PART 21: THAT THE WRONG DONE IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME BE rapes, robbery, and other forms

rapes, robbery, and other forms of cruelties are AC of ignominy and cruelty
DELIBERATELY AUGMENTED BY CAUSING OTHER WRONG NOT NECESSARY in treason
FOR THAT COMMISSION rape aggravates crime of robbery with homicide
Basis -> ways employed rape is aggravating in murder because it was unnecessary to the
commission thereof
CRUELTY when the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly AC PECULIAR TO CERTAIN FELONIES
and gradually causing him unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of the 1. violation of domicile be committed in the nighttime/ any papers or effects not
criminal act constituting evidence of a crime be not returned immediately after the search
to be aggravating it is necessary that the wrong done was intended to was made by the offender
prolong the suffering of the victim causing him unnecessary moral and 2. interruption of religious worship committed with violence or threats
physical pain 3. direct assault is committed with a weapon/offender is a public
the evidence must show that the sadistic culprit for his pleasure and officer/offender lays hands upon a person in authority
satisfaction caused the victim to suffer slowly and gradually and inflicted on 4. slavery be committed for the purpose of assigning the offended party to
him unnecessary moral and physical pain some immoral traffic
it must show that the accused enjoyed and delighted in making his victim 5. grave threats be made in writing or through a middle man
suffer slowly and gradually causing him unnecessary physical or moral pain 6. robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons is committed in an
in the consummation of the criminal act uninhabited place or by a band or on a street, road, highway, or alley and
REQUISITES the intimidation is made with the use of firearm
1. That the injury caused be deliberately increased by causing other wrong 7. robbery with the use of force upon things is committed in an uninhabited
2. That the other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of the purpose of the place or in a band
offender
be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
that the accused at the time of the commission of the crime had a deliberate
intention to prolong the suffering of the victim Definition those must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating
IF THE CRUELTY IS DONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE EXECUTION according to the nature and effects of the crime and other conditions attending its
OF THE CRIME THEN IT IS NOT AC. commission
i. assailant stomped the victim twice not for the purpose of making Basis nature and effects of the crime and other conditions attending its commission
the latter suffer more but to kill Kinds of Alternative Circumstances
ii. purpose is to ensure death 1. Relationship
iii. to conceal body 2. Intoxication
iv. verification if still alive 3. Degree of instruction and education of the offender
v. other purposes than making the victim suffer more
other wrong not necessary for its commission RELATIONSHIP
no cruelty if the other wrong done is necessary to the commission of the shall be taken into consideration when the offended party is the
crime 1. spouse
CRUELTY 2. ascendant
refers to physical suffering of victim purposely intended by offender 3. legitimate natural or adopted brother or sister
requires deliberate prolongation of the physical suffering of the victim 4. relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender
cannot be presumed Others:
even if the victim was dismembered if there is no proof that it was done 1. step relationships
when the victim was still alive then there is no cruelty analogous to ascendants/descendants
there is cruelty when a part of a child was burnt because if the purpose duty of step mother to protect step child
was to kill then it should have been done through other means 2. adopted parent or child
plurality of wounds alone does not show cruelty when mitigating or aggravating
in the absence of a showing that the other wounds found on the body of a. the law is silent
the victim were inflicted to prolong his suffering before the fatal wound was b. mitigating in crimes
dealt it cannot conclude cruelty because cruelty cannot be presumed i. against property
no cruelty when other wrong was done after the victim was dead ii. robbery
IGNOMINY VS. CRUELTY iii. usurpation
Ignominy moral suffering iv. fraudulent insolvency
Cruelty physical suffering
 v. less serious PI (ART 265); slight PI (ART 266), if the offended 1. at the time of the commission of the crime he has taken such quantity of
party is lower degree of the offender alcohol to have blurred his reason and deprive him of certain degree of
vi. trespass to dwelling control
c. civil liabilities in 2. such intoxication is not habitual or subsequent to the plan of committing
i. theft the crime
ii. swindling proof of intoxication FIRST IS PRESUME NON-HABITUAL unless otherwise
iii. malicious mischief proven the opposite
d. in the provision of ART 332 when the crime is committed is 1. THEFT, the code says nothing about the degree of intoxication HOWEVER it is
2. SWINDLING OR ESTAFA 3. MALICIOUS MISCHIEF relationship id needed that the offender has diminished capacity to know the injustice of his
EXEMPTING acts
e. aggravating in crimes not mitigating when the offender remembered sufficiently of the things
i. offended party is a relative of higher degree than the offender that happened during the crime
ii. offended or offender is the same level WHEN HABITUAL: if excessive use of intoxicating drinks; NOT BY TIME
iii. DOES NOT APPLY TO BROTHER IN LAW the habit must be actual and confirmed but it Is NOT NECESSARY that it
if the crime against persons is any of the serious physical be continuous or by daily occurrence
injuries, the fact that the offended party is a descendant of the
offender is NOT MITIGATING LACK OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION
iv. crime against persons is any of the serious physical injuries generally mitigating while high degree of instruction and education is aggravating
(ART 263) even if the offended party is a descendant of the WHEN the offender avails himself of his learning in committing the crime
offender, relationship is an AC
v. serious physical injuries is committed by the offender against LACK OF INSTRUCTION = MITIGATING
his child whether LEGIT or ILLEGIT or any of his LEGIT other 1. applies to those who has not received any instruction
descendants, relationship is AC 2. not illiteracy alone but also lack of sufficient intelligence
given that SPI must not be inflicted by a parent upon his 3. not mitigating when the offender is a city resident who knows how to sign his
child by excessive chastisement name
vi. ART 263 provides for a higher penalty IF THE OFFENSE (any 4. must be proved by the defense
SPI) is committed against any of the persons in ART 246 (legit 5. the question of lack of instruction CANNOT be raise for the first time in the
or illegit) appellate court
a. father 6. Mitigating in all crimes EXCEPT
b. mother a. against property not ignorant enough
c. child b. against chastity not ignorant enough
d. ascendants c. treason love for country
e. descendants d. murder forbidden by natural law
f. spouse except when he is so ignorant to not have known something for the
vii. less serious PI (ART 265); slight PI (ART 266), if the offended crime to prosper
party is higher degree of the offender HIGH DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION = AGGRAVATING
viii. crime against persons of homicide or murder = AC; even if used knowledge to commit the crime
lower degree (if step-relationship not parricide)
ix. crimes against chastity ARTICLE 16: Following are criminally liable for grave and less felonies
f. neither mitigating or aggravating if relationship is an element of the offense 1. Principals
2. Accomplices
INTOXICATION 3. Accessories
a. mitigating The following are criminally liable for light felonies
1. intoxication is not habitual 1. Principals
2. Accomplices
2. if intoxication is NOT SUBSEQUENT to the plan to commit a felony
The treble division of persons criminally responsible for an offense rests upon the very
b. aggravating
nature of THEIR PARTICIPATION in the commission of the crime
1. intoxication is habitual
When a CRIME IS COMMITTED BY MANY WIITHOUT BEING EQUALLY SHARED
2. intoxication Is intentional BY ALL, A DIFFERENT DEGREE OF RESPONSIBILITY IS IMPOSED UPON EACH
intentional when the offender drinks liquor fully knowing its effects, to AND EVERYONE OF THEM, in that case they are criminally liable either as principals,
find in the liquor a stimulant to commit a crime or a means to suffocate accomplices or accessories
any remorse Accessories are not liable for light felonies
must show the following to be MITIGATING
 WHY? The social wrong as well as the individual prejudice is so small that penal
sanction is deemed not necessary for accessories
RULES RELATIVE TO LIGHT FELONIES
1. Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated
2. But when light felonies are committed against persons or property they are punishable
even if they are only in the attempted or frustrated stage of execution
3. Only principals and accomplices are liable for light felonies
4. Accessories are not liable for light felonies even if they are committed against persons
or properties
ACTIVE AND PASSIVE SUBJECT OF CRIME
In all crimes there are always two parties
1. Active (criminal)
2. Passive (injured)
ACTIVE
Only natural persons can be the active subject of crime because of the highly personal
nature of criminal responsibility
Since a felony is a punishable act or omission which produces or tends to produce a
change in the external world, IT FOLLOWS that only a natural person can be the
subject of the crime because HE ALONE by his act can set in motion a cause or by his
INACTION can make possible the completion of a developing modification in the
external world
ONLY A NATURAL PERSON CAN BE THE OFFENDER BECAUSE
1. The RPC requires that the culprit should have acted with personal malice or
negligence. An artificial or juridical person cannot act with malice or negligence
2. A juridical person like a corporation cannot commit a crime in which a willful
purpose or malicious intent is required
3. There is substitution of deprivation of liberty (subsidiary imprisonment) for
pecuniary penalties in case of insolvency of the accused
>> the code requires that the culprit should have acted with personal malice or
negligence and an artificial person cannot do that
>> a corporation could not have committed a crime in which a willful purpose or
malicious intent is required
>> there is substitution of deprivation of liberty for pecuniary penalties in cases of
insolvency
4. Other penalties consisting in imprisonment and other deprivation of liberty, like
destierro can be executed only against individuals
Officers, not the corporation are CRIMINALLY LIABLE
A corporation can only act through its officers or incorporators and that as regards a
violation of the law committed by an officer of a corporation in the exercise of his
duties he answers criminally for his acts and not the corporation to which he belongs
for being an artificial person it cannot be prosecuted criminally
Criminal actions are restricted or limited to the officials of the corporation and never
directed against the corporation it self
The courts derived no authority to bring corporations before them in criminal actions
nor to issue processes for that purpose
Juridical persons are criminally liable under certain special laws
1. BP Blg. 68 (Corporation Code of the Philippines)
2. Com. Act No. 146 (Public Service Law)
3. Securities Law
4. Election Code
Only the officers of the corporation who participated either as principals by direct
participation or principals by induction or by cooperation or as accomplices in the
commission of an act punishable by law are liable
Manager of partnership is liable even if there is no evidence of his participation in the
commission of the offense (NIRC)
Because a corporation or partnership can only act through its officers and their agents
PASSIVE
The passive subject is the holder of the injured right\
1. Man
2. Juristic person
3. Strate
While corporation cannot be the active subject, it can be the passive subject
Corpse or animal cannot be passive subject because they have no rights that may be
injured
ARTICLE 17: The following are considered principals
1. Those who take s 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
Two or more persons participating in the crime
When a single individual commits the crime, he is always the principal by direct
participation
When two or more persons are involved in killing another
1. they may all be principals by direct participation
2. one by induction and the other principal by direct participation
3. one by direct participation and the other by indispensable cooperation
(cooperated in the commission of the offense by another act w/o which the
commission of the offense would not have been accomplished)
Difference between a principal under any of the three categories enumerated in Art17 and a co-
conspirator
while principals (Art 17) criminal liability is limited to his own acts, as a general rule
the latters responsibility includes the acts of his co-conspirators
PRINCIPALS BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION
take direct part in the execution of the act
personally takes part in the execution constituting the crime
two or more persons may take direct part in the execution of the act
REQUISITES
1. they participated in the criminal resolution
2. they carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts which
directly tended to the same end
Participated in a criminal resolution
when they were in conspiracy at the time of the commission of the crime
convicted for the criminal act of another
Conspiracy
exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission
of a felony and decide to commit it
conspiracy contemplated in the 1st requisite is not a felony but only a manner of
incurring criminal liability
to be a party to conspiracy, one must have the intention to participate in the
transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose
it must be established that he performed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy
1. by active participation
2. by lending moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at thec rime
3. by exerting moral ascendency over the rest of the conspirators as to move them
to executing the conspiracy
 mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval WITHOUT THE COOPERATION or
agreement to cooperate is NOT ENOUGH to constitute one party to a conspiracy
silence doesnt make one a conspirator
conspiracy transcends companionship (e.g. happen to leave together does not mean
conspiracy)
existence of conspiracy does not require necessarily an agreement for an appreciable
length of time prior to the execution of its purpose since from the legal viewpoint,
conspiracy exists if at the TIME OF THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE THE
ACCUSED HAD THE SAME PURPOSE AND WERE UNITED IN ITS EXECUTION
arises on the very instant the plotters agree expressly or impliedly to commit the felony
and forthwith decide to pursue it
Proof of conspiracy
1. confessions
2. malefactors shall have acted in concert pursuant to the same objective
formal agreement or previous acquaintance among several persons not necessary in
conspiracy
must be established by positive and conclusive evidence even if implied = proof
beyond reasonable doubt
when there is no conspiracy each of the offenders is liable only for the act
performed by him
participation in criminal resolution is essential
the cooperation which the law punishes is the ASSISTANCE which is
knowingly and intentionally given which is NOT possible without previous
knowledge of the criminal purpose
in the absence of a previous plan or agreement to commit a crime the criminal
responsibility arising from different acts directed against one and the same person IS
INDIVIDUAL and NOT COLLECTIVE and each of the participants is liable only for the
acts committed by himself
no concerted action = not voluntarily cooperating
spontaneity rules out conspiracy