Criminal Law 1

Prof. I.R. Jimenez

A.Y.2009-2010
I. General Principles of Criminal Law
A. Nature
 Criminal Law – that branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment
 Crime – an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it
B. Purposes
1. Identify wrongful behavior
 Power to define and punish crimes
- The state has the authority, under its police power, to define and punish crimes and to lay down the rules of criminal procedure
- States, as part of their police power, have a large measure of discretion in creating and defining criminal offenses.
- The State is tasked to defend the inherent rights and risks that are unanimously shared by its citizens and the violation of such
will cause a serious effect to the society. (hence, “People v. Accused” as title to criminal cases.)
- It is the manifestation of the state’s power to control social behavior but it also defines a limit to this same power. Beyond the
extent of criminal law, the state cannot punish harmful behavior. This branch of law treats of specific acts which the community
has decided as necessary because they are wrong and harmful.
2. Prescribe punishment
 Two Theories In Criminal Law
o Classical
 Basis: human free will
 Purpose of penalty: retribution
 That man is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free will to choose between good and evil, thereby placing
more stress upon the effect or result of the felonious act upon the man, the criminal himself
 Establishes a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and penalty
 Scant regard to the human element
 the state exacts revenge for wrongdoing done and the offender needs to be expiated.
o Positivist
 That man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which constrains him to do wrong, in spite of or
contrary to his volition.
 That crime is essentially a social and natural phenomenon, and as such, it cannot be treated and checked by the
application of abstract principles of law and jurisprudence nor by the imposition of a punishment, fixed and determined a
priori; but rather through the enforcement of individual measures in each particular case after a through personal and
individual investigation conducted by a competent body of psychiatrists and social scientists.
 that there are external factors which influence a man’s decision to commit crimes. It seeks to rehabilitate man (during
prison) and teaches him ways to cope with these external factors which brought about the crime prior to being
incarcerated.
Classical Positivist
Individual’s free will is a choice between Not one dimensional; it’s a natural and social
Conduct good/pleasure and evil/pain phenomenon; affected by the environment
Purpose Retribution, vengeance; instinct is to extract Reformation; change
revenge
Focus Victim Family and society
Punishment Moral responsibility, relationship of convict— Reformation, prevention, repression
victim, intent, excuse and temptation
a. Retribution
i. Deterrence
ii. Incapacitation
iii. Rehabilitation
b. Prevention
C. Characteristics
1. Statutory
 RPC, 3. Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos). Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo)
but also by means of fault (culpa). There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there is fault when the
wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
 RPC, 5(1). Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in cases
of excessive penalties. — Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress and which is not
punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice,
the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of legislation.
 No common law crimes in the Philippines
1
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Criminal Law 1
Prof. I.R. Jimenez
A.Y.2009-2010
- Common law crimes: body of principles, usages and rules of action, which do not rest for their authority upon any express and
positive declaration of the will of the legislature
- Unless there be a particular provision in the penal code or special penal law that defines and punishes the act
2. General
 Criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine territory
 It is general because it will not discriminate against persons. It will affect both citizens and non-citizens in order to assure that
they will conform to socially accepted behavior.
 As a general rule, the jurisdiction of the civil courts is not affected by the military character of the accused
 Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with general courts-martial over soldiers of the AFP
 The RPC or other penal law is not applicable when the military court takes cognizance of the case.
 Exceptions: when otherwise provided for in treaties and laws of preferential application
3. Territorial
 RPC, 2. Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not
only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its
jurisdiction, against those who: 1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship; 2. Should forge or counterfeit
any coin or Currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine
Islands;3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned
in the presiding number; 4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions;
or 5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this
Code.
 Constitution, Art. I. The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein,
and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial
domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around,
between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal
waters of the Philippines.
 French Rule. Crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vehicles are not triable in the courts of that country, unless their
commission affects the peace and security of the territory or the safety of the state is endangered.
 English Rule. Crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vehicles are triable in that country, unless they merely affect things
within the vessel or they refer to the internal management thereof.  Philippines: in the Philippines, all crimes committed in its
territorial seas will be tried, unless the defendant can prove that it only affected those within the vessel
4. Prospective
 A penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when committed
 RPC, 366. Without prejudice to the provisions contained in Article 22 of this Code, felonies and misdemeanors, committed prior to
the date of effectiveness of this Code shall be punished in accordance with the Code or Acts in force at the time of their
commission.
 Exceptions: whenever a new statute dealing with crime establishes conditions more lenient or favorable to the accused, it can be
given retroactive effect.
 RPC, 21. Penalties that may be imposed. — No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its
commission.
 RPC, 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. — Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a
felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the
publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.
5. Morally Condemnable
 Condemnation is outrage expressed by the community associated with the penalty prescribed because of the felony committed.
Moral condemnation (or at least a lower degree) cannot (can only) be found in other fields of law.
 Examples: Call to arms or vigilantism v. death penalty; Indefinite isolation in mental hospital v. one-day imprisonment; Fine of P1
million from a civil suit v. fine of P1,000 for robbery
D. Sources
1. Constitution
2. Revised Penal Code and its amendments
3. Special Penal Laws passed by the Legislature
4. Penal Presidential Decrees
5. Penal provisions in other laws
6. Local ordinances
7. Jurisprudence
E. Constitutional limitations

2
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Criminal Law 1
Prof. I.R. Jimenez
A.Y.2009-2010
 The government is powerful. When unlimited, it becomes tyrannical. The Bill of Rights is a guarantee that there are certain areas of a
person’s life, liberty and property which governmental power cannot touch.

1. Due process and equal protection

 Constitution, Article III, Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall
any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
2. Freedom of Expression
 Constitution, Article III, Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
3. Freedom of Religion
 Constitution, Article III, Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever
be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.
4. No excessive fines nor cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment
 Constitution, Article III, Section 19(1). Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted.
Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides
for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
5. Non-imprisonment for debt or non-payment of a poll tax
 Constitution, Article III, Section 19(1). Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted.
Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides
for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
6. Bill of attainder
 Constitution, Article III, Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
 A legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial
 Essence: substitution of a legislative for a judicial determination of guilt
 Bar  serves to implement the principle of separation of powers
7. Ex post facto law
 Constitution, Article III, Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
 A law which makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done, and punishes such act
 A law which aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed
 A law which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment
 A law which alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony the the law required at
the time of the commission of the offense
 A law which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, but in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right
 A law which deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled
F. Construction/Interpretation
1. Liberality in favor of the Accused
2. Spanish text of the RPC prevails over its English translation
3. Retroactive application if favorable to the accused
4. Prescribed, but undeserved, penalties
 RPC, 5(2). In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, such statement as
may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this
Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury
caused by the offense.
II. General Principles of Criminal Liability
A. Definition of Felony
 RPC, 3. Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos). Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but also
by means of fault (culpa). There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there is fault when the wrongful act
results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
B. Elements of Criminal Liability
1. Physical element (actus reus)
a. Act
 Any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external world, it being unnecessary that the same be actually
produced as the possibility of its production is sufficient.
 bodily movements, verbal utterances, and possession of dangerous objects that pose a danger to society
o There is a fine line between possession and status. E.g. Person A was sitting in his car in complete silence, not talking, not
moving, at all. Then Person B comes in and places a bag of shabu in Person A’s car. Would Person A be liable? Yes. There is
3
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Criminal Law 1
Prof. I.R. Jimenez
A.Y.2009-2010
a law punishing possession of drugs. Why? Because possession of illegal firearms and/or drugs gives a preconceived status
of danger; in bio-psychology, it has been discovered that some people are more pre-disposed to violence than others.
Criminal law does not punish status. However, if Person A reported it before being caught, his liability would be
eliminated.
 The act must be external, because internal acts are beyond the sphere of penal law.
b. Omission
 Inaction, the failure to perform a positive duty which one is bound to do (there must be a law requiring the doing or
performance of an act)
2. Mental element (mens rea)  it is the state of mind of the offender at the commission of the crime. It must derive from malice or by
fault. The only way to observe this state is to observe the actus reus.
a. Deliberate intent (dolo)
i. Elements
 Freedom (Voluntariness) – When a person acts without freedom, he is no longer a human being but a tool; one who acts
without freedom necessarily has no intent to do injury to another. This element is based on the classical thought of
blameworthiness.
 Intelligence (Knowledge) – Without this power, necessary to determine the morality of human acts, no crime can exist;
one who acts without intelligence has no intent to do injury to another. Why is intelligence related to the morality of
human acts? The offender knows that the act will constitute harm.
 Intent (Malicious Intent) – Intent to commit the act with malice, being purely a mental process, is presumed and the
presumption arises from the proof of the commission of an unlawful act.
 Not synonymous with motive/purpose
 In order for there to be dolo, intent must be to do some wrong, to do some harm
 Almost synonymous with MALICE
 Consciousness to cause some/ to do wrong
 Intent presupposes the exercise of freedom and the use of intelligence  one who acts without freedom necessarily
has no intent to do an injury to another; one who acts without intelligence has no such intent.
 The existence of intent is shown by the overt acts of the person
ii. General and Specific intent
 General Intent: Consciousness to do harm to target and to do injury.
 Specific Intent: Each felony has a distinct; these are actions, which have occurred with a specific mens rea
 In felonies committed by dolus, the third element of voluntariness is a general intent; whereas in some particular
felonies, proof of particular specific intent is required.
 People v. Puno
Facts:
Held:
iii. Mistake of Fact
 A misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to another.
 Person is not criminally liable because he did not act with criminal intent.
 Destroys the presumption of criminal intent which arises upon the commission of a felonious act.
 Requisites:
o That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be
o That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful
o That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.
iv. Malum prohibitum – exception to the requirement of mens rea
v. Distinguished from motive
 Motive is the moving power, which impels one to action for a definite result. Intent is the purpose to use a particular
means to effect such result.
 Motive is the cause that moves people and induces a certain action. It is rarely an element of any given crime; however,
the legal system typically allows motive to be proven in order to make plausible the reasons for committing a crime,
particularly when the motive is obscure or hard to identify with. It is essential when in doubt as to the identity of the
assailant, when the identity of the accused comes from an unreliable source or testimony e.g. circumstantial evidence.
 "Intent" in criminal law is synonymous with mens rea, which means no more than the specific mental purpose to
perform a deed that is forbidden by a criminal statute, or the reckless disregard of whether the law will be violated.
"Motive" is the reason of the accused from his past or background, which are believed to have induced the crime.
b. Constructive intent (culpa)
i. Elements
 Freedom
4
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Criminal Law 1
Prof. I.R. Jimenez
A.Y.2009-2010
 Intelligence
 Imprudence, Negligence, Lack of Foresight or Lack of Skill
ii. Imprudence or lack of skill imprudence: indicates a deficiency of action  if a person fails to take the necessary precaution
to avoid injury to person or damage to property (lack of skill)
iii. Negligence or lack of foresight  negligence: indicates a deficiency of perception  if a person fails to pay proper
attention and to use due diligence in foreseeing the injury or damage impending to be caused, there is negligence. (usually
involves lack of foresight)
c. Transferred intent
RPC, 4(1). Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be incurred: 1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the
wrongful act done be different from that which he intended
Requisites:
 An intentional felony has been committed
 The wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the felony committed by the
offender
 Proximate cause: that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause,
produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred
o Natural: an occurrence in the ordinary course of human life or events
o Logical: there is a rational connection between the act of the accused and the resulting injury or damage.
o Proximate legal cause: that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately, or by setting other events in the
motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events
o There must be a relation of “cause and effect”: cause being the felonious act, the effect being the resultant injuries
o Not proximate cause when: there is an active force that intervened between the felony committed and the resulting
injury, that active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused; OR, resulting
injury is due to the intentional act of the victim
o Not sufficient intervening causes (do not break the relation of cause and effect)
1. Weak or diseased physical condition of the victim
2. Nervousness or temperament of the victim
3. Causes inherent to the victim: victim not knowing how to swim, e.g.
4. Neglect of the victim or third person
5. Erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment
o When death is presumed to be the natural consequence of physical injuries inflicted
 Victim at the time PI is inflicted was in normal health
 Death may be expected from wound inflicted
 Death ensued within a reasonable died
i. Aberratio ictus
 Mistake in the blow, that is, when the offender intending to do an injury to one person actually inflicts it on another.
ii. Error in personae
 Mistake in the identity of the victim; this is a complex crime in Art. 49.
 People v. Sabalones
Facts:
Held:
iii. Praeter intentionem
 RPC, 13(3). the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
 People v. Albuquerque
Facts:
Held:
3. Concurrence  That the actus reus concurs with the mens rea, and vice-versa.
4. Resulting Harm
5. Causation  logical consequence of a proximate cause that could be of criminal in nature; The result must be brought about by the
concurrence of the actus reus and mens rea.
C. Liability for Incomplete Elements
1. Impossible crime
 RPC, 4(2). Criminal liability shall be incurred: 2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or
property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means.
o Indicative of criminal propensity or criminal tendency on the part of the actor

5
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Criminal Law 1
Prof. I.R. Jimenez
A.Y.2009-2010
o Positivist thinking: community must be protected from anti-social activities, whether actual or potential, of the morbid type of
man called “socially dangerous person”
o Requisites:
 Act performed = offense against persons or property
 Act is done with evil intent
 Its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual
 Legal impossibility
 Physical impossibility  when one tries to murder a corpse
 Act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC
2. Uncompleted crimes
a. Attempted and frustrated felonies, in general
 RPC, 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. — Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated
and attempted, are punishable. A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce
the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator. There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly or over acts, and does
not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this
own spontaneous desistance.
o Consummated: when all elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present  ALL elements which the
accused is prosecuted must be present
o Frustrated: when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence, but
which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of cause independent to the will of the perpetrator
 Elements
 Offender performs all acts of execution  nothing more is left to be done by the offender, because he has performed
the last act necessary to produce the crime
 All acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence
 But felony is not produced
 By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator
 Frustrated v. attempted
 In both, offender has not accomplished his criminal purpose
 In FF, offender has reached objective phase; in AF, offender has not passed subjective phase
 In FF, there is no intervention of a foreign cause between the beginning of the consummation of the crime and the
moment when all acts have been performed; in AF, there is such intervention and the offender does not arrive at the
point of performing all the acts
 Frustrated or attempted v. Impossible crime
 In all three, evil intent not accomplished
 In impossible crime, evil intent cannot be accomplished; in AF/FF, the evil intent of the offender is possible of
accomplishment
 In IC, evil intent cannot be accomplished because it is inherently possible or means employed is inadequate or
ineffectual; in AF/FF, what prevented its accomplishment is the intervention of certain cause or accident in which
offender had no part
o Attempted: there is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does
not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance
 Elements
 Offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts
 He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony
 Offender’s act is not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance
 Non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance
 Indeterminate offense: where the purpose of offender for performing an act is not certain
 Never passes the subjective phase of the offense  that portion of the acts constituting the crime, starting from the
point where the offender begins the commission of the crime to that point where he has still control over his acts,
including their natural course.
o Stages of crime
 Internal acts – mere ideas in the mind of a person; not punishable (intention and effect must concur)
 External acts
 Preparatory acts – ordinarily not punishable
 Acts of execution – punishable under RPC
6
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Criminal Law 1
Prof. I.R. Jimenez
A.Y.2009-2010
o Manner of Committing Crime
 Formal  consummated in one instant, no attempt (slander, false testimony)
 Crimes consummated by mere attempt or proposal or by overt act (treason)
 Felony by omission (no attempted, because in this felony the offender does not execute acts)
 Crimes requiring the intervention of 2 person to commit them are consummated by mere agreement (corruption of
public officer)
 Material crimes – 3 stages
o No attempted or frustrated impossible crime
 RPC, 7. When light felonies are punishable. — Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated, with
the exception of those committed against person or property.
b. Examples of specific felonies
i. Illegal Trespass
 RPC, 280. Any private person who shall enter the dwelling of another against the latter's will.
 RPC, 281. …any person who shall enter the closed premises or the fenced estate of another, while either or them are
uninhabited, if the prohibition to enter be manifest and the trespasser has not secured the permission of the owner or
the caretaker thereof.
ii. Physical injuries, Homicide, Murder
iii. Theft
iv. Robbery
v. Rape
c. Light felonies punishable only when consummated
 RPC, 7. When light felonies are punishable. — Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated, with
the exception of those committed against person or property.
 RPC, 9(3). Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which a penalty of arrest menor or a fine not
exceeding 200 pesos or both; is provided.
d. Proposals and conspiracies
 RPC, 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. — Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the
cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. There is proposal when the person who has
decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
D. Liability for Multiple, Complex and Continuing Crimes
 RPC, 9(1-2). Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are
afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of this Code. Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their
maximum period are correctional, in accordance with the above-mentioned Art.
 RPC, 48. 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.
E. Liability under Special Laws
 RPC, 10. Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This
Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary.
III. Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability
A. Justifying Circumstances (RPC, 11
 Such persons are not criminals, as there is no crime committed
 Burden of proof: incumbent to the accused
1. Defense of self, relatives, and strangers
 RPC, 11(1). Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur; First. Unlawful
aggression. Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on
the part of the person defending himself.
o Unlawful aggression
 Indispensable requisite, a condition sine qua non
 It is necessary that we be assaulted or we be attacked, or atl east that we be threatened with an attack in an immediate and
imminent manner
 Aggression must be UNLAWFUL  there are lawful aggression such as fulfillment of a duty or exercise of a right.
 Equivalent to assault or at least threatened assault of an immediate and imminent kind
 When there is peril to one’s life, limb or right
 Actual: that the danger must be present, that is, actually in existence
 Imminent: that the danger is on the point of happening. It is not required that the attack already begins, for it may be too
late
7
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Criminal Law 1
Prof. I.R. Jimenez
A.Y.2009-2010
 Peril to one’s limb: includes peril to the safety of one’s person to physical injuries.
 There must be actual physical assault (physical force or weapon) or at least a threat to inflict injury
 Threat must be offensive and positively strong, showing the wrongful intent to cause an injury.
 Refers to an attack that has actually broken out or materialized or at the very least is clearly imminent; it cannot consist in
oral threats or a merely threatening stance or posture
 Insulting words addressed to the accused without physical assault is not unlawful aggression
 A light push on the head with the hand does not constitute unlawful aggression
 A slap on the face is unlawful aggression  the face represents a person and his dignity; slapping it is a serious physical
attack
 As distinguished from retaliation: in retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured party already ceased to exist
when the accused attacked him. In self-defense, the aggression still existed when the aggressor was injured or disabled by
the person making a defense.
 The attack and the defense should succeed each other without appreciable interval of time  when the killing of the
deceased by the accused was after the attack made by the deceased, the accused must have no time nor occasion for
deliberation and cool thinking.
 Must come from the person who was attacked by the accused
 No unlawful aggression when there is agreement to fight; but aggression which is ahead of the stipulated time and place is
unlawful. One whoi voluntarily joined a fight cannot claim self-defense.
 Defense of right to chastity
 Defense of property  justifying only when it is coupled with an attack on the person of one entrusted with said property.
 Defense of home
 A mere threatening or intimidation attitude, not preceded by an outward and material aggression, is not unlawful aggression,
because it is required that the act be offensice and positively strong, showing the wrongful intent of the aggressor to cause
an injury.
o Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
 There be a necessity of the course of action taken by the person making a defense
 Depends on the existence of unlawful aggression
 Place and occasion of the assault considered
 Darkness of the night and the surprise which characterized the assault considered
 Person defending is note expected to control his blow  when the aggression is so sudden that there is no time left to the
one making a defense to determine what course of action to take
 In repelling or preventing an unlawful aggression, the one defending must aim at his assailant, and not indiscriminately fire
deadly weapon
 There be a necessity of the means use
 Depends upon the nature and quality of the weapon used by the aggressor, his physical condition, character, size and
other circumstances, and those of the person defending himself
 Depends also on the place and occasion of the assault
 Perfect equality is not required
 Not reasonable if: There were other available means, he could coolly choose the less deadly weapon or if there were other
available means.
 Example: in view of the imminence of the danger, a shotgun is reasonable as a means to prevent an aggression with a bolo
 The reasonableness necessity depends on the existence of unlawful aggression and upon the nature and extent of the
aggression.  liberally construed in favor of law-abiding citizens.
o Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself
 No provocation at all was given by the person defending himself to the aggressor
 Even if a provocation was given, it was not sufficient
 When, even if the provocation was sufficient, it was not given by the person defending himself
 When, even if a provocation was given by the person defending himself, it was not proximate and immediate to the act of
aggression
o Battered Woman Syndrome as a defense
 RPC, 11(2). Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or
adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those consanguinity within the fourth civil degree,
provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite,
in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.
o Relatives by affinity: because of marriage (-in-laws)
o Death of the spouse terminates relationship by affinity
st
o Fourth civil degree  1 cousins

8
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Criminal Law 1
Prof. I.R. Jimenez
A.Y.2009-2010
o Justification: reason of defender is founded not only upon a humanitarian sentiment, but also upon the impulse of blood which
impels men to rush, on the occasion of great perils, to the rescue of those close to them by ties of blood.
o Requisites 1 & 2: same with self-defense
o Requisite 3: in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.
 Although provocation prejudices the person who gave it, its effects do not reach the defender who took no part therein.
 RPC, 11(3). Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and second requisites
mentioned in the first circumstance of this Art. are present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge,
resentment, or other evil motive.
o Requisite 1 & 2: same as 11 & 12
o Requisite 3: the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
 Defense of stranger must be actuated by a disinterested or generous motive
 Strangers: not included in the enumeration of relatives
 Furnishing a weapon to one in serious danger of being throttled is defense of a stranger
2. Avoidance of greater evil
 RPC, 11(4). Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes damage to another, provided that the
following requisites are present; First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; Second. That the injury feared be greater
than that done to avoid it; Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
o Damage to another: covers injury to persons and damage to property
o Requisite 1: the evil must actually exist; if evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or anticipated, 11(4) is not applicable
 Example: killing of a fetus to save the life of the mother
o Requisite 2: that the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it
 Instinct of self-preservation will always make one feel that his own safety is of greater importance than that of another
 The greater evil should not be brought about by the negligence or imprudence of the actor
 When the accused was not avoiding any evil, he cannot invoke this justifying circumstance.
 The evil which brought about the greater evil must not result from a violation of law by the actor
o There is civil liability under this paragraph
3. Fulfillment of duty
 RPC, 5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
o Requisites
 accused acted in performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office
 injury caused or offense committed by the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty
 shooting an offender who refused to surrender is justified, but shooting an offender who refused to be arrested is not
justified.
o Distinguished from self defense and from consequence of felonious act
 If it were a private person, not in the performance of duty, it wouldn’t have been justified.
o Lawful exercise of right
 CC429, Doctrine of ‘self-help’: the owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the
enjoyment and disposal thereof  he may used such force as may be reasonably necessary to protect his property.
 Not necessary that there be unlawful aggression against the person charged with the protection of the property
 The actual invasion of property may consist of a mere disturbance of possession or of a real dispossession
 Exercise of statutory right is a valid defense
o Lawful exercise of office
4. Obedience to a lawful order of a superior
 RPC, 6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.
o Requisite 1: an order has been issued by a superior
o Requisite 2: that such order must be for some lawful purpose
 When order is not for a lawful purpose, the subordinate who obeyed it is criminally liable
 Subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal order of his superior, if he is not aware of the illegality of the order and he
is not negligent
o Requisite 3: That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful
 Absent: Executioner putting to death a convict a day earlier than date fixed by court
B. Exempting Circumstances
 Those grounds for exemption from punishment because there is wanting in the agent of the crime any of the conditions which make
the act voluntary or negligent
 Based on complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on the part of the accused.
 There is a crime, but no criminal liability arises.
 Burden of proof: defendant

9
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Criminal Law 1
Prof. I.R. Jimenez
A.Y.2009-2010
1. Insanity
 RPC, 12(1). An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval. When the imbecile or an insane
person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of the
hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the
permission of the same court.
o Imbecile: exempt in all cases; insane is not so exempt if it can be shown that he acted during a lucid interval (where he acts with
intelligence)
o Imbecile: one who, while advanced in age, has a mental development comparable to that of children between 2 and 7 years of
age  one who is deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of the will at the time of committing the crime
o To constitute insanity, there must be complete deprivation of intelligence or that there be total deprivation of the freedom of
the will
 There must be complete deprivation of intelligence while committing the act  accused is deprived of reason
 Mere abnormality of mental faculties is not wnough, especially if the offender has not lost consciousness of his acts
o Burden of proof: defense
o Evidence necessary: condition of mind before and after the commission of the crime
 Must refer to the time preceding the act under prosecution or to the very moment of its execution
 If insanity is only occasional or intermittent, the presumption of its continuance does no arise.
 If it is shown that there are lucid intervals, it is presumed that the offense is committed in one of them
o Scizophrenia (dementia praecox)  chronic mental disorder characterized by inability to distinguish fantasy and reality and
often accompanied by hallucinations and delusions
o Kleptomania?
o Epilepsy: chronic nervous disease: check
o Feeblemindedness: NO. because offender can distinguish right from wrong
o Pedophilia: NO
o Amnesia is not proof of mental condition of the accused
o Committing a crime while in a dream
o Committing a crime while suffering malignant malaria
o BASIS: on the complete absence of intelligence, an element of voluntariness.
2. Minority
 RPC, 12(2). A person under nine years of age.  repealed: a person under 15.
o Basis: absence of intelligence
 RPC, 12(3). A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with discernment, in which case, such minor
shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80 of this Code.
o Discernment: exception to the exemption; his ability to understand the difference between right and wrong
 Must be shown by (1) manner crime was committed, or (2) conduct of the offender after its commission
3. Accident
 RPC, 12(4). Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or
intention of causing it.
o Accident: something that happens outside the sway of our will, and although it comes about through some act of our will, lies
beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences
 Presupposes lack of intention to commit the wrong done
o Basis: lack of negligence or and intent
4. Irresistible force or uncontrollable fear of a greater injury
 RPC, 12(5). Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.
o Requisite 1: compulsion is by means of physical force
o Requisite 2: Physical force must be irresistible
 It must produce such an effect upon the individual that, in spite of all resistance, reduces him to a mere instrument and, as
such, incapable of committing a crime
o Requisite 3: Physical force must come from a third person.
o Basis: based on the complete absence of freedom, an element of voluntariness
o Nature of force required: force must be irresistible to reduce the actor to a mere instrument who acts not only without will but
against his will.
 RPC, 12(6). Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
o Elements:
 That the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than or at least equal to, that which he is required to commit
 That it promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have succumbed to it.
o Duress as a valid defense: should be based on real, imminent, or reasonable fear

10
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Criminal Law 1
Prof. I.R. Jimenez
A.Y.2009-2010
o Accused must not have opportunity for escape or self-defense
o Basis: complete absence of freedom
5. Insuperable cause
 RPC, 12(7). Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful insuperable cause.
o Elements
 An act is required by law to be done
 A person fails to perform such act
 His failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause
 Example: Priest cannot be compelled to disclose crimes confessed to him (lawful)
 Severe dizziness and extreme debility of mother at time of childbirth = insuperable
o Basis: acting without intent
C. Other exculpatory causes
1. Instigation
INSTIGATION ENTRAPMENT
- accused is acquitted - accused is criminally liable; no bar against his prosecution and
Why? A sound public policy requires that the conviction
courts shall condemn this practice by directing
the acquittal of the accused

- accused an innocent person, was induced to commit the offense - a trap set to catch a lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal
and the instigator becomes a co-principal (accused - principal by plan
participation; instigator – principal by induction)

- a law enforcer or private detectives conceives the commission of

the crime and suggests to the accused who adopts the idea and
carries it into execution, and would arrest him upon or after his
commission of the crime.
- must be made by public officers or private individuals
- offense is habitually committed by perpetrator, and the
solicitation merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct
- means, idea, and resolve to commit the crime originate from the
mind of the criminal

- an absolutory cause
- not a defense

2. Consent
3. Other special circumstances
 RPC, 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies.
 RPC, 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. — The penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon
those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters,
or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph
1 of the next preceding article.
 RPC, 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. — Any legally married person who having surprised
his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or
immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro. If he shall inflict
upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt from punishment. These rules shall be applicable, under the
same circumstances, to parents with respect to their daughters under eighteen years of age, and their
 RPC, 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability. — No criminal, but only civil liability, shall result from the commission of the
crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by the following persons: 1. Spouses, ascendants
and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line. 2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to
the deceased spouse before the same shall have passed into the possession of another; and 3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-
in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together. The exemption established by this article shall not be applicable to strangers
participating in the commission of the crime.
D. Mitigating Circumstances
 Those which, if present in the commission of the crime, do not entirely free the actor from criminal liability, but serve only to reduce
the penalty
 Basis: Diminution of either freedom or action, intelligence or intent, or on the lesser perversity of the offender
 Ordinary v. Privileged

11
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Criminal Law 1
Prof. I.R. Jimenez
A.Y.2009-2010
o Ordinary is susceptible of being offset by any aggravating circumstance; while privileged mitigating cannot be offset by
aggravating circumstance
o OM produces only the effect of applying the penalty provided by law in its minimum period; PM = effect of imposing upon
offender the penalty lower by one or two degrees than that provided by law
1. Incomplete justification or exemption
 RPC, 13(1). Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal
liability in the respective cases are not attendant.
o Incomplete self-defense, defense of relative and defense of stranger  only when unlawful aggression is present but the two
other requisites are absent (if 2/3 requisites are present, privileged mitigating)
o Incomplete justifying circumstance of avoidance of greater evil or injury  If any of the last 2 requisites is absent
o Incomplete justifying circumstance of performance of duty
o Incomplete justifying circumstance of obedience to an order
o Incomplete exempting circumstance of minority over 15 and under 18  if child acts with discernment
o NO mitigating circumstance for accident:
 if #2 and first part of #4 is missing: negligence
nd
 if #1 and 2 part of #4 is missing: intentional felony
o Incomplete exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear
2. Age (under 18 or over 70)
 RPC, 13(2). That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded
against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80.
o Based on diminution of intelligence, a condition of voluntariness
3. Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong
 RPC, 13(3). the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
o Rule: only when the facts proven show that there is a b=notable and evident disproportion between the means employed to
execute the criminal act and its consequences
o Weapon used, part of body injured, injury inflicted and the manner it is inflicted may show that if the accused intended the
wrong committed
o Not applicable when the offender employed brute force  it is the intention of the offender at the moment when he is
committing the crime which is considered
o Lack of intent not mitigating in physical injuries  mitigating when the victim dies
o Not applicable to felonies by negligence
o Not applicable to defamation or slander; only to physical injuries or material harm
o Basis: intent is diminished.
4. Sufficient provocation
 RPC, 13(4). That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act.
o PROVOCATION: understood as any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party, capable of exciting, inciting or
irritating anyone
o Requisites:
 Provocation must be sufficient
 Adequate to excite a person to commit the wrong and must accordingly be proportionate to its gravity
 It must originate from the offended party
 Difference from self-defense: as an element of self-defense, it pertains to its absence on the part of the person defending
himself; as element of MC, it pertains to the presence on the part of the offended party
 Provocation must be immediate to the act, i.e., to the commission of the crime by the person provoked.
 Between provocation and commission of crime, there should not be any interval of time
o Basis: diminution of intelligence and intent
5. Vindication of a wrong
 RPC, 13(5). That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito),
his spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
o Requisites:
 That there be a grave offense done to the one committing the felony or his relatives
 The felony is committed in vindication of such grave offense; a lapse of time is allowed between the vindication and the
doing of the grave offense
o Provocation v. Vindication
 In provocation, it is made directly only to the person committing the felony; in vindication, the grave offense may be
committed also against the offender’s relative

12
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Criminal Law 1
Prof. I.R. Jimenez
A.Y.2009-2010
 In vindication, the offended party must have done a grave offense to the offender; in provocation, the cause need not be
grave
 In provocation, it is necessary that the provocation immediately preceded the act; in vindication, the vindication may be
proximate
 Reason for difference: greater leniency in vindication because it concerns the honor of a person, an offense which is more
worthy of consideration than mere spite against the one giving the provocation
o Grave offense: killing a relative, sarcastic remarks,
 Bear in mind the social standing of the person, the place and the time the insult was made
o Basis: diminution of the conditions of voluntariness
o Incompatible with passion or obfuscation  cannot be counted separately and independently
6. Passion or obfuscation
 RPC, 13(6). That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.
o Reason: when there are causes naturally producing in a person powerful excitement, he loses his reason and self-control
thereby diminishing the exercise of his will power
o Rules: MC only when the same arose from lawful sentiments; No MC if committed in a spirit of lawlessness or revenge
o Requisites
 There be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of mind
 Must be provoked by prior unjust or improper acts of the injured party
 Said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of
time
 No passion/obfuscation after 24 hours, or several hours or half an hour
 Crime committed must be the result of a sudden impulse of natural or uncontrollable fury
o Exercise of a right or fulfillment of duty not a proper source of obfuscation/passion
o Obfuscation arising from jealousy; but not in illegitimate relationships
o Basis: diminution of intelligence or intent
o Provocation and obfuscation arising from one and the same cause = 1 MC
o Passion or obfuscation + lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong = 2 MC
o Incompatible with treachery and with evident premeditation
o P/O v. Irresistible Force
Passion or obfuscation Irresistible force
Mitigating Exempting
Cannot give rise to an irresistible force because irresistible
force requires physical force
In the offender himself Must come from third party
Must arise from lawful sentiments unlwaful
o P/O v. Provocation
Passion or obfuscation Provocation
Produced by an impulse which may be cause by provocation Comes from the injured party
Offense need not be immediate; it is only required that the Must immediately precede commission of crime
influence thereof lasts until the moment the crime is
committed
Effect: loss of reason and self-control on the part of the Effect: loss of reason and self-control on the part of the
offender offender
7. Voluntary surrender or plea of guilt
 RPC, 13(7). That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily
confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution;
o Requisites for voluntary surrender  must be spontaneous in such a manner that it shows the interest of the accused to
surrender unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledged his guilt or because he wishes to save them the
trouble and expenses necessarily incurred in his search and capture
 Offender had not actually been arrested  warrant of arrest showed that the accused is in fact arrested.
 Offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latter’s agent
 Surrender was voluntary
o When WoA had not been served or not returned unserved, surrender = mitigating
o Law does not require that the surrender be prior to the order of arrest
o Requisites of plea of guilty
 Offender spontaneously confessed his guilt
 Confession of guilt was made in open court
13
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Criminal Law 1
Prof. I.R. Jimenez
A.Y.2009-2010
 Confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution
o Plea must be made before trial begins
o Plea of guilty on appeal = No MC
o Plea of not guilty at the preliminary investigation is no plea at all  accused can claim plea of guilty at CFI
o Withdrawal of plea of not guilty and pleading guilty before presentation of evidence by prosecution = mitigating
o Death penalty changed to life imprisonment because of plea of guilty, even if done during presentation of evidence
o Plea of guilty to amended information = mitigating
o Plea of guilty to lesser offense than that charged = NO MC; but if in amended information, then mitigating
o Reason: it is an act of repentance and respect for the law; it indicates a moral disposition in the accused, favorable to his
reform.
o Basis: lesser perversity of offender
o Plea of guilty not mitigating in culpable felonies and in crimes punished by special laws
8. Deafness, muteness, blindness or other physical defect which restricts the offender’s means of action, defense, or communication
 RPC, 13(8). That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his means
of action, defense, or communications with his fellow beings.
9. Illness as would diminish the exercise of will-power without depriving the offender of consciousness of his acts
 RPC, 14(9). Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender without however
depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.
o Illness of the mind included.
o Basis: diminution of intelligence and intent
10. Analogous circumstances
 RPC, 13(10). Any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned.
o Over 60 with failing sight = over 70
o Outraged feeling of owner of animal taken for ransom = vindication
o Outraged feeling of creditor = passion/obfuscation
o Impulse of jealous feeling = passion/obfuscation
o BWS = illness that diminishes exercise of will power
o Esprit de corps = passion/obfuscation
o Voluntary restitution of stolen property = voluntary surrender
o Extreme poverty and necessity = incomplete justification based on necessity
o Testifying for prosecution = plea of guilty
o Killing the wrong man = NOT
o Not resisting arrest = NOT
o Running Amuck = NOT
E. Aggravating Circumstances
 if attendant in the commission of the crime, serve to increase the penalty without exceeding the maximum penalty provided by law
for the offense
 Basis: on the greater perversity of the offender manifested in the commission of the felony as shown by: (1) the motivating power
itself, (2) place of the commission, (3) means and ways employed, (4) time, or (5) the personal circumstances of the offender, or of
the offended party.
 4 kinds
 Generic – generally apply to all crimes (e.g. nighttime, dwelling, recidivism)
 Specific – apply only to particular crimes (ignominy=crimes against chastity; cruelty, treachery=crimes against persons)
 Qualifying – changes the nature of the crime (treachery qualifies killing to murder)
 Inherent – that must of necessity accompany the commission of the crime (evident premeditation is inherent in estafa, theft,
adultery, concubinage, robbery)
 Qualifying v. Generic
Qualifying Generic
Not only to give the crime its proper and exclusive name but Effect is to increase penalty to the maximum perioed, but
also to place the author in such a situation as to deserve no without exceeding the limit provided by law
other penalty than theat specially prescribed for said crime
Cannot be offset by mitigating circumstance May be offset
Must be alleged in the information If not alleged
 Not presumed
Palaganas v. People
Facts:
Held:

14
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Criminal Law 1
Prof. I.R. Jimenez
A.Y.2009-2010
1. Place of commission
a. Palace of the Chief Executive, etc., or in a place of religious worship
 RPC, 14(5). That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive or in his presence, or where public authorities
are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship.
o Official or religious functions not necessary
o Other public authorities must actually be engaged in the performance of duty
o Offender must have intention to commit a crime when he entered the place
b. Uninhabited place
 RPC, 14(6). That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an uninhabited place…
o Aggravating when:
 It facilitate the commission of the crime
 When especially sought for by the offender to insure the commission of the crime or for the purpose of impunity
 When the offender took advantage thereof for the purpose of impunity
o Regardless of time
o One where there are no houses at all, a place at a considerable distance from town, or where houses are scattered at a
great distance from each other.
o Should not be considered when the place could be seen and the voice could be heard from a nearby house.
o Whether or not in the place of the commission there was a reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help
o AC: felony was perpetrated in open sea
o Solitude must be sought to better attain the criminal purpose
c. Dwelling
 People v. Arizobal
Facts:
Held:
2. Time of commission
a. Nighttime
 RPC, 14(6.) That the crime be committed in the night time…
o That period of darkness beginning at the end of dusk and ending at dawn (from sunset to sunrise)
o By and of itself, not an AC. It only becomes so when it is especially sought by the offender, or taken advantage og by him
to facilitate the commission of the crime or to insure his immunity from capture
o Information must allege that nighttime was sought for
o Not aggravating when crime began at daytime
o Matches and flashlights do not negate aggravating circumstance
b. On the occasion of a calamity
 RPC, 14(7). That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other
calamity or misfortune.
o Reason: found in the debased form of criminality met in one who, in the midst of a great calamity, instead of lending aid to
the afflicted, adds to their suffering by taking advantage of their misfortune to despoil them.
o “chaotic condition” = aggravating
3. Personal circumstances of offender
a. Recidivism
 RPC, 14(9). That the accused is a recidivist. A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been
previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code.
o Requisites
 Offender is on trial for an offense, not the commission of the crime
 He was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime
 Both the first and second offenses are embraced in the same title of the Code
 Offender is convicted of the of the new offense
o No recidivism if the subsequent conviction is for an offense committed before the offense involved in the prior conviction
o There is recidivism even if the lapse of time between 2 felonies is more than 10 years.
o Pardon does not obliterate the fact that the accused was a recidivist, but amnesty extinguishes the penalty and its effects
b. Reiteration or habituality
 RPC, 14(10). That the offender has been previously punished by an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater
penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
o Requisites:
 Accused is on trial for an offense

15
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Criminal Law 1
Prof. I.R. Jimenez
A.Y.2009-2010
 He previously served sentence for another offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty, or for 2 or
more crimes to which it attaches lighter penalty than that for the new offense  penalty attached to the offense, not
the penalty actually imposed
 He is convicted of the new offense
o Not always aggravating
o Reiteracion v. Recidivism
Reiteracion Recidivism
It is necessary that the offender shall have served out his It is enough that a final judgment has been rendered in the
sentence for the first offense first offense
Previous and subsequent offenses must not be embraced Requires that the offenses be included in the same title of
in the same title of the RPC the RPC
Not always aggravating Always to be taken into consideration in fixing the penalty
to be imposed upon the accused
4. Motivation
a. Price, promise or reward
 RPC, 14(11). That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
o Presupposes the concurrence of two or more offenders
o Affects not only the person who received, but also the person who gave.
o Price, reward or promise must be for the purpose of inducing another to perform the deed.
 If without previous promise it was given voluntarily after the crime had been committed  not aggravating
5. Means of commission
a. Taking advantage of public office
 RPC, 14(1). That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.
o Greater perversity as shown by the personal circumstance of the offender
o Applicable only when offender is public official
o Public official must used the influence, prestige or ascendancy which his office gives him as the means by which he realizes
his purpose
o Failure in official duties is tantamount to abusing of office
o Not aggravating when it is inherent in offense
o Not aggravating if accused could have perpetrated the crime without occupying the position
b. Insult to public authority
 RPC, 14(2). That the crime be committed in contempt or with insult to the public authorities.
o Requisites
 Public authority is engaged in the exercise of his functions
 He who is thus engaged in the exercise of said functions is not the person against whom the crime is committed
 Offender knows him to be a public authority
 His presence has not prevented the offender from committing the criminal act
o Public Authority = person in authority; a public officer who is directly vested with jurisdiction, that is, a public officer who
has the power to govern and execute the laws.
o Not applicable when crime is committed in presence of agents only.  any person who, by direct provision of law, or by
election or by appointment by competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order
c. Disregard of rank, age, or sex
 RPC, 14(3). That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his
rank, age, or sex, or that is be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation.
o Applicable only to crimes against persons or honor
o “with insult or in disregard”  there must be evidence that in the commission of the crime, the accused deliberately
intended to offend or insult the sex or age of the offended
o Rank: there must be a difference in the social condition of the offender and the offended (pupil attacks teacher; killing a
judge because of his status; attempt upon life of general)  refers to a high social position or standing
o Age: when the offended person, by reason of age, could be the father of the offender; not aggravating in robbery with
homicide
o Sex: female; not aggravating if offender did not manifest any specific insult or disrespect towards her sex
 Not aggravating: when offender acted with passion/obfuscation; when there exists a relationship between offended and
offender; when being a woman is indispensable in the commission of the crime
 Absorbed in treachery
o “Dwelling”  must be a building or structure, exclusively used for rest and comfort

16
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Criminal Law 1
Prof. I.R. Jimenez
A.Y.2009-2010
 Reasons: Abuse of confidence which offended reposed in the offender by opening the door to him; violation of the
sanctity of the home by trespassing therein with violence or against the owner’s will
 Offended party must not give provocation (given by owner, sufficient, immediate to commission of crime)
 Aggravating if commission of the crime begun in the dwelling, even if consummation took place outside
 Not included in treachery
d. Abuse of confidence
 RPC, 14(4). That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.
o Abuse of confidence requisites
 Offended party had trusted the offender.  must be immediate and personal
 That the offender abused such trust by committing a crime against offended party
 Abuse of confidence facilitated in the commission of the crime
o Ungratefulness must be obvious, manifest, and clear
e. Band; Aid of armed men
 RPC, 14(6). That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such
circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense. Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted
together in the commission of an offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band.
o Whenever more than three armed malefactors have acted together in the commission of an offense
o “stone” included in the term “arms”
o If one of four armed persons is a principal by inducement, they do not form a band
o Aggravating in crimes against property or against persons or in the crime of illegal detention or treason
o Not applicable to crimes against chastity
o Abuse of superior strength + use of firearms = absorbed
o Inherent in brigandage
o Aggravating in robbery with homicide.
o Do all members of the band have to be armed? 9 people: even not all of them are armed, at least 4 them should be armed
 RPC, 14(8). That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity.
o Requisites
 Armed men took part in the commission of the crime, directly or indirectly
 Accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime was committed
o Distinguished from band: band requires that they shall have acted together; in aid of armed men, actual aid is not
necessary.
o Absorbed by “employment of a band”
o Includes armed women ^__^
f. Inundation, fire, etc.
 RPC, 14(12). That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or
international damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin.
o Unless used by the offender as a means to accomplish a criminal purpose, it cannot be aggravating
o When used as a means to kill another person, the crime is murder
g. Evident premeditation
 RPC, 14(13). That the act be committed with evident premeditation
o Implies deliberate planning of the act before executing it
o May be considered as to principal by induction
o Essence: the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry
out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment
o Requisites: prosecution must prove
 The time when offender determined to commit the crime
 An act manifestly indicating that culprit has clung to his determination
 Carefully planned
 Previously prepared
 Sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution, to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act
and to allow his conscience to overcome resolution of his will
o Can co-exist with price of reward
o When victim is different from that intended, premeditation not aggravating
o Not necessary to plan to kill a particular person
h. Craft, fraud, disguise
 RPC, 14(14). That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed.

17
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Criminal Law 1
Prof. I.R. Jimenez
A.Y.2009-2010
o Craft: intellectual trickery or cunning on the part of the accused  the act of the accused done in order not to arouse
suspicion
o Fraud: insidious words or machinations used to induce the victim to act in a manner which would enable the offender to
carry out his design  there is direct inducement by insidious words
o Disguise: Resulting to any device to conceal identity
i. Abuse of superior strength
 RPC, 14(15). That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken the defense.
o Advantage: to use purposely excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked
o Not: one who attacks with passion and obfuscation; when quarrel arose unexpectedly
o Strong man ill-treated a child, old or decrepit person
o When a man attacks woman with a weapon
o Number of aggressors, if armed, may point to abuse of superior strength
o Abuse of superior strength by numerical superiority
o When weapon used is out of proportion to defense available
o Simultaneous attack by 2 armed persons against a defenseless person
o None: when one acted as principal and the other 2 accomplices
o Treachery absorbs superior strength
o Aggravating in coercion and forcible abduction, when greatly in excess
o “band” v. “abuse of superior strength
o Means employed to weaken defense  casting dirt upon eyes, intoxicating victim  applicable only to crimes against
persons
j. Treachery
 RPC, 14(16). That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia). There is treachery when the offender commits any of the
crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to
insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
o Rules
 Applicable only to crimes against persons
 Means, methods or forms need not insure accomplishment of crime  only execution
 Mode of attack must be consciously adopted
 Accused must make some preparation to kill the deceased in such a manner as to insure the execution of the crime or
to make it impossible or heard for the person attacked to defend himself or retaliate
 Mode of attack must be thought of by the offender
o Cannot be presumed
o Victim asleep, victim half-awake or just awakened; victim grappling or being held; attacked from behind [with a firearm,
bladed weapon, other modes of armed attack
o Requisites
 That at the time of the attack, victim was not in a position to defend himself
 Offenders made a deliberate surprise or unexpected attack on victim  does not necessarily give rise to treachery; no
treachery where attack is preceded by warning
 None: when victim was defending himself
 That the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him
o Treachery in killing a child
o Intent to kill no necessary in murder with treachery
o May exist even if attack is face to face: flashing beam of flashlight
o Attack from behind not always alevosia
o It must be shown that the treacherous act were present and preceded the commencement of the attack which caused the
injury complained of  treachery must be present in the beginning of the assault
o If there was a break in the continuity of the aggression and at the time the fatal wound was inflicted on the deceased he
was defenseless  treachery at the moment the fatal blow was given
o No difference whether or not the victim was the same person the accused is intended to kill
k. Ignominy
 RPC, 14(17). That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act.
o Ignominy is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused
by the crime
o Against chastity, less serious physical injuries, light or grave coercion, and murder
o Makes the effects of the crime more humiliating or to put the offended party to shame
l. Unlawful Entry

18
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Criminal Law 1
Prof. I.R. Jimenez
A.Y.2009-2010
 RPC, 14(18). That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.
o Unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose
o For entrance, not escape
o Dwelling and unlawful entry taken separately in murders committed in a dwelling
o Not aggravating in trespass to dwelling
m. Breaking a wall, door, etc.
 RPC, 14(19). That as a means to the commission of a crime, a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken
o Cutting of canvas of tent where soldiers are sleeping
n. With aid of persons under 15, or with motor vehicles, etc.
 RPC, 14(20). That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age or by means of motor vehicles,
motorized watercraft, airships, or other similar means.
o Under 15: Availing one’s self of minors, taking advantage of their irresponsibility
o With motor vehicles: Great facilities found by modern criminals to commit crime and flee and abscond once the same is
committed
o. Cruelty
 RPC, 14(21). That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not
necessary for its commissions.
o When the culprit enjoys and delights in making the victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing hum unnecessary physical
pain in the consummation of the criminal act
o Requisites
 That the injury caused by deliberately increased by causing other wrong
 That the other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of the purpose of the offender
o Deliberately augmented  at the time of the commission of the crime had a deliberate intention to prolong the suffering
of the victim
F. Special Aggravating, Qualifying and “Aggravating Qualifying” Circumstances
1. Specific felonies under Book II, RPC
2. Special Laws
- Use of illegal firearm or explosives
- Use of dangerous drugs while committing a felony
G. Alternative Circumstances
RPC, 15. Their concept. — Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating
according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission. They are the relationship,
intoxication and the degree of instruction and education of the offender. The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into
consideration when the offended party in the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative
by affinity in the same degrees of the offender. The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating
circumstances when the offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan
to commit said felony but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
1. Relationship
 Exempting in Art. 332  swindling, malicious mischief ::: no criminal, only civil liability IF living together
 Mitigating
o In crimes of property  robbery, usurpation, fraudulent insolvency, arson
o Less serious physical injuries: if offended is relative of lower degree
o Trespass to dwelling
 Aggravating
o Not aggravating when there is absence of evidence to show that the offended party is of a higher degree in the
relationship than that of the offender
o In serious physical injuries: when offended party is a descendant of the offender
o Less serious physical injuries: aggravating if offended is relative of higher degree
o Homicide or murder: if victim is of lower degree
o Crimes against chastity
2. Intoxication
 Mitigating: if intoxication is not habitual or if intoxication is not subsequent to the plan to commit a felony.
 Aggravating: if intoxication is habitual or if it is intentional (subsequent ot the plan to commit a felony)  intentional when offender
drinks liquor fully knowing its effects, to find in the liquor a stimulant to commit a crime or a means to suffocate any remorse
3. Degree of instruction
 Mitigating: lack of instruction --. Must be proved by defense; but not mitigating in crimes against property and chastity, treason
(love of country should be a natural feeling), murder (mala in se)
19
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Criminal Law 1
Prof. I.R. Jimenez
A.Y.2009-2010
 Lack of instruction not mitigating when the offender is a city resident who knows how to sign his name
 Aggravating: high degree of instruction  when offender availed himself or took advantage of it in committing the crime
 People v. San Pedro
Facts:
Held:
IV. Persons who incur Criminal Liability
A. Conspirators
 RPC, 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty
therefor. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
commit it.
o Conspiracy is not a crime except when the law specifically provides a penalty thereafter.  only preparatory acts, and the law
regards them as innocent or at least permissible except in rare and exceptional cases
 Exists when 2 or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it
 Treason, rebellion, sedition
 An agreement to commit a crime is a reprehensible act from the viewpoint of morality, but as long as the conspirators do not perform
acts in furtherance of their malevolent designs, sovereignty and tranquility remains undisturbed
o In treason, coup d’etat, rebellion or sedition  conspirators should not actually commit the crime; it is sufficient that two or more
persons decide to commit them
o Conspiracy relating to crime actually committed  not a felony but only a matter of incurring criminal liability::: the act of one is the
act of all
o Requisites of conspiracy
 Two or more persons come to an agreement  agreement presupposes meeting of the minds of two or more persons
 The agreement concerned the commission of a felony  it must be an agreement to act, to effect, to bring about what has
already been conceived and determined
 The execution of the felony be decided upon  conspirators have made up their minds to commit the crime
o Direct proof not essential to establish conspiracy; quantum of proof required
 May be inferred from the collective acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the act
 Conspiracy renders all conspirators as co-principals regardless of the extent and character of their participation because in
contemplation of law, the act of one conspirator is the act of all
 Elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt  evidence of actual cooperation rather than mere cognizance or approval is
required
B. Principals
 RPC, 17. Principals. — The following are considered principals: 1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act; 2. Those who
directly force or induce others to commit it; 3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it
would not have been accomplished.
o Single individual committing a crime is always a principal by direct participation
o Principal by direct participation
 Personally takes part in the execution of the act constituting the crime
 Two or more persons to become principals by direct participation:  when two accused each inflicted a serious wound which
contributed to the death of the victim
 They participated in the criminal resolution  when they were in conspiracy at the time of the commission of the crime
- To be a party to a conspiracy one must have the intention to participate in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of
the common design and purpose
- Either by actively participating or by lending moral assistance to his co-conspirators
- Silence does not make one a conspirator
- Conspiracy transcends companionship  the fact that the 2 accused happened to leave together cannot instantly support
conspiracy
- Existence: does not require necessarily an agreement for an appreciable length of time to the execution of its purpose; arises
on the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith decide to pursue it
- Proof: interlocking extrajudicial confessions; It is sufficient that they shall have acted in concert and pursuant to the same
objective
- No formal agreement or previous acquaintance necessary  what matters is that their minds meet understandingly so as to
bring about an intelligent and deliberate agreement to commit the offense charged.
- Cooperation which the law punishes is the assistance which is knowingly or intentionally given and which is not possible
without previous knowledge of the criminal purpose
- Unity of purpose and intention in the commission of the crime: spontaneous agreement; active cooperation by all the
offenders in the perpetration of crime will also create joint responsibility

20
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Criminal Law 1
Prof. I.R. Jimenez
A.Y.2009-2010
- There may be conspiracy even if there is no evident premeditation on the part of the accused
- No conspiracy in negligence
 That they carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts which directly tended to the same end
- Must be at the scene of the crime, personally taking part in its execution
- Exception: where conspiracy was to kidnap and kill the victim and only one kidnapped, then turned victim over to another
- Acts of offender must directly tend to the same end
- One serving as guard pursuant to conspiracy = principal by direct participation
- When second requisite is lacking, there is only conspiracy
 PRINCIPALS BY INDUCTION/INDUCEMENT
 Becomes liable only when the principal by direct participation committed the act induced
 2 ways of becoming principal by induction
o By directly forcing another to commit a crime
 By using irresistible force
 By causing uncontrollable fear
 No conspiracy
o By directly inducing another to commit a crime
 By giving price, or offered reward or promise
 By using words of command
o Requisites
 The inducement be made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime
 Such inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the crime by material executor  necessary that the
inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the crime; without such inducement the crime would not
have been committed
o Thoughtless expression/imprudent advice  not sufficient inducement
o Words of advice or the influence must have actually moved the hands of the principal by direct participation
 The one uttering the words of command must have the intention of procuring the commission of the crime
 The one who made the command must have an ascendancy or influence over the person who acted  not necessary
when there is conspiracy
 That the words must be so direct, so efficacious (one who makes the accused believe that the person to be killed did
something wrong to him), so powerful as to amount physical or moral coercion
 Words of command must be uttered prior to the commission of the crime
 Material executor of the crime has no personal reason to commit the crime
o One who planned the crime committed by another  if the crime committed is not contemplated in the order given, the
inducement is not material and not the determining cause.
o In falsification
o By inducement v. proponent
 In both, there is an inducement to commit a crime
 Principal by inducement: becomes liable only when the crime is committed by the principal by direct participation;
proponent: mere proposal to commit a felony is punishable (person to whom proposal is made should not commit the
crime, otherwise proponents becomes P by I)
 Inducement involves any crime; in proposal, must involve only treason or rebellion
o Effects of acquittal of principal by direct participation upon principal by inducement
 Conspiracy is negative
 Also acquitted
 Possessor of recently stolen property is a principal
 PRINCIPALS BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION
 Cooperate: to desire or wish a common thing
 Requisites
 Participation in the criminal resolution  there is either anterior conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention
immediately before commission of crime
- Requires participation in the criminal resolution, but concurrence with the principal by direct participation in the purpose
of the latter is sufficient
- One who, by acts of negligence, cooperates in the commission of estafa, without which negligent acts the commission of
the crime could not have been accomplished = co-principal
 Cooperation in the commission by performing another act, without which it would not have been accomplished
- Cooperation must be indispensable  if the cooperation is not indispensable, the offender is only an accomplice
C. Accomplices

21
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Criminal Law 1
Prof. I.R. Jimenez
A.Y.2009-2010
 RPC, 18. Accomplices. — Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in Art. 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense
by previous or simultaneous acts.
o Quasi-collective criminal responsibility  some of the offenders are principals and others are accomplices
o Presupposes the commission of the crime by principal by direct participation
o In case of doubt to whether principal or accomplice
o When participation is not disclosed = accomplice
o Accomplice v. conspirator
 Common: they know and agree with the criminal design
 Conspirators know the criminal intention because they themselves have decided upon such course of action; accomplices came to
know about it after the principals have reached the decision, and only when they do agree to cooperate in its execution
 Conspirators decide that a crime should be committed; accomplice concurs
o Co-conspirator = accomplice? Since their participation was not absolutely indispensable  accomplice
o Requisites:
 There be community of design  knowing the criminal design of the principal by DP, he concurs with the latter
 When principal informs or tells the accomplice
 When accomplice saw the criminal acts of the principal
 Concurrence may make one a co-principal  if before the commission of the crime both agreed and decided upon it, even if
planning is by only one.
 He cooperates in the execution by previous or simultaneous act, with intention of supplying material or moral aid in the execution
of the crime in an efficacious way
 Cooperation not indispensable
 By previous acts: lending of weapon, knowing the latter’s purpose
 By simultaneous acts: defendant who restrains and disables victim while his co-defendant was attacking victim
 Wounds inflicted by an accomplice should not have cause the death of the victim  becomes principal by DP
 That there be a relation between acts done by principal and those done by accomplice
 An accomplice may be liable for a crime different from that which the principal committed
 Accomplice v. principal in general: accomplice is one who does not take a direct part in the commission of the act, who does not
force or induce others to commit it, or who does not cooperate in the commission of the crime by another without which it
would not have been accomplished
 Accomplish v. principal by cooperation: indispensability
 Accomplice v. principal by DP: both have community of criminal design; acts performed have no clear-cut distinction; principals:
conspiracy
D. Accessories
 RPC, 19. Accessories. — Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having participated
therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners: 1. By profiting
themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime. 2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the
effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery. 3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals
of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason,
parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.
o An accessory does not participate in the criminal design, nor cooperate in the commission of the felony, but, with knowledge of the
commission of the crime, he subsequently takes part in three ways:
 Profiting from the effects of the crime
 By concealing the body ,effects or instruments of the crime to prevent its discovery
 By assisting in the escape or concealment of the principal of the crime, provided he acts with abuse of public functions or principal
is guilty of treason
o “Having knowledge”  having that knowledge, he took part subsequent to its commission
 Mere possession of stolen property does not make an accused an accessory where the thief is already convicted
 Entertaining suspicion that a crime has been committed is not enough
 Knowledge may be acquired subsequent to the acquisition of stolen property (even after knowing that the goods are stolen,
person chooses to hide/dispose of it)
o “commission of the crime”  crime committed by principal must be beyond reasonable doubt
o “without having participated therein either as principals or accomplices”
o “take part subsequent to its commission”
o 2 classes
 Public officials who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the principal of any crime not a light felony with abuse of his public
functions
 mayor who refused to prosecute offender is accessory

22
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Criminal Law 1
Prof. I.R. Jimenez
A.Y.2009-2010
 Private persons who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape if the author of the crime – guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an
attempt against President’s life, or who is knpwn to be habitually guilty of some other crime
 One who kept silent with regard to crime he witnessed is NOT an accessory
o Liability is subordinate and subsequent
o Conviction of accessory even when principal is acquitted?  if the crime was in fact committed but the principal exempted
o Apprehension and conviction of the principal not necessary for accessory to be criminally liable
o If principal charged with murder died before trial, accused can’t be held accessory because had deceased been alive he might been
found guilty of only homicide.
o Arraignment, trial and conviction of accessory during pendency of a separate case against the principal = null and void
o When principal not yet apprehended, accessory may be prosecuted and convicted
o Accessory even after principal convicted? YES, by presenting oneself to serve out sentence in lieu of real culprit
o Accessory distinguished from principal and from accomplice
 Accessory does not take direct part or cooperate in or induce commission of the crime
 Accessory does not cooperate in the commission of the offense by prior or simultaneous acts
 Participation of accessory always takes place AFTER commission of crime
 RPC, 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. — The penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon
those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or
relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of the
next preceding article.
o Ground for exemption: based on ties of blood and preservation of the cleanliness of one’s name
o Exemption: WHEN PRINCIPAL IS HIS RELATIVE (UNTIL BROTHERS AND SISTERS ONLY)
o Not exempt if accessory profited or assisted offender to profit by the effects
o Only accessories under Par. 2 & 3 may be exempted
E. Proponents
 RPC, 8. There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person or
persons.
o Requisites
 A person has decided to commit a felony
 That he proposes its execution to some other person or persons
o No criminal proposal when
 Person who proposes not determined to commit a felony (A wants government overthrown; suggests it to some desperate people
who will do it; but he will not participate)
 There is no decided, concrete and formal proposal
 It is not the execution of a felony that is proposed
o It is not necessary that the person to whom the proposal is made agrees to commit crime
o Proposal as an overt act of corruption of public officer  one who offers money to public officer to induce him not to perform his
duties, but the offer is rejected
o Against the security of the State or economic security  why? If the culprit succeeds in his criminal enterprise, he would obtain the
power and therefore impunity for the crime committed
V. Penalties: see Sir Jimenez’s presentation. 

** Cases: see digests

23
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013