictions are enough.
(2) The crimes are not specified; it is enough that they may be embraced under the same title of the
Revised Penal Code.
(3) There is no time limit between the first conviction and the subsequent conviction. 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 prescribed by law for the crime
committed to its maximum period.
(5) The circumstance need not be alleged in the information.
In habitual delinquency –
(1) At least three convictions are required.
(2) 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.
58
(3) There is a time limit of not more than 10 years between every convictions computed from the first
conviction or release from punishment thereof to conviction computed from the second conviction
or release therefrom to the third conviction and so on . . .
(4) Habitual delinquency is a special aggravating circumstance, hence it cannot be offset by any
mitigating circumstance. Aside from the penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed, an
additional penalty shall be imposed depending upon whether it is already the third conviction, the
fourth, the fifth and so on . . .
(5) The circumstance must be alleged in the information; otherwise the court cannot acquire
jurisdiction to impose additional penalty.
● HABITUAL DELINQUENCY – when a person within a period of 10 years from the date of his
release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery,
theft, estafa or falsification is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.
* When the offender is a recidivist and at the same time a habitual delinquent, the 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.
* Habitual delinquency, being a special or specific aggravating circumstance must be alleged in the
information. If it is not alleged in the information and in the course of the trial, the prosecution tried to prove
that the offender is a habitual delinquent over the objection of the accused, the court has no jurisdiction to
consider the offender a habitual delinquent.
● QUASI-RECIDIVISM – any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by
final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be
punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony
* The emphasis here is on the crime committed before sentence or while serving sentence which should
be a felony, a violation of the Revised Penal Code. In so far as the earlier crime is concerned, it is
necessary that it be a felony.
* The emphasis is on the nature of the crime committed while serving sentence or before 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 period 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 shall be
imposed in the maximum period if the offender is a quasi-recidivist.
11. That the crime be committed IN CONSIDERATION OF A PRICE, REWARD OR

PROMISE.
● Requisites:
a. At least 2 principals
1. The principal by inducement
2. The principal by direct participation
b. the price, reward, or promise should be previous to and in consideration of the commission of
the criminal act
● Applicable to both principals.
* To consider this circumstance, the price, reward or promise must be the primary reason or the
primordial motive for the commission of the crime. Thus, if A approached B and told the latter
what he thought of X, and B answered “he is a bad man” to which A retorted, “you see I am
going to kill him this afternoon”, and so B told him “If you do that, I’ll give you P5,000.00” and
after killing X, A again approached B, told him he had already killed X, and B in compliance with
his promise, delivered the P5,000.00, this aggravating circumstance is not present.
59
12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
stranding a vessel or intentional damage thereto, or derailment of a locomotive, or
by use of any other artifice involving GREAT WASTE OR RUIN.
● Requisite: The wasteful means were used by the offender to accomplish a criminal purpose
* 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 burn 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 committed 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.
* Under R.A. 8294 which amends P.D. 1866, when a person commits any crime under the
Revised Penal Code or special laws with the use of explosives including but not limited to pillbox,
motolov cocktail bombs, detonation agents or incendiary devices resulting in the death of a
person, the same is aggravating. (Section 2)
13. That the act be committed with EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
● Essence of premeditation: the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool
thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of
time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment
● Requisites:
a. the time when the offender determined to commit the crime
b. an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination
c. a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon
the consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will
● Conspiracy generally presupposes premeditation
* There are cases however, when conspiracy is established because of the manner the crime was
committed by the offenders, which more often is manifested by their acts before, during and
after the commission of the crime. This is called implied conspiracy. When such situation
arises, the court cannot presume evident premeditation. There is unity of purpose and they all
took part in the commission of the crime, but such is not evident premeditation. It only
establishes conspiracy.
● When victim is different from that intended, premeditation is not aggravating. Although it is
not necessary that there is a plan to kill a particular person for premeditation to exist (e.g.
plan to kill first 2 persons one meets, general attack on a village…for as long as it was
planned)
● The premeditation must be based upon external facts, and must be evident, not merely
suspected indicating deliberate planning
● Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery, adultery, theft, estafa, falsification, and etc.
* In evident premeditation, there must be a clear reflection on the part of the offender. However, if the
killing was accidental, there was no evident premeditation. What is necessary to show and to bring about
evident premeditation aside from showing that as some prior time, the offender has manifested the
intention to kill the victim, and subsequently killed the victim.
60
* In People vs. Mojica, 10 SCRA 515, the lapse of one hour and forty-five minutes (4:15 p.m. to 6
p.m.) was considered by the Supreme Court as sufficient. In People vs. Cabodoc, 263 SCRA 187,
where at 1:00 p.m., the accused opened his balisong and uttered “I will kill him (referring to the
victim)”, at 4:30 p.m. of the said date accused stabbed the victim, it was held that the lapse of
three and a half hours (3 ½ hours) from the inception of the plan to the execution of the crime
satisfied the last requisite of evident premeditation.
14. That (1) CRAFT, (2) FRAUD, OR (3) DISGUISE be employed
● CRAFT – involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the accused.
It is employed as a scheme in the execution of the crime (e.g. accused pretended to be
members of the constabulary, accused in order to perpetrate rape, used chocolates
containing drugs)
* Craft is present since the accused and his cohorts pretended to be bonafide passengers of the
jeep in order not to arouse suspicion; when once inside the jeep, they robbed the driver and
other passengers (People vs. Lee, 204 SCRA 900)
● FRAUD –involves insidious words or machinations used to induce victim to act in a manner
which would enable the offender to carry out his design.
● as distinguished from craft which involves acts done in order not to arouse the suspicion of
the victim, fraud involves a direct inducement through entrapping or beguiling language or
machinations
● DISGUISE – resorting to any device to conceal identity. Purpose of concealing identity is a

must.
* But the accused must be able to hide his identity during the initial stage, if not all through out,
the commission of the crime and his identity must have been discovered only later on, to
consider this aggravating circumstance. If despite the mask worn by the accused, or his putting
of charcoal over his body, the offended party even before the initial stage knew him, he was not
able to hide his identity and this circumstance cannot be appreciated.
Distinction between Craft, Fraud, and Disguise

Craft Fraud Disguise
Involves the use of intellectual Involves the use of direct Involves the use of
trickery and cunning to arouse inducement by insidious devise to conceal
suspicion of the victim words or machinations identity
● Requisite: The offender must have actually taken advantage of craft, fraud, or disguise to facilitate
the commission of the crime.
* The circumstance is characterized by the intellectual or mental approach, rather than the
physical means to which criminal resorts to carry out his intention.
● Inherent in: estafa and falsification
15. That (1) ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH, or (2) MEANS BE

EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN THE DEFENSE
● To purposely use excessive force out of the proportion to the means of defense available to the
person attacked.
* Superiority may arise from aggressor’s sex, weapon or number as compared to that of the
victim (e.g. accused attacked an unarmed girl with a knife; 3 men stabbed to death the female
victim).
* No advantage of superior strength when one who attacks is overcome with passion and
obfuscation or when quarrel arose unexpectedly and the fatal blow was struck while victim and
accused were struggling.
61
VS. BY A BAND : circumstance of abuse of superior strength, what is taken into account is not
the number of aggressors nor the fact that they are armed but their relative physical might
vis-à-vis the offended party
* There must be evidence of notorious inequality of forces between the offender and 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 that there were two persons who attacked the victim does not per se constitute
abuse of superior strength (People v. Carpio, 191 SCRA 12).
* To appreciate abuse of superior strength, what should be considered is not that there were
three, four or more assailants of the victim. What matters is whether the aggressors took
advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the crime.
* The fact known however that there were two persons who attacked the victim does not perse
establish that the crime was committed with abuse of superior strength. To take advantage of
superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means
available to the person attacked to defend himself. (People vs. Casingal, 243 SCRA 37)
* Had treachery or alevosia been proven, it would have absorbed abuse of superior strength.
(People vs. Panganiban, 241 SCRA 91)
● Requisite of Means to Weaken Defense

a. Means were purposely sought to weaken the defense of the victim to resist the assault
b. The means used must not totally eliminate possible defense of the victim, otherwise it will fall
under treachery
● To weaken the defense – illustrated in the case where one struggling with another suddenly
throws a cloak over the head of his opponent and while in the said situation, he wounds or
kills him. Other means of weakening the defense would be intoxication or disabling thru the
senses (casting dirt of sand upon another’s eyes)
16. That the act be committed with TREACHERY (alevosia)
● TREACHERY: when the offender commits any of the crime against the person, employing
means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure
its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might
make.
● Requisites:
a. that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in the position to defend himself
b. that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed
by him
* The essence of treachery is that by virtue of the means, method or form employed by the offender, the
offended party was not able to put up any defense. If the offended party was able to put up a defense,
even only a token one, there is no treachery anymore. Instead some other aggravating circumstance may
be present but not treachery anymore.
● Treachery – can’t be considered when there is no evidence that the accused, prior to the
moment of the killing, resolved to commit to crime, or there is no proof that the death of the
victim was the result of meditation, calculation or reflection.
* does not exist if the accused gave the deceased chance to prepare or there was warning given
or that it was preceded by a heated argument
* there is always treachery in the killing of child
* generally characterized by the deliberate and sudden and unexpected attack of the victim from
behind, without any warning and without giving the victim an opportunity to defend himself
62
* Treachery is out when the attack was merely incidental or accidental because in the definition of
treachery, the implication is that the offender had consciously and deliberately adopted the method, means
and form used or employed by him
● Examples: victim asleep, half-awake or just awakened, victim grappling or being held, attacks
from behind
● But treachery may exist even if attack is face-to-face – as long as victim was not given any
chance to prepare defense
● Where there is conspiracy, treachery is considered against all the offenders
● Treachery absorbs abuse of strength, aid of armed men, by a band and means to weaken
the defense
TREACHERY ABUSE OF SUPERIOR MEANS EMPLOYED TO

STRENGTH WEAKEN DEFENSE
Means, methods or forms Offender does not employ Means are employed but it
are employed by the means, methods or forms of only materially weakens the
offender to make it attack, he only takes resisting power of the
impossible or hard for the advantage of his superior offended party
offended party to put any strength
sort of resistance
INTOXICATION is the means 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 and not abuse of
superior strength or means to weaken the defense.
* There must be evidenced on how the crime was committed. It is not enough to show that the victim
sustained treacherous wound. 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 offender to render the offended party defenseless
(People v. Ilagan, 191 SCRA 643).
* Even if the person killed is different from the intended victim, treachery must be considered
against the offender because he is responsible either for the intended victim or the actual victim.
* For treachery to be appreciated however, the circumstance must be present at the inception of
the attack and if absent, and the attack is continuous, treachery at a subsequent stage is not to
be considered. (People vs. Escoto, 244 SCRA 382). However, if there is a break in the continuity of
the aggression, it is not necessary that treachery be present in the beginning of the assault; it is
sufficient that when the fatal blow was inflicted, there was treachery. (U.S. vs. Balagtas, 19 Phil.
164)
17. That the means be employed or circumstances brought about which add
IGNOMINY to the natural effects of the acts
● IGNOMINY – is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which adds disgrace and
obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime
* Applicable to crimes against chastity (rape included), less serious physical injuries, light or
grave coercion and murder
● Requisites:
a. Crime must be against chastity, less serious physical injuries, light or grave coercion, and
murder
b. The circumstance made the crime more humiliating and shameful for the victim
63
● Examples: accused embraced and kissed the offended party not out of lust but out of anger
in front of many people, raped in front of the husband, raped successively by five men
● tend to make the effects of the crime more humiliating
● Ignominy not present where the victim was already dead when such acts were committed
against his body or person
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, whether 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.
* Cruelty and ignominy are circumstances brought about which are not necessary in the commission of
the crime.
18. That the crime be committed after an UNLAWFUL ENTRY
● Unlawful entry – when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose.
Meant to effect entrance and NOT exit.
● Why aggravating? One who acts, not respecting the walls erected by men to guard their
property and provide for their personal safety, shows greater perversity, a greater audacity
and hence the law punishes him with more severity
● Example: Rapist gains entrance thru the window
● Inherent in: Trespass to dwelling, and robbery with force upon things.
* Unlawful entry is inherent in the crime of robbery with force upon things but aggravating in the crime of
robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons.
* Where the escape was done through the window, the crime is not attended by this
circumstance since there was no unlawful entry.
19. That as a means to the commission of the crime, A WALL, ROOF, DOOR OR
WINDOW BE BROKEN
● Requisites:
a. A wall, roof, window, or door was broken
b. They were broken to effect entrance
● Applicable only if such acts were done by the offender to effect entrance.
* The breaking of the parts of the house must be made as a means to commit the offense. So, if
A entered the door of his neighbor after killing him, escaped by breaking the jalousies of the
window or the door, this aggravating circumstance is absent.
* The basis of this aggravating circumstance refers to means and ways employed to commit the
crime. It is not necessary that the offender should have entered the building because the phrase
“as a means to the commission of the crime” does not require entry to the building. It is also
inherent in the crime of robbery with force upon things.
● Breaking is lawful in the following instances:

a. an officer in order to make an arrest may break open a door or window of any building in
which the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be;
b. an officer if refused admittance may break open any door or window to execute the
search warrant or liberate himself,
64
20. That the crime be committed (1) with the AID OF PERSONS UNDER 15 YEARS
of age, or (2) by MEANS OF MOTOR VEHICLES, airships or other similar means.
● Reason for #1: to repress, so far as possible, the frequent practice resorted to by
professional criminals to avail themselves of minors taking advantage of their responsibility
(remember that minors are given leniency when they commit a crime)
* The minors here could be accessories, accomplices or principals who aided the accused in the
commission of the crime.
Example: Juan instructed a 14-year old to climb up the fence and open the gate for him so
that he may rob the house
● Reason for #2: to counteract the great facilities found by modern criminals in said means to
commit crime and flee and abscond once the same is committed.
● Necessary that the motor vehicle be an important tool to the consummation of the crime
(bicycles not included)
Example: Juan and Pedro, in committing theft, used a truck to haul the appliances from the
mansion.
* 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 commission of the crime.
* The motor vehicle must have been sought by the offender to facilitate the commission of the
crime.
21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately
augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission
● CRUELTY: when the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and
gradually, causing him unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of the criminal act.
Cruelty cannot be presumed nor merely inferred from the body of the deceased. Has to be
proven.
* mere plurality of wrong do not show cruelty
* no cruelty when the other wrong was done after the victim was dead
● Requisites:
a. that the injury caused be deliberately increased by causing other wrong
b. that the other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of the purpose of the offender
* For cruelty to 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 delighted seeing the victim suffer in
pain. In the absence of evidence to this effect, there is no cruelty.
* There is cruelty when the offender is deliberately and inhumanly augmented the suffering of
the victim.
* The essence of cruelty is that the culprit finds delight in prolonging the suffering of the victim.
IGNOMINY CRUELTY
Moral suffering – subjected to humiliation Physical suffering
OTHER AGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
65
Organized or syndicated crime group
In the same amendment to Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code, paragraphs were added which provide
that the maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was committed by any person who belongs to an
organized or syndicated crime group.
An organized or syndicated crime group means a group of two or more persons collaborating,
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 qualifying, it must be alleged in the information and proved during the trial. Otherwise, if not
alleged in the information, even though proven during the trial, the court cannot validly consider the
circumstances because it is not among those enumerated under Article 14 of the Code as aggravating. It
is noteworthy, however, that there is an organized or syndicated group even when only two persons
collaborated, confederated, or mutually helped one another in the commission of a crime, which acts are
inherent in a conspiracy. Where therefore, conspiracy in the commission of the crime is alleged in the
information, the allegation may be considered as procedurally sufficient to warrant receiving evidence on
the matter during trial and consequently, the said special aggravating circumstance can be appreciated if
proven.
Under the Influence of Dangerous Drugs
Sec. 17 of B.P. Blg. 179 promulgated on March 2, 1982 provides:
“The provision of any law to the contrary notwithstanding, when a crime

is committed by an offender who is under the influence of dangerous drugs, such
state shall be considered as qualifying aggravating circumstance.”
Use of Unlicensed Firearm
Although the circumstance that human life was destroyed with the use of an unlicensed firearm is
not aggravating under Art. 14, RPC, it may still be taken into consideration to increase the penalty because
of the explicit provisions of the Presidential Decree No. 1866 as amended by R.A. 8294. Section (1), 3rd
par. of said law says that if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such
use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Further, under Sec. 3
thereof, when a person commits any of the crimes defined in the Revised Penal Code or special laws with
the use of explosives like pill box, motolov cocktail bombs, firebombs or other incendiary devices which
result in the death of a person, such use shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
Art 15. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES. Their concept. — Alternative

circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating
or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other
conditions attending its commission. They are the relationship, intoxication and
the degree of instruction and education of the offender.
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into

consideration when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant,
legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same
degrees of the offender.
The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a

mitigating circumstances when the offender has committed a felony in a state of
intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit said
felony but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as
an aggravating circumstance.
● ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES – those which must be taken into consideration as

aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and other
conditions attending its commission.
* Use only the term alternative circumstance for as long as the particular circumstance is not involved in
any case or problem. The moment it is given in a problem, do not use alternative circumstance, refer to it
as aggravating or mitigating depending on whether the same is considered as such or the other.
66
● They are:
a. RELATIONSHIP – taken into consideration when offended party is the spouse,

ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister, or relative by
affinity in the same degree (2nd)of the offender
* The relationship of step-daughter and step father is included (Pp vs. Tan,264 SCRA 425), But
not of uncle and niece. (People vs. Cabresos, 244 SCRA 362)
b. INTOXICATION – mitigating when the offender has committed a felony in the state of
intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the said
felony. Aggravating if habitual or intentional
c. DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION OF THE OFFENDER
* 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 mitigating simply because the circumstance has no relevance to the crime
that was committed.
* It is only the circumstance of intoxication which if not mitigating, is automatically aggravating. But the
other circumstances, even if they are present, but if they do not influence the crime, the court will not
consider it at all. Relationship may not be considered at all, especially if it is not inherent in the
commission 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
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
In crimes against property (robbery, usurpation, In crimes against persons – in cases where
fraudulent insolvency, arson) the offender, or when the offender and the
offended party are relatives of the same level,
as killing a brother, adopted brother or
half-brother.
Always aggravating in crimes against chastity.
Exception: Art 332 of CC – no criminal liability,

civil liability only for the crimes of theft, Sometimes, relationship is a qualifying and not
swindling or malicious mischief committed or only a generic aggravating circumstance. In
caused mutually by spouses, ascendants, the crime of qualified seduction, the offended
descendants or relatives by affinity (also woman must be a virgin and less than 18 yrs
brothers, sisters, brothers-in-law or old. But if the offender is a brother of the
sisters-in-law if living together). It becomes an offended woman or an ascendant of the
EXEMPTING circumstance. offended woman, regardless of whether the
woman is of bad reputation, even if the woman
(1) In the case of an accessory who is is 60 years old or more, crime is qualified
related to the principal within the seduction. In such a case, relationship is
relationship prescribed in Article 20; qualifying.
(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 inflicted
after having surprised the offended
spouse or paramour or mistress
committing actual sexual intercourse.
● Relationship neither mitigating nor aggravating when relationship is an element of the

offense.
Example: parricide, adultery, concubinage.
INTOXICATION
a) if intoxication is not habitual a) if intoxication is habitual – such habit
must be actual and confirmed
b) if intoxication is not subsequent to the b) if its intentional (subsequent to the plan
plan to commit a felony to commit a felony)
67
* 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 habitual and that it is intentional. The moment it is
shown to be habitual or intentional to the commission of the crime, the same will immediately aggravate,
regardless of the crime committed.
● Must show that he has taken such quantity so as to blur his reason and deprive him of a
certain degree of control
INTOXICATION means that the offender’s mental faculties are affected by drunkenness. It is
not the quantity of alcohol taken by the offender that determines drunkenness. It is the effect of
the alcohol taken by him that matters. If the alcohol taken by him blurs his reason and deprives
him of self-control, then he is intoxicated.
* Intoxication to be considered mitigating, requires that the offender has reached that degree of
intoxication where he has no control of himself anymore. The idea is the offender, because of the
intoxication is already acting under diminished self control. It is not the quantity of alcoholic drink. Rather it
is the effect of the alcohol upon the offender which shall be the basis of the mitigating circumstance.
● The conduct of the offender, the manner of committing the crime, his behavior after
committing the crime must show the behavior of a man who has already lost control of
himself. Otherwise intoxication cannot legally be considered.
● A habitual drunkard is given to inebriety or the excessive use of intoxicating drinks.
● Habitual drunkenness must be shown to be an actual and confirmed habit of the offender, but
not necessarily of daily occurrence.
DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION

Low degree of instruction / education or High degree of instruction and education –
the lack of it. Because he does not fully offender avails himself of his learning in
realize the consequences of his criminal act. committing the offense.
Not just mere illiteracy but lack of intelligence.
* In appreciating these circumstances, the court considers not only literally but also lack of
intelligence of the offender. Illiteracy refers to the ability of the individual to read and write and
the ability to comprehend and discern the meaning of what he has read. In order to be
mitigating, there must be the concurrence or combination of illiteracy and lack of intelligence on
the part of the offender.
* The nature of the crime committed must be considered in making such a conclusion.
* The fact that the offender did not have schooling and is illiterate does not mitigate his liability if the crime
committed is one which he inherently understands as wrong such as parricide.
● Exceptions (not mitigating):

a. crimes against property
b. crimes against chastity (rape included)
c. crime of treason
Art 16. Who are criminally liable. — The following are criminally liable for grave and
less grave felonies:
1. Principals.
2. Accomplices.
3. Accessories.
The following are criminally liable for light felonies:

1. Principals
2. Accomplices.
68
* This classification is true only under the Revised Penal Code and is not used under special laws,
because the penalties under the latter are never graduated. Do not use the term principal when the crime
committed is a violation of special law. Only use the term “offender.” Also only classify offenders when
more than one took part in the commission of the crime to determine the proper penalty to be imposed.
So, if only one person committed a crime, do not use principal. Use the “offender,” “culprit,” or the
“accused.”
* When a problem is encountered where there are several participants in the crime, the first thing to find
out is if there is a conspiracy. If there is, as a general rule, the criminal liability of all will be the same,
because the act of one is the act of all. However, if the participation of one is so insignificant, such that
even without his cooperation, the crime would be committed just as well, then notwithstanding the
existence of a conspiracy, such offender will be regarded only as an accomplice.
* As to the liability of the participants in a felony, the Code takes into consideration whether the felony
committed is grave, less grave, or light.
* When the felony is grave, or less grave, all participants are criminally liable.
* But where the felony is only light only the principal and the accomplice are liable. The accessory is not.
* But even the principal and the accomplice will not be liable if the felony committed is only light and the
same is not consummated unless such felony is against persons or property
● Accessories – not liable for light felonies because the individual prejudice is so small that
penal sanction is not necessary
● Only natural persons can be criminals as only they can act with malice or negligence and can
be subsequently deprived of liberty. Juridical persons are liable under special laws.
● Manager of a partnership is liable even if there is no evidence of his direct participation in the
crime.
● Corporations may be the injured party
● General Rule: Corpses and animals have no rights that may be injured.
● Exception: defamation of the dead is punishable when it blackens the memory of one who is
dead.
Art 17. Principals. — The following are considered principals:

1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;
2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act

without which it would not have been accomplished.
● PRINCIPALS BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION
* The principal by direct participation must be at the scene of the crime, personally taking part
in the execution of the same.
Requisites for 2 or more to be principals by direct participation:

a. participated in the criminal resolution (conspiracy)
b. carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts which directly
tended to the same end
● Conspiracy – Is unity of purpose and intention.
* To be a party to a conspiracy, one must have the intention to participate in the transaction
with a view to further the common design and purpose. Mere knowledge, acquiescence, or
approval of the act is not enough. When there is no conspiracy in the commission of the crime,
each of the offenders is liable only by the acts performed by him.
69
Establishment of Conspiracy
a. proven by overt act
b. Not mere knowledge or approval
c. It is not necessary that there be formal agreement.
d. Must prove beyond reasonable doubt
e. Conspiracy is implied when the accused had a common purpose and were united in
execution.
f. Unity of purpose and intention in the commission of the crime may be shown in the
following cases:
1. Spontaneous agreement at the moment of the commission of the crime
2. Active Cooperation by all the offenders in the perpetration of the crime
3. Contributing by positive acts to the realization of a common criminal intent
4. Presence during the commission of the crime by a band and lending moral support
thereto.
g. While conspiracy may be implied from the circumstances attending the commission of the
crime, it is nevertheless a rule that conspiracy must be established by positive and
conclusive evidence.
* Where the accused conspired with this three (3) co-accused to kill the two (2) victims and the
role assigned to him was to kill one of the victims which he did, he is a principal by direct
participation in the two (2) murders.
● Conspirator not liable for the crimes of the other which is not the object of the conspiracy or is
not a logical or necessary consequence thereof
* A co-conspirator who committed an act substantially different from the crime conspired upon is
solely liable for the crime committed by him. The other members of the conspiracy will not be
liable for the crime. (Pp vs. Dela Cerna, L-20911, Oct. 20, 1979)
* A conspirator is liable for another crime which is the necessary and logical consequence of the
conspiracy.
* A person in conspiracy with others, who had desisted before the crime was committed by the
others, is not criminally liable. (Pp vs. Dalmacio Timbol, G. R. Nos. L-47471-47473, Aug. 4, 1944)
* When there is a conspiracy in the commission of the crime, it is not necessary to ascertain the
specific act of each conspirator. (Pp vs. Fernandez, G. R. No. 62116, March 22, 1990, 183 SCRA)
● MULTIPLE RAPE – each rapist is liable for another’s crime because each cooperated in the
commission of the rapes perpetrated by the others
● Exception: in the crime of murder with treachery – all the offenders must at least know that
there will be treachery in executing the crime or cooperate therein.
Example: Juan and Pedro conspired to kill Tomas without the previous plan of treachery. In
the crime scene, Juan used treachery in the presence of Pedro and Pedro knew such. Both
are liable for murder. But if Pedro stayed by the gate while Juan alone killed Tomas with
treachery, so that Pedro didn’t know how it was carried out, Juan is liable for murder while
Pedro for homicide.
● No such thing as conspiracy to commit an offense through negligence. However, special laws
may make one a co-principal.
● Example: Under the Pure Food and Drug Act, a storeowner is liable for the act of his
employees of selling adulterated coffee, although he didn’t know that coffee was being sold.
● Conspiracy is negatived by the acquittal of co-defendant.
70
● That the culprits “carried out the plan and personally took part in the execution, by acts which
directly tended to the same end”:
a. The principals by direct participation must be at the scene of the crime, personally taking
part,
b. One serving as guard pursuant to the conspiracy is a principal direct participation.
● If the second element is missing, those who did not participate in the commission of the acts
of execution cannot be held criminally liable, unless the crime agreed to be committed is
treason, sedition, or rebellion.
● PRINCIPALS BY INDUCTION (INDUCEMENT)
a. “Those who directly force or induce others to commit it”
b. Principal by induction liable only when principal by direct participation committed the act
induced
* Two ways of becoming a principal by inducement. The first one is by directly forcing another to
commit the crime and the second is by directly inducing another to commit the crime.
* Under Art. 12, there are two ways of forcing another to commit a crime: by using irresistible
force and by using uncontrollable fear. In these cases, conspiracy is not considered because only
one person is criminally liable – the person who directly forces another to commit a crime. The
one forced to perform the act or the material executor is not criminally liable as he is exempt
from criminal liability according to Art. 12.
c. Requisites:
1. inducement be made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime
2. such inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the crime by the material
executor
* Even if the inducement be directly made, with the inducer insistent and determined to procure
the commission of the crime, he still cannot be classified as principal by induction if the
inducement is not the determining cause for committing the crime. Thus, if the actor has reason
of his own to commit the offense, there can be no principal by induction.
d. Forms of Inducements
1. By Price, reward or promise
By irresistible force or uncontrollable fear
* Imprudent advice does not constitute sufficient inducement
* Mere suggestions, or a thoughtless expression or a chance word spoken without any intention
or expectation that it would produce the result cannot hold the utterer liable as principal by
inducement.
Concept of the inducement – one strong enough that the person induced could hardly resist. This is
tantamount to an irresistible force compelling the person induced to carry out the execution of the crime.
Ill advised language is not enough unless he who made such remark or advice is a co-conspirator in the
crime committed.
* It is necessary that the inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the crime
by the principal by direct participation, that is, without such inducement, the crime would no
have been committed. If the principal by direct participation has personal reasons to commit just
the same even if no inducement was made on him by another, there can be no principal by
inducement.
d. Requisites for words of command to be considered inducement:
71
1. Commander has the intention of procuring the commission of the crime
2. Commander has ascendancy or influence
3. Words used be so direct, so efficacious, so powerful
4. Command be uttered prior to the commission
5. Executor had no personal reason
* It is also important to note that the words of inducement must be made prior to the
commission of the crime. If uttered while the crime was being committed or after the crime was
committed, inducement would no longer be a matter of concern. (Pp vs. Castillo, G. R. No.
L-192388, July 26, 1966)
* It is necessary that one uttering the words of command must have the intention of procuring
commission of the crime and must have ascendancy or influence over the person acting. Such
words used must be direct, so efficacious and so powerful as to amount to physical or moral
coercion, that the words of command must be uttered prior to the commission of the crime and
that the material executor of the crime must have no personal reason of his own to commit the
crime. (Pp vs. Agapinoy, G. R. 77776, June 27, 1990)
● Words uttered in the heat of anger and in the nature of the command that had to be obeyed
do not make one an inductor.
INDUCTOR PROPOSES TO COMMIT A FELONY

Induce others Same
Liable only when the crime is Punishable at once when proposes to commit
executed rebellion or treason. The person to whom one
proposed should not commit the crime,
otherwise the latter becomes an inductor
Covers any crime Covers only treason and rebellion
● Effects of Acquittal of Principal by direct participation on liability of principal by inducement
a. Conspiracy is negated by the acquittal of the co-defendant.
b. One can not be held guilty of instigating the commission of the crime without first showing
that the crime has been actually committed by another. But if the one charged as
principal by direct participation be acquitted because he acted without criminal intent or
malice, it is not a ground for the acquittal of the principal by inducement.
● PRINCIPALS BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION
“Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have
been accomplished”
* Principals by Indispensable Cooperation are those who cooperate in the commission of

the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished. Like in the case
of Principal by Inducement, it presupposes the existence of the principal by direct participation
otherwise with whom shall he cooperate with indispensably?
Requisites:
1. Participation in the criminal resolution
2. Cooperation through another act (includes negligence)
* The offender in this case must have knowledge of the criminal designs of the principal by
direct participation. Thereafter, he cooperates in the commission of the offense by an act without
which the crime would not have been committed.
72
● There is collective criminal responsibility when the offenders are criminally liable in the same
manner and to the same extent. The penalty is the same for all.
● There is individual criminal responsibility when there is no conspiracy.
* The requisites for one to come under the ambit of paragraph 3 requires the participation of the
offender in the criminal resolution. The participation must be before the commission of the crime
charged. He should cooperate in the commission of the offense by performing another act by
without which the offense would not have been committed. The act of the principal by
indispensable cooperation should not be the act that constitutes the execution of the crime. It
must be by another act.
Principal by indispensable cooperation distinguished from an

accomplice
The point is not just on participation but on the importance of participation in committing the crime. The
basis is the importance of the cooperation to the consummation of the crime. If the crime could hardly be
committed without such cooperation, then such cooperation would bring about a principal. But if the
cooperation merely facilitated or hastened the consummation of the crime, this would make the cooperator
merely an accomplice.
* Where both accused conspired and confederated to commit rape, and one had sex with the
offended party while the other was holding her hands, and thereafter the latter was the one who
raped the victim, both are principals by direct participation and by indispensable cooperation in
the two (2) crimes of rape committed. (People vs. Fernandez, 183 SCRA 511)
* Where A, a municipal treasurer, conspired with B for the latter to present a false receipt and
which receipt was the basis of the reimbursement approved by A, and both thereafter shared the
proceeds, A is the principal by direct participation and B by indispensable cooperation in the
crime of Malversation.
Art. 18. Accomplices. — Accomplices are those persons who, not being
included in Art. 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or
simultaneous acts.
● Requisites:
a. there be a community of design (principal originates the design, accomplice only concurs)
b. he cooperates in the execution by previous or simultaneous acts, intending to give material and
moral aid (cooperation must be knowingly done, it must also be necessary and not indispensable
c. There be a relation between the acts of the principal and the alleged accomplice
● Examples: a) Juan was choking Pedro. Then Tomas ran up and hit Pedro with a bamboo
stick. Juan continued to choke Pedro until he was dead. Tomas is only an accomplice
because the fatal blow came from Juan.
● b) Lending a dagger to a killer, knowing the latter’s purpose.
● An accomplice has knowledge of the criminal design of the principal and all he does is
concur with his purpose.
* The accomplice does not conspire with the principal although he cooperated in the execution
of the criminal act.
● There must be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the
person charged as an accomplice
● In homicide or murder, the accomplice must not have inflicted the mortal wound.
Art. 19. Accessories. — Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the
commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as
73
principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the
following manners:
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects

of the crime.
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or

instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery.
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of

the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or
whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an
attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of
some other crime.
* To be an accessory to a crime, one must learn or must have knowledge of the same after its
commission. The crime must have been consummated. His participation must take place
subsequent to such knowledge and in the manner provided under Article 49.
* All the above-mentioned acts are performed by the accessory after the commission of the
crime. An accessory neither participates in the criminal design nor cooperates in the commission
of the crime. That is the reason why he is sometimes called an accessory after the fact.
* The crime committed must either be a less grave or grave felony because if it is only a light
felony, no criminal liability is incurred by the accessory because of Article 7.
● Example of Par 1: person received and used property from another, knowing it was stolen
* One can be an accessory not only by profiting from the effects of the crime but also by
assisting the offender to profit from the effects of the crime.
* The accessory however should not take the property without the consent of the principal or
accomplice in possession of the same, otherwise he is a principal in the crime of theft since a
stolen property can also be subject of theft or robbery.
● Example of Par 2: placing a weapon in the hand of the dead who was unlawfully killed to
plant evidence, or burying the deceased who was killed by the principals
Destroying the corpus delicti
The body of the crime however does not only mean the body of the person killed. This
phrase refers to CORPPUS DELICTI – that is, the body or the substance of the offense (People vs.
Bantagan, 54 Phil. 841). Corpus delicti means the fact that a crime has actually been committed.
(People vs. Madlangbayan, 94 SCRA 685)
* When the crime is robbery or theft, with respect to the second involvement of an accessory, do not
overlook the purpose which must be to prevent discovery of the crime.
* The corpus delicti is not the body of the person who is killed, even if the corpse is not recovered, as long
as that killing is established beyond reasonable doubt, criminal liability will arise and if there is someone
who destroys the corpus delicti to prevent discovery, he becomes an accessory.
* While the body of the victim is a part of the term corpus delicti by itself. The body of the crime
may refer to the instrument used in the commission of the crime such as knife, poison, gun or
any material evidence relevant to prove or establish he commission of the crime.
Example: Where the wife misled the authorities informing them that the person who killed her
husband was a thief who has fled, when in truth, the killer was her paramour, the wife is liable
as an accessory for concealing the body of the crime.
● Example of Par 3: a) public officers who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the
principal of any crime (not light felony) with abuse of his public functions, b) private persons
who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the author of the crime – guilty of treason,
74
parricide, murder or an attempt against the life of the President, or who is known to be
habitually guilty of some crime.
HARBORING OR CONCEALING AN OFFENDER
* In the case of a public officer, the crime committed by the principal is immaterial. Such officer
becomes an accessory by the mere fact that he helped the principal to escape by harboring or concealing,
making use of his public function and thus abusing the same.
* On the other hand, in case of a civilian, the mere fact that he harbored concealed or assisted the
principal to escape does not ipso facto make him an accessory. The law requires that the principal must
have committed the crime of treason, parricide, murder or attempt on the life of the Chief Executive.
If this is not the crime, the civilian does not become an accessory unless the principal is known to be
habitually guilty of some other crime.
* Even if the crime committed by the principal is treason, or murder or parricide or attempt on the life of
the Chief Executive, the accessory cannot be held criminally liable without the principal being found guilty
of any such crime. Otherwise the effect would be that the accessory merely harbored or assisted in the
escape of an innocent man, if the principal is acquitted of the charges.
Illustration:
Crime committed is kidnapping for ransom. Principal was being chased by soldiers. His aunt hid him in
the ceiling of her house and aunt denied to soldiers that her nephew had ever gone there. When the
soldiers left, the aunt even gave money to her nephew to go to the province. Is aunt criminally liable? No.
Article 20 does not include an auntie. However, this is not the reason. The reason is because one who is
not a public officer and who assists an offender to escape or otherwise harbors, or conceals such offender,
the crime committed by the principal must be either treason, parricide murder or attempt on the life of the
Chief executive or the principal is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.
The crime committed by the principal is determinative of the liability of the accessory who harbors,
conceals knowing that the crime is committed. If the person is a public officer, the nature of the crime is
immaterial. What is material is that he used his public function in assisting escape.
However, although under paragraph 3 of Article 19 when it comes to a civilian, the law specifies the crimes
that should be committed, yet there is a special law which punishes the same act and it does not specify a
particular crime. Presidential Decree No. 1829, which penalizes obstruction of apprehension and
prosecution of criminal offenders, effective January 16, 1981, punishes acts commonly referred to as
“obstructions of justice”. This Decree penalizes under Section 1(c) thereof, the act, inter alia, of
“(c) Harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of any person he knows or has reasonable ground
to believe or suspect, has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest,
prosecution and conviction.”
Here, there is no specification of the crime to be committed by the offender for criminal liability to be incurred for
harboring, concealing, or facilitating the escape of the offender, and the offender need not be the principal –
unlike paragraph 3, Article 19 of the Code. The subject acts may not bring about criminal liability under
the Code, but under this decree. Such an offender if violating Presidential Decree No. 1829 is no longer
an accessory. He is simply an offender without regard to the crime committed by the person assisted to
escape. So in the problem, the standard of the Revised Penal Code, aunt is not criminally liable because
crime is kidnapping, but under Presidential Decree No. 1829, the aunt is criminally liable but not as an
accessory.
* The term “or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crimes” must be
understood in ordinary concept. Habituality in law means three times or more. It can refer to any
crime wherein the accused was convicted for three times and such fact is known to the private
individual who assisted the principal in his escape.
● General Rule: Principal acquitted, Accessory also acquitted

● Exception: when the crime was in fact committed but the principal is covered by exempting
circumstances.
Example: Minor stole a ring and Juan, knowing it was stolen, bought it. Minor is exempt. Juan
liable as accessory
● Trial of accessory may proceed without awaiting the result of the separate charge against the
principal because the criminal responsibilities are distinct from each other
75
* Even if the principal is convicted, if the evidence presented against a supposed accomplice or a
supposed accessory does not meet the required proof beyond reasonable doubt, then said accused will be
acquitted. So the criminal liability of an accomplice or accessory does not depend on the criminal liability
of the principal but depends on the quantum of evidence. But if the evidence shows that the act done
does not constitute a crime and the principal is acquitted, then the supposed accomplice and accessory
should also be acquitted. If there is no crime, then there is no criminal liability, whether principal,
accomplice, or accessory.
● Liability of the accessory – the responsibility of the accessory is subordinate to that of a

principal in a crime because the accessory’s participation therein is subsequent to its
commission, and his guilt is directly related to the principal. If the principal was acquitted by
an exempting circumstance the accessory may still be held liable.
* But not Presidential Decree No. 1829. This special law does not require that there be prior conviction. It
is a malum prohibitum, no need for guilt, or knowledge of the crime.
Two situations where accessories are not criminally liable:

(1) When the felony committed is a light felony;
(2) When the accessory is related to the principal as spouse, or as an ascendant, or descendant or as
brother or sister whether legitimate, natural or adopted or where the accessory is a relative by
affinity within the same degree, unless the accessory himself profited from the effects or proceeds
of the crime or assisted the offender to profit therefrom.
● Difference of accessory from principal and accomplice:

a. Accessory does not take direct part or cooperate in, or induce the commission of the
crime
b. Accessory does not cooperate in the commission of the offense by acts either prior
thereto or simultaneous therewith
c. Participation of the accessory in all cases always takes place after the commission of the
crime
d. Takes part in the crime through his knowledge of the commission of the offense.
* One cannot be an accessory unless he knew of the commission of the crime. One must not have
participated in the commission of the crime. The accessory comes into the picture when the crime is
already consummated. Anyone who participated before the consummation of the crime is either a
principal or an accomplice. He cannot be an accessory.
ACCESSORY AS A FENCE
where the crime committed by the principal was robbery or theft, such participation of an accessory brings
about criminal liability under Presidential Decree No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law). One who knowingly profits or
assists the principal to profit by the effects of robbery or theft is not just an accessory to the crime, but
principally liable for fencing under Presidential Decree No. 1612.
Any person who, with intent to gain, acquires and/or sell, possesses, keeps or in any manner deals with
any article of value which he knows or should be known to him to be the proceeds of robbery or theft is
considered a “fence” and incurs criminal liability for “fencing” under said decree. The penalty is higher
than that of a mere accessory to the crime of robbery or theft.
Likewise, the participation of one who conceals the effects of robbery or theft gives rise to criminal liability
for “fencing”, not simply of an accessory under paragraph 2 of Article 19 of the Code. Mere possession of
any article of value which has been the subject of robbery or theft brings about the prima facie
presumption of “fencing”.
* In both laws, Presidential Decree No. 1612 and the Revised Penal Code, the same act is the basis of
liability and you cannot punish a person twice for the same act as that would go against double jeopardy.
* The crimes of robbery and fencing are clearly two distinct offenses. The law on fencing does
not require the accused to have participated in the criminal design to commit, or to have been in
any wise involved in the commission of the crime or robbery or theft made to depend on an act
of fencing in order that it can be consummated. True, the object property in fencing must have
76
been previously taken by means of either robbery or theft but the place where the robbery or
theft occurs is inconsequential.
Acquiring the effects of piracy or brigandage
The act of knowingly acquiring or receiving property which is the effect or the proceeds of a crime
generally brings about criminal liability of an accessory under Article 19, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal
Code. But if the crime was piracy of brigandage under Presidential Decree No. 533 (Anti-piracy and
Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974), said act constitutes the crime of abetting piracy or abetting
brigandage as the case may be, although the penalty is that for an accomplice, not just an accessory, to
the piracy or brigandage. To this end, Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 532 provides that any
person who knowingly and in any manner… acquires or receives property taken by such pirates or
brigands or in any manner derives benefit therefrom… shall be considered as an accomplice of the
principal offenders and be punished in accordance with the Rules prescribed by the Revised Penal Code.
Art. 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. — The penalties
prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with
respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and
adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with
the single exception of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of
the next preceding article.
● Basis: Ties of blood and the preservation of the cleanliness of one’s name which compels
one to conceal crimes committed by relatives so near as those mentioned.
● Nephew and Niece not included
● Accessory not exempt when helped a relative-principal by profiting from the effects of the
crime, or assisted the offender to profit from the effects of the crime.
● Only accessories covered by par 2 and 3 are exempted.
● Public officer who helped his guilty brother escape does not incur criminal liability as ties of
blood constitutes a more powerful incentive than the call of duty.
PENALTIES
● PENALTY – suffering inflicted by the State for the transgression of a law.
Five (5) theories that justify the imposition of penalty:
a. Prevention – The State must punish the criminal to prevent or suppress the danger to
the State arising from the criminal acts of the offender;
b. Self-defense – The State has the right to punish the criminal as a measure of
self-defense so as to protect society from the threat and wrong inflicted by the criminal;
c. Reformation – The object of punishment in criminal cases is to correct and reform the
offender;
d. Exemplarity – The criminal is punished to serve as an example to deter others from

committing crimes;
e. Justice – That crime must be punished by the State as an act retributive justice, a
vindication of absolute right and moral as violated by the criminal.
Imposition of a penalty has a three-fold purpose:
a. Retribution or expiation – The penalty is commensurate with the gravity of the

offense.
b. Correction or reformation – rules which regulate the execution of penalties consisting

of deprivation of liberty
77
c. Social defense – as manifested by the inflexibilities and severity in the imposition of the
penalty to recidivists and habitual delinquents.
● Juridical Conditions of Penalty

a. Must be productive of suffering – limited by the integrity of human personality
b. Must be proportionate to the crime
c. Must be personal – imposed only upon the criminal
d. Must be legal – according to a judgment of fact and law
e. Must be equal – applies to everyone regardless of the circumstance
f. Must be correctional – to rehabilitate the offender
Art. 21. Penalties that may be imposed. — No felony shall be punishable by any
penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission.
● Guarantees that no act of a citizen will be considered criminal unless the State has made it
so by law and provided a penalty
● Except: When the penalty is favorable to the criminal
By reason of Art. 21, an act or omission cannot be punished by the State if at the time it
was committed there was no law prohibiting it. The rule is that a man cannot be expected to
obey an order that was not made known to him.
Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. — Penal Laws shall have a retroactive
effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual
criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the
time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the
convict is serving the same.
● General Rule: Criminal laws are given prospective effects

● Exception: Give retroactive effect when favorable to the accused(not a habitual
delingquent). Ex. Special law made the penalty less severe – but must refer to the same
deed or omission penalized by the former statute
● New law may provide that its provisions not be applied to cases already filed in court at the
time of the approval of such law.
● The favorable retroactive effect of a new law may find the defendant in one of the 3 situations
a. crime has been committed and the prosecution begins
b. sentence has been passed but service has not begun
c. sentence is being carried out.
● Habitual criminal (person who within the pd of 10 years from date of release or last
conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or
falsification, he is found guilty of any said crimes a third time or oftener) is NOT entitled to the
benefit of the provisions of the new favorable law.
● Civil liabilities not covered by Art 22 because rights of offended persons are not within the gift
of arbitrary disposal of the State.
● But new law increasing civil liability cannot be given retroactive effect.
● Retroactivity applicable also to special laws
● The right to punish offenses committed under an old penal law is not extinguished if the
offenses are still punished in the repealing penal law. However, if by re-enactment of the
provisions of the former law, the repeal is by implication and there is a saving clause, criminal
liability under the repealed law subsists.
78
● No retroactive effect of penal laws as regards jurisdiction of the court. Jurisdiction of the court
is determined by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action, not at the time of
the commission of the crime.
● Jurisdiction of courts in criminal cases is determined by the allegations of the complaint or

information, and not by the findings the court may make after trial.
● When a law is ex post facto

a Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when
done, and punishes such an act.
b Aggravates the crime or makes it greater than it was when committed.
c Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the
crime when committed.
d Alters the legal rules of evidence and authorizes conviction upon less or different
testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the crime.
e Assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or
deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful.
f Deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to which he has become
entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal or a proclamation of
amnesty.
● Bill of Attainder – a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. Its essence is the
substitution of a legislative for a judicial determination of guilt.
Art. 23. Effect of pardon by the offended party. — A pardon of the offended
party does not extinguish criminal action except as provided in Article 344 of this
Code; but civil liability with regard to the interest of the injured party is
extinguished by his express waiver.
● Even if injured party already pardoned the offender – fiscal can still prosecute. Not even
considered a ground for dismissal of the information. Exception: Art 344 - crimes of
seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness – pardon must be expressed.
* A pardon given by the offended party does not extinguish criminal action because such pardon
by the offended party is not a ground for dismissal of the complaint or information. A crime
committed is an offense against the State. In criminal cases, the intervention of the aggrieved
parties is limited to being witnesses for the prosecution, the offended party being the Republic of
the Philippines.
● Only Chief Executive can pardon the offenders
● Can’t compromise criminal liability, only civil liability – but it still shall not extinguish the public
action for the imposition of the legal penalty.
* Art. 2034 of the New Civil Code provides: “there may be a compromise upon the civil liability
arising from an offense; but such compromise shall not extinguish the public action for the
imposition of the legal penalty.”
* A contract stipulating for the renunciation of the right to prosecute an offense or waiving the
criminal liability is void.
● Offended party in the crimes of adultery and concubinage can’t institute criminal prosecution
if he shall have consented or pardoned the offenders.
● Pardon in adultery and concubinage may be implied – continued inaction after learning of the
offense. Must pardon both offenders.
79
● The pardon afforded the offenders must come BEFORE the institution of the criminal
proceedings. Complaint for any of the above-mentioned crimes in Art 344 will still be
prosecuted by the court on the ground that the pardon (basis for the motion to dismiss) was
given after the filing of the complaint.
● The only act that extinguishes the penal action, after the institution of criminal action, is the
marriage between the offender and the offended party
● Pardon under Art 344 is only a bar to criminal prosecution. It DOES NOT extinguish criminal
liability. It is not one of the causes that totally extinguish criminal liability in Art 89.
● Civil liability with regard to the interest of the injured party is extinguished by his express
waiver because personal injury may be repaired through indemnity anyway. State has no
reason to insist on its payment.
● Waiver must be express.
Art. 24. Measures of prevention or safety which are not considered penalties. —
The following shall not be considered as penalties:
1. The arrest and temporary detention of accused persons, as well as their

detention by reason of insanity or imbecility, or illness requiring their confinement
in a hospital.
2. The commitment of a minor to any of the institutions mentioned in Article

80 and for the purposes specified therein.
3. Suspension from the employment of public office during the trial or in

order to institute proceedings.
4. Fines and other corrective measures which, in the exercise of their

administrative disciplinary powers, superior officials may impose upon their
subordinates.
5. Deprivation of rights and the reparations which the civil laws may
establish in penal form.
● Par 1 refers to the “accused persons” who are detained “by reason of insanity or imbecility”
not an insane or imbecile who has not been arrested for a crime.
● They are not considered penalties because they are not imposed as a result of judicial
proceedings. Those in par 1, 3 and 4 are merely preventive measures before the conviction
of offenders.
● Commitment of a minor is not a penalty because it is not imposed by the court in a judgment.
The imposition of the sentence in such a case is suspended.
● Fines in par 4 are not imposed by the court because otherwise, they constitute a penalty
CORRELATING ARTICLE 24 WITH ARTICLE 29
Although under Article 24, the detention of a person accused of a crime while the case against him is
being tried does not amount to a penalty, yet the law considers this as part of the imprisonment and
generally deductible from the sentence.
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 is not a penalty. Yet
Article 29, if ultimately the accused is convicted and the penalty imposed involves deprivation of liberty,
80
provides that the period during which he had undergone preventive detention will be deducted from the
sentence, unless he is one of those disqualified under the law.
So, 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
forfeited.
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 whether 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
regulations 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 subjected 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.
Preventive imprisonment is the incarceration undergone by a person accused of a

crime which is not bailable, or he cannot afford to post bond. During the trial of his case, he is
detained in jail. He is known as detention prisoner.
Subsidiary imprisonment, on the other hand, is the personal penalty prescribed by

law in substitution of the payment of fine embodied in the decision when the same cannot be
satisfied because of the culprit’s insolvency. (People vs. Jarumayan, 52 O.G. 248)
Art. 25. Penalties which may be imposed. — The penalties which may be
imposed according to this Code, and their different classes, are those included in
the following Scale:
PRINCIPAL PENALTIES
Capital punishment:
Death.
Afflictive penalties:
Reclusion perpetua,
Reclusion temporal,
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
Prision mayor.
Correctional penalties:
Prision correccional,
Arresto mayor,
Suspension,
Destierro.
Light penalties:
Arresto menor,
Public censure.
Penalties common to the three preceding classes:

Fine, and
Bond to keep the peace.
ACCESSORY PENALTIES
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,

Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the
81
profession or calling.
Civil interdiction,
Indemnification,
Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense,
Payment of costs.
● Classification of penalties:
a Principal
b Accessory
Principal penalties are those expressly imposed by the court while Accessory penalties are
those that are deemed included in the principal penalties imposed.
● According to divisibility (principal)

a divisible – those that have fixed duration and are divisible into 3 periods
b indivisible – no fixed duration (death, RP, perpetual or absolute disqualification)
● According to subject matter

a corporal – death
b deprivation of freedom – reclusion, prision, arresto
c restriction of freedom – destierro
d deprivation of rights – disqualification and suspension
e pecuniary – fine
● According to gravity
a capital
b afflictive
c correccional
d light
● Public censure is a penalty, and being such, is not proper in acquittal. But a competent court,
while acquitting an accused may, with unquestionable propriety express its disapproval or
reprehension of those acts to avoid the impression that by acquitting the accused it approves
or admires his conduct.
● Permanent and temporary absolute and permanent and temporary special disqualification
and suspension may be principal or accessory penalties because they are found in 2 general
classes.
Art. 26. When afflictive, correctional, or light penalty. — A fine, whether

imposed as a single of as an alternative penalty, shall be considered an afflictive
penalty, 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.
● Fines are imposed either as alternative (Art 144 punishing disturbance of proceedings with
arresto mayor or fine from 200 pesos to 1000 pesos) or single (fine of 200 to 6000 pesos)
● Penalty cannot be imposed in the alternative since it’s the duty of the court to indicate the
penalty imposed definitely and positively. Thus, the court cannot sentence the guilty person
in a manner as such as “to pay fine of 1000 pesos, or to suffer an imprisonment of 2 years,
and to pay the costs.”
● If the fine imposed by the law for the felony is exactly 200 pesos, it is a light felony.
● Fines:
a Afflictive – over 6000
b Correctional – 201 to 6000
c Light – 200 and less
● Note: The classification applies if the fine is imposed as a single or alternative penalty.
Hence, it does not apply if the fine imposed together with another penalty.
82
● Bond to keep the peace is by analogy:
a Afflictive – over 6000
b Correctional – 201 to 6000
c Light – 200 and less
Distinction between classification of Penalties in Art. 9 and Art. 26

Article 9 Article 26
Applicable in determining the prescriptive Applicable in determining the prescriptive
period of felonies period of penalties
DURATION AND EFFECT OF PENALTIES
Art. 27. Reclusion perpetua. —The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be from
twenty years and one day to forty years.
Reclusion temporal. — The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be from twelve years
and one day to twenty years.
Prision mayor and temporary disqualification. — The duration of the penalties of

prision mayor and temporary disqualification shall be from six years and one day
to twelve years, except when the penalty of disqualification is imposed as an
accessory penalty, in which case its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.
Prision correccional, suspension, and destierro. — The duration of the penalties of

prision correccional, suspension and destierro shall be from six months and one
day to six years, except when suspension is imposed as an accessory penalty, in
which case, its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.
Arresto mayor. — The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor shall be from one
month and one day to six months.
Arresto menor. — The duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall be from one
day to thirty days.
Bond to keep the peace. — The bond to keep the peace shall be required to cover
such period of time as the court may determine.
● 3 FOLD RULE: the maximum duration of the convict’s sentence shall not be more than 3
times the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him.
● the maximum duration of the convict’s sentence shall in no case exceed 40 years
* 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.
● Temporary disqualification and suspension, when imposed as accessory penalties, have

different durations – they follow the duration of the principal penalty
● Destierro is imposed in the following circumstances:
a serious physical injuries or death under exceptional circumstances (Art. 247)
b failure to give bond for good behavior ( a person making threat may be required to give
bond not to molest the person threatened, if not destierro)
c penalty for the concubine
d in cases where the reduction of the penalty by one or more degrees results in destierro
83
* Destierro is a principal penalty. It is a punishment whereby a convict is vanished to a certan 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 evasion of service of sentence under Article 157. But if the convict himself would go
further from which he is vanished by the court, there is no evasion of sentence because the 250-Km. limit
is upon the authority of the court in vanishing the convict
● Bond to keep the peace is not specifically provided as a penalty for any felony and
therefore cannot be imposed by the court. It is required in Art 284 and not to be given in
cases involving other crimes.
● Summary:
a Perpetual penalties (R.P.) – (20 yrs 1day – 40yrs) after 30 years, can be pardoned, except
when he is unworthy of pardon by reason of his conduct and some other serious cause, it
won’t exceed 40 years.
b Reclusion Temporal – 12 yrs and 1 day to 20 yrs
c Prision Mayor and temporary disqualification – 6 yrs and 1 day to 12 yrs; disqualification if
accessory follows the duration of the principal penalty
d Prision Correccional, suspension and destierro – 6 mos and 1 day to 12 yrs; disqualification
if accessory follows the duration of the principal penalty
e Arresto Mayor – 1 month and 1 day to 6 months
f Arresto Menor – 1 day to 30 days
g Bond to keep the peace – the period during which the bond shall be effective is
discretionary to the court
Capital and Afflictive Penalties
Death Reclusion Reclusion Prison Mayor

Perpetua Temporal
Term of None 20 years and 1 12 years and 1 6 years and 1 day
Imprison- day to 40 years day to 20 years to 12 years
ment
Accessory None, unless -Civil Interdiction -Civil -Temporary
Penalties pardoned: or during his Interdiction or absolute
-Perpetual sentence during his disqualification
absolute sentence -Perpetual special
disqualification -Perpetual disqualification
absolute -Perpetual from the right of
-Civil disqualification absolute suffrage which the
interdiction for disqualification offender suffers
30 years although pardoned
Correctional and Light Penalties
Prison Correctional Arresto Mayor Arresto Menor

Imprison- 6 months and 1 day to 6 1 month and 1 day 1 day to 30 days
ment years to 6 months
84
Accessory -Suspension from public -Suspension of right -Suspension of right
Penalties office to hold office to hold office
-Suspension from the right to -Suspension of the -Suspension of the

follow a profession or calling right of suffrage right of suffrage
during the term of during the term of
-Perpetual special the sentence the sentence
disqualification on the right of
suffrage
* Reclusion perpetua, despite its “defined duration” in R.A. 7659 – 20 years and one day to 40
years – is still to be classified as an indivisible penalty (People vs. Lucas, 232 SCRA 537), and
should be imposed in its entire duration in accordance with Art. 63 of the Revised Penal Cde.
(People vs. Magallano, 266 SCRA 305)
Art. 28. Computation of penalties. — If the offender shall be in prison, the term
of the duration of the temporary penalties shall be computed from the day on
which the judgment of conviction shall have become final.
If the offender be not in prison, the term of the duration of the penalty
consisting of deprivation of liberty shall be computed from the day that the
offender is placed at the disposal of the judicial authorities for the enforcement of
the penalty. The duration of the other penalties shall be computed only from the
day on which the defendant commences to serve his sentence.
● Director of Prisons/warden to compute based on Art 28:
a When the offender is in prison – the duration of the temporary penalties (PAD, TAD,
detention, suspension) is from the day on which the judgment of conviction becomes
final.
b When the offender is not in prison – the duration of the penalty in deprivation of liberty is
from the day that the offender is placed at the disposal of judicial authorities for the
enforcement of the penalty
c The duration of the other penalties – the duration is from the day on which the offender
commences to serve his sentence
● Reason for rule (a) – because under Art 24, the arrest and temporary detention of the
accused is not considered a penalty
● if in custody, the accused appealed, the service of the sentence should commence from the
date of the promulgation of the decision of the appellate court, not from the date of the
judgment of the trial court was promulgated.
● service of one in prison begins only on the day the judgment of conviction becomes final.
● In cases if temporary penalties, if the offender is under detention, as when undergoing

preventive imprisonment, rule (a) applies.
● If not under detention (released on bail) rule (c) applies
● Offender under preventive imprisonment, rule (c) applies not rule (a)
● The offender is entitled to a deduction of full-time or 4/5 of the time of his detention.
Art. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of imprisonment.

— Offenders who have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in
the service of their sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full time
during which they have undergone preventive imprisonment, if the detention
85
prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules
imposed upon convicted prisoners, except in the following cases:
1. When they are recidivists or have been convicted previously twice or

more times of any crime; and
2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence they
have failed to surrender voluntarily.
If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same disciplinary
rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, he shall be credited in the service of his
sentence with four-fifths of the time during which he has undergone preventive
imprisonment. (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 he may be sentenced and his case is not yet terminated, he shall be
released immediately without prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof or
the proceeding on appeal, if the same is under review. In case the maximum
penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released
after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment. (As amended by E.O. No. 214, July
10, 1988)
● Accused undergoes preventive suspension if:

a offense is non-bailable
b bailable but can’t furnish bail
● the full time or 4/5 of the time during which the offenders have undergone preventive
suspension shall be deducted from the penalty imposed
● preventive imprisonment must also be considered in perpetual penalties. Article does not
make any distinction between temporal and perpetual penalties.
● Credit is given in the service of sentences “consisting of deprivation of liberty” (imprisonment

and destierro). Thus, persons who had undergone preventive imprisonment but the offense is
punishable by a fine only would not be given credit.
● Destierro is considered a “deprivation of liberty”
● If the penalty imposed is arresto menor to destierro, the accused who has been in prison for
30 days (arresto menor - 30 days) should be released because although the maximum
penalty is destierro (6 mos 1 day to 6 yrs), the accused sentenced to such penalty does not
serve it in prison.
The following offenders are not entitled to any deduction of the time of
preventive imprisonment:
1. Recidivists or those previously convicted for two or more times of any crime.
2. Those who, upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence, failed to
surrender voluntarily.
● Habitual Delinquents not entitled to the full time or 4/5 credit of time under preventive
imprisonment since he is necessarily a recidivist or has been convicted previously twice or
more times of any crime.
● Example: X who was arrested for serious physical injuries, detained for 1 year and went out
on bail but was later on found guilty. He was consequently summoned for the execution of
the sentence, but having failed to appear, X will not be credited in the service of his sentence
for serious physical injuries w/ one year or 4/5 of one year preventive imprisonment.
86
Art. 30. Effects of the penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification. — The penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification for public 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
exercise 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
formerly held.
● The exclusion is a mere disqualification for protection and not for punishment – the
withholding of a privilege, not a denial of a right.
● Perpetual absolute disqualification is effective during the lifetime of the convict and even after
the service of the sentence.
● Temporary absolute disqualification is effective during the term of sentence and is removed
after the service of the same. Exception: (1) deprivation of the public office or employment;
(2) loss of all rights to retirement pay or other pension for any office formerly held.
● Effects of Perpetual and temporary absolute disqualification:

a Deprivation of any public office or employment of offender
b Deprivation of the right to vote in any election or to be voted upon
c Loss of rights to retirement pay or pension
d All these effects last during the lifetime of the convict and even after the service of the
sentence except as regards paragraphs 2 and 3 of the above in connection with
Temporary Absolute Disqualification.
Art. 31. Effect of the penalties of perpetual or temporary special disqualification.

— 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

perpetually or during the term of the sentence according to the extent of such
disqualification.
Art. 32. Effect of the penalties of perpetual or temporary special disqualification

for the exercise of the right of suffrage. — The perpetual or temporary special
disqualification for the exercise of the right of suffrage shall deprive the offender
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 office or to be
elected to such office. Moreover, the offender shall not be permitted to hold any
public office during the period of his disqualification.
87
● Temporary disqualification if imposed as an accessory penalty, its duration is that of the
principal penalty
● Effects of Perpetual and Temporary Special Disqualification
a. For public office, profession, or calling

1. Deprivation of the office, employment, profession or calling affected
2. Disqualification for holding similar offices or employment during the period of
disqualification
b. For the exercise of the right of suffrage

1. Deprivation of the right to vote or to be elected in an office.
Cannot hold any public office during the period of disqualification.
Art. 33. Effects of the penalties of suspension from any public office, profession or
calling, or the right of suffrage. — The suspension from public office, profession or
calling, and the exercise of the right of suffrage shall disqualify the 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
similar functions during the period of his suspension.
● Effects:
a Disqualification from holding such office or the exercise of such profession or right of
suffrage during the term of the sentence.
b Cannot hold another office having similar functions during the period of 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, either
as to the person or property of any ward, of marital authority, of the right to
manage his property and of the right to dispose of such property by any act or any
conveyance inter vivos.
● Effects:
a. Deprivation of the following rights:
1. Parental rights
2. Guardianship over the ward
3. Martial authority
4. Right to manage property and to dispose of the same by acts inter vivos
b. Civil Interdiction is an accessory penalty to the following principal penalties
1. If death penalty is commuted to life imprisonment
2. Reclusion perpetua
3. Reclusion temporal
● He can dispose of such property by will or donation mortis causa
Art. 35. Effects of bond to keep the peace. — It shall be the duty of any person
sentenced to give bond to keep the peace, to present two sufficient sureties who
shall undertake that such person will not commit the offense sought to be
prevented, and that in case such offense be committed they will pay the amount
determined by the court in the judgment, or otherwise to deposit such amount in
the office of the clerk of the court to guarantee said undertaking.
The court shall determine, according to its discretion, the period of duration
of the bond.
Should the person sentenced fail to give the bond as required he shall be
detained for a period which shall in no case exceed six months, is he shall have
88
been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall not exceed thirty days,
if for a light felony.
● Bond to keep the peace is different from bail bond which is posted for the provisional release
of a person arrested for or accused of a crime. Bond to keep the peace or for good behavior
is imposed as a penalty in threats.
* The legal effect of a failure to post a bond to keep the peace is imprisonment either for six months or 30
days, depending on whether the felony committed is grave or less grave on one hand, or it is light only on
the other hand. The legal effect of failure to post a bond for good behavior is not imprisonment but
destierro under Article 284.
Art. 36. Pardon; its effect. — A pardon shall not work the restoration of the
right to hold public office, or the right of suffrage, unless such rights be expressly
restored by the terms of the pardon.
A pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil
indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence.
● Pardon by the President does not restore the right to public office or suffrage except when
both are expressly restored in the pardon. Nor does it exempt from civil liability/from payment
of civil indemnity.
● Limitations to President’s power to pardon:

a can be exercised only after final judgment
b does not extend to cases of impeachment
c does not extinguish civil liability – only criminal liability
● General rule:Pardon granted in general terms does not include accessory penalties.
● Exceptions:
a. If the absolute pardon is granted after the term of imprisonment has expired, it removes
all that is left of the consequences of conviction. However, if the penalty is life
imprisonment and after the service of 30 years, a pardon is granted, the pardon does not
remove the accessory penalty of absolute perpetual disqualification
b. if the facts and circumstances of the case show that the purpose of the President is to
precisely restore the rights i.e., granting absolute pardon after election to a post (mayor)
but before the date fixed by law for assuming office to enable him to assume the position
in deference to the popular will
Pardon must be accepted
Pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the Chief Executive, which exempts the
individual upon whom it is bestowed from the punishment which the law inflicts for the crime he
has committed. It is a private, though official, act of the Chief Executive delivered to the
individual for whose benefit it is not intended. It is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is
essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance. Until delivery, all that may have been
done is a matter of intended favor, and the pardon may be cancelled to accord with the change
of intention. If cancelled before acceptance, it has no effect.
Effects of Pardon
There are two kinds of pardon that may be extended by the President. The first one is
known as conditional pardon. This pardon contemplates of a situation wherein the offender is
granted temporary liberty under certain conditions. If he violates the conditions of this pardon,
he commits a crime known as evasion of service of sentence.
Then we have absolute pardon – when an absolute pardon is granted, it releases the
offender from the punishment imposed by the court on him, so that in the eyes of the law, the
offender is innocent as if he had never committed the offense. It removes the penalties and
89
disabilities and restores him to all his civil rights. It makes him a new man and gives him a new
credit and capacity.
* Pardon relieves the offender from the consequences of an offense for which he has been
convicted, that it, it abolishes or forgives the punishment, subject to exceptions mentioned in
Art. 36.
● Pardon by the offended party – does not extinguish criminal liability, may include offended
party waiving civil indemnity and it is done before the institution of the criminal prosecution
and extended to both offenders.
Pardon by the Chief Executive distinguished from pardon by the offended party:
1. Pardon by the Chief Executive extinguishes the criminal liability of the offender; such is
not the case when the pardon is given by the offended party.
2. Pardon by the Chief Executive cannot include civil liability which the offender must pay;
but the offended party can waive the civil liability which the offender must pay.
3. In cases where the law allows pardon by the offended party, the pardon should be given
before the institution of criminal prosecution and must be extended to both offenders.
This is not true for pardon extended by the Chief Executive for the same may be
extended to offenders whether the crime committed is public or private offense.
Art. 37. Cost. — What are included. — Costs shall include fees and indemnities
in the course of the judicial proceedings, whether they be fixed or unalterable
amounts previously determined by law or regulations in force, or amounts not
subject to schedule.
● Costs include:
a. fees
b. indemnities in the course of judicial proceedings
● Costs (expenses of the litigation) are chargeable to the accused in case of conviction.
● In case of acquittal, the costs are de oficio, each party bearing is own expense
● No costs allowed against the Republic of the Philippines until law provides the contrary
Art. 38. Pecuniary liabilities. — Order of payment. — In case the property of the
offender should not be sufficient for the payment of all his pecuniary liabilities, the
same shall be met in the following order:
1. The reparation of the damage caused.
2. Indemnification of consequential damages.
3. The fine.
4. The cost of the proceedings.
Pecuniary liability as contemplated under Art. 38 includes both civil liabilities and
pecuniary penalties except the civil liability of restitution because this is an exclusive liability.
Civil liability consists of reparation and indemnification while pecuniary penalty consists
of fine imposed by the court.
90
* It is worth noting, as will further be discussed under Art. 89, that the death of the offender
before final judgment extinguishes the pecuniary penalty but not the civil liability included in his
pecuniary liabilities.
● Applicable “in case property of the offender should not be sufficient for the payment of all his
pecuniary liabilities.” Hence, if the offender has insufficient or no property, there is no use for
Art 38.
● Order of payment is mandatory
● Example: Juan inflicted serious physical injuries against Pedro and took the latter’s watch
and ring. He incurred 500 worth of hospital bills and failed to earn 300 worth of salary. Given
that Juan only has 1000 pesos worth of property not exempt from execution, it shall be first
applied to the payment of the watch and ring which cannot be returned as such is covered by
“reparation of the damage caused” thus, no. 1 in the order of payment. The 500 and 300 are
covered by “indemnification of the consequential damage” thus, no. 2 in the order of
payment.
Art. 39. Subsidiary penalty. — If the convict has no property with which to
meet the fine mentioned in the paragraph 3 of the next preceding article, he shall
be subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each eight
pesos, subject to the following rules:
1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correccional or arresto and

fine, he shall remain under confinement until his fine referred to in the preceding
paragraph is satisfied, but his subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third
of the term of the sentence, and in no case shall it continue for more than one
year, and no fraction or part of a day shall be counted against the prisoner.
2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the subsidiary

imprisonment shall not exceed six months, if the culprit shall have been
prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall not exceed fifteen days, if
for a light felony.
3. When the principal imposed is higher than prision correccional, no

subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed upon the culprit.
4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed by confinement in a

penal institution, but such penalty is of fixed duration, the convict, during the
period of time established in the preceding rules, shall continue to suffer the same
deprivations as those of which the principal penalty consists.
5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may have suffered by
reason of his insolvency shall not relieve him, from the fine in case his financial
circumstances should improve. (As amended by RA 5465, April 21, 1969.)
● There is no subsidiary penalty for non-payment of reparation, indemnification and costs in

par 1, 2 and 4 of Art 38. It is only for fines.
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 to the offended party.
● Art 39 applies only when the convict has no property with which to meet the fine in par 3 of
art 38. Thus, a convict who has property enough to meet the fine and not exempted from
execution cannot choose to serve the subsidiary penalty instead of the payment of the fine.
91
* 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 penalty 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 the
writ.
● Subsidiary imprisonment is not an accessory penalty. It is covered by Art 40-45 of this Code.
Accessory penalties are deemed imposed even when not mentioned while subsidiary
imprisonment must be expressly imposed.
* A subsidiary penalty is not an accessory penalty. Since it is not an accessory penalty, it must be
expressly stated in the sentence, but the sentence 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 that in
case of non-payment of the fine, the convict shall be required to save subsidiary penalty. It will then be the
prison authority who will compute this. If the judgment is silent, he cannot suffer any subsidiary penalty.
● Rules:
PENALTY IMPOSED LENGTH OF SUBSIDIARY PENALTY
Prision correccional or arresto and fine Not exceed 1/3 of term of sentence, in no case
more than 1 year fraction or part of a day not
counted.
Fine only Not to exceed 6 months if prosecuted for grave
or less grave felony, not to exceed 15 days if
prosecuted for light felony
Higher than prision correccional No subsidiary imprisonment
Not to be executed by confinement but of Same deprivations as those of the principal
fixed duration penalty under rules 1, 2 and 3 above
When is subsidiary penalty applied
(1) If the subsidiary penalty prescribed for the non-payment of fine which goes with 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 principal 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 principal penalty
imposed be fine only, which is a single penalty, that means it does not go with another principal
penalty, the most that the convict will be required to undergo subsidiary imprisonment is six
months, if the felony committed is grave or less grave, otherwise, if the felony committed is slight,
the maximum duration of the subsidiary penalty is only 15 days.
* 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, then, even if the totality of all the
sentences without applying the Three-Fold Rule will go beyond six years, the convict shall be required to
undergo subsidiary penalty if he could not pay the fine.
● If financial circumstances improve, convict still to pay the fine even if he has suffered
subsidiary personal liability.
● the penalty imposed must be PC, AM, Am, suspension, destierro and fine only. – other than
these (PM, RT, RP) court cannot impose subsidiary penalty.
● Even if the penalty imposed is not higher than PC, if the accused is a habitual delinquent who
deserves an additional penalty of 12 yrs and 1 day of RT, there is no subsidiary
imprisonment.
* Subsidiary imprisonment can be applied to the fine imposed for violation of special penal laws.
This is authorized by Art. 1732 and by Art. 10 which makes the Revised Penal Code applicable to
special laws.
Art. 40. Death — Its accessory penalties. — The death penalty, when it is not
executed by reason of commutation or pardon shall carry with it that of perpetual
absolute disqualification and that of civil interdiction during thirty years following
92
the date sentence, unless such accessory penalties have been expressly remitted
in the pardon.
Art. 41. Reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal. — Their accessory penalties.
— The penalties of reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal shall carry with
them that of civil interdiction for life or during the period of the sentence as the
case may be, and that of perpetual absolute disqualification which the offender
shall suffer even though pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same
shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon.
Art. 42. Prision mayor — Its accessory penalties. — The penalty of prision
mayor, shall carry with it that of temporary absolute disqualification and that of
perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage which the offender
shall suffer although pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall
have been expressly remitted in the pardon.
Art. 43. Prision correccional — Its accessory penalties. — The penalty of prision
correccional shall carry with it that of suspension from public office, from the right
to follow a profession or calling, and that of perpetual special disqualification from
the right of suffrage, if the duration of said imprisonment shall exceed eighteen
months. The offender shall suffer the disqualification provided in the article
although pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been
expressly remitted in the pardon.
Art. 44. Arresto — Its accessory penalties. — The penalty of arresto shall carry
with it that of suspension of the right too hold office and the right of suffrage
during the term of the sentence.
● Outline of accessory penalties inherent in principal penalties

a. death – if not executed because of commutation or pardon
1. perpetual absolute disqualification
2. civil interdiction during 30 years (if not expressly remitted in the pardon)
b. RP and RT
1. civil interdiction for life or during the sentence
2. perpetual absolute disqualification (unless expressly remitted in the pardon)
c. PM
1. temporary absolute disqualification
2. perpetual absolute disqualification from suffrage (unless expressly remitted in the
pardon)
d. PC
1. suspension from public office, profession or calling
2. perpetual special disqualification from suffrage if the duration of the imprisonment
exceeds 18 months (unless expressly remitted in the pardon)
● The accessory penalties in Art 40-44 must be suffered by the offender, although pardoned as
to the principal penalties. To be relieved of these penalties, they must be expressly remitted
in the pardon.
● No accessory penalty for destierro
● Persons who served out the penalty may not have the right to exercise the right of suffrage.
For a prisoner who has been sentenced to one year of imprisonment or more for any crime,
absolute pardon restores to him his political rights. If the penalty is less than one year,
disqualification does not attach except if the crime done was against property.
93
● The nature of the crime is immaterial when the penalty imposed is one year imprisonment or
more.
● The accessory penalties are understood to be always imposed upon the offender by the
mere fact that the law fixes a certain penalty for the crime. Whenever the courts impose a
penalty which by provision of law, carries with it other penalties, it’s understood that the
accessory penalties are also imposed.
● the accessory penalties do not affect the jurisdiction of the court in which the information is
filed because they don’t modify or alter the nature of the penalty provided by law. What
determines jurisdiction in criminal cases is the extent of the principal penalty w/c the law
imposes of the crime charged.
● the MTC has exclusive jurisdiction over offenses punishable with imprisonment of not
exceeding 4 years and 2 months or a fine of not more than 4000 or both regardless of other
imposable accessory or other penalties.
Art. 45. Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of the crime. —
Every penalty imposed for the commission of a felony shall carry with it the
forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and the instruments or tools with which it
was committed.
Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be confiscated and forfeited in

favor of the Government, unless they be property of a third person not liable for
the offense, but those articles which are not subject of lawful commerce shall be
destroyed.
● every penalty imposed carries with it the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and the
instruments or tools used in the commission of the crime
● proceeds and instruments/tools of the crime are confiscated in favor of the government
● 3rd persons’ (not liable for the offense) property is not subject to confiscation and forfeiture
● property not subject of lawful commerce (whether it belongs to accused or 3rd person) shall
be destroyed.
● can’t confiscate/forfeit unless there’s a criminal case filed and tried, and accused is
acquitted.
● must indict 3rd person to order confiscation of his property
● instruments of the crime belonging to innocent 3rd person may be recovered

● confiscation can be ordered only if the property is submitted in evidence or placed at the
disposal of the court
● articles which are forfeited - when the order of forfeiture is already final, can’t be returned
even in case of an acquittal
● confiscation and forfeiture are additional penalties. Where the penalty imposed did not
include the confiscation of the goods involved, the confiscation & forfeiture of said goods
would be an additional penalty and would amount to an increase of the penalty already
imposed, thereby placing the accused in double jeopardy.
● when the accused has appealed, confiscation and forfeiture not ordered by the trial court
may be imposed by the appellate court
● the government can’t appeal the modification of a sentence if the defendant did not appeal.
But if the defendant appeals, it removes all bars to the review and correction of the penalty
imposed by the court below, even if an increase thereof should be the result.
94
Art. 46. Penalty to be imposed upon principals in general. — The penalty
prescribed by law for the commission of a felony shall be imposed upon the
principals in the commission of such felony.
Whenever the law prescribes a penalty for a felony in general terms, it shall
be understood as applicable to the consummated felony.
● General rule: The penalty prescribed by law in general terms shall be imposed:
a upon the principals
b for consummated felony
● Exception: when the law fixes a penalty for the frustrated or attempted felony.
* Whenever it is believed that the penalty lower by one or two degrees corresponding to said
acts of execution is not proportionate to the wrong done, the law fixes a distinct penalty for the
principal in the frustrated or attempted felony.
● The graduation of penalties refers to:

a stages of execution (consummated, frustrated, attempted)
b degree of the criminal participation of the offender (principal, accomplice, accessory)
● the division of a divisible penalty (min, med, max) refers to the proper period of the penalty
which should be imposed when aggravating or mitigating circumstances attend the
commission of the crime.
Art. 47. In what cases the death penalty shall not be imposed; Automatic review of
death penalty cases. – The death penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which it
must be imposed under existing laws, except when the guilty person is below
eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the crime or is more
than seventy (70) years of age or when upon appeal or automatic review of the
case by the Supreme Court, the required majority vote is not obtained for the
imposition of the death penalty, in which cases the penalty shall be reclusion
perpetua.
In all cases where the death penalty is imposed by the trial court, the
records shall be forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review and
judgment by the court en banc, within twenty (20) days but not earlier than fifteen
(15) days after promulgation of the judgment or notice of denial of any motion for
new trial or consideration. The transcript shall also be forwarded within ten (10)
days after the filing thereof by the stenographic reporter. (As amended by Sec. 22, RA
7659).
● whenever the judgment of the lower court imposes the death penalty, the case shall be
determined by 10 justices of the court. When 10 justices fail to reach a decision (as to the
propriety of the imposition of the death penalty), the penalty next lower in degree than the
death penalty shall be imposed.
● Death penalty not imposed in the ff cases:

a) when the person is more than 70 years old at time RTC sentenced him
b) when upon appeal or revision of the case by the SC, 10 justices are not unanimous in
their voting
c) when the offender is a minor under 18 yrs of age. Why? Because minority is always a
mitigating circumstance
d) while a woman is pregnant and within one year after delivery
● Justification for the death penalty: social defense and exemplarity. Not considered cruel and
unusual because does not involve torture or lingering death.
● Crimes where death penalty is imposed:

95
a) treason
b) certain acts of espionage under Commonwealth Act 616
c) correspondence w/ hostile country when it contains notice or information and the
intention of the offender is to aid the enemy
d) qualified piracy
e) certain violations of the Anti-subversion act
f) parricide
g) murder
h) kidnapping and serious illegal detention
i) robbery w/ homicide
j) rape w/ homicide
k) when death resulted from the commission of arson or other crime involving destruction
● trial court must require the prosecution to present evidence, despite plea of guilty, when the
crime charged is punished by death. A sentence of death is valid only if it is susceptible of a
fair and reasonable examination by the court. This is impossible if no evidence of guilt was
taken after a plea of guilty.
Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. — When a single act constitutes two or
more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for
committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the
same to be applied in its maximum period.
● The 2 or more grave or less grave felonies must be the result of a single act, or an offense must be a
necessary means to commit the crime.
● Complex crime – one crime only as there is only one criminal intent – only one information
need be filed
● 2 kinds of complex crimes:

a) compound crime – single act constitutes 2 or more grave or less grave felonies
Requisites:
1) that only one single act is committed by the offender
2) that the single act produces

a) 2 or more grave felonies
b) one or more grave and one or more less grave felonies
c) 2 or more less grave felonies
b) complex crime proper – when an offense is a necessary means for committing another
Requisites:
1) that at least 2 offenses are committed
2) that one or some of the offenses must be necessary to commit the other
3) that both or all the offenses must be punished under the same statute
● No single act in the following cases:
a) When 2 persons are killed one after the other, by different acts, although these 2 killings
were the result of a single criminal impulse, the different acts must be considered as
distinct crimes.
b) When the acts are wholly different, not only in themselves, but also because they are
directed against 2 different persons, as when one fires his gun twice in succession, killing
one and injuring the other.
* When an offender performed more than one act, although similar, if they result in separate crimes, there
is no complex crime at all, instead, the offender shall be prosecuted for as many crimes as are committed
under separate information.
96
* When the single act brings about two or more crimes, the offender is punished with only one penalty,
although in the maximum period, because he acted only with single criminal impulse. if there is only one
criminal impulse which brought about the commission of the crime, the offender should be penalized only
once. In this case it is not the singleness of the act but the singleness of the impulse that has been
considered
● Light felonies produced by the same act should be treated and punished as separate
offenses or may be absorbed by the grave felony.
Examples:
a) several light felonies resulting from one single act – not complex
Juan hit Pedro’s car, resulting in several light injuries and light felony of damage to
property. No complex crime because the crime of slight physical injuries and damage to
property are light felonies. There are as many crimes as there are persons injured w/ light
physical injuries and as many penalties as there are light felonies committed, even
though they are produced by a single act of the offender.
b) when the crime is committed by force or violence, slight physical injuries are absorbed.
● Examples of complex crimes:

a) Juan was a barangay captain who was killed while discharging his duty, the crime is a
complex crime of homicide w/ assault upon a person of authority.
b) Juan raped Petra, causing her physical injuries w/c required a month’s worth of medical
attention. This is a complex crime of rape w/ less serious physical injuries. The injuries
were necessary to the commission of the rape.
● when in obedience to an order, several accused simultaneously shot many persons, without
evidence how many each killed, there is only a single offense, there being a single criminal
impulse.
Effect of conspiracy in the commission of a complex crime. When a conspiracy animates

several persons in the attainment of a single purpose, and in the process, several persons
perform various acts in the attainment of said purpose, their individual acts are treated as a
single act. The felonious agreement produces a sole and solidary liability.
● when various acts are executed for the attainment of a single purpose w/c constitutes an
offense, such acts must be considered only as one offense.
Example: Juan falsified 100 warehouse receipts from April to June which enabled him to
swindle the bank of 100 million. There’s only one complex crime of estafa through multiple
falsification of documents.
● There is no complex crime of arson w/ homicide
● Art 48 is applicable to crimes through negligence
Example: Juan lit a cigarette as he poured gas in the tank of his car in his garage. The gas
caught fire and the house burned. His sister died and the maid suffered serious physical
injuries. The crimes of arson, homicide, serious physical injuries and damage to property
constitute a complex crime. There is only one penalty but there are 3 civil liabilities.
* Article 48 also applies in cases when out of a single act of negligence or imprudence, two or more grave
or less grave felonies resulted, although only the first 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
deliberate commission of one offense to commit another offense.
● No complex crime when one of the offenses is penalized by a special law
* Article 48 is not applicable when the crimes committed are made punishable by different laws.
* Mala prohibita and mala in se cannot be grouped together to form a complex crime under
Article 48
97
● Example of complex crime proper (at least 2 crimes must be committed):
Kidnapping the victim to murder him in a secluded place – ransom wasn’t paid so victim was
killed. Kidnapping was a necessary means to commit murder. But where the victim was taken
from his home for the sole purpose of killing him and not for detaining him illegally or for the
purpose of ransom, the crime is simple murder.
● “Necessary means” does not mean “indispensable means”. Indispensable would mean it is
an element of the crime. The crime can be committed by another mean. The means actually
employed (another crime) was merely to facilitate and insure the consummation of the crime.
* “Necessary” should not be understood as indispensable, otherwise, it shall be considered absorbed and
not giving rise to a complex crime.
● When in the definition of a felony, one offense is a means to commit the other, there is no
complex crime.
Ex. Murder committed by means of fire. Murder can be qualified by the circumstance of fire
so no complex crime even if Art 321 and 324 punishes arson. It’s plain and simple murder.
* There is no disagreement that when a crime is committed because it is necessary to commit

another crime, it is a complex crime and Article 48 is made applicable. However, the crime
committed is an element of the other crime, then it is not considered a separate crime but is
absorbed by the other crime.
● Not complex crime when trespass to dwelling is a direct means to commit a grave offense.
Like rape, there is no complex crime of trespass to dwelling with rape. Trespass will be
considered as aggravating (unlawful entry or breaking part of a dwelling)
● No complex crime when one offense is committed to conceal another
Example: Juan set the school on fire after committing homicide. 2 crimes.
● When the offender had in his possession the funds w/c he misappropriated, the falsification
of a public or official document involving said funds is a separate offense. But when the
offender had to falsify a public or official document to obtain possession of the funds w/c he
misappropriated, the falsification is a necessary means to commit the malversation.
● There is no complex crime of rebellion with murder, arson, robbery or other common crimes.
They are mere ingredients of the crime of rebellion – absorbed already.
* When the crime of murder, arson and robbery are committed in the furtherance of the crime of
rebellion, it is not a complex crime of rebellion with murder, arson and robbery. The crime
committed is simple rebellion. The crimes of murder, arson and robbery are treated as elements
of rebellion. Note however, that in order that said crimes may be absorbed, it is necessary that
the same were done in furtherance of the crime of rebellion. (Pp vs. Geronimo)
● When 2 crimes produced by a single act are respectively within the exclusive jurisdiction of 2
courts of different jurisdiction, the court of higher jurisdiction shall try the complex crime.
Example: Although the forcible abduction which was supposedly commenced in Manila was
not proven, and although the rape which was proven was actually committed in Cavite, still
the RTC of Manila had jurisdiction to convict the accused of rape. The complex crime of
forcible abduction with rape was charged in the complaint on the basis of which the case was
tried.
* In criminal procedure, it is prohibited to charge more than one offense in an information, except when
the crimes in one information constitute a complex crime or a special complex crime.
* So whenever the Supreme Court concludes that the criminal should be punished only once, because
they acted in conspiracy or under the same criminal impulse, it is necessary to embody these crimes
under one single information. It is necessary to consider them as complex crimes even if the essence of
the crime does not fit the definition of Art 48, because there is no other provision in the RPC.
● Art. 48 is intended to favor the culprit.
98
● The penalty for complex crime is the penalty for the most serious crime, the same to be
applied in its maximum period. If the different crimes resulting from one single act are
punished with the same penalty, the penalty for any one of them shall be imposed, the same
to be applied in the maximum period. The same rule shall be observed when an offense is a
necessary means to commit the other.
* If by complexing the crime, the penalty would turn out to be higher, do not complex anymore.
Example: Murder and theft (killed with treachery, then stole the right).
Penalty: If complex – Reclusion temporal maximum to death.
If treated individually – Reclusion temporal to Reclusion Perpetua.
* Complex crime is not just a matter of penalty, but of substance under the Revised Penal Code.
● A complex crime of the second form may be committed by two persons.
● But when one of the offenses, as a means to commit the other, was committed by one of the
accused by reckless imprudence, the accused who committed the crime by reckless
imprudence is liable for his acts only.
Example: Juan cooperated in the commission of the complex offense of estafa through
falsification by reckless imprudence by acts without which it could not have been
accomplished, and this being a fact, there would be no reason to exculpate him from liability.
Even assuming he had no intention to defraud Tomas if his co-defendants succeeded in
attaining the purpose sought by the culprits, Juan’s participation together w/ the participation
of his co-defendants in the commission of the offense completed all the elements necessary
for the perpetration of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of documents.
● When two felonies constituting a complex crime are punishable by imprisonment and fine,
respectively, only the penalty of imprisonment shall be imposed.
● When a single act constitutes two grave or less grave or one grave and another less grave,
and the penalty for one is imprisonment while that for the other is fine, the severity of the
penalty for the more serious crime should not be judged by the classification of each of the
penalties involved, but by the nature of the penalties.
Example: Even if the fine for damage to property through reckless imprudence is P40,000, an
afflictive penalty, and the penalty for the physical injuries resulting from the same act is only 4
mos of arresto mayor, a correccional penalty may be imposed.
● In the order of severity of the penalties, arresto mayor and arresto menor are considered
more severe than destierro and arresto menor is higher in degree than destierro.
● Fine is not included in the list of penalties in the order of severity and it is the last in the order.
● Art 48 applies only to cases where the Code doesn’t provide a specific penalty for a complex
crime.
● Art 48 doesn’t apply when the law provides one single penalty for single complex crimes like
the ff: (composite crimes)
a) robbery w/ homicide
b) robbery w/ rape
c) kidnapping w/ serious physical injuries
d) rape w/ homicide
* A composite crime is one in which substance is made up of more than one crime, but which in the eyes
of the law is only a single indivisible offense. This is also known as special complex crime.
● When a complex crime is charged and one offense is not proven, the accused can be
convicted of the other.
● PLURALITY OF CRIMES – consists in the successive execution by the same individual of

different criminal acts upon any of w/c no conviction has yet been declared.
● Kinds of plurality of crimes:

99
a) formal or ideal – only one criminal liability
b) real or material – there are different crimes in law as well as in the conscience of the
offender, in such cases, the offender shall be punished for each and every offense that he
committed.
Example: Juan stabbed Pedro, then Juan stabbed Tomas too. There are 2 committed as 2
acts were performed.
* When the plurality of crimes is covered by a specific provision of law and declares that such
aggrupation is but a single crime and provides a specific penalty for its commission, Art. 48
should not be made to apply. When there is no law that covers the combination of the crimes
committed, then Art. 48 will apply.
PLURALITY OF CRIMES RECIDIVISM

No conviction of the crimes committed There must be conviction by final judgment of
the first prior offense
● Formal/ideal plural crimes are divided into 3 groups: (a person committing multiple
crimes is punished w/ one penalty in the ff cases)
a) when the offender commits any of the complex crimes defined in art 48
b) when the law specifically fixes a single penalty for 2 or more offenses committed: robbery
w/ homicide, kidnapping w/ serious physical injuires
c) when the offender commits continued crimes
● CONTINUED CRIMES – refers to a single crime consisting of a series of acts but all arising
from one criminal resolution. Although there is a series of acts, there is only one crime
committed, so only one penalty shall be imposed.
A “continued crime” is one where the offender performs a series of acts violating one and the same
penal provision committed at the same place and about the same time for the same criminal purpose,
regardless of a series of acts done, it is regarded in law as one.
* When the actor, there being unity of purpose and of right violated, commits diverse acts, each
of which, although of a delictual character, merely constitutes a partial delict, such occurrence of
delictual acts is called “delicto continuado”.” (Gamboa vs. Court of Appeals, 68 SCRA 314)
● Examples of continued crimes:

a) a collector of a commercial firm misappropriates for his personal use several amounts
collected by him from different persons. There is only one crime because the different
and successive appropriations are but the different moments during which one criminal
resolution arises.
b) Juan stole 2 books belonging to 2 different persons. He commits only one crime because
there is unity of thought in the criminal purpose of the offender.
● A continued crime is not a complex crime as offender does not perform a single act but a
series of acts. Therefore:
a) penalty not to be imposed in the maximum
b) no actual provision punishing a continued crime – it’s a principle applied in connection w/
2 or more crimes committed w/ a single intention.
● Continued crime is different from a transitory crime. Transitory crime is “moving crime”.
Example: kidnapping someone for ransom and moving him to another venue. The offenders
can be prosecuted and tried in either of the 2 areas.
REAL/MATERIAL PLURALITY CONTINUED CRIME

There is a series of acts performed by the Same
offender
Each act performed constitutes a separate Different acts constitute only one crime
crime because each act is generated by a because all of the acts performed arise from
criminal impulse one criminal resolution.
100
* 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.
Defamation cases
A libelous publication affecting more than one person constitutes as many crimes as
there are offended parties. The crime is not complex even though there was only one act of
publication.
Where the defamatory statement was uttered only once on a single occasion against a
group of persons not mentioned individually, the act constitutes only one offense.
Art. 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime committed is
different from that intended. — In cases in which the felony committed is different
from that which the offender intended to commit, the following rules shall be
observed:
1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher than that
corresponding to the offense which the accused intended to commit, the penalty
corresponding to the latter shall be imposed in its maximum period.
2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower than that
corresponding to the one which the accused intended to commit, the penalty for
the former shall be imposed in its maximum period.
3. The rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall not be

applicable if the acts committed by the guilty person shall also constitute an
attempt or frustration of another crime, if the law prescribes a higher penalty for
either of the latter offenses, in which case the penalty provided for the attempted
or the frustrated crime shall be imposed in its maximum period.
● Art 49 has reference to the provision in the 1st par of Art 4 which provides that criminal liability
shall be incurred “by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be
different from that which he intended”
● Art 49 applicable only in cases when there is a mistake in identity of the victim of the crime
and the penalty for the crime committed is different from that for the crime intended to be
committed.
● Art 49 also has no application where a more serious consequence not intended by the
offender befalls the same person.
Example: Juan only wanted to inflict a wound upon Pedro but because he lost control of his
right arm, he killed Pedro. Art 49 not applicable.
ART 49 ART 48
Lesser penalty to be imposed in its maximum Penalty for the more serious crime shall be
pd imposed in its maximum pd
Notes:
* Art. 49 has reference to Art. 4(1). It applies only when there is error in personae.
* In Art. 49 (Paragraphs 1 and 2) the lower penalty in its maximum period is always imposed.
* In Par. 3 the penalty for the attempted or frustrated crime shall be imposed in its maximum
period. This rule is not necessary and may well be covered by Art. 48, in view of the fact that the
same act also constitutes an attempt or a frustration of another crime.
101
Art. 50. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of a frustrated crime. —
The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated
felony shall be imposed upon the principal in a frustrated felony.
Art. 51. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of attempted crimes. — A penalty

lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony
shall be imposed upon the principals in an attempt to commit a felony.
Art. 52. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in consummated crime.

— The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the
consummated crime shall be imposed upon the accomplices in the commission of
a consummated felony.
Art. 53. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories to the commission of a
consummated felony. — The penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by
law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the
commission of a consummated felony.
Art. 54. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in a frustrated crime. —

The penalty next lower in degree than prescribed by law for the frustrated felony
shall be imposed upon the accomplices in the commission of a frustrated felony.
Art. 55. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of a frustrated crime. —

The penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the frustrated
felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the commission of a frustrated
felony.
Art. 56. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in an attempted crime. —

The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for an attempt to
commit a felony shall be imposed upon the accomplices in an attempt to commit
the felony.
Art. 57. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of an attempted crime. —

The penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the attempted
felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the attempt to commit a felony.
Application of Article 50 to 57
Participation Consummated Frustrated Attempted
Principal Penalty imposed by law 1° less 2° less
Accomplice 1° less 2° less 3° less
Accessory 2° less 3° less 4° less
● Art 50-57 not applicable when the law specifically prescribes the penalty for the frustrated
and attempted felony or that to be imposed upon the accomplices and accessories.
● Notes:
Degree – one whole penalty, one entire penalty or one unit of the penalties enumerated in
the graduated scales provided for in Art 71
Period – one of 3 equal portions, min/med/max of a divisible penalty. A period of a divisible

penalty when prescribed by the Code as a penalty for a felony, is in itself a degree.
Distinctions between Degree and Period

DEGREE PERIOD
Refers to the penalty imposable for a felony Refers to the duration of the penalty consisting
committed considering the stages of execution of the maximum, medium, and minimum, after
and the degree of participation of the offender considering the presence or absence of
aggravating / mitigating circumstances
102
May refer to both divisible and indivisible Refers only to divisible penalties
penalties
● The rules provided in Arts. 53, 55 and 57 do not apply if the felony is light because
accessories are not liable for the same
● Bases for imposition of the penalty under the RPC

a. Stage of the commission of the crime
Participation of the persons liable
Presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances
* In making any reduction by one or more degrees, the basis used in the penalty already
prescribed, not as already reduced.
Art. 58. Additional penalty to be imposed upon certain accessories. —

Those accessories falling within the terms of paragraphs 3 of Article 19 of this
Code who should act with abuse of their public functions, shall suffer the
additional penalty of absolute perpetual disqualification if the principal offender
shall be guilty of a grave felony, and that of absolute temporary disqualification if
he shall be guilty of a less grave felony.
● Art.58 is limited only to grave and less grave felonies since it is not possible to have
accessories liable for light felonies. It is further limited to those whose participation in the
crime is characterized by the misuse of public office or authority.
Example: a) A mayor aided in friend, a wanted criminal, in escaping

b) A senator gives protection to his jueteng lord friend
● Additional Penalties for Public Officers who are accessories

1. Absolute perpetual disqualification, if the principal offender is guilty of a grave felony.
2. Absolute temporary disqualification if the principal offender is guilty of less grave felony
Art. 59. Penalty to be imposed in case of failure to commit the crime because the
means employed or the aims sought are impossible. — When the person intending to
commit an offense has already performed the acts for the execution of the same
but nevertheless the crime was not produced by reason of the fact that the act
intended was by its nature one of impossible accomplishment or because the
means employed by such person are essentially inadequate to produce the result
desired by him, the court, having in mind the social danger and the degree of
criminality shown by the offender, shall impose upon him the penalty of arresto
mayor or a fine from 200 to 500 pesos.
● Basis for the imposition of proper penalty in impossible crimes: social danger and
degree of criminality shown by the offender.
Example: Juan fired a revolver at Pedro at the distance of 2 kilometers. This shows stupidity
rather than danger. Juan should not be punished as there is no social danger nor degree of
criminality.
But if Juan was a convicted felon, act may be punished.
● Article limited to those cases of grave and less grave felonies.
Art. 60. Exception to the rules established in Articles 50 to 57. — The provisions
contained in Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this Code shall not be applicable to
cases in which the law expressly prescribes the penalty provided for a frustrated
or attempted felony, or to be imposed upon accomplices or accessories.
103
● 2 cases wherein the accomplice is punished w/ the same penalty imposed upon the
principal
a) ascendants, guardians, curators, teachers and any person who by abuse of authority or
confidential relationship shall cooperate as accomplices in the crimes of rape, acts of
lasciviousness, seduction, corruption of minors, white slave trade or abduction.
b) one who furnished the place for the perpetration of the crime of slight illegal detention.
● Accessory punished as principal: Art 142 – punishes an accessory for knowingly

concealed certain evil practices.
● Cases when instead of a penalty 2 degrees lower, one degree for accessory:
a) knowingly using counterfeited seal or forged signature or stamp of the President
b) illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank note

c) using a falsified document
d) using a falsified dispatch
Art. 61. Rules for graduating penalties. — For the purpose of graduating the
penalties which, according to the provisions of Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this
Code, are to be imposed upon persons guilty as principals of any frustrated or
attempted felony, or as accomplices or accessories, the following rules shall be
observed:
1. When the penalty prescribed for the felony is single and indivisible, the
penalty next lower in degrees shall be that immediately following that indivisible
penalty in the respective graduated scale prescribed in Article 71 of this Code.
2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of two indivisible
penalties, or of one or more divisible penalties to be impose to their full extent, the
penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately following the lesser of the
penalties prescribed in the respective graduated scale.
3. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of one or two
indivisible penalties and the maximum period of another divisible penalty, the
penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the medium and minimum
periods of the proper divisible penalty and the maximum periods of the proper
divisible penalty and the maximum period of that immediately following in said
respective graduated scale.
4. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of several periods,
corresponding to different divisible penalties, the penalty next lower in degree
shall be composed of the period immediately following the minimum prescribed
and of the two next following, which shall be taken from the penalty prescribed, if
possible; otherwise from the penalty immediately following in the above
mentioned respective graduated scale.
5. When the law prescribes a penalty for a crime in some manner not
especially provided for in the four preceding rules, the courts, proceeding by
analogy, shall impose corresponding penalties upon those guilty as principals of
the frustrated felony, or of attempt to commit the same, and upon accomplices
and accessories.
● The rules provided in this Art should also apply in determining the minimum of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL). It also applies in lowering the penalty by one or two
degrees by reason of the presence of the privileged mitigating circumstance or when the
penalty is divisible and there are two or more mitigating circumstances.
104
Graduated Scale in Art 71
● Indivisible Penalties:
a) Death
b) Reclusion Perpetua
● Divisible Penalties:
a) Reclusion Temporal
b) Prision Mayor
c) Prision Correccional
d) Arresto Mayor
e) Destierro
f) Arresto Menor
g) Public Censure
h) Fine
● Rule No. 1:
When the penalty is single and indivisible (ex. RP), the penalty next lower shall be reclusion
temporal.
● Rule No. 2:
a) when the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties
Ex. penalty for parricide is reclusion perpetua to death, the next lower penalty is reclusion
temporal
b) when the penalty is composed of one or more divisible penalties to be imposed to their full
extent
Ex. 1) one divisible penalty is reclusion temporal. The penalty immediately following RT
is prision mayor.
2) 2 divisible penalties are prision correccional to prision mayor. The penalty immediately
preceding the lesser of the penalties of prision correccional to prision mayor is arresto
mayor.
● Rule No. 3:
When the penalty is composed of 2 indivisible penalties and the maximum period of a
divisible penalty or when composed of one divisible penalty the maximum of one divisible
penalty
Ex. penalty for murder is reclusion temporal(max) to death. The point of reference will be
on the proper divisible penalty which is reclusion temporal. Under the 3rd rule, the penalty
next lower to reclusion temporal is composed of the medium and minimum periods of
reclusion temporal and the maximum of prision mayor.
● Rule No.4:
When the penalty is composed of several periods
Ex. the “several” periods contemplated in this rule correspond to different divisible
penalties. A penalty of prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its
minimum period is an example of such. The penalty immediately following the minimum
of the entire sentence, which is prision mayor medium, is prision mayor in its minimum
and the 2 periods next following, which are prision correccional max and medium.
● Rule No.5:
When the penalty has only 2 periods
Ex. Abduction punishable by prision correccional in its medium and minimum. The next
penalty following is formed by 2 periods to be taken from the same penalty if possible or
from the periods of the penalty numerically following the lesser of the penalties
prescribed. The penalty next following prision correccional in its med and min shall be
arresto mayor in its med and max.
● Mitigating and Aggravating circumstances are first disregarded in the application of the rules
for graduating penalties. It is only after the penalty next lower in degree is already determined
that the mitigating and aggravating circumstances should be considered.
Art. 62. Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances and

of habitual delinquency. — Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual
105
delinquency shall be taken into account for the purpose of diminishing or
increasing the penalty in conformity with the following rules:
1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime

specially punishable by law or which are included by the law in defining a crime
and prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be taken into account for the
purpose of increasing the penalty.
1.(a) When in the commission of the crime, advantage was taken by the offender
of his public position, the penalty to be imposed shall be in its maximum
regardless of mitigating circumstances.
The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was committed by any
person who belongs to an organized / syndicated crime group.
An organized / syndicated crime group means a group of two or more persons

collaborating, confederating, or mutually helping one another for purposes of gain
in the commission of any crime.
2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstance
inherent in the crime to such a degree that it must of necessity accompany the
commission thereof.
3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the moral

attributes of the offender, or from his private relations with the offended party, or
from any other personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate the
liability of the principals, accomplices and accessories as to whom such
circumstances are attendant.
4. The circumstances which consist in the material execution of the act, or in

the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the
liability of those persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of the
execution of the act or their cooperation therein.
5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects.
(a) Upon a third conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty
provided by law for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional
penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods;
(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty
provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional
penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods; and
(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the
penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the
additional penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal
in its minimum period.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two penalties to be
imposed upon the offender, in conformity herewith, shall in no case exceed 30
years.
For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, if
within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the
crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or
falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener. (As
amended by Section 23 of R.A. no. 7659)
● Par 1: Aggravating circumstances are not to be taken into account when:

106
a) they themselves constitute a crime
Ex. by “means of fire” – arson
b) they are included by law in the definition of a crime
Example: the aggravating circumstances of trespass or “escalamiento” is in itself a crime (Art.

280). The breaking of a roof, floor or window may constitute malicious mischief. The burning of
anything of value may constitute arson. These aggravating circumstances, if considered as
felonies, do not increase the penalty.
* Among the aggravating circumstances included in the definition of a crime are taking
advantage of public position in estafa under Art. 214, abuse of confidence in qualified theft (Art.
310); the circumstances which qualify homicide in murder (Art. 248); and the use of artifice
involving great waste and ruin in the crimes punished in Arts. 324 and 330.
● Par 2: Same rules applies when the aggravating circumstance is inherent in the crime
Example: Relationship is inherent in the crimes of parricide and infanticide; abuse of confidence
is inherent in malversation, qualified theft, seduction and estafa; sex is inherent in crimes
against chastity; taking advantage of public position, in crimes committed by public officers;
premeditation is inherent in robbery, theft, estafa and similar offenses. Nocturnity, abuse of
superiority and craft are absorbed by treachery and are therefore inherent in murder qualified by
treachery. Premeditation, abuse of superiority and treachery are inherent in treason.
● Par 3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances arising from any of the ff affect only those to
whom such circumstances are attendant:
a) from the moral attributes of the offender
b) from his private relations w/ the offended party
c) from any other personal cause
Example: Four malefactors commit homicide. One of them is under 18. Another is
drunk. The third is a recidivist, and the fourth is neither under age, nor drunk, nor a recidivist.
The first has in his favor the mitigating circumstances of minority which does not affect his
co-defendants. The second has a different circumstances in his favor, drunkenness, which does
not extend to the other participants in the crime. The third has an aggravating circumstance
which affects him only. The fourth shall suffer the penalty corresponding to him without taking
into consideration the aggravating circumstances affecting one or the extenuating circumstances
affecting the others.
* Rule 3 is illustrated in the crime of parricide wherein a stranger had participated. He is guilty of
homicide or murder and not parricide. In the same manner, the stranger who participated in the
commission of qualified theft involving abuse of confidence and who had no confidential
relationship with the victim is only guilty of simple theft. But the rule is different in malversation.
A private individual coordinating with the accountable public officer in committing malversation is
a co-principal in the crime.
* In homicide, relationship aggravates the liability of the relative, who is a co-principal, but not
of the other principals who are not related to the victim. Lack of instruction is mitigating as to
the principal, who is actually illiterate, but not with respect to the other principals who have
educational attainment.
* However, in adultery, the privileged mitigating circumstance of abandonment would benefit

both offenders, even if it was only the offending wife who was abandoned.( Pp vs. Avelino )
● Par 4: the circumstances w/c consist of the ff shall serve to aggravate and mitigate the
liability only of those who had knowledge of them at the time of the commission of the
offense
a) material execution of the act
b) means employed to accomplish the crime
* Groizard says that the circumstances attending the commission of a crime either relate to the
persons participating in the same or to its material execution, or to the means employed. The
former do not affect all the participants in the crime, but only to those whom, they particularly
107
apply; the latter have direct bearing upon the criminal liability of all defendants who had
knowledge thereof at the time of the commission of the crime, or of their cooperation therein.
Example: A and B killed C. In the execution of the act of killing, A disguised himself in
peace officer which was not made known to B. The aggravating circumstance of disguising as a
peace officer shall be appreciated only against A, who employed the same in the killing of C. It is
only logical that A should be made to suffer a more serious penalty, as the idea is to affect only
those who have knowledge of it at the time of the execution of the act.
* In the crime of murder, A hired B to kill C, to prevent the latter from being a candidate for
mayor in the May 11, 1998 elections. In the actual killing of C, deliberately augmented the
suffering of C chopping him into pieces and scattering his remains in several places. The
aggravating circumstances of cruelty and outraging or scoffing at the person or corpse of C
should be appreciated only against B.
Example: A, B and C agreed to kill X so armed with guns, they proceeded to the house
of the latter whereupon A told B and C that he would stay in the yard to prevent any relative of
X from helping the victim. When B and C entered the room of X, and saw him sleeping, it was C
who shot him. The treachery that attended the commission of the crime shall also affect B and
not only C who treacherously killed X in his sleep because B had knowledge of the treacherous
act being present actually during the shooting. A’s liability is not aggravated by treachery as he
had no knowledge of it, being in the yard.
⮚ Cases where the attending aggravating or mitigating circumstances are not

considered in the imposition of penalties.
● Penalty that is single and indivisible
● Felonies through negligence
● Penalty is a fine
● Penalty is prescribed by a special law
● Par 5: HABITUAL DELINQUENT is a person who within the period of 10 years from the date
of his (last) release or last conviction of the crimes of:
a) serious or less serious physical injuries
b) robbery
c) theft
d) estafa
e) falsification
is found guilty of any of the said crimes a third time or oftener.
● Ten year period to be computed from the time of last release or conviction
● Subsequent crime must be committed after conviction of the former crime. Cases still
pending are not to be taken into consideration.
HABITUAL DELINQUENCY RECIDIVISM
Crimes to be committed are specified Same title
W/ in 10 years No time fixed by law
Must be found guilty 3rd time or oftener Second conviction
Additional penalty is imposed Is not offset by MC, increases penalty to
maximum
* Habitual delinquency is not a crime. It is a circumstance that will authorize the court to add an
additional penalty for the present crime committed. It is only a factor in determining the total
penalty to be imposed upon the offender.
* Habitual delinquency imposes an additional penalty, however, if the same is imposed after the
court has acquired jurisdiction over the crime, and the total penalty would exceed the
jurisdictional limit of the court, such situation will not divest the court of its jurisdiction over the
crime. (Pp vs. Blanco, 86 Phil. 296)
108
* In order that habitual delinquency may be appreciated against the accused, it must be alleged
and detailed in the information or complaint. The dates of the commission of the previous
crimes; the last conviction of release must be contained or written in the information.
* Under Article 22, when one is a habitual delinquent and he commits felony or offense, any
future punitive law that may favor him in relation to the punishment imposed on him, will not be
given a retroactive effect insofar as said offender is concerned.
* He is not also entitled to the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Example:
CRIMES COMMITTED DATE OF CONVICTION DATE OF RELEASE

Serious Physical Injury January, 1960 January, 1973
Theft February, 1968 February, 1975
Robbery March, 1980
In the example mentioned above, as regards the conviction for theft in February, 1968
the starting point for the computation of the ten-year period is the date of conviction for serious
physical injuries in January, 1960 because that is the last conviction with respect to the second
conviction for theft in February, 1968. The date of release is not considered anymore because
the conviction for theft took place within ten years from the last conviction for serious physical
injuries. We ignore the date of release because it came after the conviction.
With respect to the third conviction for robbery in March 1980, the ten-year period is to
be computed not from the date of last conviction for theft in February, 1968 because that would
be beyond the period provided by law, but from the date of release of the accused in February,
1975, as the law provides for the computation of the ten-year period in the alternative, either
from the last conviction or release. Apparently, in the example given, the last or third conviction
is more than ten years from 1968, but within ten years from release. The period of ten years is
therefore satisfied. The offender in the example given is a habitual delinquent.
● Rulings on Habitual Delinquency:
a) the law on habitual delinquency does not contemplate the exclusion from the computation
of prior conviction those falling outside the 10 yr period immediately preceding the crime
for w/c the defendant is being tried
b) ten yr period is counted not from the date of commission of the subsequent offense but to
the date of conviction thereof in relation to the date of his last release or last conviction
c) when an offender has committed several crimes mentioned in the definition of habitual
delinquent, without being first convicted of any of them before committing the others, he
is not a habitual delinquent
d) convictions on the same day or at about the same time are considered as one only (days,
weeks..)
e) crimes committed on the same date, although convictions on different dates are
considered as one
f) previous convictions are considered every time a new offense is committed
g) commissions of those crimes need not be consummated
h) habitual delinquency applies to accomplice and accessories as long it is in the crimes

specified
i) a crime committed in the minority of the offender is not counted
j) imposition of additional penalty is mandatory and constitutional
109
k) modifying circumstances applicable to additional penalty
l) habitual delinquency is not a crime, it is simply a fact or circumstance which if present

gives rise to the imposition of additional penalty
m) penalty for habitual delinquency is a real penalty that determines jurisdiction
n) in imposing the additional penalty, recidivism is not aggravating. The additional penalty
must be imposed in its minimum
o) an offender can be a habitual delinquent w/o being a recidivist
Notes:
● In no case shall be the total penalties imposed upon the offender exceed 30 years
● The law does not apply to crimes described in Art. 155(alarms and scandals)
● The imposition of the additional penalties on habitual delinquents are constitutional, it is

simply a punishment on future crimes on account of the criminal propensities of the accused.
● Habitual delinquency applies at any stage of the execution because subjectively, the offender
reveals the same degree of depravity or perversity as the one who commits a consummated
crime.
● Habitual delinquency applies to all participants because it reveals persistence in them of the
inclination to wrongdoing and of the perversity of character that led them to commit the
previous crime.
Note: There is no habitual delinquency in offenses punished by special laws. Courts

cannot also take judicial notice of the previous convictions of the accused. Facts of previous
convictions must be established during the trial of the accused.
Art. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. — In all cases in which
the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts
regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended
the commission of the deed.
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible
penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof:
1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating
circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied.
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the

commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
3. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating
circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall
be applied.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the

commission of the act, the court shall reasonably allow them to offset one another
in consideration of their number and importance, for the purpose of applying the
penalty in accordance with the preceding rules, according to the result of such
compensation.
● Art 63 applies only when the penalty prescribed by the Code is either one indivisible penalty
or 2 indivisible penalties
* Article 63 must be understood to mean and to refer only to ordinary mitigating circumstances.
It does not refer to privileged mitigating circumstances.
110
● General rule: When the penalty is composed of 2 indivisible penalties, the penalty cannot be
lowered by one degree no matter how many mitigating circumstances are present
⮚ Exception: in cases of privileged mitigating circumstances
● Par.4: the moral value rather than the numerical weight shall be taken into account
● Rules for the application of indivisible penalties

⮚ Penalty is single and indivisible – applied regardless of the presence of aggravating and
mitigating circumstances
⮚ Penalty composed of two indivisible penalties

1. One aggravating circumstance present – higher penalty
2. One mitigating circumstance present – lower penalty
3. Some mitigating circumstances present and no aggravating – lower penalty
4. Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstance are present – basis in number and

importance
Art. 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. — In
cases in which the penalties prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it
be a single divisible penalty or composed of three different penalties, each one of
which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the
court shall observe for the application of the penalty the following rules,
according to whether there are or are not mitigating or aggravating
circumstances:
1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall
impose the penalty prescribed by law in its medium period.
2. When only a mitigating circumstance is present in the commission of the

act, they shall impose the penalty in its minimum period.
3. When an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the act,

they shall impose the penalty in its maximum period.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court
shall reasonably offset those of one class against the other according to their
relative weight.
5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating

circumstances are present, the court shall impose the penalty next lower to that
prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable, according to the
number and nature of such circumstances.
6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating circumstances,

the courts shall not impose a greater penalty than that prescribed by law, in its
maximum period.
7. Within the limits of each period, the court shall determine the extent of the
penalty according to the number and nature of the aggravating and mitigating
circumstances and the greater and lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime.
● Art 64 applies when the penalty has 3 periods because they are divisible. If the penalty is
composed of 3 different penalties, each forms a period according to Art 77
● Par 4: the mitigating circumstances must be ordinary, not privileged. The aggravating
circumstances must be generic or specific, not qualifying or inherent.
111
Example: a qualifying circumstance (treachery) cannot be offset by a generic mitigating

circumstance (voluntary circumstance)
● The court has discretion to impose the penalty within the limits fixed by law
● Art 64 not applicable when the penalty is indivisible or prescribed by special law or a fine
● Rules for the application of divisible penalties

⮚ No aggravating and no mitigating circumstances – medium period
⮚ One mitigating circumstance – minimum period
⮚ One aggravating circumstance – maximum period
⮚ Mitigating and aggravating circumstance offset each other and according to relative
weight
⮚ 2 or more mitigating without any aggravating circumstance – on degree lower
* If in the commission of the crime, one aggravating circumstance is present, and four mitigating
circumstances are likewise left, the offsetting of one aggravating circumstance will not entitle the
accused to a reduction of his penalty by one degree. You will only lower the penalty by one
degree if it is divisible and there is absolutely no aggravating circumstance.
* Penalty for murder under the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal maximum to death. So, the
penalty would be reclusion temporal maximum – reclusion perpetua – death. This penalty made up of
three periods.
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,
the courts shall apply the rules contained in the foregoing articles, dividing into
three equal portions of time included in the penalty prescribed, and forming one
period of each of the three portions.
COMPUTATIONS:
A. Example: PRISION MAYOR (6 yrs, 1 day to 12 yrs)
1) subtract the minimum (disregard 1 day) from the maximum

12yrs – 6yrs = 6 yrs
2) divide the difference by 3

6 yrs / 3 = 2 yrs
3) use the minimum (6 yrs and 1 day) as the minimum of the minimum period. Then add
the 2 yrs (disregarding the 1 day) to the minimum to get the maximum of the minimum
6 yrs (minimum of the minimum)
+ 2 yrs (difference)
-------------------------------------------
8 yrs (maximum of the minimum).
Therefore, minimum period of prision mayor; 6 yrs 1 day to 8 yrs
4) use the maximum of the minimum period as the minimum of the medium period and
add 1 day to distinguish from the minimum period. Then add 2 years to the minimum
of the medium (disregarding the 1 day) to get the maximum of the medium period.
8 yrs (minimum of the medium)
112
-------------------------------------------
10 yrs (maximum of the medium)
Therefore, medium period of prision mayor; 8 yrs 1 day to 10 yrs
5) use the maximum of the medium period as the minimum of the maximum pd, add 1
day to distinguish it from the medium period. Then add 2 yrs to the minimum of the
maximum pd (disregarding the 1 day) to get the maximum of the maximum period)
10 yrs (maximum of the medium)
----------------------------------------------
12 yrs (maximum of the maximum)
Therefore, maximum period of prision mayor; 10 yrs 1 day to 12 yrs
⮚ Computation above applicable to all others except arresto mayor
B. Example: PRISION MAYOR MINIMUM (6 yrs 1 day to 8 yrs) only

1) Subtract minimum from the maximum
8yrs – 6yrs = 2 yrs
2) Divide the difference by 3

2yrs / 3 = 8 months
3) Use the minimum of the given example as the minimum period. Then to get to get the
maximum of the minimum, add the 8 months
6 yrs + 8 months = 6 yrs and 8 months
Therefore, minimum of prision mayor minimum; 6 yrs 1 day to 6 yrs 8 months
4) Use the maximum of the minimum as the minimum of the medium period. Add 1 day to
distinguish it from the maximum of the minimum. Add the 8 months and this becomes
the maximum of the medium
6 yrs 8 months + 8 months = 7 yrs 4 months
Therefore, the medium period of prision mayor minimum; 6 yrs 8 mos 1 day to 7 yrs 4 mos
5) Use the maximum of the medium as the minimum period of the maximum period and
add 1 day to distinguish. Add the 8 months to get the maximum of this maximum
7 yrs 4 mos + 8 mos = 8 yrs
Therefore, maximum of prision mayor; 7 yrs 4 mos 1 day to 8 yrs
Act No. 4013 (INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW), as amended

Three things to know about the Indeterminate Sentence Law:
(1) Its purpose;
(2) Instances when it does not apply; and
(3) How it operates
Indeterminate Sentence Law governs whether the crime is punishable under the Revised Penal Code or a
special Law. It is not limited to violations of the Revised Penal Code.
It applies only when the penalty served is imprisonment. If not by imprisonment, then it does not apply.
113
Purpose
The purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence law is to avoid prolonged imprisonment, because it is proven
to be more destructive than constructive to the offender. So, the purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence
Law in shortening the possible detention of the convict in jail is to save valuable human resources. In
other words, if the valuable human resources were allowed prolonged confinement in jail, they would
deteriorate. Purpose is to preserve economic usefulness for these people for having committed a crime --
to reform them rather than to deteriorate them and, at the same time, saving the government expenses of
maintaining the convicts on a prolonged confinement in jail.
If the crime is a violation of the 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 account
the attendant mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances according to Article 64 of the Revised Penal
Code. In arriving at the minimum of the indeterminate sentence, the court will take into account the
penalty prescribed for the crime and go one degree lower. Within the range of one degree lower, the court
will fix the minimum for the indeterminate sentence, and within the range of the penalty arrived at as the
maximum in the indeterminate sentence, the court will fix the maximum of the sentence. If there is a
privilege mitigating circumstance which has been taken in consideration in fixing the maximum of the
indeterminate sentence, the minimum shall be based on the penalty as reduced by the privilege mitigating
circumstance within the range of the penalty next lower in degree.
If the crime is a violation of a special law, in fixing the maximum of the indeterminate sentence, the
court will impose the penalty 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 minimum limit of the
penalty under said law. No mitigating and aggravating circumstances are taken into account.
The minimum and the maximum referred to in the Indeterminate Sentence Law are not periods. So, do
not say, maximum or minimum period. For the purposes of the indeterminate Sentence Law, use the
term minimum to refer to the duration of the sentence which the convict shall serve as a minimum, and
when we say maximum, for purposes of ISLAW, we refer to the maximum limit of the duration that the
convict may be held in jail. We are not referring to any period of the penalty as enumerated in Article 71.
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, whenever the Indeterminate Sentence Law is
applicable, there is always a minimum and maximum of the sentence that the convict shall serve. If the
crime is punished by the Revised Penal Code, the law provides that the maximum shall be arrived at by
considering the mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime according to the
proper rules of the Revised Penal Code. To fix the maximum, consider the mitigating and aggravating
circumstances according to the rules found in Article 64. This means –
(1) Penalties prescribed by the law for the crime committed shall be imposed in the medium period if
no mitigating or aggravating circumstance;
(2) If there is aggravating circumstance, no mitigating, penalty shall be imposed in the maximum;
(3) If there is mitigating circumstance, no aggravating, penalty shall be in the minimum;
(4) If there are several mitigating and aggravating circumstances, they shall offset against each other.
Whatever remains, apply the rules.
(5) If there are two or more mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance, penalty next
lower in degree shall be the one imposed.
Rule under Art 64 shall apply in determining the maximum but not in determining the minimum.
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. To fix the minimum and the maximum of the sentence,
penalty under the Revised Penal Code is not the penalty to be imposed by court because the court must
apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The attendant mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances in the
commission of the crime are taken into consideration only when the maximum of the penalty is to be fixed.
But in so far as the minimum is concerned, the basis of the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code,
and go one degree lower than that. But penalty one degree lower shall be applied in the same manner
that the maximum is also fixed based only on ordinary mitigating circumstances. 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 indeterminate sentence is lower
than its minimum.
114
In one Supreme Court ruling, it was held that for purposes of applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code and not that which may be imposed by court. This
ruling, however, is obviously erroneous. This is so because such an interpretation runs contrary to the
rule of pro reo, which provides that the penal laws should always be construed an applied in a manner
liberal or lenient to the offender. Therefore, the rule is, in applying the Indetermiante Sentence Law, it is
that penalty arrived at by the court after applying the mitigating and aggravating circumstances that should
be the basis.
Crimes punished under special law carry only one penalty; there are no degree or periods. Moreover,
crimes under special law do not consider mitigating or aggravating circumstance present in the
commission of the crime. So in the case of statutory offense, no mitigating and no aggravating
circumstances will be taken into account. Just the same, courts are required in imposing the penalty
upon the offender to fix a minimum that the convict should serve, and to set a maximum as the limit of that
sentence. Under the law, when the crime is punished under a special law, the court may fix any penalty as
the maximum without exceeding the penalty prescribed by special law for the crime committed. In the
same manner, courts are given discretion to fix a minimum anywhere within the range of the penalty
prescribed by special law, as long as it will not be lower than the penalty prescribed.
Disqualification may be divided into three, according to –
(1) The time committed;
(2) The penalty imposed; and
(3) The offender involved.
The Indeterminate Sentence Law shall not apply to:
(1) Persons convicted of offense punishable with death penalty or life imprisonment;
(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 shall have violated
the term thereto;
(8) Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year( consider the maximum
term not the minimum term), but not to those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of
the approval of Indeterminate Sentence Law.
(9) Those sentenced to destiero or suspension( this are not punishable by imprisonment ).
Although the penalty prescribed for the felony committed is death or reclusion perpetua, if after
considering the attendant circumstances, the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal or less, the
Indeterminate Sentence Law applies (People v. Cempron, 187 SCRA 278).
Recidivists entitled to the availment of the Indeterminate Sentence Law since those
disqualified are Habitula delinquents. (People vs. Venus, 63 Phil. 435)
When the accused escaped from jail while his case was on appeal, he is not entitled to
the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. (People vs. Martinado, 214 SCRA 712)
A youthful offender whose sentence is suspended under Sec. 192 of P.D. 603 and who
escaped from his confinement is still entitled to the application of the Indeterminate Sentence
Law. The same is true with an accused confined in the National Center for Mental Health
(formerly National Mental Hospital) since their confinement cannot be considered punishment
but more of administrative matters for their rehabilitation. (People vs. Soler, 63 Phil. 868)
A person sentenced to destierro who entered the prohibited area within the prohibited
period has evaded the service of his sentence (People vs. Abilog, 82 Phil. 174) and when he
115
committed a crime in that area, he will not be entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law for the new crime.
* ISL should not be applied when it is unfavorable to the accused.
* ISL does not apply to non-divisible penalties.
Reason for the ISL max and min: so that the prisoner could be released on parole after
serving the minimum sentence and could be rearrested to serve the maximum.
ILLUSTRATIONS:
1. No mitigating, aggravating, or the circumstances were offset
Example: crime is punishable by reclusion temporal (homicide)

ISL max – RT medium
ISL min – PM any period (discretion of the judge)
2. One mitigating
ISL max – RT minimum
ISL min – PM any period (discretion of the judge)
*** The mitigating circumstance shall be considered only in the imposition of the maximum
term of the sentence
3. One aggravating
ISL max – RT maximum
ISL min – PM, any period
4. Two mitigating, one aggravating

ISL max – RT minimum because after offsetting one mitigating and one aggravating, only
one mitigating will be left.
5. Complex crime
Example: homicide with assault

Homicide – RT
Assault – PC
*** Remember that complex crimes are punishable by the more severe penalty of the two
crimes to imposed in its max period. Therefore,
ISL max – RT max
Example: frustrated homicide with assault (being frustrated, one degree lower)
ISL max – PM max
ISL min - PC, any period
6. Art. 282 says that the crime of grave threats is punishable by a penalty lower by two
degrees than that prescribed by law for the crime threatened.
Example: A threatened to kill B. Homicide is punishable by RT. Since A is liable only for
threats of homicide, he shall be punished by prision correctional. If there is an aggravating
circumstance (relationship of A to B, for example) then the maximum period shall attach to
the penalty (PC) only after lowering by 2 degrees.
ISL max – PC max (with aggravating)

ILS min – AM any period
7. Complex crime with two mitigating, no aggravating

> For purposes of ISL, the penalty next lower should be determined without due regard
as to whether the basic penalty provided by the Code should be applied in its max or min
116
period as circumstances modifying liability may require. However (as an exemption), whether
the number of the mitigating is such as to entitle the accused to the penalty next lower in
degree, this penalty in the ISL should be starting point for the determination of the next
lower in degree (ISL min). For instance, if the more serious offense in the complex crime is
punishable by prision mayor, the whole of prision mayor should be considered for the
purposes of determining the penalty next lower in degree – NOT prision mayor max which is
the usual rule.
So now, we lower it by one degree because of the two mitigating – the ISL max will be PC
max (max because it’s a complex crime). ISL min will be AM any period.
8. A privileged mitigating and an ordinary mitigating
When there is a privileged mitigating (minority or incomplete self-defense) and an ordinary

mitigating (plea of guilty or voluntary surrender), the rule is: Lower first the penalty
prescribed by the Code by one degree (because of the privileged mitigating). This will be the
max of the ISL and the penalty next lower will be the minimum of the ISL.
Example: A, a minor, pleaded guilty to murder. Murder is punishable by RT max to death.

*** There being a privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the penalty should be one
degree lower.
*** There is also an ordinary mitigating circumstance (plea of guilty), so the lowered
penalty will be imposed in its minimum period which is PM max
ISL max – PM max

ISL min – any period between PC max to PM med
9. Two privileged mitigating and ordinary mitigating circumstance
Example: A, a minor, killed B in self-defense but A did not employ reasonable means. A
surrendered to the authorities. The penalty of homicide is RT.
ISL max – PC min

There are 2 privileged mitigating namely minority and incomplete self-defense so RT
should be lowered by 2 degrees (PC). It should likewise be imposed in the minimum because
of the ordinary mitigating of voluntary surrender.
ISL min – AM any period
10. Incomplete defense, no mitigating, no aggravating
To determine the ISL max

Unlawful aggression only - ordinary mitigating
Unlawful aggression plus one other requisite – 1 degree lower
ISL min – penalty next lower to the above
11. Incomplete self-defense, plus 2 ordinary mitigating, no aggravating
Example: A killed B in self-defense. But means used was not reasonable. However, there
were 2 ordinary mitigating: A acted with obfuscation and he surrendered
The penalty for homicide is RT, RT should be lowered by 1 degree for incomplete
self-defense (unlawful aggression and no provocation from A), making it prision mayor. This
should be further reduced by one degree because of 2 ordinary mitigating without any
aggravating, making it PC.
ISL max – PC med

ISL min – AM any period
12. Murder with 2 or more mitigating, no aggravating
117
Code punishes murder with RT max to death. If for instance, there was voluntary surrender
and plea of guilty, the penalty should be lowered by one degree, there being 2 mitigating.
One degree lower to DM max to RT medium (refer to scale in No.8).
This should be subdivided into 3 periods. The ISL max would be then the medium period of
PM max to RT med which is 12 yrs, 5 mos, 11 days to 14 yrs, 10 mos, 20 days. The ISL min
would be anywhere within PC max to PM medium (refer to scale)
13. Robbery in uninhabited house
This crime is punishable by RT. If the offender is not armed and the stolen thing is less than
250 pesos, it should be lowered by one degree which is PM in its minimum period. The
penalty is to be imposed in the medium period, there no aggravating nor mitigating. The ISL
max should then be to the PM min.
If under special law

- no modifying circumstance is taken into account unless specially provided for by the law
- the basis of the application of the ISL is the “penalty actually imposed” and not that
imposable by law
Presidential Decree No. 968 (PROBATION LAW)

Probation is a manner of disposing of an accused who have been convicted by a trial court 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 begins serving sentence by final judgment and provided that he did
not appeal anymore from conviction.
The ff. are disqualified:

1. those sentenced to a max of term of imprisonment of more than 6 years
2. those convicted of subversion or any crime against national security or public order
3. those who were previously convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by

imprisonment of not less than 1 month and 1 day and/or fine of not more than 200
4. those who have been once on probation
5. those already serving sentence
Without regard to the nature of the crime, only those whose penalty does not exceed six years of
imprisonment are those qualified 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 which were tried jointly and one decision was rendered
where multiple sentences imposed several prison terms as penalty, the basis for determining whether the
penalty disqualifies the offender from probation or not is the term of the individual 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 individual 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 subversion or any crime
against the public order are not qualified for probation. So know the crimes under Title III, Book 2 of the
Revised Penal Code. Among these crimes is Alarms and Scandals, the penalty of which is only arresto
menor or a fine. Under the amendment to the Probation Law, those convicted of a crime against public
order regardless of the penalty are not qualified for probation.
May a recidivist be given the benefit of Probation Law?
As a general rule, NO
Exception: If the earlier conviction refers to a crime the penalty of which does not exceed 30 days
imprisonment or a fine of not more than P200.00 (Arresto Menor), such convict is not disqualified of the
benefit of probation. So even if he would be convicted subsequently of a crime embraced in the same title
of the Revised Penal Code as that of the earlier conviction, he is not disqualified from probation provided
118
that the penalty of the current crime committed does not go beyond six years and the nature of the crime
committed by him is not against public order, national security or subversion.
Although a person may be eligible for probation, the moment he perfects an appeal from the judgment of
conviction, he cannot avail of probation anymore. So the benefit of probation must be invoked at the
earliest instance after conviction. He should not wait up to the time when he interposes an appeal or the
sentence has become final and executory. The idea is that probation has to be invoked at the earliest
opportunity.
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 should not appeal such judgment.
Once he appeals, regardless of the purpose of the appeal, he will be disqualified from applying for
Probation, even though he may thereafter withdraw his appeal.
If the offender would appeal the conviction of the trial court and the appellate court reduced the penalty to
say, less than six years, that convict can still file an application for probation, because the earliest
opportunity for him to avail of probation came only after judgment by the appellate court.
Whether a convict who is otherwise qualified for probation may be given the benefit 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 hearing, where as the applicant is not disqualified under the provision of the Probation
Law, but only based on the report of the probation officer, the denial is correctible by certiorari, because it
is an act of the court in excess of jurisdiction or without jurisdiction, the order denying the application
therefore is null and void.
Probation is intended to promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by providing him with
individualized treatment; to provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender which might be
less probable if he were to serve a prison sentence; to prevent the commission of offenses; to decongest
our jails; and to save the government much needed finance for maintaining convicts in jail
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 crime, the court may refuse or deny an application for probation.
Generally, the courts do not grant an application for probation for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law,
because of the prevalence of the crime. So it is not along the purpose of probation to grant the convict the
benefit thereof, just the individual rehabilitation of the offender but also the best interest of the society and
the community where the convict would be staying, if he would be released on probation. To allow him
loose may bring about a lack of respect of the members of the community to the enforcement of penal law.
In such a case, the court even if the crime is probationable may still deny the benefit of probation.
Consider not only the probationable crime, but also the probationable penalty. If it were the
non-probationable crime, then regardless of the penalty, the convict cannot avail of probation. Generally,
the penalty which is not probationable is any penalty exceeding six years of imprisonment. Offenses
which are not probationable are those against natural security, those against public order and those with
reference to subversion.
Persons who have been granted of the benefit of probation cannot avail thereof for the second time.
Probation is only available once and this may be availed only where the convict starts serving sentence
and provided he has not perfected an appeal. If the convict perfected an appeal, he forfeits his right to
apply for probation. As far as 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 detention, that does not mean that they
already start serving the sentence even after promulgation of the sentence, sentence will only become
final and executory after 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 that case, the penalty will already be
final and exeuctory, no right to probation can be applied for.
Probation shall be denied if the court finds:
(1) That the offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be provided most effectively by his
commitment to an institution;
(2) That there is undue risk that during the period of probation the offender will commit another crime;
or
(3) Probation will depreciate the seriousness of the crime.
The probation law imposes two kinds of conditions:
119
(1) Mandatory conditions; and
(2) Discretionary conditions.
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 month during the period of
probation unless sooner required by the PO.
These conditions being mandatory, the moment any of these is violate, the probation is cancelled.
Discretionary conditions:
The trial court which approved the application for probation may impose any condition 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
restrictive of the probationer; and (2) such condition should not be incompatible with the freedom of
conscience of the probationer
Procedure of Probation:
1. trial court gives a sentence (one that qualifies you to apply for probation)
2. within the period for filing an appeal, must apply for probation in the trial court. If
already filed an appeal. As long as records haven’t reached appellate courts, must
withdraw to apply for probation. Applying for probation means waiver of RT to appeal.
3. upon application, trial court to suspend execution of sentence. But does not mean
already on probation
4. judge to order probation officer to investigate case(whether qualified, character

antecedents, environment, mental and physical condition and available institutional and
community resources) Officer to submit report not later than 60 days. Court to give
decision not later than 15 days after receipt of report. Pending investigation, may be
released under bail. No bail filed, can be released on the custody of a responsible
member of the community.
5. the judge may grant the application or not
Granted – released subject to certain conditions: Two important requirements: (1) present self to
probation officer within 72 hours from receipt of order (2) you will report to said officer at least
once a month at such time and place as specified by the officer.
Other conditions are special and discretionary and are provided in Sec. 10 of the Probation Law.
Once granted, accessory penalties are deemed suspended.
Denied – reasons of the court may be:

1. that you need correctional treatment
2. there is undue risk that you will commit another crime
3. probation may depreciate the seriousness of the offense
6. an order granting or denying probation is NOT appealable
7. probation will last according to the ff:

a. if sentence is not more than 1 year, probation shall not exceed 2 years
b. if sentence is more than 1 year, probation shall not exceed 6 years
c. if sentence is fine with subsidiary imprisonment, probation shall be twice the days
of subsidiary
8. Probationer may be arrested at anytime during probation if there was a serious violation
of the conditions. If revoked, must serve the sentence originally imposed. Court’s order
not appealable.
120
9. Probation ends after the court, basing on the probation’s officer’s report, orders final
discharge. All civil rights will be restored. Pay fine for the original crime.
*** Expiration of the probation period does not automatically terminate probation. Must have
court order.
Art. 66. Imposition of fines. — In imposing fines the courts may fix any amount
within the limits established by law; in fixing the amount in each case attention
shall be given, not only to the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, but more
particularly to the wealth or means of the culprit.
● Court must consider the following in imposing the fine:

a) mitigating and aggravating circumstances
b) the wealth and means of the culprit
● When the minimum of the fine is not fixed, the court shall have the discretion provided it does
not exceed the amount authorized by law
* it is not only the mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances that the court shall take into consideration,
but primarily, the financial capability of the offender to pay the fine.
If the fine imposed by the law appears to be excessive, the remedy is to ask the
Congress to amend the law by reducing the fine to a reasonable amount.
Art. 67. Penalty to be imposed when not all the requisites of exemption of the
fourth circumstance of Article 12 are present.— When all the conditions required in
circumstances Number 4 of Article 12 of this Code to exempt from criminal liability
are not present, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon the culprit if he shall
have been guilty of a grave felony, and arresto mayor in its minimum and medium
periods, if of a less grave felony.
● Requisites of Art 12 par 4(Accident)

a) act causing the injury must be lawful
b) act performed w/ due care

c) injury was caused by mere accident
d) no fault or intention to cause injury
● if these conditions are not all present, then the ff penalties shall be imposed:
a) grave felony – arresto mayor max to prision correccional min
b) less grave felony – arresto mayor min to arresto mayor med
Art. 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen years of age. —
When the offender is a minor under eighteen years and his case is one coming
under the provisions of the paragraphs next to the last of Article 80 of this Code,
the following rules shall be observed:
1. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years of age, who is not
exempted from liability by reason of the court having declared that he acted with
discernment, a discretionary penalty shall be imposed, but always lower by two
degrees at 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
lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper
period.
121
Notes:
● Art. 68 applies to such minor if his application for suspension of sentence is disapproved or if
while in the reformatory institution he becomes incorrigible in which case he shall be returned
to the court for the imposition of the proper penalty.
● Art. 68 provides for 2 privileged mitigating circumstances

⮚ under 15 but over 9 and has acted w/ discerment: 2 degrees lower
⮚ under 18 but over 15: 1 degree lower
* If the act is attended by two or more mitigating circumstance and no aggravating

circumstance, the penalty being divisible a minor over 15 but under 18 may still get a penalty
two degrees lower.
Art. 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not wholly excusable.
— A penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law shall be
imposed if the deed is not wholly excusable by reason of the lack of some of the
conditions 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
exemption present or lacking.
● Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not wholly excusable

⮚ 1 or 2 degrees lower if the majority of the conditions for justification or exemption in the
cases provided in Arts. 11 and 12 are present.
Art. 70. Successive service of sentence. — When the culprit has to serve two or
more penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties
will so permit otherwise, the following rules shall be observed:
In the imposition of the penalties, the order of their respective severity shall be
followed so that they may be executed successively or as nearly as may be
possible, should a pardon have been granted as to the penalty or penalties first
imposed, or should they have been served out.
For the purpose of applying the provisions of the next preceding paragraph the
respective severity of the penalties shall be determined in accordance with the
following scale:
1. Death,
2. Reclusion perpetua,
3. Reclusion temporal,
4. Prision mayor,
5. Prision correccional,
6. Arresto mayor,
7. Arresto menor,
8. Destierro,
9. Perpetual absolute disqualification,
10 Temporal absolute disqualification.
11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the right to
follow a profession or calling, and
12. Public censure.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding, the maximum duration
of the convict's sentence shall not be more than three-fold the length of time
122
corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No other
penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those
imposed equals the same maximum period.
Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years.
In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of perpetual penalties ( penal
perpetua) shall be computed at thirty years. (As amended by CA#217).
Art. 70 refers to service of sentence. It is therefore addressed to the jail warden or to the
director of prisons. The court or the judge has no power to implement Article 70 because the
provision is not for the imposition of penalties. If the penalty by their very nature can be served
simultaneously, then it must be so served.
● Maximum duration of the convict’s sentence: 3 times the most severe penalty
● Max period shall not exceed 40 years
● Subsidiary imprisonment – this shall be excluded in computing for the maximum duration
Example: Juan has 10 sentences of 6 months and 1 day each and a fine of 1000. He was not
able to pay the fine. Therefore, he must serve subsidiary penalty after 18 months and 3 days
in jail.
* Under this rule, when a convict is to serve successive penalties, he will not actually serve the penalties
imposed by law. Instead, the most severe of the penalties imposed on him shall be multiplied by three
and the period will be the only term of the penalty to be served by him. However, in no case should the
penalty exceed 40 years.
* If the sentences would be served simultaneously, the Three-Fold rule does not govern.
* Although this rule is known as the Three-Fold rule, you cannot actually apply this if the convict is to
serve only three successive penalties. The Three-Fold Rule can only be applied if the convict is to serve
four or more sentences successively.
* The chronology of the penalties as provided in Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code shall be followed.
* It is in the service of the penalty, not in the imposition of the penalty, that the Three-Fold rule is to be
applied. The three-Fold rule will apply whether the sentences are the product of one information in one
court, whether the sentences are promulgated in one day or whether the sentences are promulgated by
different courts on different days. What is material is that the convict shall serve more than three
successive sentences.
* For purposes of the Three-Fold Rule, even perpetual penalties are taken into account. So not only
penalties with fixed duration, even penalties without any fixed duration or indivisible penalties are taken
into account. For purposes of the Three-Fold rule, indivisible penalties are given equivalent of 30 years. If
the penalty is perpetual disqualification, it will be given and equivalent duration of 30 years, so that if he
will have to suffer several perpetual disqualification, under the Three-Fold rule, you take the most severe
and multiply it by three. The Three-Fold rule does not apply to the penalty prescribed but to the penalty
imposed as determined by the court.
Illustration:
Penalties imposed are –
One prision correcional – minimum – 2 years and 4 months
One arresto mayor - 1 month and 1 day to 6 months
One prision mayor - 6 years and 1 day to 12 years
* Do not commit the mistake of applying the Three- Fold Rule in this case. Never apply the Three-Fold
rule when there are only three sentences. Even if you add the penalties, you can never arrive at a sum
higher than the product of the most severe multiplied by three.
123
* The common mistake is, if given a situation, whether the Three-Fold Rule could be applied. If asked, if
you were the judge, what penalty would you impose, for purposes of imposing the penalty, the court is not
at liberty to apply the Three-Fold Rule, whatever the sum total of penalty for each crime committed, even if
it would amount to 1,000 years or more. It is only when the convict is serving sentence that the prison
authorities should determine how long he should stay in jail.
* This rule will apply only if sentences are to be served successively.
Art. 71. Graduated scales. — In the case in which the law prescribed a penalty
lower or higher by one or more degrees than another given penalty, the rules
prescribed in Article 61 shall be observed in graduating such penalty.
The lower or higher penalty shall be taken from the graduated scale in which is
comprised the given penalty.
The courts, in applying such lower or higher penalty, shall observe the following
graduated scales:
SCALE NO. 1
1. Death,
2. Reclusion perpetua,
3. Reclusion temporal,
4. Prision mayor,
5. Prision correccional,
6. Arresto mayor,
7. Destierro,
8. Arresto menor,
9. Public censure,
10. Fine.
SCALE NO. 2
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification,
2. Temporal absolute disqualification
3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be
voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling,
4. Public censure,
5. Fine.
Art. 72. Preference in the payment of the civil liabilities. — The civil liabilities of
a person found guilty of two or more offenses shall be satisfied by following the
chronological order of the dates of the judgments rendered against him,
beginning with the first in order of time.
● the penalties shall be satisfied according to the scale of Art 70
Art. 73. Presumption in regard to the imposition of accessory penalties. —

Whenever the courts shall impose a penalty which, by provision of law, carries
with it other penalties, according to the provisions of Articles 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44
of this Code, it must be understood that the accessory penalties are also imposed
upon the convict.
● subsidiary penalties are deemed imposed. However, the subsidiary imprisonment must be
expressly stated in the decision.
* The rule that the principal penalty imposed carries with it the accessory penalties does not
mean that the accused would serve subsidiary imprisonment in case he is not able to pay the
124
pecuniary liabilities imposed in the judgment. Subsidiary imprisonment must be expressly
ordered.
Art. 74. Penalty higher than reclusion perpetua in certain cases. — In cases in
which the law prescribes a penalty higher than another given penalty, without
specially designating the name of the former, if such higher penalty should be that
of death, the same penalty and the accessory penalties of Article 40, shall be
considered as the next higher penalty.
● if the decision or law says higher than RP or 2 degrees than RT, then the penalty imposed is
RP or RT as the case may be. Death must be designated by name. However, for the other
penalties, this does not apply.
Example: the penalty for crime X is 2 degrees lower than RP. The penalty imposed is prision
mayor.
Art. 75. Increasing or reducing the penalty of fine by one or more degrees. —
Whenever it may be necessary to increase or reduce the penalty of fine by one or
more degrees, it shall be increased or reduced, respectively, for each degree, by
one-fourth of the maximum amount prescribed by law, without however, changing
the minimum.
The same rules shall be observed with regard of fines that do not consist of a
fixed amount, but are made proportional.
● To get the lower degree:

⮚ Max: reduce by one-fourth
⮚ Min: the same
* With respect to the penalty of fine, if the fine has to be lowered by degree either because the felony
committed is only attempted or frustrated or because there is an accomplice or an accessory participation,
the fine is lowered by deducting 1/4 of the maximum amount of the fine from such maximum 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 felony 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 P500.00, 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 that 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 to be lowered by degree.
Art. 76. Legal period of duration of divisible penalties. — The legal period of
duration of divisible penalties shall be considered as divided into three parts,
forming three periods, the minimum, the medium, and the maximum in the manner
shown in the following table:
Art. 77. When the penalty is a complex one composed of three distinct penalties. —
In cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of three distinct
penalties, each one shall form a period; the lightest of them shall be the minimum
the next the medium, and the most severe the maximum period.
125
Whenever the penalty prescribed does not have one of the forms specially
provided for in this Code, the periods shall be distributed, applying by analogy the
prescribed rules.
● if there are 3 distinct penalties; there shall be a minimum, a medium and a maximum
Example: Reclusion temporal max to death
EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF PENALTIES
Art. 78. When and how a penalty is to be executed. — No penalty shall be

executed except by virtue of a final judgment.
A penalty shall not be executed in any other form than that prescribed by law, nor
with any other circumstances or incidents than those expressly authorized
thereby.
In addition to the provisions of the law, the special regulations prescribed for the
government of the institutions in which the penalties are to be suffered shall be
observed with regard to the character of the work to be performed, the time of its
performance, and other incidents connected therewith, the relations of the
convicts among themselves and other persons, the relief which they may receive,
and their diet.
The regulations shall make provision for the separation of the sexes in different
institutions, or at least into different departments and also for the correction and
reform of the convicts.
● Only penalty by final judgment can be executed. Judgment is final if the accused has not
appealed within 15 days or he has expressly waived in writing that he will not appeal.
* An appeal suspends the service of the sentence imposed by the trial court. In the absence of
an appeal, the law contemplates a speedy execution of the sentence, and in the orderly
administration of justice, the defendant should be forthwith remanded to the sheriff for the
execution of the judgment.
● There could be no subsidiary liability if it was not expressly ordered in the judgment
Art. 79. Suspension of the execution and service of the penalties in case of
insanity. — When a convict shall become insane or an imbecile after final sentence
has been pronounced, the execution of said sentence shall be suspended only
with regard to the personal penalty, the provisions of the second paragraph of
circumstance number 1 of article 12 being observed in the corresponding cases.
If at any time the convict shall recover his reason, his sentence shall be executed,
unless the penalty shall have prescribed in accordance with the provisions of this
Code.
The respective provisions of this section shall also be observed if the insanity or
imbecility occurs while the convict is serving his sentence
● Cases of insanity:
a) after final sentence, suspend the sentence regarding the personal penalties
b) if he recovers, the sentence is executed unless it has prescribed
c) the payment of civil or pecuniary liabilities shall not be suspended
Art 80 (as amended by PD 603: Child and Youth Welfare Code)
YOUTHFUL OFFENDER – over 9 but under 18 at time of the commission of the offense
126
* A child nine years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be
exempt from criminal liability and shall be committed to the care of his or her father or mother,
or nearest relative or family friend in the discretion of the court and subject to its supervision.
The same shall be done for a child over nine years and under fifteen years of age at the time of
the commission of the offense, unless he acted with discernment, in which case he shall be
proceeded against in accordance with Article 192.
* The Revised Penal Code declared a youthful offender to be one who is under 18 years old at
the time he committed the crime attributed to him. For him to be entitled to the benefits of the
law, the sentence must also be made while the accused is under 18 years of age. If the accused
is already 18 years old or above upon promulgation, he will no longer be entitled to a suspension
of his sentence.
* The suspension of the sentence is only observed if the youthful offender commits he crime
above nine years and below 18 years of age and the promulgation of the judgment is likewise
done while the accused is under 18 years of age.
* The suspension of sentence is not automatic or mandatory for the court to implement. The
youthful offender must apply for suspension.
* a youthful offender held for examination or trial who cannot furnish bail will be committed to the
DSWD/local rehab center or detention home
judgment of the court shall not be pronounced but suspended except for the ff cases:
1. those who previously enjoyed a suspension of sentence
2. those convicted of death or life imprisonment
3. those convicted for an offense by the military tribunals
* the DSWD may dismiss the case if the youth behaves properly
* the records of the proceeding shall be privileged and shall not be disclosed
* the civil liability of the youthful offender may be voluntary assumed by a relative or a friend
* The civil liability for acts committed by a youthful offender shall devolve upon the offender’s
father and, in the case of his death or incapacity, upon the mother, or in case of her death or
incapacity, upon the guardian. Civil liability may also be voluntarily assumed by a relative or
family friend of the youthful offender.
* the parent or guardian of the child is liable when he aids, abets or connives w/ the commission
of the crime or does an act producing, promoting or contributing to the child’s being a juvenile
delinquent.
* The penalties for the parent or guardian: Fine not exceeding 500 and/or imprisonment not
exceeding 2 years
Art. 81. When and how the death penalty is to be executed. — The death
sentence shall be executed with preference to any other and shall consist in
putting the person under sentence to death by lethal injection. The death sentence
shall be executed under the authority of the Director of Prisons, endeavoring so
far as possible to mitigate the sufferings of the person under sentence during the
lethal injection as well as during the proceedings prior to the execution.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections shall take steps to insure that the lethal
injection to be administered is sufficient to cause instantaneous death of the
convict.
The death sentence shall be carried out not earlier than one(1) year but not later
than eighteen(18) months after the judgment has become final and executory
127
without prejudice to the exercise by the President of his clemency powers at all
times . (As amended by RA# 8177)
DEATH PENALTY
To which crimes imposed:

Applies only to those crimes which are specified under RA 7659. If a crime is not included
in the list of heinous crimes, the penalty cannot be validly imposed for said crime.
What are heinous crimes?

These are grievous, odious and hateful offenses, which by reason of their inherent or
manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the
common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society.
What are the heinous crimes under RA 7659?

1. Treason
2. Qualified piracy / mutiny
3. Qualified bribery
4. Parricide
5. Murder
6. Infanticide
7. Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
8. Robbery with Homicide
9. Robbery with rape
10. Robbery with Intentional Mutilation
11. Robbery with arson
12. Destructive Arson
13. Rape committed with the use of deadly weapon
14. Rape committed by two or more persons
15. Rape with Homicide / Attempted rape with homicide
16. Rape under certain circumstances
17. Plunder
18. Violation of RA 6425, where quantity involved is more than or equal to that certified
under Sec. 20 thereof
19. Carnapping where the owner or occupant of the vehicle is killed
Art. 82. Notification and execution of the sentence and assistance to the culprit. —
The court shall designate a working day for the execution but not the hour thereof;
and such designation shall not be communicated to the offender before sunrise of
said day, and the execution shall not take place until after the expiration of at least
eight hours following the notification, but before sunset. During the interval
between the notification and the execution, the culprit shall, in so far as possible,
be furnished such assistance as he may request in order to be attended in his last
moments by priests or ministers of the religion he professes and to consult
lawyers, as well as in order to make a will and confer with members of his family
or persons in charge of the management of his business, of the administration of
his property, or of the care of his descendants.
● Designate a working day w/c shall not be communicated to the offender before the sunrise of
said day. The execution shall not take place until after the expiration of at least 8 hrs
following such notification.
● He can execute a will.

Art. 83. Suspension of the execution of the death sentence. — The death
sentence shall not be inflicted upon a woman while she is pregnant or within
one(1) year after delivery, nor upon any person over seventy years of age. In this
last case, the death sentence shall be commuted to the penalty of reclusion
perpetua with the accessory penalties provided in Article 40.
128
In all cases where the death sentence has become final, the records of the case
shall be forwarded immediately by the Supreme Court to the Office of the
President for possible exercise of the pardoning power. (As amended by Sec. 25, RA#
7659)
● Death sentence commuted to RP:
a) woman, while pregnant or within 1 yr after delivery (only suspended)

b) person over 70 years old.
Art. 84. Place of execution and persons who may witness the same. — The
execution shall take place in the penitentiary or Bilibid in a space closed to the
public view and shall be witnessed only by the priests assisting the offender and
by his lawyers, and by his relatives, not exceeding six, if he so request, by the
physician and the necessary personnel of the penal establishment, and by such
persons as the Director of Prisons may authorize.
Art. 85. Provisions relative to the corpse of the person executed and its burial. —
Unless claimed by his family, the corpse of the culprit shall, upon the completion
of the legal proceedings subsequent to the execution, be turned over to the
institute of learning or scientific research first applying for it, for the purpose of
study and investigation, provided that such institute shall take charge of the
decent burial of the remains. Otherwise, the Director of Prisons shall order the
burial of the body of the culprit at government expense, granting permission to be
present thereat to the members of the family of the culprit and the friends of the
latter. In no case shall the burial of the body of a person sentenced to death be
held with pomp.
Art. 86. Reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor, prision

correccional and arresto mayor. — The penalties of reclusion perpetua, reclusion
temporal, prision mayor, prision correccional and arresto mayor, shall be executed
and served in the places and penal establishments provided by the Administrative
Code in force or which may be provided by law in the future.
Art. 87. Destierro. — Any person sentenced to destierro shall not be permitted
to enter the place or places designated in the sentence, nor within the radius
therein specified, which shall be not more than 250 and not less than 25
kilometers from the place designated.
● Destierro shall be imposed in the ff cases:

a) death or serious physical injuries is caused or are inflicted under exceptional
circumstance
b) person fails to give bond for good behavior
c) concubine’s penalty for the crime of concubinage
d) lowering the penalty by degrees
● Execution of Distierro
a) Convict shall not be permitted to enter the place designated in the sentence nor within
the radius specified, which shall not be more than 250 and not less than 25 km from the
place designated.
b) If the convict enters the prohibited area, he commits evasion of sentence
Art. 88. Arresto menor. — The penalty of arresto menor shall be served in the
municipal jail, or in the house of the defendant himself under the surveillance of
an officer of the law, when the court so provides in its decision, taking into
consideration the health of the offender and other reasons which may seem
satisfactory to it.
● Served where:
129
⮚ In the municipal jail
⮚ In the house of the offender, but under the surveillance of an officer of the law whenever the
court so provides in the decision due to the health of the offender. But the reason is not
satisfactory just because the offender is a respectable member of the community
EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. — Criminal liability is

totally extinguished:
re-election to public office is not one of the grounds by which criminal liability is extinguished. This is only
true to administrative cases but not criminal cases.
(1) By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and as to pecuniary
penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender
occurs before final judgment.
● Extinguishment of criminal liability is a ground of motion to quash
● Criminal liability whether before or after final judgment is extinguished upon death because it
is a personal penalty
● Pecuniary penalty is extinguished only when death occurs before final judgement.
PP vs. BAYOTAS
1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as
well as the civil liability based solely thereon.
2. The claim of civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may
also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict.
3. Where the civil liability survives, an action for recovery therefore, may be pursued but
only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1 Rule 111 of the 1985
Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil action may be enforced
either against the executor/administrator of the estate of the accused, depending on the
source obligation upon which the same is based as explained above.
* If the act or omission complained of gives rise to a cause of action arising from quasi-delict,
the separate civil action must be filed against the executor or administrator of the estate of the
accused pursuant to Sec. 1, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court.
* If the same act or omission complained of also arises from contract, the separate civil action
must be filed against the estate of the accused, pursuant to Sec. 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of
Court.
* When the civil liability does not arise from a certain crime and predicated on law, contract,
quasi-contract, or quasi-delict, the civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of the
accused during the pendency of the trial of a criminal action or appeal.
* What is contemplated in Article 89 is that the accused who died before the finality of a verdict
or conviction cannot be ordered to make restitution, reparation or indemnification to the
offended party by way of moral and exemplary damages.
* Where there are several accused, the death of one does not result to the dismissal of the
action because the liabilities, whether civil or criminal of said accused are distinct and separate.
* The death of the offended party pending the trial is not included in the total extinction of
criminal liability under Art. 89, neither is it a ground for the dismissal of a criminal complaint or
information. (Pp vs. Bundalian, 117 SCRA 718)
130
(2) By service of the sentence
● Crime is a debt, hence extinguished upon payment
● Service does not extinguish civil liability
.(3) By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects
AMNESTY – is an act of the sovereign power granting oblivion or general pardon. It wipes all
traces and vestiges of the crime but does not extinguish civil liability
(4) By absolute pardon
● PARDON – an act of grace proceeding from the power entrusted w/ the execution of laws,
which exempts the individual from the punishment the law inflicts for the crime.
* Pardon, although absolute does not erase the effects of conviction. Pardon only excuses the convict
from serving the sentence. There is an exception to this and that is when the pardon was granted when
the convict had already served the sentence such that there is no more service of sentence to be executed
then the pardon shall be understood as intended to erase the effects of the conviction. But if he was
serving sentence when he was pardoned, that pardon will not wipe out the effects of the crime, unless the
language of the pardon absolutely relieve 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.
* When the crime carries with it moral turpitude, the offender even if granted pardon shall still remain
disqualified from those falling in cases where moral turpitude is a bar.
* In Monsanto v. Factoran, Jr., 170 SCRA 191, it was held that absolute pardon does not ipso facto
entitle the convict to reinstatement to the public office forfeited by reason of his conviction. Although
pardon restores his eligibility for appointment to that office, the pardoned convict must reapply for the new
appointment
AMNESTY PARDON
Extended to classes of persons who may be Exercised individually by the president (any
guilty of political offenses crime)
Exercised even before trial or investigation Exercised when one is convicted
Looks backward and abolishes the offense Looks forward and relieves the offender of the
itself consequences
Does not extinguish civil liability Same
A public act that needs the declaration of the A private act of the president
president with the concurrence of Congress
Courts should take judicial notice Must be pleaded and proved
* 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 judgment or after it.
(5) By prescription of the crime
● When the crime prescribes, the state loses the right to prosecute
● Prescription of a crime – is the loss/forfeiture of the right of the state to prosecute the
offender after the lapse of a certain time.
(6) By prescription of the penalty
● Means: the loss/forfeiture of the right of government to execute the final sentence after the
lapse of a certain time. Conditions: there must be final judgement and the period has
elapsed.
(6) By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Art 344 of this Code
131
* 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 acts of lasciviousness. Do not say that it is applicable
to private crimes because the term includes adultery and concubinage. Marriages in these cases may
even compound the crime of adultery or concubinage. It is only in the crimes of rape, abduction, seduction
and acts of lasciviousness that the marriage by the offender with the offended woman shall extinguish civil
liability, not only criminal liability of the principal who marries the offended woman, but also that of the
accomplice and accessory, if there are any.
* Co-principals who did not themselves directly participate in the execution of the crime but who only
cooperated, will also benefit from such marriage, but not when such co-principal himself took direct part in
the execution of the crime.
* 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 the marriage, otherwise, notwithstanding such marriage, the
offended woman, although already his wife can still prosecute him again, although the marriage remains 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
because the offender will be compounding the wrong he has committed.
* In cases of multiple rapes, however, the principle does not apply. Thus, if A, B and C raped
W in that when A was having sex with W, B and C were holing the legs and arms, and when it
was B’s turn, A and C were the ones holding W’s legs and arms, and when C was the one having
sex with W, the ones holding her arms and legs were A and B. Even if later on, A contracted
marriage with W, there is no extinction of penal responsibility because this is a case of multiple
rapes.
* The grant of probation may be considered as a form of extinction of criminal liability

which was bestowed while accused who has never been encarcerated, was out on bail, may thus
be categorized as total extinction thereof. However, if it was granted after the conviction of the
accused who was in jail, it can be considered as partial extinction only. It must be noted
however, that unlike in service of sentence, in probation, the probationer is still required to
report to Probation Officer at a certain period until the duration of the probation period.
Art. 90. Prescription of crime. — Crimes punishable by death, reclusion

perpetua or reclusion temporal shall prescribe in twenty years.
Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in fifteen years.
Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten years; with the
exception of those punishable by arresto mayor, which shall prescribe in five
years.
The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year.
The crime of oral defamation and slander by deed shall prescribe in six months.
Light offenses prescribe in two months.
When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the highest penalty shall be
made the basis of the application of the rules contained in the first, second and
third paragraphs of this article. (As amended by RA 4661, approved June 19, 1966.)
● In computing for the period, the first day is excluded and the last day included. Subject to leap
years
● When the last day of the prescriptive period falls on a Sunday or a legal holiday, the info can
no longer be filed the ff day
● Simple slander prescribes in 2 months and grave slander in 6 months
132
● Since destierro is a correctional penalty, it prescribes in 10 years. Afflictive penalties, 15

years.
● If compound penalty, basis will be the highest penalty
Offense punished with a fine
To determine whether the prescriptive period of an offense punished with a fine is

imposed as a single or as an alternative penalty, such fine should not be reduced or converted
into a prison term. It should be classified into an afflictive, correctional, or light penalty pursuant
to Article 26.
* When fine is imposed as an alternative penalty to imprisonment (imposed together w/ a

penalty lower than the fine), and fine constitute a higher penalty than the penalty of
imprisonment, the basis of the prescriptive period should be the fine.
* The rule on prescription as to fines does not refer to subsidiary imprisonment. It takes into
consideration the nature of the penalty as afflictive, correctional and light. It is a rule that
prescriptive period is always based on the fine even if there is a subsidiary imprisonment.
● Prescription begins to run from the discovery thereof. Interrupted when proceedings are
instituted and shall begin to run again when the proceedings are dismissed.
* The defense of prescription cannot be waived and it may be raised during the trial or even on
appeal. However, the defense of prescription of crime cannot defeat the right of the state to
recover its properties which were unlawfully acquired by public officials.
● Prescription does not take away the court’s jurisdiction but only absolves the defendant and
acquits him.
* Extinction of crime by prescription does not extinguish civil liability unless extinction proceeds
from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did
not exist.
* Where the special law such as the Copyright Law provides for its own prescriptive period, said
special law will govern. Act 3326 will not be applied.
Prescription of Crimes (Art. 90)
Penalty or Felony Time after which Crime will Prescribe

Death, reclusion perpetua or reclusion 20 years
temporal
Other afflictive penalties 15 years
Correctional penalty, except arresto mayor 10 years
Arresto mayor 5 years
Libel or other similar offenses 1 year
Oral defamation and slander by deed 6 months
Light offenses 2 months
Prescriptive periods of offenses punished under special laws and municipal

ordinances (Act No. 3763)
Penalty or Offense Time after which offense will prescribe
Fine only; or 1 year
imprisonment for not more than 1 month,
Or both,
133
Imprisonment for more than 1 month, but 4 years
less than 2 years
Imprisonment for 2 years or more but less 8 years
than 6 years
Imprisonment for 6 years or more 12 years
Internal Revenue Law offenses 5 years
Violations of municipal ordinances 2 months
Violations of the regulations or conditions
of certificate of convenience by the Public 2 months
Service Commission
Art. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. — The period of prescription

shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the
offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted by the
filing of the complaint or information, and shall commence to run again when such
proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are
unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him.
The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the
Philippine Archipelago.
The aforementioned rule, however is not applicable in the following cases:
a. In continuing crimes where the prescriptive period will start to run only at the termination
of the intended result;
b. In crimes which are not concealed because there is a constructive notice to the public,
such as to those which involve a public document registered in public offices. It is a rule
that registration is tantamount to a declaration to the whole world. In such cases, the
prescriptive period shall commence from the time of the registration of the document.
c. In the crime of false testimony where the prescriptive period is reckoned from the day of
final judgment is rendered by the court and not at the time the false testimony was
made.
● If there is nothing concealed (appears in a public document), the crime commences to run on
the date of the commission
● Period of prescription for crimes that is continuing never runs
● Crime needs to be discovered by:

a) offended party
b) authorities
c) their agents
● If a person witnesses the crime but only tells the authorities 25 years later, prescription
commences on the day the authorities were told.
“Commission of the crime is public” -- This does not mean alone that the crime was within public
knowledge or committed in public.
Illustration:
In the crime of falsification of a document that was registered in the proper registry 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 falsified document was registered or recorded in such public office so even though, the
offended party may not really know of the falsification, the prescriptive period of the crime shall already run
from the moment the falsified document was recorded 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 Property, 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 is registered in the Registry of Property, the prescriptive period already commenced to
run (Constructive notice rule).
134
● What interrupts prescription?

a) preliminary examination or investigation w/c is similar to judicial proceeding
b) filing the proper complaint w/ the fiscal’s office and the prosecutor. Police not included.
c) Filing complaint with the court that has proper jurisdiction
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 prescriptive period is good only for 60 days.
After which the prescription will resume 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 the crime is suspended
until the accused is convicted or the proceeding is terminated for a cause not attributable to the
accused.
* Holiday is not a legal efficient cause which interrupts the prescription of the offense. Where
the last day to file an information falls on a Sunday or legal holiday, the prescriptive period
cannot be extended up to the next working day.
* But where the crime is subject to Summary Procedure, the prescription of the crime will be suspended
only when the information is already filed with the trial court. 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.
* If the case involves a minor offense and it is filed in the fiscal’s office, the filing of the case in
the fiscal’s office will not interrupt the running of the period of prescription.
● When the period commences to run again

a) When the proceeding is terminated without the accused being convicted or acquitted
b) When the proceeding is unjustifiably stopped for a reason not imputable to the offender
● “when such proceedings terminate” – termination that is final; an unappealed conviction or

acquittal
● “unjustifiably stopped for any reason” – example: accused evades arrest, proceedings must be
stopped
● Art 91 applies to a special law when said law does not provide for the application but only
provides for the period of prescription
* The prevailing rule now is, prescription of the crime is not waivable, When a crime prescribes, the State
loses the right to prosecute the offender, hence, even though the offender may not have filed a motion to
quash on this ground 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 appellate court shall have no jurisdiction to continue, if legally, the
crime has indeed prescribed.
Art. 92. When and how penalties prescribe. — The penalties imposed by final
sentence prescribe as follows:
1. Death and reclusion perpetua, in twenty years;

2. Other afflictive penalties, in fifteen years;
3. Correctional penalties, in ten years; with the exception of the penalty of
arresto mayor, which prescribes in five years;
4. Light penalties, in one year.
When Penalties Prescribe (Art. 92)

Penalty Prescriptive Period
Death 20 years
135
Reclusion perpetua
Other afflictive penalties 15 years
Correctional penalties, except arresto 10 years
mayor
Arresto mayor 5 years
Light penalties 1 year
● Note that final sentence must be imposed
* The penalty, to be subject of prescription must have been imposed by final judgment. Thus, if
A after conviction by the trial court, appealed the decision, and escaped from jail where he has
been detained during the trial, the penalty will never prescribe. In prescription of penalty, the
offender must be serving sentence, and must have escaped, committing the crime of Evasion of
Sentence. From the day he escaped, the prescription of penalty commence to run.
Problem: A was sentenced to reclusion temporal for homicide and while serving
sentence, for January 1, 1980. He must be able to elude authorities up to January 2, 1995 to
consider the penalty prescribed. Supposed he was arrested after five (5) years of escape – that
is, on January 1, 1985, and was able to hide for just ten (10) more years. The five-year period
during his first escape must have to be considered for purposes of completing the fifteen
(15)-year period for the prescription of the penalty of Homicide.
● If a convict can avail of mitigating circumstances and the penalty is lowered, it is still the
original penalty that is used as the basis for prescription. However, if the convict already
serves a portion of his sentence and escapes after, the penalty that was imposed (not the
original) shall be the basis for prescription
● Fines less than 200 fall under light penalty. Those above are correccional.
Art. 93. Computation of the prescription of penalties. — The period of

prescription of penalties shall commence to run from the date when the culprit
should evade the service of his sentence, and it shall be interrupted if the
defendant should give himself up, be captured, should go to some foreign country
with which this Government has no extradition treaty, or should commit another
crime before the expiration of the period of prescription.
● Elements:
a) penalty is final
b) convict evaded the sentence
c) convict has not given himself up
d) penalty has prescribed because of lapse of time from the date of the evasion of the
service of the sentence
* On the prescription of the penalty, the period will only commence to run when the 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 accused was convicted in the trial court, and the conviction becomes final and
executory, so this fellow was arrested to serve the sentence, on the way to the penitentiary, the vehicle
carrying him collided with another vehicle and overturned, thus 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
prescribe because he has not yet commenced the service of his sentence. For the penalty to prescribe,
he must be brought to Muntinlupa, booked there, placed inside the cell and thereafter he escapes.
● Interruption of the period
⮚ If the defendant surrenders
⮚ If he is captured
⮚ If he should go into a foreign country with which the Philippines has no extradition treaty
136
* Presently the Philippines has an extradition treaty with Taiwan, Indonesia, Canada, Australia, USA and
Switzerland
⮚ If he should commit another crime before the expiration of the period of prescription
* The moment the convict commits another crime while he is fugitive from justice, prescriptive period of
the penalty shall be suspended and shall not run in the meantime. The crime committed does 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 of evasion of service of sentence does not suspend the prescription of
penalty, it is the commission of other crime, after the convict has evaded the service of penalty that will
suspend such period.
⮚ Acceptance of a conditional pardon(People v. Puntilos)
● If a government has an extradition treaty w/ the country to w/c a convict escaped and the
crime is not included in the treaty, the running of the prescription is interrupted
● Sentence evasion clearly starts the running of the prescription. It does not interrupt it.
Acceptance of the conditional pardon interrupts the prescriptive period.
● Rolito Go case: since he was captured, he is only supposed to serve the remainder of his
sentence. Reason: during the period he escaped, his existence is one of fear and discomfort
Art. 94. Partial Extinction of criminal liability. — Criminal liability is

extinguished partially:
1. By conditional pardon;
2. By commutation of the sentence; and
3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is serving
his sentence.
Conditional pardon – contract between the sovereign power of the executive and the convict
● Convict shall not violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines
● Violation of conditions:
⮚ Offender is re-arrested and re-incarcerated
⮚ Prosecution under Art. 159
Commutation – change in the decision of the court by the chief regarding the
(1) degree of the penalty;
(2) by decreasing the length of the imprisonment or fine
● Commutation allowed when:

a) person over 70 yrs old
b) 10 justices fail to reach a decision affirming the death penalty
● Consent not necessary in commutation
● Prisoner is also allowed special time allowance for loyalty w/c is 1/5 deduction of the
period of his sentence.
PAROLE – consists in the suspension of the sentence of a convict after serving the minimum
term of the indeterminate penalty, without granting pardon, prescribing the terms upon which the
sentence shall be suspended. In case his parole conditions are not observed, a convict may be
returned to the custody and continue to serve his sentence without deducting the time that
elapsed.
CONDITIONAL PARDON PAROLE
Given after final judgement Given after service of the minimum penalty
Granted by Chief Executive Given by the Bd of Pardons and Parole
137
For violation, convict may not be prosecuted For violations, may be rearrested, convict
under 159 serves remaining sentence
● Good conduct allowance during confinement

Deduction for the term of sentence for good behavior
Good conduct allowance
This includes the allowance for loyalty under Article 98, in relation to Article 158. A convict who escapes
the place of confinement on the occasion of disorder resulting 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
proclamation 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 back. Those who did not leave the penitentiary
under such circumstances do not get such allowance for loyalty. Article 158 refers only to those who leave
and return.
Art. 95. Obligation incurred by person granted conditional pardon. —

Any person who has been granted conditional pardon shall incur the obligation of
complying strictly with the conditions imposed therein otherwise, his
non-compliance with any of the conditions specified shall result in the revocation
of the pardon and the provisions of Article 159 shall be applied to him.
● Condition of pardon is limited to unserved portion of the sentence, unless an intention to

extend it beyond the time is manifest
Art. 96. Effect of commutation of sentence. — The commutation of the original

sentence for another of a different length and nature shall have the legal effect of
substituting the latter in the place of the former.
Art. 97. Allowance for good conduct. — The good conduct of any prisoner in
any penal 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

deduction 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
imprisonment, 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

allowed a deduction of fifteen days for each month of good behavior.
● Allowance for good conduct not applicable when prisoner released under conditional pardon.
● Good conduct time allowance is given in consideration of good conduct of prisoner while he
is serving sentence.
Allowances for Good conduct per year

Years Allowance
First 2 years 5 days per month of good behavior
3rd to 5th years 8 days per month of good behavior
Following years up to 10th year 10 days per month of good behavior
th
11 year and successive years 15 days per month of good behavior
Art. 98. Special time allowance for loyalty. — A deduction of one-fifth of the
period of his sentence shall be granted to any prisoner who, having evaded the
138
service of his sentence under the circumstances mentioned in article 158 of this
Code, gives himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of
a proclamation announcing the passing away of the calamity or catastrophe to in
said article.
● Special time allowance for loyalty of prisoners:

⮚ The article applies only to prisoners who escaped
⮚ deduction of 1/5 of the period of sentence of prisoner who having evaded the service of
his sentence during the calamity or catastrophe mentioned in Art 158, gives himself up to
the authorities w/in 48 hrs ff the issuance of the proclamation by the President
announcing the passing away of the calamity or catastrophe
⮚ deduction based on the original sentence and not on the unexpired portion
● Art 158 provides for increased penalties:

- a convict who has evaded the service of his sentence by leaving the penal institution on the
occasion of disorder resulting from conflagration, earthquake or similar catastrophe or during
mutiny in which he did not participate is liable to an increased penalty (1/5 of the time still
remaining to be served – not to exceed 6 months), if he fails to give himself up to the
authorities w/in 48 hrs ff the issuance of a proclamation by the President announcing the
passing away of the calamity.
Art. 99. Who grants time allowances. — Whenever lawfully justified, the
Director of Prisons shall grant allowances for good conduct. Such allowances
once granted shall not be revoked.
a) authority to grant time allowance for good conduct is exclusively vested in the Director of
prisons (e.g. provincial warden cannot usurp Director’s authority)
b) it is not an automatic right and once granted, cannot be revoked by him
CIVIL LIABILITY
Acts or omissions resulting in felonies produce two classes of injuries. The first
injury is directed against the state and is known as “social injury”. The offended party is the
government or the collective right of our people. It is repaired through the imposition of
penalties. The second injury is directed to the private offended party and is known as “personal
injury”. The injury is caused to the victim of the crime who may have suffered damage, either
to his person, to his property, or to his honor which is compensated by way of indemnity which
is civil in nature.
A person criminally liable is also civilly liable. The award of civil damages arising from
crime is governed by the Revised Penal Code, subject to the provisions of Article 32, 33 and 34
of the New Civil Code. Procedural aspect of the civil liability of the accused, Rule 111 of the
Revised Rules of Court governs. Section 1, Rule 111 provides that:
Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. – When a criminal action is instituted,
the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is implied instituted with the criminal action,
unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves his right to institute it separately, or
institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
A waiver of any of the civil actions extinguishes the others. The institution of, or the
reservation of the right to file, any of said civil actions separately waives the others.
In no case may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission
of the accused.
139
In cases wherein the amount of damages, other than actual, is alleged in the complaint
or information, the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon the filing
thereof in court for trial.
Civil liability in the aforecited rule is predicted on the crime committed by the offender. If
the civil liability arose from crimes covered under Articles 32, 33 and 34 and 2176 of the New
Civil Code, an independent civil action can be instituted, either before or after the filing of the
criminal case, provided that in the latter case, the offended party makes an express reservation
to file a separate civil action. When a civil action is filed as stated above, the same is suspended
upon filing of the criminal action, meaning, the trial is not to be done until the criminal case is
resolved or decided. This rule, however, is not applicable if the civil liability that is separately
instituted, arises or originates from the provisions of Articles 32, 33 and 34 of the Civil Code.
It is necessary, however that the civil liability under all said articles arise from the same
act or omission of the accused.
When the civil liability arising from the crime is different from civil liability arising from the
Civil Code, if civil liability is already awarded in the criminal action, the offender cannot again
claim civil liability arising from crime, and one arising from quasi-delict.
Civil Liabilities vs. Pecuniary Liabilities

Civil Liability Pecuniary Liability
Includes reparation of damage caused and Includes reparation of damages caused
indemnification for consequential damages and indemnification for consequential
damages
Includes restitution Does not include restitution
Does not include fines and costs of the Includes fine and the costs of the
proceedings proceedings
Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. — Every person criminally
liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
Basis:
> obligation to repair or to make whole the damage caused to another by reason of an act or
omission, whether done intentionally or negligently and whether or not punishable by law
* If the crime is one from which no civil liability may arise, like Illegal Possession of Firearm (P.D.
1866 as amended by R.A. 8294), or illegal sale, transport or possession of prohibited drugs (R.A.
64225 as amended by R.A. 7659), the convict incurs no civil liability.
Dual character of the crime as against:

a) the state because of the disturbance of peace and order
b) the private person injured unless it involves the crime of treason, rebellion,
espionage, contempt and others where no civil liability arises on the part of the
offender either because there are no damages or there is no private person injured by
the crime
* The civil liability of the accused may be enforced in the criminal action or in a direct civil
action. The choice is in the offended party. If his preference is to prosecute the civil action in the
criminal proceedings, he cannot be compelled to institute a separate civil action instead. (Pp vs.
Guido, 57 Phil. 52)
Damage that may be recovered in criminal cases:

● Crimes against persons, like crime of physical injuries – whatever he spent for treatment of
wounds, doctor’s fees, medicines as well as salary or wages unearned
● Moral Damages: seduction, abduction, rape or other lascivious acts, adultery or

concubinage, illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest, illegal search, libel, slander or any other
form of defamation, malicious prosecution
140
● Exemplary Damages: imposed when crime was committed with one or more aggravating
circumstances
NOTES:
* If there is no damage caused by the commission of the crime, offender is not civilly liable
* Dismissal of the info or the crime action does not affect the right of the offended party to
institute or continue the civil action already instituted arising from the offense, because such
dismissal does not carry with it the extinction of the civil one.
* When accused is acquitted on ground that his guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable
doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted
* When during the trial what was established was only the civil aspect of the case and the same
facts adduced did not constitute a crime, civil liability is also awarded. (Padilla vs. Court of
Appeals, 129 SCRA 558)
* Exemption from criminal liability in favor of an imbecile or insane person, and a person under 9
yrs, or over 9 but under 15 who acted w/ discernment and those acting under the impulse of
irresistible force or under the impulse of an uncontrolable fear of an equal or greater injury does
not include exemption from civil liability.
* Acquittal in the criminal action for negligence does not preclude the offended party from filing a
civil action to recover damages, based on the theory that the act is quasi-delict
* When the court found the accused guilty of criminal negligence but failed to enter judgement of
civil liability, the private prosecutor has a right to appeal for the purposes of the civil liability of the
accused. The appellate court may remand the case to the trial court for the latter to include in its
judgement the civil liability of the accused
* Where the accused was convicted in a criminal case but the court did not make any
pronouncement on his civil liability, such omission on the part of the court will not operate to
prevent or bar the offended party to file a separate civil action. (Bachrach Motors, Inc. vs.
Gamboa, 101 Phil. 1219) Silence is the declaration that the same is reserved by the complainant
and will not operate as res judicata.
* Before expiration of the 15-day for appealing, the trial court can amend the judgement of
conviction by adding a provision for the civil liability of the accused, even if the convict has
started serving the sentence.
* An INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION may be brought by the injured party during the pendency
of the criminal case provided the right is reserved. Reservation is necessary in the ff cases:
1. any of the cases referred to in Art 32 (violation of ones fundamental rights)
2. defamation, fraud and physical injury (bodily injury and not the crime of physical
injury)(Art.33)
3. civil action is against a member of a city or municipal police force for refusing or
failing to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or
property(Art.34)
4. in an action for damage arising from fault or negligence and there is no

pre-existing contractual relation between the parties (quasi-delict)(Art.2176)
141
PREJUDICIAL QUESTION – one w/c arises in a case, the resolution of which is a logical
antecedent of the issue involved in said case and the cognizance of which pertains to another
tribunal.
The following requisites must be present:

1. The civil case involves facts intimately related with those of the criminal case; and
2. The resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil action wherein the guilt or
innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined. (Sec. 5, Rule 111, RRC)
● For the principle to apply, it is essential that there be 2 cases involved, a civil and a criminal
case. Prejudicial questions may be decided before any criminal prosecution may be instituted
or may proceed.
● An independent civil action may be brought by the injured party during the pendency of the
criminal case, provided that the right is reserved
* When the civil aspect of the case is not reserved but is prosecuted in the criminal action, the
offended party may, by appropriate motion, pray or ask the trial court to issue a writ of
preliminary attachment against the property of the accused as security for the satisfaction of any
judgment that may be awarded in favor of the offended party upon the termination of the case.
* If the offended party in a criminal case is represented by a private prosecutor, he cannot file a
separate civil action.
* If the offended party is represented by a private prosecutor and the latter did not produce
evidence to prove civil liability and the case was resolved without the evidence to prove civil
liability and the case was resolved without the court disposing of the civil aspect of the case, the
decision of the court shall operate as a bar to the recovery of civil liability. In a criminal case, the
presence of a private prosecutor is justified because of the civil aspect of the case. As a rule,
the moment the private prosecutor makes a manifestation that the offended party is reserving
the civil aspect of the case, he is immediately disqualified to appear as private prosecutor. (Roas
vs. dela Cruz)
● Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil, unless the
extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgement that the fact from which the civil
might arise did not exist
* In a criminal case, the civil liability of the employee is enforceable against the employer if the
former is insolvent.
Art. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. — The exemption from
criminal liability established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of article 12 and in
subdivision 4 of article 11 of this Code does not include exemption from civil
liability, which shall be enforced subject to the following rules:
First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article 12, the civil liability for acts
committed by an imbecile or insane person, and by a person under nine years of
age, or by one over nine but under fifteen years of age, who has acted without
discernment, shall devolve upon those having such person under their legal
authority or control, unless it appears that there was no fault or negligence on
their part.
Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor under his
authority, legal guardianship or control, or if such person be insolvent, said
insane, imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own property, excepting
property exempt from execution, in accordance with the civil law.
142
Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11, the persons for whose
benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the
benefit which they may have received.
The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, the proportionate amount for
which each one shall be liable.
When the respective shares cannot be equitably determined, even approximately,

or when the liability also attaches to the Government, or to the majority of the
inhabitants of the town, and, in all events, whenever the damages have been
caused with the consent of the authorities or their agents, indemnification shall be
made in the manner prescribed by special laws or regulations.
Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of Article 12, the persons using
violence or causing the fears shall be primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there
be no such persons, those doing the act shall be liable, saving always to the latter
that part of their property exempt from execution.
General Rule: exemption from criminal liability does not include exemption from civil liability
Exception: no civil liability in par 4 and 7of art 12. Par 1,2,3,5 and 6 are NOT exempt from civil
liability although exempt from criminal liability
Who are civilly liable for:
a. acts of insane or minor exempt from criminal liability

5. primarily devolve upon perosns having legal authority or control over him, if at
fault or negligent (except if proven that they acted w/o fault or w/ due diligence)
6. if no fault or negligence, or even w/ fault but is insolvent and there are no persons
having legal authority over them, the property of the insane, minor or imbecile not
exempt from execution shall be held liable.
b. over 15 but under 18 w. discernment

1. civil code says parent (dad then mom)_
2. guardians
3. minors own property where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed
* In actual practice, when a minor or an insane person is accused of a crime, the court will
inquire who are the persons exercising legal control upon the offender. When the names of such
persons are made known to the court, they are required to participate in the proceedings, not
only to help the accused in his defense but also for said persons in legal authority to protect
their interests as persons primarily liable to pay the civil liability caused by the minor or insane.
They may, however, invoke the defense embodied under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code
which provides that in order to escape civil liability, the persons primarily liable must prove that
they observed all the diligence of a god father of a family to prevent damages.
* In the event that the minor or insane has no parents or guardian, the court will appoint a
guardian ad litem to protect the interests of the minor or insane. In such a case, the court will
render judgment fixing the civil liability of the minor or insane and under such a situation, the
property of the minor shall be primarily liable in the payment of civil liability.
*final release of a child based on good conduct does not remove his civil liability for
damages.
c. persons acting under an irresistible force or uncontrollable fear

1. persons using violence or causing the fear are primarily liable
2. if there are none, those doing the act
143
d. no civil liability in justifying circumstances EXCEPT: par 4 of Art 11, the one
benefited by the act is civilly liable.
e. civil liability in case of state of necessity

Those who benefited by the act and court shall determine the proportionate
amount for which each shall be liable. If the government or majority of the inhabitants
are liable, such will be determined by special laws or regulations.
Art. 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors of

establishments. — In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers,
tavernkeepers, and any other persons or corporations shall be civilly liable for
crimes committed in their establishments, in all cases where a violation of
municipal ordinances or some general or special police regulation shall have been
committed by them or their employees.
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods taken by
robbery or theft within their houses from guests lodging therein, or for the
payment of the value thereof, provided that such guests shall have notified in
advance the innkeeper himself, or the person representing him, of the deposit of
such goods within the inn; and shall furthermore have followed the directions
which such innkeeper or his representative may have given them with respect to
the care and vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in case of robbery
with violence against or intimidation of persons unless committed by the
innkeeper's employees.
Elements of Par 1:
1. That the innkeeper of the establishment or his employee committed a violation of
municipal ordinance or some general or special police regulation
2. A crime is committed in such establishment
3. Person criminally liable is insolvent
* When the foregoing circumstances are present in the commission of the crime, the civil liability
of the offender shall also be the civil liability of the owners of the establishments. Such civil
liability arises only if the person criminally liable is insolvent because the nature of the liability of
the innkeeper and the others is only subsidiary.
Elements of Par 2:
1. guests notified in advance the innkeeper of the deposit of such goods w/in the inn
2. guests followed the directions of the innkeeper w/ respect to the care and vigilance over
the such goods
3. such goods of the guest lodging therein were taken by robbery w/ force upon things or
theft
● When all these are present, the innkeeper is subsidiarily liable
● No civil liability in case of robbery w/ violence against or intimidation of person, unless

committed by the innkeeper’s employees
● Actual deposit of the things of the guest to the innkeeper is not necessary, it is enough that
they were within the inn.
* The Supreme Court ruled that even though the guest did not obey the rules and regulations prescribed
by the management for safekeeping of the valuables, this does not absolve management from the
subsidiary civil liability. Non-compliance with such rules and regulations by the guests will only be
regarded as contributory negligence, but it won’t absolve the management from civil liability.
Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. — The subsidiary liability
established in the next preceding article shall also apply to employers, teachers,
144
persons, and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed
by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of
their duties.
Elements
a. employer, teacher, person or corporation is engaged in any kind of industry
b. any of their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices of employees commits a felony while in
the discharge of his duties which are related to the business of his employer
c. the said employee is insolvent and has not satisfied his civil liability
Industry – any department or branch of art, occupation or business; especially one w/c
employs so much labor and capital is a distinct branch of trade
⮚ Hospitals are not engaged in industry; hence not subsidiarily liable for acts of nurses
⮚ Private persons w/o business or industry, not subsidiarilly liable
* there is no need to file a civil action against the employer in order to enforce the subsidiary civil liability
for the crime committed by his employee, it is enough that the writ of execution is returned unsatisfied.
* In the trial of the case, if the court will allow the participation of the employer to protect its
civil liability, it cannot put up the defense of diligence of a good father of a family. Such kind of
defense is available only if the action is based or predicated on quasi-delict under Article 2180 of
the Civil Code.
Distinctions between the civil liability of the employer under Article 103 of the
Revised Penal Code and his liability under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code:
1. As to the source of the civil liability of the offender-employer.
Under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, the civil liability arises from crime, while
under Article 2180, the obligation arises from quasi-delict.
2. As to the nature of the liability of the employer.
The liability of the employer under the RPC is subsidiary, while under the Civil Code, it is
direct and primary;
3. As to whether a separate complaint must be filed against the employer.
Under the RPC, the filing of a separate complaint against the operator for recovery of
subsidiary liability is clear from the decision of conviction against the accused. Under the
Civil Code, the complaint must be filed against the employer because his liability is direct
and primary.
4. As to the necessity of previous conviction in a criminal case.
The RPC requires previous conviction of the offender-employer. Such is not required
under the Civil Code.
5. As to the availability of the defense of the “exercise of diligence of a good

father of the family in the selection and supervision of employee.”
This defense is not available to defeat the employer’s subsidiary liability under the RPC.
On the other hand, the Civil Code allows such defense in favor of the employer.
145
* A judgment of conviction sentencing a defendant employee to pay an indemnity is conclusive
upon the employer in an action for the enforcement of the latter’s subsidiary liability. (Rotea vs.
Halili, 109 Phil. 495)
* Acquittal of the driver in the criminal case is not a bar to the prosecution of the civil action
based on quasi-delict. The source of obligation in the criminal case is Article 103, or obligations
arising from crime, while the civil action is based on Article 2176 or quasi-delict. Article 1157 of
the Civil Code provides that quasi-delicts and acts or omissions punishable by law are two
different sources of obligations.( Virata vs. Ochoa )
Art. 104. What is included in civil liability. — The civil liability established in
Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code includes:
1. Restitution;
2. Reparation of the damage caused;
3. Indemnification for consequential damages.
● First remedy granted by law is no. 1, in case this is not possible no. 2.
● In either case, no. 3 may be required
● RESTITUTION – in theft, the culprit is duty bound to return the property stolen
● REPARATION – in case of inability to return the property stolen, the culprit must pay the
value of the property stolen.
● In case of physical injuries, the reparation of the damage cause would consist in the payment
of hospital bills and doctor’s fees to the offended party
● INDEMNIFICATION – the lost of salary or earnings
CIVIL LIABILITIES PECUNIARY LIABILITIES

Includes reparation and indemnification Same
Includes restitution (return property taken), No restitution as the liabilities are to be paid
nothing to pay in terms of money out of the property of the offender
No fines and costs of proceedings Includes fines and costs of proceedings
Art. 105. Restitution. — How made. — The restitution of the thing itself must be
made whenever possible, with allowance for any deterioration, or diminution of
value as determined by the court.
The thing itself shall be restored, even though it be found in the possession of a
third person who has acquired it by lawful means, saving to the latter his action
against the proper person, who may be liable to him.
This provision is not applicable in cases in which the thing has been acquired by
the third person in the manner and under the requirements which, by law, bar an
action for its recovery.
● The convict cannot by way of restitution, give to the offended party a similar thing of the
same amount, kind or species and quality. The very thing should be returned.
● If the property stolen while in the possession of the third party suffers deterioration due to his
fault, the court will assess the amount of the deterioration and, in addition to the return of the
property, the culprit will be ordered to pay such amount
● General Rule: the owner of the property illegally taken by the offender can recover it from
whomsoever is in possession thereof. Thus, even if the property stolen was acquired by a 3rd
person by purchase w/o knowing that it has been stolen, such property will be returned to the
owner.
Exception: purchased in a public sale or auction in good faith
146
Restitution or restoration presupposes that the offended party was divested of property, 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, except when such third party buys the property from a
public sale where the law protects the buyer.
● If the thing is acquired by a person knowing that it was stolen, then he is an accessory and
therefore criminally liable(liable under anti-fencing law)
● The third party who acquired the stolen property may be reimbursed w/ the price paid
therefor if it be acquired at (a) a public sale and (b) in good faith
● Circumstances which bar an action for recovery:

Torrens title
When sale is authorized
● When the liability to return a thing arises from a contract, not from a criminal act, the court
cannot order its return in the criminal case.
● Restitution may be ordered, even if accused is acquitted, provided the offense is proved and
it is shown that the thing belongs to someone else
* The obligation of the offender transcends to his heirs, even if the offender dies, provided he died after
judgment became final, the heirs shall assume the burden of the civil liability, but this is only to the extent
that they inherit property from the deceased, if they do not inherit, they cannot inherit the obligations.
● When crime is not against property, no restitution or reparation of the thing can be done
* 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 illegally taken from the offended party during the
commission of the crime, the court 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.
● The court has authority to order the reinstatement of the accused acquitted of a crime
punishable by the penalty of perpetual or temporary disqualification
* 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. That value includes the sentimental value to the
offended party, not only the replacement cost. But if what would be restored is brand new, then there will
be an allowance for depreciation, otherwise, the offended party is allowed to enrich himself at the expense
of the offender.
Art. 106. Reparation. — How made. — The court shall determine the amount of
damage, taking into consideration the price of the thing, whenever possible, and
its special sentimental value to the injured party, and reparation shall be made
accordingly.
Notes:
● Reparation will be ordered by the court if restitution is not possible
● Reparation shall be
a) the price of the thing
b) its sentimental value
* In case of HUMAN LIFE, reparation of the damage cause is basically P50,000.00 value of human life,
exclusive of other forms of damages. This P50,000.00 may also increase whether such life was lost
through intentional felony or criminal negligence, whether the result of dolo or culpa. Also in the crime of
RAPE, the damages awarded to the offended woman is generally P50,000.00 for the damage to her
honor.Supreme Court ruled that even if the offended woman does not adduce evidence or such damage,
court can take judicial notice of the fact that if a woman was raped, she inevitably suffers damages.
● If there is no evidence as to the value of the thing unrecovered, reparation cannot be made
147
● Payment by the insurance company does not relive the offender of his obligation to repair the
damage caused
● The damages shall be limited to those caused by the crime
● Accused is liable for the damages caused as a result of the destruction of the property after
the crime was committed either because it was lost or destroyed by the accused himself or
that of any other person or as a result of any other cause or causes
Art. 107. Indemnification — What is included. — Indemnification for

consequential damages shall include not only those caused the injured party, but
also those suffered by his family or by a third person by reason of the crime.
● Indemnity refers to crimes against persons; reparation to crimes against property
* Indemnification of consequential damages refers to the loss of earnings, loss of profits. This does not
refer only to consequential damages suffered by the offended party; this also includes consequential
damages to third party who also suffer because of the commission of the crime.
● Indemnity for medical services still unpaid may be recovered
● Contributory negligence on the part of the offended party reduces the civil liability of the
offender
● The civil liability may be increased only if it will not require an aggravation of the decision in
the criminal case on w/c it is based
● The amount of damages for death shall be at least 50,000, even though there may have
been mitigating circumstances.
● In addition:
1. payment for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased
2. if the deceased was obliged to give support, the recipient who is not an heir, may
demand support from the defendant
3. the spouse, illegitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased
may demand for moral damages.
● MORAL DAMAGES may be recovered in the ff:

physical injuries
seduction, abduction, rape
adultery, concubinage
illegal or arbitrary detention
illegal search
libel, slander, defamation
malicious prosecution
● EXEMPLARY DAMAGES may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more
aggravating circumstances; cannot be recovered as a matter of right, the court will decide
whether they should be adjudicated.
* Indemnification also includes the award of attorney’s fees. Private prosecutor is therefore
entitled to the award of attorney’s fees.
148
Art. 108. Obligation to make restoration, reparation for damages, or
indemnification for consequential damages and actions to demand the same — Upon
whom it devolves. — The obligation to make restoration or reparation for damages
and indemnification for consequential damages devolves upon the heirs of the
person liable.
The action to demand restoration, reparation, and indemnification likewise

descends to the heirs of the person injured.
● The heirs of the person liable has no obligation if restoration is not possible and the
deceased left no property
● Civil liability is possible only when the offender dies after final judgement.
● If the death of the offender took place before any final judgement of conviction was rendered
against him, the action for restitution must necessarily be dismissed.
* An action for damages by reason of wrongful death may be instituted by the heirs of the
deceased against the administrator or executor of the estate of the deceased offender. It cannot
be brought by the administrator of the victim’s estate.
Art. 109. Share of each person civilly liable. — If there are two or more persons
civilly liable for a felony, the courts shall determine the amount for which each
must respond.
* In case of insolvency of the accomplices, the principal shall be subsidiarily liable for their share
of the indemnity and in case of the insolvency of the principal, the accomplices shall be
subsidiarily liable, jointly and severally liable, for the indemnity due from said principal
* When there are several offenders, the court in the exercise of its discretion shall determine what shall be
the share of each offender depending upon the degree of participation – as principal, accomplice or
accessory. If within each class of 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 subsidiary. Anyone
of them 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.
* If all the principals are insolvent, the obligation shall devolve upon the accomplice(s) or accessory(s).
But whoever pays shall have the right of recovering the share of the obligation from those who did not pay
but are civilly liable. In case the accomplice and the principal cannot pay, the liability of those subsidiarily
liable is absolute.
* To relate with Article 38, when there is an order or preference of pecuniary (monetary) liability, therefore,
restitution is not included here.
* There is not subsidiary penalty for non-payment of civil liability.
* The owners of taverns, inns, motels, hotels, where the crime is committed within their establishment due
to noncompliance with general police regulations, if the offender who is primarily liable cannot pay, the
proprietor, or owner is subsidiarily liable.
* Felonies committed by employees, pupils, servants in the course of their employment, schooling or
household chores. The employer, master, teacher is subsidiarily liable civilly, while the offender is primarily
liable.
Art. 110. Several and subsidiary liability of principals, accomplices and accessories
of a felony — Preference in payment. — Notwithstanding the provisions of the next
preceding article, the principals, accomplices, and accessories, each within their
respective class, shall be liable severally (in solidum) among themselves for their
quotas, and subsidiaries for those of the other persons liable.
149
The subsidiary liability shall be enforced, first against the property of the
principals; next, against that of the accomplices, and, lastly, against that of the
accessories.
Whenever the liability in solidum or the subsidiary liability has been enforced, the
person by whom payment has been made shall have a right of action against the
others for the amount of their respective shares.
● Subsidiary liability will be enforced on:

1. first, against the property of the principal
2. second, against that of the accomplice
3. third, against that of the accessories
Illustration: Two principals, two accomplices and two accessories were convicted in a
homicide case, and the indemnity to the heirs of the victim was fixed at Php6,000.00. The quota
of the principals was fixed at Php3,000.00; the accomplices at Php2,000.00 and the accessories
at Php1,000.00 and as between themselves, the liability of each was ½. If both principals were
insolvent, their quota would be borne by the two accomplices whose liability would be
Php2,500.00 each for a total of Php5,000.00, the quota of both principals and accomplices. If
the accessories were insolvent, the principals would bear their quota. Subsidiarily and in default
of the principals, the accomplices would bear the quota of the accessories.
Art. 111. Obligation to make restitution in certain cases. — Any person who has
participated gratuitously in the proceeds of a felony shall be bound to make
restitution in an amount equivalent to the extent of such participation.
Notes:
1. This refers to a person who has participated gratuitously in the commission of a felony and
he is bound to make restitution in an amount equivalent to the extent of such participation
2. The third person must be innocent of the commission of the crime otherwise he would be
liable as an accessory and this article will not apply
Art. 112. Extinction of civil liability. — Civil liability established in Articles 100,
101, 102, and 103 of this Code shall be extinguished in the same manner as
obligations, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Law.
● Civil liability is extinguished by:

1. payment or performance
2. loss of the thing due
3. condonation or remission of the debt
4. confusion or merger of the rights of creditor and debtor
5. compensation
6. novation
● Other causes of extinguishment of obligations: annulment, rescission, fulfillment of a

resolutory condition and prescription .
● Civil liability may arise from

1. Crime - RPC
2. Breach of contract - CC
3. Tortious act – CC
● The civil liability from any of these is extinguished by the same causes enumerated above
● The accused shall still be liable for the payment of the thing stolen even if it is lost or
destroyed
150
* Civil liability of the offender is extinguished in the same manner as civil obligation is extinguished but this
is not absolutely true. Under civil law, a civil 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 in criminal case if the
thing due is lost, the offender shall repair the damages caused.
* The judgment for civil liability prescribes in ten years. It may be enforced by writ of execution
within the first five years and by action for revival of judgment during the next five years.
Insolvency is not a defense to an action to enforce judgment.
Art. 113. Obligation to satisfy civil liability. — Except in case of extinction of his
civil liability as provided in the next preceding article the offender shall continue
to be obliged to satisfy the civil liability resulting from the crime committed by
him, notwithstanding the fact that he has served his sentence consisting of
deprivation of liberty or other rights, or has not been required to serve the same
by reason of amnesty, pardon, commutation of sentence or any other reason.
Notes:
● Unless extinguished, civil liability subsists even if the offender has served sentence
consisting of deprivation of liberty or other rights or has served the same, due to amnesty,
pardon, commutation of the sentence or any other reason.
● Under the law as amended, even if the subsidiary imprisonment is served for non-payment of
fines, this pecuniary liability of the defendant is not extinguished.
● While amnesty wipes out all traces and vestiges of the crime, it does not extinguish the civil
liability of the offender. A pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from the payment of the
civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence
● Probation affects only the criminal aspect of the crime.
151

3criminal Law Book1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3criminal Law Book1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3criminal Law Book1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Codal Provisions and Notes in CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I by RENE CALLANTA

Legal Basis of Punishment

Power to Enact Penal Laws

Limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws

1. Must be general in application.

2. Must not partake of the nature of an ex post facto law.

3. Must not partake of the nature of a bill of attainder.

4. Must not impose cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines.

Characteristics of Criminal Law: (G.T.P.)

Exceptions to general application of criminal law:

Terrestrial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over land.

Aerial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over the atmosphere.

The Archipelagic Rule

What Determines Jurisdiction in a Criminal Case?

This is also called irretrospectivity.

Effect of repeal of penal law to liability of offender

Consequences if repeal of penal law is total or absolute

Consequences if repeal of penal law is partial or relative

Consequences if repeal of penal law is express or implied

Theories of Criminal Law

2. POSITIVIST THEORY – Man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon

ECLECTIC OR MIXED PHILOSOPHY

Sources of Criminal Law

Construction of Penal Laws

BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW

NULLUM CRIMEN, NULLA POENA SINE LEGE

ACTUS NON FACIT REUM, NISI MENS SIT REA

UTILITARIAN THEORY OR PROTECTIVE THEORY

MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA

Mala in se vs. Mala prohibita

1. As to moral trait of the offender

2. As to use of good faith as defense

In crimes punished under special laws, good faith is not a defense

3. As to degree of accomplishment of the crime

4. As to mitigating and aggravating circumstances

Test to determine if violation of special law is malum prohibitum or malum in se

CODAL PROVISIONS OF THE R.P.C.

Art. 1. This Code shall take effect on January 1, 1932.

1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;

2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine

4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in

● Requirements of “an offense committed while on a Philippine Ship or Airship”

● Acts – an overt or external act

Example of an omission: failure to render assistance to anyone who is in danger of dying or is in

● Felonies - acts and omissions punishable by the Revised Penal Code

● HOW FELONIES ARE COMMITTED:

NEGLIGENCE - deficiency of perception; failure to foresee impending danger, usually

Intentional felonies vs. Culpable Felonies

In criminal law, intent is categorized into two:

Criminal intent is not necessary in these cases:

Distinction between intent and motive

* It is an omission or commission performed by the individual which is the result of a

Example: United States v. Ah Chong.

REAL CONCEPT OF CULPA

Art. 4. Criminal liability.-- Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony, although the wrongful act done be

In the first paragraph, two elements must be present:

● Proximate Cause is negated by:

b. Resulting injury or damage is due to the intentional act of the victim.