People vs Bayani Instigation and Entrapment

Instigation an absolutory cause; the instigator practically induces the would-be

accused into the commission of the offense and himself becomes a co-principal but
the accused must be acquitted.
Entrapment not an absolutory cause; the entrapper resorts to ways and means to
trap and capture a lawbreaker while executing his criminal plan. Therefore, no bar
to the prosecution and conviction of the lawbreaker.
In People vs Bayani, the Supreme Court ruled that Delia Bayani is criminally liable
for selling Methylamphetamine which is violation of Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002 with the help of a confidential informant. The appellant argues
that PO3 Bernados act of approaching the appellant to buy shabu during a buy bust
operation amounted to instigation. The Court discussed that:
a. Instigation is the means by which the accused is lured into the commission
of the offense charged in order to prosecute him. Thus, officers of the law and their
agents lure an accused into committing an offense which he or she would other not
commit and has no intention of committing.
b. Entrapment is the employment of such ways and means for the purpose of
trapping or capturing a lawbreaker. In entrapment, the criminal intent or design to
commit the offense charged originates in the mind of the accused and law
enforcement officials merely facilitate the apprehension of the criminal by
employing means and schemes.
As said, instigation is a trap for the unwary innocent while entrapment is a
trap for the unwary criminal.
II. Mitigating Circumstances
a. Material Age Date of Commission
Alvin Jose vs People of the Philippines
Petitioner was caught with his cousin selling 100 grams of shabu in an
entrapment operation in Laguna. The petitioner claims that he is absolved from the
criminal liability due to the benefits of Article 12 (3) of the Revised Penal Code. The
Court found the petition meritorious.
The court said that it is the burden of the minor to prove his age in order for
him to be exempt from criminal liability. The reason for the exemption is that a
minor of such age is presumed lacking the mental element of a crim the capacity to
know that is wrong as distinguished from what is right or to determine the morality
of human acts; wrong in the sense in which the term is used in moral wrong.
HOWEVER, it is rebuttable, but the burden to shoulder by the prosecution is
to prove that he acted with discernment and that he knew what he was doing.
In the case, petitioner is 13 years old and the prosecution failed to establish
discernment on his part.

b. LACK OF INTENT TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG

People vs Badriago
In the case, Bonifacio Badriago was found guilty of Frustrated Homicide and
Murder for assaulting Adrian and Oliver Quinto. His defense that he didnt intent for
the death to happen with Oliver. The Court ruled that his argument should fail due
to the reason that:
looking at the victims wounds, however, we cannot count the circumstance
in accused appelants favor. Adrian suffered a hacking wound on his left forearm
that caused near amputation and another hit his lumbar area. These wounds would
have been fatal were it not for timely medical assistance. Oliver on the otherhand,
bore the brunt of the attack with ELEVEN (11) different stab wounds, including one
on the skull and on the chest. The number and location and nature of these stab
wounds belie accused appellants claim of lack of intention to commit so grave a
wrong against the victim.
c. SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION
TANGAN VS COURT OF APPEALS
Eladio Tangan was filing a motion for reconsideration saying that the Court
wasnt able to appreciate mitigating circumstances in his case. The petitioner
asserted that he should be given mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation
on the part of the offended party. The Supreme Court discussed that
a. provocation must be SUFFICIENT to excite a person to commit a wrong
and must accordingly be proportionate to its gravity. In the case, it was merely
shouting expletives and slapping petitioners hand when the latter pointed a gun to
his face.
As elements of the sufficient provocation involve
A. that the provocation or threat must be sufficient or proportionate to the
crime committed and adequate to arouse one to its commission.
b. that the provocation or threat must originate from the offended party
c. that the provocation must be immediate to the commission of the crime by
the person involve
d. SUFFICIENT THREAT
PEOPLE VS RIVERO
Efren Rivero was sentenced of Reclusion Perpetua for crime of murder of
killing Leon Gutierrez, his father in law. He assails that the mitigating circumstance
of sufficient threat on part of the victim which immediately preceded the killing is
established on the case. The Supreme Court ruled that:
We appreciate in the accused appelants favor the mitigating
circumstances. It was inferred from his testimony, he killed his father in law

because at the house f the barangay captain of Lojo at 8:00am of 18 March 1982
after he told the victim that he cannot live anymore with his adulterous wife whom
he caught in flagrante with her paramour in their conjugal home, the victim warned
him to be careful because he would kill the latter before the end of the day. The
accused appellant could have interpreted this warning as serious threat and may
have prompted him to decide to eliminate his father-in-law before he could carry out
such threat.
E. Proximate VINDICATION OF GRAVE OFFENSE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS VENTURA AND FLORES
Felix Ventura and Arante Flores were convicted of Murder and attempted
murder for deliberately assaulting Jaime Bocateja and killing Aileen Bocateja. The
accused Ventura that the mitigating circumstance of proximate vindication of grave
offense due to Jaimes act of courting his wife, who is a maid in the conjugal home,
should be considered. However, the Supreme Court ruled that no mitigating
circumstances are present since immediate vindication should be construed as
proximate vindication, it was revealed that there was sufficient time elapsed
between knowing the relationship and the act. It was proven that Ventura had
suspicions in February 17 but the incident only happened on February 23. Therefore,
such sufficient time had passed for appellants emotion to cool and for them to
recover their equanimity.
F. PASSION OR OBSFUCATION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS DALAG
PO3 Armando Dalag was convicted of parricide for killing his wife, Leah Dalag.
The trial court appreciated his defense of voluntary surrender and one that is
analogous to passion or obsfucation. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the
trial court erred in appreciating passion or obsfucation as a mitigating circumstance.
Article 13, paragraph 6 in relation to paragraph 10 states that
6. That having acted upon an impulse to powerful as naturally to have
produced passion or obsfucation. The trial court declared that the appellant was
agitated and angered when Leah failed to return immediately from Tia Felis
house where she was supposed to get medicine for accuseds wounded foot. The
trial court erred in finding that Leahs attitude was unjust and improper to a
husband who was suffering and bleeding. The Supreme Court believe that this act of
Leah is to escape the violent physical abuse that the accused was doing prior to
killing. Therefore, for the trial court t oblame Leah for preferring to escape and
survive is a travesty.
People vs Ventura
In People vs Ventura, the Supreme Court ruled that while jealousy may indeed
give rise to passion or obfuscation, for them to appreciate this mitigating
circumstance, it is necessary that the act which produced the obfuscation was not
far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time,

during, which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity. In the case, it
was evident that in February 17, the perpetrator deduced the illicit relationship
between his wife and Jaime but the crime committed happened in February 23
which is ample time for the emotion of the appellants to cool off.
G. Voluntary surrender
PEOPLE VS BADRIAGO
In People vs Badriago, the Supreme Court discussed that the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender to be appreciate,
a. The surrender must be spontaneous
b. In manner that shows that the accused made an unconditional surrender to
the authorities, either based on
1. recognition of guilt
2. desire to save the authorities from the trouble and expenses that
would eb involved in the accuseds search and capture.
3. That the accused was not actually arrested
4. The surrender is before a person in authority or an agent in person
in authority
5. The surrender was voluntary
None of the requisites are present in the case since he merely reported the
incident and cannot be considered as voluntary surrender. He further asserted that
he had nothing to do with the murder of oliver, thus, denies culpability which
negates guilt.
h. VOLUNTARY PLEA OF GUILT
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS JUAN
Marlon Juan was convicted of parricide for killing his mother, Yolanda Juan
with a knife at April 23, 2001. In the pre-trial conference, he pleaded guilty of the
crime but was sentenced the penalty of death. He lifted the case to the Supreme
Court questioning the sentence imposed upon him. The Supreme Court granted the
appeal with their discussion of Article 13 (7) of the Revised Penal Code saying:
The mitigating circumstance is applicable to the accused provide that the
requisites are present:
a. The accused spontaneously confessed his guilt
b. The confession of guilt was made in open court before a competent court
trying his case
c. The confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence by
the prosecution.

In the case, Juan confessed before the evidence of the prosecution and
voluntarily despite knowing the consequences of such confession. Lastly, the
confession was made before the judge and all parties in the hearing.
I. Physical Defect
People vs Lopit
J. Illness
People vs Tampus and Ida Montesclaros
Bartolome Tapus and Ida Monsteslaros are found guilty of rape with the latter
as an accomplice to the commission. The victim was a 13 year old child which is the
daughter of Ida. Ida was sentenced with reclusion temporal but they asserted that
Ida was suffering from Schizophrenia, paranoid type.
The Supreme Court discussed the merits of appreciating the mitigating
circumstance of illness indicating that Art 13 (9) pertains to acts which diminishes
the exercise of the willpower of the accused. It is not the burden of the prosecution
to prove that willpower was diminished during the enactment of the crime. In the
case, the testimony of Dr. Costas showed that even Ida was diagnosed with
schizophrenia, she was not totally deprived of intelligence but her judgment was
affected. Reiterating then, Idas schizophrenia could be considered to have
diminished the exercise of willpower although it didnt deprive her of the
consciousness of her acts which is a requisite of the circumstance.
a. Diminish exercise to will power
b. Deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts.
III. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
PEOPLE VS GONZALES
In the case of Inocencio Gonzales, the appellant was involve in a vehicular
altercation wherein he killed Feliber Andres and wounded Kenneth Andres and Kevin
Valdez. The trial court convicted him of murder and two accounts of frustrated
murder and sentenced death by lethal injection. The appellant questions the
appreciation of treachery in his case. Thus, the Supreme Court decided and
discussed the merits of treachery.
Article 14 paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code defines treachery as the
deliberate employment of means, methods or forms in the execution of a crime
against person which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk
to the offender arising from the defense which the intended victim might raise.
Elements of treachery:
a. the employment of means of execution that would insure the safety of the
accused from retaliatory acts of the intended victim and leaving the latter without
an opportunity to defend himself

b. the means employed were deliberately or consciously adopted by the

offender
Thus, the determining factor on whether or not the commission of a crime is attended by treachery is
not the resulting crime committed but the mode of attack employed in its execution.
We affirm the recommendation of the Solicitor-General that the shooting was not attended by
treachery and accordingly the crime committed for the death of Feliber Andres is homicide and not
murder.
The encounter between Noel Andres and the appellant was a chance encounter. They were total
strangers before their vehicles almost collided at an intersection inside the memorial park.
Unfortunately, heated exchange of remarks that followed the near collision was fanned by a short
temper, which in the case of the appellant, was augmented by the improvident use of a firearm.
The pictures indicate that Gonzalez fired at the FX at an angle away from Noel Andres and that
Gonzalez was not aiming at anybody in particular. It is not disputed that the appellants car was
directly behind the complainants FX and that Gonzalez who was then seated at the drivers seat
alighted from his car, took a few steps then fired at the left side of the FX.
We find that the prosecution has not discharged its burden to show that the shooting was attended
by treachery and we are convinced that the crime committed for the death of Feliber Andres is
homicide.

DWELLING PEOPLE VS MONTESA,

An information alleged that while AAAs mother was not around, Montesa raped AAA in the latters
dwelling and such circumstance was duly proven during the trial.
Under Article 14(3) of the Revised Penal Code, dwelling is an aggravating circumstance where the
crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party and the latter has not given provocation.
Hence, the Supreme Court held that dwelling is an aggravating circumstance in the crime of rape.
Ratio: Dwelling is considered as an aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of
privacy the law accords to human abode.

PEOPLE VS GAYETA
In criminal case criminal case NO. P-5422, Conchita nicer testified that she and her husband were
watching television in the living room when a man, whom she identified as appellant, barged into the
house and asked the victims to produce money, after getting the money, they went to another
couples home (criminal case NO. P-5420) and demanded the victims to produce money. Appellant
accompanied AAA to the store to get some money and the appellant raped her.
Freddie Gayeta was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of robbery
(criminal case NO. P-5422) and robbery with rape (criminal case NO. P-5420).
According to the Supreme Court, The Court of Appeals correctly appreciated the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling. When the crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party and the
latter has not given provocation, dwelling may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.

*Offended party must not give provocation for the crime committed in the dwelling may be
appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.

NIGHTTIME PEOPLE VS NANQUIL

Atansio Nanquil, a soldier, was commanded by his superior to to investigate for the missing cart and
carabao of Juan Rosas. Nanquil struck Severino Ramiscal with his gun while investigating him.
Severino died after a few moments.Nanquil was prosecuted for the crime of homicide.
Nanquil contends that the court erred in finding that the crime was attended with the aggravating
circumstance of nocturnity.
The court held that such circumstance cannot be taken into account in the present case to aggravate
the penalty because the event took place in the nighttime due to the fact that the sergeant who
commanded the patrol of which the appellant formed a part fell sick, and if nocturnity was
deliberately sought at all, it was not in order to maltreat the deceased (which idea was not proven to
have been conceived prior to the deceased's refusal to tell anything about the theft which was under
investigation), but rather to take advantage of the secrecy of the night to render the investigation
more effective.
*To appreciate night time as an aggravating circumstance, there should be an evidence that the
accused deliberately sought night time to facilitate the crime.,

PEOPLE VS GAYETA
In criminal case criminal case NO. P-5422,
At around 9:000 p.m.,Conchita nicer and her husband were watching television in the living room
when a man, whom she identified as appellant, barged into the house and asked the victims to
produce money, after getting the money, they went to another couples home (criminal case NO. P5420) and demanded the victims to produce money. Appellant accompanied AAA to the store to get
some money and the appellant raped her.
Freddie Gayeta was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of robbery
(criminal case NO. P-5422) and robbery with rape (criminal case NO. P-5420).
According to the Supreme Court, The Court of Appeals correctly ruled out nighttime as an
aggravating circumstance. Because there is no evidence to show that the accused purposely sought
nighttime to facilitate the commission of the offense.
*To appreciate Night time as an aggravating circumstance there should be an evidence to show that
the accused purposely sought night time to facilitate the commission of the offense.

RECIDIVISM ART 14 (9)

1. DEFINITION
2. HOW ESTABLISHED
Requisites:
(1) That the offender is on trial for an offense;

(2) That he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime;

(3) That both the first and the second offenses are embraced in the same title of the
Code;
(4) That the offender is convicted of the new offense.
REITERACION ART 14 (10)
DEFINITION
People vs Lopit
Accused, Joselito Lopit, was convicted of 3 counts of rape of his own
daughter, AAA. Pleaded not guilty first, then guilty on one account and
gave condition to withdraw the 2 accounts.
Under the foregoing Rule, three things are enjoined upon the trial court when a plea of guilty
to a capital offense is entered: (1) the court must conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness
of the plea and the accused's full comprehension of the consequences thereof; (2) the court must
require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree
of his culpability; and (3) the court must ask the accused if he desires to present evidence on his
behalf and allow him to do so if he desires.

EVIDENT PREMEDITATION (ART 14 (13) RPC)

PEOPLE VS DE GUZMAN
Accused Franco De Guzman, intentionally and with evident premeditation killed Dr. Fidelito
Manaois.The Court finds the accused Franco De Guzman guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime murder.
De Guzman appealed and contends that the court erred in appreciating evident premeditation as an
aggravating circumstance.
According to the Supreme court, for evident premeditation to be appreciated, there must be proof, as
clear as the evidence of the crime itself, of the following elements:
(1) The time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
(2) An act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and
(3) A sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution to allow himself time to reflect
upon the consequences of his act.
In this case, there is no showing of the specific time, in the evening of November 14, 2003, when the
crime was executed. The evidence showing (1) that the appellant said over his cell phone, at around
7:30 p.m. on November 14, 2003, that they were going to hit somebody, and (2) that sometime that
same evening the crime was committed, fails to prove beyond reasonable doubt that sufficient time
had elapsed to allow appellant time to reflect and that he clung to his determination to kill the victim.
Hence, evident premeditation was not proven in this case.

MENDOZA VS PEOPLE

Mendoza was convicted with the crime of murder. That he was armed with unlicensed short
firearms, evident premeditation and the like, attacked without warning Ernesto Velasquez.
Apparently, an issue was raised on whether the appellate court erred that conspiracy exists and
evident premeditation was attended in the victims killing. On this matter, petitioner claimed that no
evident premeditation is present for he had no ill feeling against the victim and his relatives. The
Court held that all requisites of evident premeditation were established on the sequence of events
delivered onto the statements. That evident premeditation qualifies the killing of the person to murder
if the following elements are present: (1) the time when the offender was determined to commit the
crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to is resolve; and (3) a sufficient
interval of time between the determination or conception and the execution of the crime to allow him
to reflect upon the consequence of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of
his will if he desired to hearken to its warning. The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of
Appeals with modifications.

ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH

PEOPLE VS REGALARIO
People v. Regalario (2009). The trial court held that there was conspiracy among
Ramon, Marciano, Sotero, Bienvenido, and Noel, all surnamed Regalario, in the
commission of crime of murder, being qualified by the abuse of superior strength
and scoffing at the body of the victim. CA affirmed the decision of the trial court
with modifications. The Supreme Court ruled that the lower courts appreciation of
the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength is correct. To take
advantage of superior strength is to use force out of proportion to the means
available to the person attacked to defend himself. In order to be appreciated, it
must be clearly shown that there was deliberate intent on the part of the
malefactors to take advantage thereof.[24] In this case, as testified to by the
prosecution eyewitnesses, accused-appellants Ramon, Sotero and Bienvenido, with
the exception of Marciano, were armed with nightsticks (bahi) while Noel was
holding a knife. Clearly they took advantage of their superiority in number and arms
in killing the victim, as shown by numerous wounds the latter suffered in different
parts of his body.
The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of both courts appreciating the
presence of generic aggravating circumstance of scoffing at the body of the victim,
tying the victim hog-style after rendering him immobilized.

MENDOZA VS PEOPLE
The RTC rendered a decision finding petitioner guilty beyong reasonable doubt of
the crime murder, with an aggravating circumstance. CA affirmed the decision with
modification. The Supreme Court states that all foregoing elements and requisites
of evident premeditation were satisfactorily established by the prosecution. The
gap of four hours between determination and the execution to kill Ernesto was

sufficient for the petitioner and his cohorts to reflect on the consequences of the
acts they were about to commit.
Petitioner, Glenn, Manolito, and Ruperto were all armed men with pistols and
armalite which were used in shooting Ernesto, while the latter was unarmed. They
took advantage of their number and weapons against Ernesto, taking advantage of
superior strength which qualifies the killing to murder. Only one between the
aggravating circumstances can qualify the killing to murder, so the other becomes a
generic aggravating circumstance plus the special aggravating circumstance of use
of unlicensed firearm.

MEANING OF TREACHERY
IS THIS APPLICABLE TO THE CRIME OF RAPE?
IS THIS APPLICABLE TO THE CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
PEOPLE VS DELPINO
The trial court rendered a decision finding Manuel Delpino guilty of the crime
of murder, which the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification. The Information
alleged that Manuel Delpino killed the victim with the use of a short firearm,
treachery and evident premeditation. In this case, the victim had no chance of
defending himself as he was stooping down to get his slippers, when Delpino
suddenly poked the gun on his neck and shot him without warning. The attack was
so swift and unexpected that the unarmed victim had no chance to resist the attack.
Accused-appellant was not exposed to any danger. On the other hand, evident
premeditation was not appreciated as aggravating circumstance, for there was no
direct evidence of the planning and the preparation to kill the victim, despite
Delpinos threat to the victim two months before the incident, which is not a proof of
evident premeditation.
PEOPLE VS CUASAY
The trial court found Noel Cuasay guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal
by direct participation of the crime of murder, qualified by treachery. Court of
Appeals affirmed the decision with modification. The Supreme Court agreed with
the courts finding of treachery. Treachery exists when the offender commits any of
the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution
thereof which tend directly or specially to ensure its execution, without risk to
himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In the case
at bar, the victim was unarmed and unsuspecting when accused-appellant suddenly
stabbed him while the former was playing mahjong. Treachery was clearly present
in accused-appellants method.
IGNOMINY (ART 14 (17) RPC)
IS IT AGGRAVATING IF THE IGNOMINOUS ACTS WERE DONE AFTER
THE VICTIMS DEATH?

IGNONIMY THAT MEANS BE EMPLOYED OR CIRCUMSTANCES BROUGHT

ABOUT BY WHICH ADD IGNONIMY TO THE NATURAL EFFECTS OF THE ACT.
IGNONIMY MEANS A CIRCUMSTANCE PERTAINING TO THE MORAL ORDER WHICH
ADD DISGRACE TO THE MATERIAL INJURY CAUSED BY THE CRIME.
-

THE CRIME IS MADE MORE HUMILIATING OR PUT THE

OFFENDED PARTY TO SHAME

PEOPLE VS REGALARIO
IN THE CASE OF PEOPLE VS REGALIRIO, the attendance of the general
aggravating circumstance of scoffing at the body (Art 246 (6)) was evident and not
ignominy. If the shameful acts were done after the death of the victim, it cannot be
considered as an aggravating circumstance under Article 14 paragraph 17 of the
Revised Penal Code but it is under Art 246 paragraph 6 of the same code. It is
established that you cannot further add shame to the person who is already dead.
In the present case, the victim was hog tied after his death, therefore, the
circumstance cannot be aggravated further and should not be classified as
ignominy.

IV. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

RELATIONSHIP
The following are taken into consideration
a) Spouse
b) Ascendant
c) Descendant
d) Legitimate natural or adopted brother or sister
e) relatives by affinity in the same degree
f) stepfather, stepmother, stepson, or stepdaughter
In Serious Physical Injuries - When the crime committed against a person is present,
even if the offended party is a descendant of the offender, relationship is valued as
an aggravating circumstance.
Less Serious Physical Injuries relationship is a mitigating circumstance
Homicide relationship is an aggravating circumstance
Trespassing relationship is a mitigating circumstance
In crimes against chastity, relationship is always aggravating

Parricide, adultery and concubinage neither

PEOPLE VS ABELLO
In the case of People of Philippines vs Abello, the Supreme Court rendered decision
indicating that relationship is classified as an alternative circumstance availed at
Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code and an aggravating circumstance to the crimes
related to rape and against chastity. The burden to prove the relationship or the
marriage of the mother to Abello is on the prosecution, provided that they present a
competent evidence, and not mere admission. The strict requirement is proper as
relationship is an aggravating circumstance that would increase the imposable
penalty to the accused.
PEOPLE VS CEBALLOS
In the case of People vs Ceballos, the accused, being the father of the victims, is
found guilty of beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of rape and acts of
lasciviousness, with an aggravating circumstance of the relationship.
V. PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES
1. PRINCIPALS, ACCOMPLICES AND ACCESSORIES
a. Principals Art. 17 of RPC
one who take a direct part in the execution of the act
- who directly force or induce other to commit the crime
- those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by
another act without which it would not have been accomplished
b. Accomplice Art . 18 of RPC
- those who are not included in the elaboration of Art. 17 but
cooperated in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous
acts
c. Accessories Art. 19 of RPC
- with knowledge of the crime and without having participated
therein takes part subsequent to its commission in the following manners.
1. profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by
the effects of the crime
2. concealing or destroying the body of the crime or the effects
or instruments thereof, in order to prevent the discovery.
3. harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the
principals, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public function 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 guilty
of some other crime.

2. ACCESSORIES EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY

a. Spouses
b. ascendants
c. descendants
d. legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters
e. relatives by affinity within the same degree
Ground: based on ties of blood and the preservation of the cleanliness of
ones name which compels relatives to conceal crimes.
3. IMPLIED CONSPIRACY PAGE 20
Doctrine of implied conspiracy holds two or more persons participating
on a crime are collectively liable or conspirators although there is an
absent agreement.
The existence of conspiracy shall be inferred or deduced from their
criminal participation in pursuing the crime and, thus, the act of one shall
be the act of all.
Article 20 of the Revised Penal Code
UP COLLEGE OF LAW PAGE 66
VI. PENALITES
Penalty is defined as the suffering inflicted by the State for the
transgression of law
1. JURIDICAL CONDITIONS OF PENALTIES
1. productive of suffering not affecting human
2. communicate with the offense
3. personal
4. legal
5. certain
6. equal
7. correctional
2. THEORIES JUSTIFYING PENALTIES
a) Prevention to prevent or suppress the danger that may arise
from the crime
b) Self Defense protect society from threats inflicted by the
criminal
c) Reformation to correct or reform the offender

d) Exemplarity example to deter others from committing crimes

e) Justice act of retributive justice, vindication of abosulute right
and moral law violated by the criminal
3. PARDON BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND THE OFFENDED PARTY
Pardon is a government decision to allow a person who has been convicted
of a crime, to be granted freedom and absolved of the conviction imposed, as if
never convicted.
PEOPLE VS DELA CERNA
In the case of People vs Dela Cerna, the defense presented an evidence that
the private complainant voluntarily executed an affidavit of desistance. She said
that there were false statements and she had truly forgiven the father. The accused
anchored his claim that the pardon give to him by the plaintiff is enough to create a
reasonable doubt on the crime committed. Following this, the Supreme Court ruled
that the affidavit should not be given any credence. The affidavit do not negate the
fact that a crime of rape and abuse happened.
According to the Article 344 of Revised Penal Code, the pardon extended by
the person offended results in extinction of the liability, however, pardon must be
made prior to the institution of the criminal action.
If criminal is sued after the criminal action started because no criminal
proceedings, the aggrieved party is the People of the Philippines. Under Article 23,
a pardon by the offended party does not negate the criminal liability.
4. PREVENTIVE MEASURES NOT CONSIDERED AS PENALTIES
Measures of prevention or safety which are not considered penalties
1. Arrest and temporary detention as well as their detention by reason of
insanity or imbecility or illness rendering that their confinement in the hospital.
2. the commitment of a minor to any of the institutions mentioned in Article
80.
3. Suspension from the employment or public office during the trial in order
to institute proceedings.
4. Fines and other corrective measures which in the exercise of their
administrative or disciplinary powers, superior officials may impose upon their
subordinate.
5. Deprivation of rights and the separations which the civil law may establish
in penal form.
5. DURATION AND EFFECTS OF PENALTIES
Article 27 laid down the duration and effects of penalties imposed
under the Philippine legal system

a. Reclusion Perpetua 20 years and one day to 40 years.

b. Reclusion Temporal 12 years and one day to 20 years.
c. Prision Mayor and temporary disqualification 6 years and 1 day to 12
years.
d. Prision Correctional, suspension and destierro 6 months and 1 day to 6
years.
e. Arresto Mayor 1 month and 1 day to 6 months
f. Arrestor Menor 1 day to 30 days
Bond to keep the peace bond to keep the peace shall be required to cover such
period of time as the court may determine.
6. PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT AND SUBSIDIARY PENALTY
Art. 29 Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of
imprisonment
When: The accused undergoes preventive imprisonment when the offense
charged is nonbailable, or even if bailable, he cannot furnish the required bail.
Recidivist have been convicted 2 more times
Failed to surrender volntarilty.
7. COMPLEX CRIMES
What is complex crime?
1. when a single act produces two or more grave or less grave felonies
2. when an offense is necessary for committing the other.
JASON IVLER VS HON. MODESTO SAN PEDRO
In the case of Jason Ivler vs Honorable Modesto San Pedro, the Metropolitan
Trial Court rendered a decision that reckless imprudence resulting in Slight Physical
Injuries is an entirely separate offense from Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Homicide and Damage to Property as the latter requires a proof of an additional fact
which that other does not . Reckless Imprudence is not a crime in itself but simply
a way of committing it and merely determines a lower degree of criminal liability is
too broad to deserve unqualified assent. Art 48, which is complex crimes, is a
procedural device allowing single prosecution of multiple felonies under either two
categories A) when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies
and b) when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other. The
legislature crafted this procedural tool to benefit the accused who, in lieu of serving
multiple penalties, will only serve the maximum oof the penalty for the most serious
crime. Herein case, the accused cannot be charged again due to a crime resulting
from the same offense.

Art 48. Penalty for complex crime 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.
A complex crime is only one crime.
8. ARTICLE 49 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE
Penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime
committed is different from that intended
Rules as to the penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is
different from intended
1. If the penalty for the felony committed be higher than the penalty
for the offense which the accused intended to comit, the lower penalty
shall be imposed in its maximum period
2. If the penalty for the felony committed to be lower than that
penalty for the offense which the accused intended to commit, the lower
penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period
3. if the act committed also constitutes an attempt of another crime,
and the law prescribes a higher penalty for either of the crim, the penalty
for the attempted or frustrated crime shall be imposed in its maximum
period.
Article 49 applies only when there is a mistake in the identity of the victim
of the crime and the panlty for the crime committed is different from that
for the crime ntended to be committed.
A. Aberratio Ictus
b. Error in personae
c. Praeter intentionem
9. INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW RA 4103
Composition
A maximum taken from the penalty imposable under the penal code
A minimum taken from the penalty next lower to that fixed in the
code
Purpose of the law to uplift and redeem valuable human material and
prevent unnecessary excessive deprivation of liberty and economic
usefulness.
10. PROBATION LAW as PD 968 amended.

Probation a disposition under which a defendant, after conviction and

sentence, is released subject to conditions imposed by the
court and
to the supervision of a roation officer
Criteria for placing an offender to probation
Character
Antecedents
Environment
Mental
Physical
Condition of he offender, and 2 abailable institutional community of
resources.

An application for probation is lifted

Where an application for probation filed
An applicable for probation sha be filled with the trial court.
VII. EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
1. DEATH OF THE OFFENDER
Death
the death of the convict, whether before or after final
judgment extinguishes criminal liability, because one of the juridical
conditions of penalty is that it is personal.
Civil
judgment
period for
to appeal/

liability is extinguished only when death occurs before final

- > means judgment beyond recall or after the lapse of the
perfecting an appeal/ defendant waived in his writing his right
sentence have been served

2. AMNESTY AND PARDON

Act of the sovereign power granting oblivion on general pardon for a
past offense
Usually exerted in behalf of certain causes of person, who are
subject to trial but have not yet been convicted
Completely extinguishes penalties and its effects
May be granted after convicted
Civil liability is not distinguished
Pardon

Act of grace proceeding from the power entrusted with the

execution of the laws which exempts the individual on whom it is
bestowed from the punishement of the law that he has violated
Absolute
Conditional
3. PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES AND PENALTIES
The state or the people has the right to prosecutie the crime or to
demand the service of the penalty imposed
Prescription of the crime forfeiture of the right to prosecute offender
after the lapse of a certain time
Prescription of the penalty forfeiture of the right of the Government to
execute the final sentence after lapse of a certain time.

4. CIVIL LIABILITY FOR CRIMINAL OFFENSES

Art 100 Every person criminally liable for felony is also civilly liable
If there is no damage caused by the commission of the crime, the
offender is not civilly liable
The RPC is silent if the person is acquitted on his/her criminal case
means extinction of his civil liability
May exist although accused is not held criminally liable in the
following cases
1. Acquittal on reasonable doubt
Nonimputability
Negligence
When there is only civil responsibility
Independent civil actions