Criminal Law A branch of municipal law which defines crimes, treats of their nature and provides for

their punishment.
Limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws (ON)
1. Must be general in application.
2. Must not partake of the nature of an ex post facto law.
An ex post facto law (Latin for "from after the action" or "after the facts") is a law that
retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or
relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. n criminal law, it may criminali!e
actions that were legal when committed" it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more
severe category than it was in when it was committed" it may change the punishment prescribed
for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences" or it may alter the rules of
evidence in order to ma#e conviction for a crime li#elier than it would have been when the deed
was committed. $onversely, a form of ex post facto law commonly called an amnesty law may
decriminali!e certain acts or alleviate possible punishments (for example by replacing the death
sentence with lifelong imprisonment) retroactively. %uch laws are also #nown by the Latin term
in mitius.
3. Must not partake of the nature of a bill of attainder.
A bill of attainder (also #nown as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of
pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of
some crime and punishing them without privilege of a &udicial trial. As with attainder resulting
from the normal &udicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person's civil
rights, most notably the right to own property (and thus pass it on to heirs), the right to a title of
nobility, and, in at least the original usage, the right to life itself. (ills of attainder were used in
)ngland between about *+,, and *-,, and resulted in the executions of a number of notable
historical figures.
4. Must not impose cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines.
Characteristics of Criminal Law:
*. General the law is binding to all persons who reside in the !hilippines
.. Territorial the law is binding to all crimes committed within the "ational #erritor$ of the
!hilippines
Exception to Territorial Application% &nstances enumerated under Article 2.
3. Prospective the law does not have an$ retroactive effect.
Exception to Prospective Application% when new statute is favorable to the accused.
Effect of repeal of penal law to liabilit of offen!er
A repeal is the removal or reversal of a law
Total or absolute, or partial or relative repeal. As to the effect of repeal of penal law to the liability of
offender, qualify your answer by saying whether the repeal is absolute or total or whether the repeal is
partial or relative only.
A repeal is absolute or total when the crime punished under the repealed law has been decriminalied by
the repeal. !ecause of the repeal, the act or omission which used to be a crime is no longer a crime. An
example is "epublic Act #o. $%&%, which decriminalied subversion.
A repeal is partial or relative when the crime punished under the repealed law continues to be a crime
inspite of the repeal. This means that the repeal merely modified the conditions affecting the crime under
the repealed law. The modification may be pre'udicial or beneficial to the offender. (ence, the following
rule)
Conse"#ences if repeal of penal law is total or absol#te
*+, &f a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law, the same shall be
dismissed, even though the accused may be a habitual delinquent.
*-, &f a case is alread$ decided and the accused is alread$ serving sentence b$ final 'udgment, if the
convict is not a habitual delin(uent, 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. )ut 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.
&f the$ are not discharged from confinement, a petition for habeas corpus should be filed to test the
legality of their continued confinement in 'ail.
A writ of habeas corpus ()nglish pronunciation/ 0 h e b i s # r p s 0" Latin/ "you may have
the body") is a writ (court order) that requires a person under arrest to be brought before a &udge
or into court.
1*21.2
3he principle of habeas corpus ensures that a prisoner can be released from
unlawful detention4that is, detention lac#ing sufficient cause or evidence. 3he remedy can be
sought by the prisoner or by another person coming to the prisoner5s aid
&f the convict, on the other hand, is a habitual delin(uent, 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.
Conse"#ences if repeal of penal law is partial or relative
*+, &f 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. .o 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+ &f a case is alread$ decided and the accused is alread$ serving sentence b$ final 'udgment, even
if the repealing law is partial or relative, the crime still remains to be a crime. #hose who are not
habitual delin(uents 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 appl$ to them.
/nder Article --, even if the offender is already convicted and serving sentence, a law which is beneficial
shall be applied to him unless he is a habitual delinquent in accordance with "ule 0 of Article &-.
Consequences if repeal of penal law is express or implied
*+, &f a penal law is impliedl$ repealed, the subsequent repeal of the repealing law will revive the
original law. .o 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.
Penal 1aw 2 a law imposing a penalty (as of fine, imprisonment, loss of civil rights) on
persons who do or forbear a certain act or acts
*-, &f 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 penalied.
These effects of repeal do not apply to self2repealing laws or those which have automatic termination.
An example is the "ent 3ontrol 1aw which is revived by 3ongress every two years.
Theories of Criminal Law
*. Classical Theor Man is essentiall$ 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.
*. Positivist Theor Man is subdued occasionall$ b$ a strange and morbid phenomenon which
conditions him to do wrong in spite of or contrar$ to his volition.
,olition - the power to ma#e your own choices or decisions
Eclectic or $i%e! Philosoph
This combines both positivist and classical thin4ing. 3rimes that are economic and social and nature
should be dealt with in a positivist manner5 thus, the law is more compassionate. (einous crimes should
be dealt with in a classical manner5 thus, capital punishment

&'()C $'*)$( )N C+)$)N'L L',
-octrine of Pro +eo
6henever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of two interpretations 7 one
lenient to the offender and one strict to the offender 7 that interpretation which is lenient or favorable to
the offender will be adopted.
N#ll#m crimen. n#lla poena sine lege
There is no crime when there is no law punishing the same. This is true to civil law countries, but not to
common law countries.
!ecause of this maxim, there is no common law crime in the Philippines. #o matter how wrongful, evil or
bad the act is, if there is no law defining the act, the same is not considered a crime.
'ct#s non facit re#m. nisi mens sit rea
The act cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal. This is true to a felony characteried by dolo,
but not a felony resulting from culpa. This maxim is not an absolute one because it is not applied to
culpable felonies, or those that result from negligence.
/tilitarian Theor or Protective Theor
The primary purpose of the punishment under criminal law is the protection of society from actual and
potential wrongdoers. The courts, therefore, in exacting retribution for the wronged society, should direct
the punishment to potential or actual wrongdoers, since criminal law is directed against acts and
omissions which the society does not approve. 3onsistent with this theory, the mala prohibita principle
which punishes an offense regardless of malice or criminal intent, should not be utilied to apply the full
harshness of the special law.
(o#rces of Criminal Law
*. #he .evised !enal /ode
.. 0pecial !enal 1aws Acts enacted of the !hilippine 1egislature punishing offenses or omissions.
Constr#ction of Penal Laws
*. /riminal 0tatutes are liberall$ construed in favor of the offender. #his means that no person shall
be brought within their terms who is not clearl$ within them, nor should an$ act be pronounced
criminal which is not clearl$ made so b$ statute.
.. #he original text in which a penal law is approved in case of a conflict with an official translation.
+. &nterpretation b$ analog$ has no place in criminal law
$'L' )N (E 'N- $'L' P+O0)&)T'
8iolations of the "evised Penal 3ode are referred to as malum in se, which literall$ means, that the act is
inherentl$ evil or bad or per se wrongful. 2n the other hand, violations of special laws are generall$
referred to as malum prohibitum.
"ote, however, that not all violations of special laws are mala prohibita. 3hile intentional felonies are
alwa$s mala in se, it does not follow that prohibited acts done in violation of special laws are alwa$s mala
prohibita. 4ven if the crime is punished under a special law, if the act punished is one which is inherentl$
wrong, the same is malum in se, and, therefore, good faith and the lack of criminal intent is a valid
defense5 unless it is the product of criminal negligence or culpa.
1ikewise when the special laws re(uires that the punished act be committed knowingl$ and willfull$,
criminal intent is re(uired to be proved before criminal liabilit$ ma$ arise.
3hen the act penali6ed is not inherentl$ wrong, it is wrong onl$ because a law punishes the same.
-istinction between crimes p#nishe! #n!er the +evise! Penal Co!e an! crimes p#nishe! #n!er
special laws
12 As to moral trait of the offender
&n crimes punished under the .evised !enal /ode, the moral trait of the offender is considered. #his is
wh$ liabilit$ would onl$ arise when there is dolo or culpa in the commission of the punishable act.

/71!A vs. 8212
9elonies can be committed either b$ means of deceit or b$ means of fault. &f a felon$ is committed b$
means of deceit it is dolo or otherwise known as intentional felonies such as robber$. &f it is committed b$
means of fault, then it is culpa or otherwise known as culpable felonies such as reckless imprudence
resulting in damage to properties
&n crimes punished under special laws, the moral trait of the offender is not considered5 it is enough that
the prohibited act was voluntaril$ done.
32 As to use of good faith as defense
&n crimes punished under the .evised !enal /ode, good faith or lack of criminal intent is a valid defense5
unless the crime is the result of culpa
&n crimes punished under special laws, good faith is not a defense
42 As to degree of accomplishment of the crime
&n crimes punished under the .evised !enal /ode, the degree of accomplishment of the crime is taken
into account in punishing the offender5 thus, there are attempted, frustrated, and consummated stages in
the commission of the crime.
&n crimes punished under special laws, the act gives rise to a crime onl$ when it is consummated5 there
are no attempted or frustrated stages, unless the special law expressl$ penali6e the mere attempt or
frustration of the crime.
52 As to mitigating and aggravating circumstances
&n crimes punished under the .evised !enal /ode, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are taken
into account in imposing the penalt$ since the moral trait of the offender is considered.
&n crimes punished under special laws, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not taken into
account in imposing the penalt$.
62 As to degree of participation
&n crimes punished under the .evised !enal /ode, 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 penalt$5 thus,
offenders are classified as principal, accomplice and accessor$.
&n crimes punished under special laws, the degree of participation of the offenders is not considered. All
who perpetrated the prohibited act are penali6ed to the same extent. #here is no principal or accomplice
or accessor$ to consider.
Test to !etermine if violation of special law is mal#m prohibit#m or mal#m in se
Analye the violation) 9s it wrong because there is a law prohibiting it or punishing it as such: 9f you
remove the law, will the act still be wrong:
9f the wording of the law punishing the crime uses the word ;willfully<, then malice must be proven.
6here malice is a factor, good faith is a defense.
9n 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.
6hen given a problem, ta4e note if the crime is a violation of the "evised Penal 3ode or a special law.
'rt2 12 This Co!e shall ta7e effect on 8an#ar 1. 19432
'rt2 32 E%cept as provi!e! in the treaties an! laws of preferential application. the provisions of this
Co!e shall be enforce! not onl within the Philippine 'rchipelago incl#!ing its atmosphere. its
interior waters an! $aritime :one. b#t also o#tsi!e of its ;#ris!iction. against those who:
12 (ho#l! commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship<
32 (ho#l! forge or co#nterfeit an coin or c#rrenc note of the Philippine )slan!s or obligations
an! sec#rities iss#e! b the Government of the Philippine )slan!s<
42 (ho#l! be liable for acts connecte! with the intro!#ction into these islan!s of the obligations an!
sec#rities mentione! in the prece!ing n#mber<
52 ,hile being p#blic officers or emploees. sho#l! commit an offense in the e%ercise of their
f#nctions< or *.ome of these crimes are bribery, fraud against national treasury, malversation of public
funds or property, and illegal use of public funds5 e.g., A 'udge who accepts a bribe while in =apan.,
62 (ho#l! commit an crimes against the national sec#rit an! the law of nations. !efine! in Title
One of &oo7 Two of this Co!e2 *These crimes include treason, espionage, piracy, mutiny, and violation
of neutrality,
Rules as to crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessels%
*. =rench +#le 0uch crimes are not triable in the courts of that countr$, unless their commission
affects the peace and securit$ of the territor$ or the safet$ of the state is endangered.
*. English +#le 0uch crimes are triable in that countr$, unless the$ merel$ affect things within the
vessel or the$ refer to the internal management thereof. *#his is applicable in the !hilippines+
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)
*+, 6hen 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 belong5
*-, 6hen 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.
Requirements of an offense committed while on a hilippine !hip or Airship:
*. .egistered with the !hilippine )ureau of /ustoms
.. 0hip must be in the high seas or the airship must be in international airspace.
/nder 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.
/( v2 &#ll
A crime which occurred on board of a foreign vessel, which began when the ship was in a foreign
territor$ and continued when it entered into !hilippine waters, is considered a continuing crime. ;ence
within the 'urisdiction of the local courts.
As a general rule, the "evised Penal 3ode 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 ?oreign .ervice of the Philippine government in a foreign country.

Exception) The "evised Penal 3ode 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.
Paragraph 0 of Article -, use the phrase ;as defined in Title @ne of !oo4 Two of this 3ode.<
This is a very important part of the exception, because Title 9 of !oo4 - *crimes against national security,
does not include rebellion.
'rt 42 'cts an! omissions p#nishable b law are felonies2
Acts an overt or external act
"mission failure to perform a dut$ re(uired b$ law. Example of an omission% failure to render
assistance to an$one who is in danger of d$ing or is in an uninhabited place or is wounded
abandonment.
Felonies acts and omissions punishable b$ the .evised !enal /ode
Crime - acts and omissions punishable b$ an$ law
3hat re(uisites must concur before a felon$ ma$ be committed<
There must be *+, an act or omission5 *-, punishable by the "evised Penal 3ode5 and *%, the act is
performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa.
#ow felonies are committed%
*. b means of !eceit (dolo) #here is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent.
Requisites$
*. freedom
.. intelligence
+. intent
Examples% murder, treason, and robber$
Criminal intent is not necessar% in these cases$
*+, 6hen the crime is the product of culpa or negligence, rec4less imprudence, lac4 of foresight or
lac4 of s4ill5
*-, 6hen the crime is a prohibited act under a special law or what is called malum prohibitum.
&n criminal law, intent is categori'ed into two$
*+, Aeneral criminal intent5 and
*-, .pecific criminal intent.
(eneral 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.
!pecific criminal intent is not presumed because it is an ingredient or element of a crime, li4e intent to
4ill in the crimes of attempted or frustrated homicideBparricideBmurder. The prosecution has the burden
of proving the same.
)istinction between intent and discernment
&ntent is the determination to do a certain thing, an aim or purpose of the mind. 9t is the design to
resolve or determination by which a person acts.
@n the other hand, discernment is the mental capacity to tell right from wrong. 9t 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.
)istinction between intent and motive
&ntent is demonstrated by the use of a particular means to bring about a desired result 7 it is not a state
of mind or a reason for committing a crime.
@n the other hand, motive implies motion. 9t is the moving power which impels one to do an act. 6hen
there is motive in the commission of a crime, it always comes before the intent. !ut a crime may be
committed without motive.
9f the crime is intentional, it cannot be committed without intent. 9ntent 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.
*. b% means of fault *culpa+ #here is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
*. &mprudence deficienc$ of action5 e.g. A was driving a truck along a road. ;e hit ) because it
was raining reckless imprudence.
.. ,egligence - deficienc$ of perception5 failure to foresee impending danger, usuall$ involves lack
of foresight
+. c. Requisites$
*. 9reedom
.. &ntelligence
+. &mprudence, negligence, lack of skill or foresight
6. 1ack of intent
The concept of criminal negligence is the inexcusable lac4 of precaution on the part of the person
performing or failing to perform an act. 9f the danger impending from that situation is clearly manifest,
you have a case of rec.less imprudence. !ut if the danger that would result from such imprudence is not
clear, not manifest nor immediate you have only a case of simple negligence .
$ista7e of fact is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused in'ur$ to
another. ;e is not criminall$ liable.
a. Requisites%
*. that the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be5
.. intention of the accused is lawful5
+. mistake must be without fault of carelessness.
E%ample$ /nited !tates v. Ah Chong.
Ah /hong being afraid of bad elements, locked himself in his room b$ placing a chair against the door.
After having gone to bed, he was awakened b$ somebod$ who was tr$ing to open the door. ;e asked the
identit$ of the person, but he did not receive a response. 9earing 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. )elieving that he was attacked, he sei6ed a knife and fatall$ wounded the intruder.
Cista4e 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. 6hen the felony is a product of culpa, do not discuss mista4e of
fact.
'rt2 52 Criminal liabilit shall be inc#rre!:
12 & an person committing a felon. altho#gh the wrongf#l act !one be !ifferent from that
which he inten!e!2
Article 4, paragraph 1 presupposes that the act done is the proximate cause of the resulting felon$. &t must
be the direct, natural, and logical conse(uence of the felonious act.
Ca#ses which pro!#ce a !ifferent res#lt:
*. 0ista.e in identit% of the victim in'uring one person who is mistaken for another *this is a
complex crime under Art. 4=+ e.g., A intended to shoot ), but he instead shot / because he *A+
mistook / for ).
9n error in personae, the intended victim was not at the scene of the crime. 9t was the actual victim
upon whom the blow was directed, but he was not really the intended victim.
(ow does error in personae affect criminal liability of the offender:
Error in personae is mitigating if the crime committed is different from that which was intended. 9f the
crime committed is the same as that which was intended, error in personae does not affect the criminal
liability of the offender.
9n mista4e of identity, if the crime committed was the same as the crime intended, but on a different
victim, error in persona does not affect the criminal liability of the offender. !ut if the crime committed
was different from the crime intended, Article DE will apply and the penalty for the lesser crime will be
applied. 9n a way, mista4e in identity is a mitigating circumstance where Article DE applies. 6here the
crime intended is more serious than the crime committed, the error in persona is not a mitigating
circumstance
.. 0ista.e in blow hitting somebod$ other than the target due to lack of skill or fortuitous
instances *this is a complex crime under Art. 4=+ e.g., ) and / were walking together. A wanted
to shoot ), but he instead in'ured /.
9n aberratio ictus, a person directed the blow at an intended victim, but because of poor aim, that
blow landed on somebody else. 9n aberratio ictus, the intended victim as well as the actual victim are
both at the scene of the crime.
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.
+. &n1urious result is greater than that intended causing in'ur$ 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 in'ure ). ;owever, ) died.
praeter intentionem is mitigating, particularly covered by paragraph % of Article +%. 9n order
however, that the situation may qualify as praeter intentionem, there must be a notable disparity between
the means employed and the resulting felony
&n all these instances the offender can still be held criminall$ liable, since he is motivated b$
criminal intent.
Requisites%
*. the felon$ was intentionall$ committed
.. the felon$ is the proximate cause of the wrong done
)octrine of roximate Cause such ade(uate and efficient cause as, in the natural order of
events, and under the particular circumstances surrounding the case, which would necessaril$
produce the event.
Requisites%
*. the direct, natural, and logical cause
.. produces the in'ur$ or damage
+. unbroken b$ an$ sufficient intervening cause
6. without which the result would not have occurred
roximate Cause is negated b%$
*. Active force, distinct act, or fact absolutel$ foreign from the felonious act of the accused, which
serves as a sufficient intervening cause.
.. .esulting in'ur$ or damage is due to the intentional act of the victim.
proximate cause does not require that the offender needs to actually touch the body of the offended
party. 9t is enough that the offender generated in the mind of the offended party the belief that made him
ris4 himself.
"equisite for Presumption blow was cause of the death 3here there has been an in'ur$ inflicted
sufficient to produce death followed b$ the demise of the person, the presumption arises that the
in'ur$ was the cause of the death. !rovided%
*. victim was in normal health
.. death ensued within a reasonable time
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.
32 & an person performing an act which wo#l! be an offense against persons or propert. were it
not for the inherent impossibilit of its accomplishment or on acco#nt of the emploment of
ina!e"#ate or ineffect#al means2
+e"#isites: ()$PO(()&LE C+)$E)
*. Act would have been an offense against persons or propert$
.. Act is not an actual violation of another provision of the /ode or of a special penal law
+. #here was criminal intent
6. Accomplishment was inherentl$ impossible5 or inade(uate or ineffectual means were emplo$ed.
Notes:
*. 2ffender must believe that he can consummate the intended crime, a man stabbing another who
he knew was alread$ dead cannot be liable for an impossible crime.
.. #he law intends to punish the criminal intent.
+. #here is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime.
?elonies against persons% parricide, murder, homicide, infanticide, ph$sical in'uries, etc.
?elonies against property) robber$, theft, usurpation, swindling, etc.
9nherent impossibility% A thought that ) was 'ust sleeping. ) was alread$ dead. A shot ). A is
liable. &f A knew that ) is dead and he still shot him, then A is not liable.
6hen we say inherent impossibility, this means that under any and all circumstances, the crime could not
have materialied. 9f the crime could have materialied under a different set of facts, employing the same
mean or the same act, it is not an impossible crime5 it would be an attempted felony.
Employment of inadequate means% A used poison to kill ). ;owever, ) survived because A used
small (uantities of poison frustrated murder.
9neffectual means% A aimed his gun at ). 3hen he fired the gun, no bullet came out because the
gun was empt$. A is liable.
6henever you are confronted with a problem where the facts suggest that an impossible crime was
committed, be careful about the question as4ed. 9f the question as4ed is) ;9s an impossible crime
committed:<, then you 'udge that question on the basis of the facts. 9f really the facts constitute an
impossible crime, then you suggest than an impossible crime is committed, then you state the reason for
the inherent impossibility.
9f the question as4ed is ;9s he liable for an impossible crime:<, this is a catching question. Even
though the facts constitute an impossible crime, if the act done by the offender constitutes some other
crimes under the "evised Penal 3ode, he will not be liable for an impossible crime. (e will be
prosecuted for the crime constituted so far by the act done by him.
this idea of an impossible crime is a one of last resort, 'ust to teach the offender a lesson because of
his criminal perversity. 9f he could be taught of the same lesson by charging him with some other crime
constituted by his act, then that will be the proper way. 9f you want to play safe, you state there that
although an impossible crime is constituted, yet it is a principle of criminal law that he will only be
penalied for an impossible crime if he cannot be punished under some other provision of the "evised
Penal 3ode.
Art >. 3henever a court has knowledge of an$ act which it ma$ deem proper to repress and which is not
punishable b$ law, it shall render the proper decision and shall report to the /hief 4xecutive, through the
8epartment of ?ustice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be made sub'ect
of legislation.
)n the same wa the co#rt shall s#bmit to the Chief E%ec#tive. thro#gh the -epartment of 8#stice.
s#ch statement as ma be !eeme! proper. witho#t s#spen!ing the e%ec#tion of the sentence. when a
strict enforcement of the provisions of this Co!e wo#l! res#lt in the imposition of a clearl e%cessive
penalt. ta7ing into consi!eration the !egree of malice an! the in;#r ca#se! b the offense2
6hen a person is charged in court, and the court finds that there is no law applicable, the court
will acquit the accused and the 'udge will give his opinion that the said act should be punished.
!aragraph 2 does not appl$ to crimes punishable b$ special law, including profiteering, and illegal
possession of firearms or drugs. #here can be no executive clemenc$ for these crimes.
Art. @. /onsummated felonies, as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
' felon is cons#mmate! when all the elements necessar for its e%ec#tion an! accomplishment are
present< an! it is fr#strate! when the offen!er performs all the acts of e%ec#tion which wo#l!
pro!#ce the felon as a conse"#ence b#t which. nevertheless. !o not pro!#ce it b reason of ca#ses
in!epen!ent of the will of the perpetrator2
There is an attempt when the offen!er commences the commission of a felon !irectl b overt acts.
an! !oes not perform all the acts of e%ec#tion which sho#l! pro!#ce the felon b reason of some
ca#se or acci!ent other than his own spontaneo#s !esistance2
)evelopment of a crime
*. &nternal acts intent and plans5 usuall$ not punishable
.. 4xternal acts
*. !reparator$ Acts acts tending toward the crime
.. Acts of 4xecution acts directl$ connected the crime
!tages of Commission of a Crime
Attempt Frustrated Consummated
2vert acts of execution are
started
"ot all acts of execution
are present
8ue to reasons other than
the spontaneous desistance
of the perpetrator
All acts of execution are
present
/rime sought to be
committed is not achieved
8ue to intervening causes
independent of the will of
the perpetrator
All the acts of execution
are present
#he result sought is
achieved
!tages of a Crime does not appl% in:
*. 2ffenses punishable b$ 0pecial !enal 1aws, unless the otherwise is provided for.
.. 9ormal crimes *e.g., slander, adulter$, etc.+
+. &mpossible /rimes
6. /rimes consummated b$ mere attempt. Examples) attempt to flee to an enem$ countr$, treason,
corruption of minors.
7. 9elonies b$ omission
8. /rimes committed b$ mere agreement. Examples) betting in sports *endings in basketball+,
corruption of public officers.
-esistance
Fesistance on the part of the offender negates criminal liability in the attempted stage. Fesistance
is true only in the attempted stage of the felony. 9f 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
9n deciding whether a felony is attempted or frustrated or consummated, there are three criteria
involved)
*+, The manner of committing the crime5
*-, The elements of the crime5 and
*%, The nature of the crime itself.
Applications$
*. A put poison in )As food. ) threw awa$ his food. A is liable attempted murder.B1C
.. A stole )As car, but he returned it. A is liable *consummated, theft.
+. A aimed his gun at ). / held AAs hand and prevented him from shooting ) attempted murder.
6. A inflicted a mortal wound on ). ) managed to survive frustrated murder.
7. A intended to kill ) b$ shooting him. A missed attempted murder.
8. A doused )As house with kerosene. )ut before he could light the match, he was caught
attempted arson.
9. A cause a bla6e, but did not burn the house of ) frustrated arson.
-. )As house was set on fire b$ A *consummated, arson.
:. A tried to rape ). ) managed to escape. #here was no penetration attempted rape.
*,. A got hold of )As painting. A was caught before he could leave )As house frustrated robbery.
234
The attempted stage is said to be within the sub'ective phase of execution of a felony. @n the
sub'ective 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. 9f he has reached that point where
he can no longer control the ensuing consequence, the crime has already passed the sub'ective 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. 9f
the felony does not follow as a consequence, it is already frustrated. 9f the felony follows as a
consequence, it is consummated.
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, .upreme 3ourt said the sub'ective phase has passed
,"T5! ", AR!",6
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.
@n the other hand, the moment a particle or a molecule of the premises has blac4ened, in law, arson is
consummated. This is because consummated arson does not require that the whole of the premises be
burned. 9t is enough that any part of the premises, no matter how small, has begun to burn.
5!TAFA 7!. T#5FT
9n estafa, the offender receives the property5 he does not ta4e it. !ut 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 ob'ect. 9t can only be estafa if what was transferred to him is not only material
or physical possession but 'uridical possession as well.
6hen you are discussing estafa, do not tal4 about intent to gain. 9n the same manner that when
you are discussing the crime of theft, do not tal4 of damage.
Nat#re of the crime itself
9n crimes involving the ta4ing of human life 7 parricide, homicide, and murder 7 in the definition of
the frustrated stage, it is indispensable that the victim be mortally wounded. /nder 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 in'ury inflicted, because it is only then that death will follow.
9f 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 consequence5 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 so2called sub'ective phase. The .upreme 3ourt has decided
cases which applied the sub'ective 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.
The common notion is that when there is conspiracy involved, the participants are punished as
principals. This notion is no longer absolute. 9n the case of eople v. ,ierra, the .upreme 3ourt ruled
that even though there was conspiracy, if a co2conspirator 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 co2conspirator should be punished as an accomplice only.
Art. D. 1ight felonies are punishable onl$ when the$ have been consummated with the exception of those
committed against persons or propert$.
Examples of light felonies% slight ph$sical in'uries5 theft5 alteration of boundar$ marks5 malicious
mischief5 and intriguing against honor.
&n commission of crimes against properties and persons, ever$ stage of execution is punishable
but onl$ the principals and accomplices are liable for light felonies, accessories are not.
Art. =. /onspirac$ and proposal to commit felon$ are punishable onl$ in the cases in which the law
speciall$ provides a penalt$ therefore.
' conspirac e%ists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of
a felon an! !eci!e to commit it2
There is proposal when the person who has !eci!e! to commit a felon proposes its e%ec#tion to
some other person or persons2
3onspiracy is punishable in the following cases% treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition, and
monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade.
3onspiracy to commit a crime is not to be confused with conspiracy as a means of committing a
crime. &n both cases there is an agreement but mere conspirac$ to commit a crime is not punished
4E/4!# in treason, rebellion, or sedition. 4ven then, if the treason is actuall$ committed, the
conspirac$ will be considered as a means of committing it and the accused will all be charged for
treason and not for conspirac$ to commit treason.
Conspirac an! Proposal to Commit a Crime
Conspirac Proposal
4lements
Agreement among 2 or more
persons to commit a crime
#he$ decide to commit it
A person has decided to commit
a crime
;e proposes its commission to
another
/rimes
*. /onspirac$ to commit sedition
.. /onspirac$ to commit rebellion
+. /onspirac$ to commit treason
6. !roposal to commit treason
7. !roposal to commit rebellion
Mere conspirac$ in combination in restraint of trade *Art. 1=@+, and brigandage *Art. 3F@+.
Two wa%s for conspirac% to exist$
*+, There is an agreement.
*-, The participants acted in concert or simultaneously which is indicative of a meeting of the
minds towards a common criminal goal or criminal ob'ective. 6hen several offenders act in a
synchronied, coordinated manner, the fact that their acts complimented each other is indicative of the
meeting of the minds. There is an implied agreement.
Two .inds of conspirac%$
*+, 3onspiracy as a crime5 and
*-, 3onspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability
6hen 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
conspiracy5 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.
6hen the conspiracy is only a basis of incurring criminal liability, there must be an overt act done
before the co2conspirators become criminally liable. ?or as long as none of the conspirators has
committed an overt act, there is no crime yet. !ut when one of them commits any overt act, all of them
shall be held liable, unless a co2conspirator was absent from the scene of the crime or 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.
?or as long as none of the conspirators has committed an overt act, there is no crime yet. !ut when
one of them commits any overt act, all of them shall be held liable, unless a co2conspirator was absent
from the scene of the crime or 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.
6hen the conspiracy itself is a crime, this cannot be inferred or deduced because there is no overt
act. All that there is the agreement. @n the other hand, if the co2conspirator or any of them would
execute an overt act, the crime would no longer be the conspiracy but the overt act itself.
conspiracy as a crime, must have a clear and convincing evidence of its existence. Every crime must
be proved beyond reasonable doubt. it must be established by positive and conclusive evidence, not by
con'ectures or speculations.
6hen the conspiracy is 'ust 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 ob'ective.
mere 4nowledge, 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 ob'ective.
6hen several persons who do not 4now each other simultaneously attac4 the victim, the act of one is
the act of all, regardless of the degree of in'ury inflicted by any one of them. All will be liable for the
consequences. A conspiracy is possible even when participants are not 4nown to each other. Fo not
thin4 that participants are always 4nown to each other.
Conspirac% is a matter of substance which must be alleged in the information, otherwise, the court
will not consider the same.
roposal is true only up to the point where the party to whom the proposal was made has not yet
accepted the proposal. @nce the proposal was accepted, a conspiracy arises. Proposal is unilateral, one
party ma4es a proposition to the other5 conspiracy is bilateral, it requires two parties.
(E-)T)ON<
Proposal to commit sedition is not a crime. !ut if /nion ! accepts the proposal, there will be conspiracy
to commit sedition which is a crime under the "evised Penal 3ode.
Composite crimes
3omposite crimes are crimes which, in substance, consist of more than one crime but in the eyes of
the law, there is only one crime. ?or example, the crimes of robbery with homicide, robbery with rape,
robbery with physical in'uries.
9n 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 co2conspirator would commit a crime not agreed upon. This happens
when the crime agreed upon and the crime committed by one of the co2conspirators are distinct crimes.
Exception to the exception) 9n acts constituting a single indivisible offense, even though the co2
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.
Art. G. Hrave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in
an$ of their are afflictive, in accordance with Article 2> of this /ode.
Less grave felonies are those which the law p#nishes with penalties which in their ma%im#m perio!
are correctional. in accor!ance with the above>mentione! article2
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which he penalt of arresto ma%or
or a fine not e%cee!ing 3?? pesos. or both is provi!e!2
/apital punishment death penalt$.
!enalties *imprisonment+% Hrave six $ears and one da$ to reclusion perpetua *life+5 1ess grave
one month and one da$ to six $ears5 1ight arresto menor *one da$ to 3F da$s+.
CL'(()=)C'T)ON O= =ELON)E(
This question was as4ed in the bar examination) (ow do you classify felonies or how are felonies
classified:
6hat the examiner had in mind was Articles %, & and E. Fo not write the classification of felonies under
!oo4 - of the "evised Penal 3ode. That was not what the examiner had in mind because the question
does not require the candidate to classify but also to define. Therefore, the examiner was after the
classifications under Articles %, & and E.
=elonies are classifie! as follows:
(1) According to the manner of their commission
/nder Article %, they are classified as, intentional felonies or those committed with deliberate intent5 and
culpable felonies or those resulting from negligence, rec4less imprudence, lac4 of foresight or lac4 of
s4ill.
*3+ According to the stages of their execution
/nder Article &., 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 desistance5 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 perpetrator5 and, consummated felony when all the elements necessary for its
execution are present.
(4) According to their gravit%
/nder Article E, felonies are classified as grave felonies or those to which attaches the capital
punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive5 less grave felonies or those to which
the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period was correccional5 and light felonies or
those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty is arresto menor.
6hy 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. 9n other words, these are felonies classified according to their
gravity, stages and the penalty attached to them. Ta4e note that when the "evised Penal 3ode spea4s of
grave and less grave felonies, the definition ma4es a reference specifically to Article -0 of the "evised
Penal 3ode. Fo not omit the phrase ;9n accordance with Article -0< because there is also a
classification of penalties under Article -& that was not applied.
9f the penalty is fine and exactly P-GG.GG, it is only considered a light felony under Article E.
9f the fine is imposed as an alternative penalty or as a single penalty, the fine of P-GG.GG is considered a
correctional penalty under Article -&.
9f the penalty is exactly P-GG.GG, apply Article -&. 9t is considered as correctional penalty and it
prescribes in +G years. 9f the offender is apprehended at any time within ten years, he can be made to
suffer the fine.
This classification of felony according to gravity is important with respect to the question of prescription
of crimes.
9n the case of light felonies, crimes prescribe in two months. 9f the crime is correctional, it prescribes in
ten years, except arresto mayor, which prescribes in five years.
'rt2 1?2 Offenses which are or in the f#t#re ma be p#nishable #n!er special laws are not s#b;ect
to the provisions of this Co!e2 This Co!e shall be s#pplementar to s#ch laws. #nless the latter
sho#l! speciall provi!e the contrar2
9or 0pecial 1aws% !enalties should be imprisonment, and not reclusion perpetua, etc.
2ffenses that are attempted or frustrated are not punishable, unless otherwise stated.
!lea of guilt$ is not mitigating for offenses punishable b$ special laws.
"o minimum, medium, and maximum periods for penalties.
"o penalt$ for an accessor$ or accomplice, unless otherwise stated.

rovisions of RC applicable to special laws$
*. Art. 1@ !articipation of Accomplices
.. Art. 22 .etroactivit$ of !enal laws if favorable to the accused
+. Art. 4> /onfiscation of instruments used in the crime
(/PPLETO+@ 'PPL)C'T)ON O= T0E +EA)(E- PEN'L CO-E
9n Article +G, there is a reservation ;provision of the "evised Penal 3ode may be applied suppletorily to
special laws<. Hou will only apply the provisions of the "evised Penal 3ode as a supplement to the
special law, or simply correlate the violated special law, if needed to avoid an in'ustice. 9f no 'ustice
would result, do not give suppletorily application of the "evised Penal 3ode to that of special law.
?or example, a special law punishes a certain act as a crime. The special law is silent as to the civil
liability of one who violates the same. (ere is a person who violated the special law and he was
prosecuted. (is violation caused damage or in'ury to a private party. Cay the court pronounce that he
is civilly liable to the offended party, considering that the special law is silent on this point: Hes, because
Article +GG of the "evised Penal 3ode may be given suppletory application to prevent an in'ustice from
being done to the offended party. Article +GG states that every person criminally liable for a felony is also
civilly liable. That article shall be applied suppletory to avoid an in'ustice that would be caused to the
private offended party, if he would not be indemnified for the damages or in'uries sustained by him.
9n eople v. Rodrigue', 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 "evised Penal 3ode, because violations of the "evised Penal 3ode are more serious
than a violation of a special law. !ut a crime in the "evised Penal 3ode can absorb a crime punishable
by a special law if it is a necessary ingredient of the crime in the "evised Penal 3ode
9n the crime of sedition, the use of firearms is not an ingredient of the crime. (ence, two prosecutions
can be had) *+, sedition5 and *-, illegal possession of firearms.
!ut do not thin4 that when a crime is punished outside of the "evised Penal 3ode, it is already a special
law. ?or example, the crime of cattle2rustling is not a mala prohibitum but a modification of the crime
theft of large cattle. .o Presidential Fecree #o. 0%%, punishing cattle2rustling, is not a special law. 9t
can absorb the crime of murder. 9f in the course of cattle rustling, murder was committed, the offender
cannot be prosecuted for murder. Curder would be a qualifying circumstance in the crime of qualified
cattle rustling. This was the ruling in eople v. 0artinada.
The amendments of Presidential Fecree #o. &D-0 *The Fangerous Frugs Act of +E$-, by "epublic Act
#o. $&0E, which adopted the scale of penalties in the "evised Penal 3ode, means that mitigating and
aggravating circumstances can now be considered in imposing penalties. Presidential Fecree #o. &D-0
does not expressly prohibit the suppletory application of the "evised Penal 3ode. The stages of the
commission of felonies will also apply since suppletory application is now allowed.
Circ#mstances affecting criminal liabilit
#here are five circumstances affecting criminal liabilit$%
*1+ ?ustif$ing circumstances5
*2+ 4xempting circumstances5
*3+ Mitigating circumstances5
*4+ Aggravating circumstances5 and
*>+ Alternative circumstances.
There are two others which are fo#n! elsewhere in the provisions of the +evise! Penal Co!e:
*1+ Absolutor$ cause5 and
*2+ 4xtenuating circumstances.
9n 'ustifying and exempting circumstances, there is no criminal liability. 6hen an accused invo4es 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 'ustify or exempt his acts from
criminal liability. 6hat is shifted is only the burden of evidence, not the burden of proof.
=ustifying circumstances contemplate intentional acts and, hence, are incompatible with dolo. Exempting
circumstances may be invo4ed in culpable felonies.
'bsol#tor ca#se
The effect of this is to absolve the offender from criminal liability, although not from civil liability. 9t has
the same effect as an exempting circumstance, but you do not call it as such in order not to confuse it with
the circumstances under Article +-.
Article -G 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.
Then, Article IE provides how criminal liability is extinguished)
Feath of the convict as to the personal penalties, and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is
extinguished if death occurs before final 'udgment5
.ervice of the sentence5
Amnesty5
Absolute pardon5
Prescription of the crime5
Prescription of the penalty5 and
Carriage of the offended woman as provided in Article %DD.

/nder Article -D$, a legally married person who 4ills or inflicts physical in'uries upon his or her spouse
whom he surprised having sexual intercourse with his or her paramour or mistress in not criminally
liable.
/nder Article -+E, discovering secrets through seiure of correspondence of the ward by their guardian is
not penalied.
/nder Article %%-, 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 sister2in2law 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.
/nder Article %DD, in cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness, and rape, the marriage of the
offended party shall extinguish the criminal action.
Absolutory cause has the effect of an exempting circumstance and they are predicated on lac4 of
voluntariness li4e instigation. 9nstigation is associated with criminal intent. Fo not consider culpa in
connection with instigation. 9f the crime is culpable, do not tal4 of instigation. 9n instigation, the crime is
committed with dolo. 9t is confused with entrapment.
Entrapment is not an absolutory cause. Entrapment does not exempt the offender or mitigate his criminal
liability. !ut 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.
-ifference between instigation an! entrapment
9n 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.
@n the other hand, in entrapment, a criminal design is already in the mind of the person entrapped. 9t
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.
The element which ma4es instigation an absolutory cause is the lac4 of criminal intent as an element of
voluntariness.
9f 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. 9f the instigator is not a law enforcer, both will be criminally liable, you cannot have a
case of instigation. 9n instigation, the private citien only cooperates with the law enforcer to a point
when the private citien upon instigation of the law enforcer incriminates himself. 9t would be contrary
to public policy to prosecute a citien who only cooperated with the law enforcer. The private citien
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.
9f the person instigated does not 4now that the person is instigating him is a law enforcer or he 4nows
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.
9n entrapment, the person entrapped should not 4now 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.
9nstigation 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. @n the other hand, entrapment is not an absolutory
cause. 9t is not even mitigating.
9n 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. (e is moving li4e a robot, unaware of
what he is doing. .o the element of voluntariness which is necessary in dolo and culpa is not present.
.omnambulism is an absolutory cause. 9f 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 +-, refer
to the circumstance as an absolutory cause.
Cista4e of fact is an absolutory cause. The offender is acting without criminal intent. .o in mista4e of
fact, it is necessary that had the facts been true as the accused believed them to be, this act is 'ustified. 9f
not, there is criminal liability, because there is no mista4e of fact anymore. The offender must believe he
is performing a lawful act.

4xtenuating circumstances
The effect of this is to mitigate the criminal liability of the offender. 9n other words, this has the same
effect as mitigating circumstances, only you do not call it mitigating because this is not found in Article
+%.

&llustrations$
An unwed mother 4illed her child in order to conceal a dishonor. The concealment of dishonor is an
extenuating circumstance insofar as the unwed mother or the maternal grandparents is concerned, but
not insofar as the father of the child is concerned. Cother 4illing her new born child to conceal her
dishonor, penalty is lowered by two degrees. .ince there is a material lowering of the penalty or
mitigating the penalty, this is an extenuating circumstance.
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.
9n the crime of adultery on the part of a married woman abandoned by her husband, at the time she was
abandoned by her husband, is it necessary for her to see4 the company of another man. Abandonment by
the husband does not 'ustify the act of the woman. 9t only extenuates or reduces criminal liability. 6hen
the effect of the circumstance is to lower the penalty there is an extenuating circumstance.
A 4leptomaniac is one who cannot resist the temptation of stealing things which appeal to his desire. This
is not exempting. @ne who is a 4leptomaniac and who would steal ob'ects of his desire is criminally
liable. !ut he would be given the benefit of a mitigating circumstance analogous to paragraph E of
Article +%, that of suffering from an illness which diminishes the exercise of his will power without,
however, depriving him of the consciousness of his act. .o this is an extenuating circumstance. The effect
is to mitigate the criminal liability.
-istinctions between ;#stifing circ#mstances an! e%empting circ#mstances
&n 1ustif%ing circumstances 8
*+, The circumstance affects the act, not the actor5
*-, The act complained of is considered to have been done within the bounds of law5 hence, it is
legitimate and lawful in the eyes of the law5
*%, .ince the act is considered lawful, there is no crime, and because there is no crime, there is
no criminal5
*D, .ince there is no crime or criminal, there is no criminal liability as well as civil liability.
&n exempting circumstances 8
*+, The circumstances affect the actor, not the act5
*-, The act complained of is actually wrongful, but the actor acted without voluntariness. (e is
a mere tool or instrument of the crime5
*%, .ince the act complained of is actually wrongful, there is a crime. !ut because the actor
acted without voluntariness, there is absence of dolo or culpa. There is no criminal5
*D, .ince there is a crime committed but there is no criminal, there is civil liability for the
wrong done. !ut there is no criminal liability. (owever, in paragraphs D and $ of Article +-, there is
neither criminal nor civil liability.
6hen you apply for 'ustifying or exempting circumstances, it is confession and avoidance and burden of
proof shifts to the accused and he can no longer rely on wea4ness of prosecution>s evidence.
B1C#he difference between murder and homicide will be discussed in /riminal 1aw &&. #hese
crimes are found in Articles 24= and 24G, )ook && of the .evised !enal /ode.
B2C #he difference between theft and robber$ will be discussed in /riminal 1aw &&. #hese
crimes are found in #itle #en, /hapters 2ne and #hree, )ook && of the .evised !enal /ode.