Criminal Law 1 Reviewer c) Members of congress, Consti Art. 6 Sec.
11
Judge John Boomsri Sy Rodolfo
I. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
Criminal law: a branch or division of public law which defines crimes, treats of their
nature, and provides for their punishment (penalty)
Penal law: a law that defines crime, 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
Sources of Philippine Criminal Law
 Republic Act 3815: The Revised Penal Code (RPC)
 Special Penal Laws passed by the Philippine Commission, Philippine Assembly,
Philippine Legislature, National Assembly, the Congress of the Philippines, and
the Batasang Pambansa
 Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law
Court decisions are not sources of criminal law because they merely explain the meaning
of, and apply, the law as enacted by legislation.
There are no common-law crimes in the Philippines
Only the State has the authority to define and punish crimes and to lay down the rules of
criminal procedure as part of its police power.
A. Distinction: (i) felonies; (ii) offenses; and (iii) misdemeanor
 Felonies: acts and omissions punishable the RPC, committed by means of
deceit (dolo) or fault (culpa)here is deceit when the act is performed with
deliberate intent.There is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
o Act: external act, performance
o
o Omission: inaction, failure to perform an act. There must be a law
requiring the act to be performed in order to punish the person omitting it.
 Offenses: acts and omissions violating special penal laws
 Misdemeanors: acts and omissions violating ordinances
B. Characteristics
1. Generality: criminal law is binding on all persons who live and sojourn in
Philippine territory except when immunity is provided for:
a) Immunity of the president and vice president
b) Diplomatic Immunity, Vienna Convention
1. Article 29. Diplomats must not be liable to any form of arrest or
detention. They are immune from civil or criminal prosecution, though
the sending country may waive this right.
2. Article 31.1c Actions not covered by diplomatic immunity: professional
activity outside diplomat's official functions.
1. A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all
offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be
privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No Member
shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech
or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof.
d) RA 75: Section 1.
1. any person who will falsely assume the functions of a diplomatic,
consular, or any other official of a foreign government duly accredited
as such to the Government of the Republic of the Philippines will be
penalized
e) VFA, Article V Criminal Jurisdiction
1. Philippine authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over United States
personnel with respect to offenses, including offenses relating to the
security of the Philippines, punishable under the laws of the Philippines,
but not under the laws of the United States.
2. United States authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over United
States personnel with respect to offenses, including offenses relating to
the security of the United States, punishable under the laws of the
United States, but not under the laws of the Philippines.
f) Crimes within foreign embassies
g) Jurisdiction over crimes committed in merchant vessels
1. French Rule = crimes are not triable where the ship is unless their
commission affects the peace and security of the state is concerned
2. English Rule = crimes are triable in the country where the ship is unless
they merely affect the internal management of the vessel (PH follows
the English rule)
CASES
Soliven vs Makasiar - The rationale for the grant to the President of the privilege of
immunity from suit is to assure the exercise of Presidential duties and functions free
from any hindrance or distraction, considering that being the Chief Executive of the
Government is a job that, aside from requiring all of the office-holder’s time, also
demands undivided attention.
Minucher vs Scalzo - The main yardstick in ascertaining whether a person is a
diplomat entitled to immunity is the determination of whether or not he performs duties
of diplomatic nature.
Liang vs People - Immunity only applies if the act was done in his/her official capacity
WHO vs Aquino - the person of any ambassador or public minister of any foreign
State, authorized and received as such by the President, or any domestic or domestic
servant of any such ambassador or minister is arrested or imprisoned, or his goods or
chattels are distrained, seized, or attached, shall be deemed void
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 1
2. Territoriality: PH penal laws are only binding within the territory of the
Philippines
a) Archipelagic Doctrine and Philippine territory
1. Do not confuse Generality with Territoriality. As long as within PH
territory, Generality principle will apply (Territorial sea until EEZ). Extra-
territoriality principle will govern when crime is committed in high seas.
CASES
People vs Lol-lo -Piracy is a crime not against any particular state but against all
mankind. It may be punished in the competent tribunal of any country where the
offender may be found or into which he may be carried.
AAA vs BBB – Even if the alleged extra-marital affair causing the offended wife
mental and emotional anguish is committed abroad, it does not place a prosecution
under R.A. No. 9262 (VAWC) absolutely beyond the reach of Philippine courts.

b) Exceptions under Article 2(2) of RPC

 When on a Philippine ship or airship
 When forging and counterfeiting Philippine currency or obligations and
securities issued by the Philippine Government
 When importing such counterfeit currency or obligations and securities
into the Philippines
 When committing crimes in exercise of functions as public officers or
employees
 When committing crimes against national security and the law of
nations
c) RA 9851: “Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law,
Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity”, Sec. 17
The State shall exercise jurisdiction over persons, whether military or
civilian, suspected or accused of a crime defined and penalized in this Act,
regardless of where the crime is committed, provided, any one of the
following conditions is met:
(a) The accused is a Filipino citizen;
(b) The accused, regardless of citizenship or residence, is present in the
Philippines; or
(c) The accused has committed the said crime against a Filipino citizen.
3. Prospectivity: GENERAL RULE is that penal laws are applied prospectively. A
penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it was not
punishable when committed. Crimes are punished under the laws in force at the
time of their commission. (RPC Article 366)
 EXCEPTION: if the new law is more favorable to the accused
o EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION: when the new law is expressly
made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of action OR
when the accused is a habitual delinquent
a) For the purposes of this article, a person shall be deemed to be HABITUAL
DELINQUENT, if within a period of ten years from the date of his release or
last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo,
hurto, estafa, or falsificacion, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third
time or oftener. (RPC Article 62[5])
b) Habitual delinquency must be alleged in the information with the dates of
last conviction or release
Example of HABITUAL DELINQUENCY
Offenses Date of Commission Date of Conviction Date of Release

d) PD 1599: The Philippines may exercise jurisdiction and sovereign rights in the Theft August 1914 August 1915 September 1916
EEZ (200 nautical miles)
Estafa November 1920 April 1923 April 1925
e) RA 9372 “Human Security Act”, Sec 58 Robbery July 1932 April 1934 ---
 to individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits
of the Philippines, commit, conspire or plot to commit any of the crimes
defined and punished in this Act inside the territorial limits of the
Philippines; CASES
 to individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits Gumabon vs Director of Prisons - If the Hernandez ruling were to be given
of the Philippines, commit any of the said crimes on board Philippine ship retroactive effect, petitioners had served the full term for which they could have been
or Philippine airship; legally committed
 to individual persons who commit any of said crimes within any embassy, People vs Venus - in order to establish habitual delinquency, the dates of commission
consulate, or diplomatic premises belonging to or occupied by the of the previous crimes, the date of last conviction or release, and the dates of the other
Philippine government in an official capacity; previous convictions or releases must be alleged in the information.
 to individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits
of the Philippines, commit said crimes against Philippine citizens or
persons of Philippines descent, where their citizenship or ethnicity was a c) Effect of repeal of penal laws
factor in the commission of the crime; and 1. Absolute, Total, or Express repeal– offense cease to be criminal.
 to individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits (a) Habitual delinquency is irrelevant in pending cases because there
of the Philippines, commit said crimes directly against the Philippine is no more crime for which he should be tried.
government. (b) If there’s already a final judgment, the accused shall be released if
he is not a habitual delinquent
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 2

2. Partial, Relative, Implied repeal or repeal by re-enactment – when
the crime punished under the repealed law continues to be a crime in
spite of the repeal. This means that the repeal merely modified the
conditions affecting the crime under the repealed law. The modification
may be prejudicial or beneficial to the offender.
(a) Only the favorable provisions in the partial repealing law apply to
the accused whether or not he is a habitual delinquent
3. Self-Repealing – also known as self-expiring laws
4. When the new law and the old law penalize the same offense, the
offender can be tried under the old law.
5. When the repealing law fails to penalize the offense under the old law,
the accused cannot be convicted under the new law.
6. A person erroneously accused and convicted under a repealed statute
may be punished under the repealing statute.
7. If a penal law is impliedly repealed, the subsequent repeal of the
repealing law will revive the original law. So the act or omission which
was punished as a crime under the original law will be revived and the
same shall again be crimes although during the implied repeal they
may not be punishable.
8. If the repeal is express, the repeal of the repealing law will not revive
the first law, so the act or omission will no longer be penalized.
C. Limitations of Penal Laws
1. Ex Post Facto Law: a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of
actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment
of the law (No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. (PH Consti
Art. 3 Sec. 22))
 Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law
 Makes criminal act greater than when it was committed
 Changes the punishment and/or inflicts greater punishment than the law
provided to the crime when it was committed
 Alters legal rules of evidences, authorizes conviction of a crime upon less of
different testimony than when it was committed
 Imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done
was lawful
 Deprives the accused some lawful protection to which he has become
entitled
2. PH Consti. Art. 3 Sec. 21: No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of
punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an
ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another
prosecution for the same act.
3. Bill of Attainder: a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial.
4. Equal Protection: 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. (PH Consti. Art. 3 Sec. 1)
 Criminal laws must be of general application and must clearly define acts
and omissions punished as crimes.
5. Due Process: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by
himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses
face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after
arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused
provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
(PH Consti. Art. 3 Sec. 14)
6. Non-imposition of unusual and cruel punishment
(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.
(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against
any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities
under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law. (PH Consti. Art. 3 Sec.
19)
 Constitutional rights of the accused are found in Article 3 of the Philippine
Constitution.
 Statutory rights of the accused are found in Section 1, Rule 115 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
 The right to confrontation and cross-examination may be waived by the
accused. The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him may not be waived.
 The rights which may be waived are personal. The rights which may not be
waived involve public interest.
D. Construction of Penal Laws and common principles in Criminal Law
1. Liberally in favor of the accused, strictly against the state
 The rule that penal statutes should be strictly construed against the state
may be invoked only where the law is ambiguous and there is doubt as to its
interpretation. Where the law is clear and ambiguous, there is no room for
the application of the rule.
 In the construction or interpretation of the provisions of the RPC, the
Spanish text is controlling, because it was approved by the Philippine
Legislature in its Spanish text.
 Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of
two interpretations – one lenient to the offender and one strict to the
offender – that interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the offender will
be adopted.
 This is in consonance with the fundamental rule that all doubts shall be
construed in favor of the accused and consistent with presumption of
innocence of the accused. This is peculiar only to criminal law.
2. Nullum crimen, nulla poena, sine lege
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 3
  “There is no crime when there is no law punishing it.”
3. Pro reo
 “For the accused”
 Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in question or there is doubt on
which side the evidence weighs, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the
accused.
 It is often used specifically to refer to the principle of presumption of
innocence that dictates that when a criminal statute allows more than one
interpretation, the one that favors the defendant should be chosen.
4. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea
 “An act does not make the defendant guilty without a guilty mind”
 Conviction of a crime requires proof of a criminal act and intent.
5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but which
are not covered by the law, an 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
penal legislation.
In the same way the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the
Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without
suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the
provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly express penalty,
taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the
offense. (RPC Article 5)
 Courts have a duty to apply the penalty provided by law and as interpreted
by the Supreme Court.
 Courts have the duty to report to the DOJ acts which they think should be
penalized taking into consideration the level of malice and the injury caused
by the offense.
6. No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of silence, obscurity
or insufficiency of the laws. (Civil Code Article 9)
 Judges are tasked with the dispensation of justice in accordance with the
Constitution. They must not evade performance of this responsibility just
because of an apparent non-existence of any law governing a particular
legal dispute or because the law is vague or inadequate.
 The judiciary is tasked with resolving legal controversies and interpreting
statutes. Courts “do and must legislate” to fill in the gaps in the law. The
mind of the legislator is finite and therefore cannot envisage all possible
cases or anticipate all situations to which the law may apply.
7. Corpus delicti
 “Body of the crime”
 The facts and circumstances constituting a breach of a law
 A crime must be proven to have occurred before a person can be convicted
of committing that crime
8. Mens rea
 “Guilty mind”
 A necessary element of many crimes is the mental element of a person’s
intention to commit a crime or knowledge of one’s action or omission would
cause a crime to be committed.
CASES
Centeno vs Villalon-Pornillos - other.To subsume the “religious” purpose of the
solicitation within the concept of “charitable” purpose which under P.D. No. 1564
requires a prior permit from the Department of Social Services and Development,
under pain of penal liability in the absence thereof, would be prejudicial to petitioner
Malilin vs People - Prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs
necessitates that the elemental act of possession of a prohibited substance be
established with moral certainty, together with the fact that law does not authorize the
same. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and
the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction.
E. Applicability of the RPC to offenses punished by Special Laws (Article 10, RPC)
Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. – Offenses which are or in the
future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code.
This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specifically
provide the contrary. (RPC Article 10)
 While the information alleges that the crime was attended with grave abuse of
confidence, the same cannot be appreciated as the supplementary effect of the
RPC to special laws cannot be invoked when there is a legal impossibility of
application either by express provision or by necessary implication.
 When the penalties under the special law are different from and are without
reference or relation to those under the RPC, there can be no supplementary
effect of the rules for the application of penalties under the RPC or by other
relevant statutory provisions are based on or applicable only to said rules for
felonies under the RPC.
 Offense under special laws are not subject to provisions of the Code relating to
attempted and frustrated crimes.
o The subjective phase in the commission of a felony is that portion of its
execution starting from the point where the offender begins by overt acts to
pursue the crime until he is prevented, against his will, by some outside
cause from performing all of the acts which would produce the offense.
▪ If the subjective phase has not yet passed, the crime is only attempted.
▪ If the subjective phase has been done but the felony is not produced,
the crime is frustrated.
▪ The crime is consummated if, following the subjective phase, the last of
the elements of the felony meets to concur.
o These rules are inapplicable to offenses governed by special laws.
o By virtue of the first part of this article, the attempted or frustrated stage of
the execution of an offense penalized by a special law is not punishable
unless the special law provides a penalty.
o Article 10 is not applicable to punish an accomplice under the special law.
 The supplementary application of the RPC to special laws finds relevance only
when the provisions of the special law are silent on the particular matter. In the
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 4
 following cases, the Supreme Court applied supplementarily the provisions of the II. FELONIES
RPC to offenses under special laws:
o Subsidiary Penalty A. Dolo and Culpa (Article 3, RPC) – modes/means of committing a felony
o Civil Liability
o Rules on Service of Sentence 1. Elements of dolo (a mode of committing felonies that is malice or deliberate
o Definition of Principals, Accomplices, and Accessories criminal intent to an injury to another; the offender has the intention to cause an
o Principle of Conspiracy injury to another): a person must have the following requisites while doing the act
or omitting to do the act:
 Special laws amending the RPC are subject to its provisions. a) Freedom: ability to act
b) Intelligence: capacity to know what is right or wrong, judgment to know
CASES whether to act or not, and knowledge of the consequences of such act or
People vs Simon – The mere use by a special law of a penalty found in the Revised omission
Penal Code can by no means make an offense thereunder an offense "punished or c) Intent: acting with malice
punishable" by the Revised Penal Code.
Romualdez vs Marcelo - The RPC can only be applied suppletorily to a special penal  All three requisites of voluntariness in intentional felony must be present
law. because a voluntary act is a free, intelligent, and intentional act.
 Intent presupposes the exercise of freedom and the use of intelligence. One
who acts without freedom and/or intelligence necessarily has no intent to do
an injury to another. However, a person who acts with freedom and
F. Different Titles under the Revised Penal Code
intelligence may not have the intent to do an injury.
Book One: General Provisions  A person who causes injury by mere accident may have had freedom and
intelligence but since he had no fault or intention, he is not criminally liable.
 Felonies and Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability  Intent is a mental state, the existence of which is shown by the overt acts of
 Persons Criminally Liable for Felonies the person. It can be deduced by the external acts performed by the person.
 Penalties  Criminal intent and will to commit a crime are always presumed from the
 Extinction of Criminal Liability commission of an unlawful act unless the contrary shall appear.
 Civil Liability  When the facts proven are accompanied by other facts which show that the
Book Two: Crimes and Penalties act complained of was not unlawful, the presumption of criminal intent does
not arise.
 Crimes Against National Security and the Law of Nations  There is no dolo if there is no intent. The presumption of criminal intent from
 Crimes Against the Fundamental Law of the State the commission of an unlawful act may be rebutted by proof of lack of intent.
 Crimes Against Public Order  Dolo is not required in crimes punished by special laws.
 Crimes Against Public Interest o It is sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate the act
 Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs prohibited by the special law.
 Crimes Against Public Morals
 Crimes Committed by Public Officers 2. Effect of Mistake of Fact
 Crimes Against Persons
 Crimes Against Personal Liberty and Security  Absolutory cause, justifying circumstance, involuntary act
 Crimes Against Property  Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance herewith. (Civil Code
 Crimes Against Chastity Article 3)
 Crimes Against the Civil Status of Persons  Mistake of fact: relieves the accused from criminal liability; a
 Crimes Against Honor misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to
 Quasi-Offenses another; destroys the presumption of criminal intent.
 Final Provisions o The act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the
accused believed them to be.
o The intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful.
o The mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the
accused.
 Lack of intent to commit a crime may be inferred from the facts of the case.
 In mistake of fact, the act done would have been lawful had the facts been
as the accused believed them to be. The act done would not constitute a
felony.

D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 5

 o The act done would have constituted a justifying circumstance under
Article 11, an absolutory cause under Article 247, or an involuntary act.
 The mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the
accused.
 Lack of intent to kill the deceased, because his intention was to kill another,
does not relieve the accused from criminal responsibility.
o That the accused made a mistake in killing one man instead of another
cannot relieve him from criminal responsibility, he having acted
maliciously and willfully.
 In mistake of fact, the intention of the accused in performing the act should
be lawful.
o In error in personae or mistake in the identity of the victim, the principle
of mistake of fact does not apply.
 No crime of resistance when there is mistake of fact.
 When the accused is charged with a culpable felony (negligent), mistake of
fact is not a defense.
o In mistake of fact, what is involved is lack of intent on the part of the
accused.
o In felonies committed through negligence, there is no intent to consider
as it is replaced by imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of
skill.
 Criminal intent is necessary in felonies committee by means of dolo.
o Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea: “An act does not make the
defendant guilty without a guilty mind.”
o Actus me invito factus non est meus actus: “an act done by me against
my will is not my act.”
CASES
US v. Ah Chong - Mistake of fact is an absolutory clause, which relieved Ah Chong
from criminal liability when he killed his roommate. Circumstances were too perfect.
3. Mistake of Law – misapprehension or ignorance of the law has no effect on
criminal liability.
4. Elements of culpa (mode of committing felonies that is fault, negligence, or
performed without malice; an injury caused that is unintentional, it being simply
the incident of another act performed without malice):
a) Freedom
b) Intelligence
c) Imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or skill
(a) Reckless imprudence: voluntarily but without malice doing or
failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason
of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person
performing or failing to perform such act.
(b) Simple imprudence: lack of precaution displayed in those cases
which the damage impending to be caused is not immediate
nor the danger clearly manifest.
 Such negligence or indifference to duty or consequence is, in law,
equivalent to criminal intent.
 The mind of the accused is not criminal. The act, however, is still wrongful
because imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill resulted in
injury or damage to the injured party.
 In culpable felonies, the injury cause to another should be unintentional, it
being simply the incident of another act performed without with malice.
 Mistake in identity of the intended victim is not reckless imprudence.
 A person causing damage or injury to another, without malice or fault, is not
criminally liable under the RPC.
 Culpa may be punished as a crime in of itself under article 365 of the RPC
CASES
Ivler vs San Pedro - Reckless imprudence is a crime in of itself (a quasi-offense in
Art. 365 of RPC) and not only a mode of committing a felony. It cannot be split into two
informations.
5. Mala in se and mala prohibita (Nature of crimes)
a) In acts mala in se, there must be criminal intent.
 Acts which are wrongful in their nature
 Serious in their effects on society as to call for almost unanimous
condemnation of its members
 Intent governs.
 Generally, crimes mala in se are punishable under the RPC. Acts may
still be mala in se even if punished under a special law
 Defense in mala in se is good faith or lack of criminal intent.
 Theft, rape, homicide, etc.
b) In acts mala prohibita, it is sufficient if the prohibited act was intentionally
done.
 Acts which are wrong merely because they are prohibited by statutes
 Violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a more
orderly regulation of the affairs of society
 Intent is immaterial. Only question that should be answered is “has the
law been violated?”
 Defense in mala prohibita is lack of intent to perpetrate.
 Illegal possession of firearms, use of opium, etc.
c) Dolo is not required in crimes punished by special laws.
 It is sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate the act
prohibited by the special law.
 Intent to commit the crime and intent to perpetrate the act must be
distinguished.
o A person may not have consciously intended to commit a crime;
but he did intend to commit an act, and that act is, by the very
nature of things, the crime itself.
o Intent to commit the crime: there must be criminal intent.
o Intent to perpetrate the act: the prohibited act is done freely and
consciously.
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 6

CASES
Veroy vs Layague - there was no other evidence whatsoever that herein petitioners
possessed or had in their control the items seized Neither was it shown that they had
the intention to possess the Firearms or to further rebellion
Estrada vs Sandiganbayan - Special laws are generally mala prohibita. However, RA
3019 is described as a heinous crime which entails criminal intent
People vs Quijada - a case whether possession of an illegal firearm and homicide
constitutes double jeopardy. A mala in se cannot absorb or be complexed with a mala
prohibita and vice versa because they are different in nature. Thus, there must be two
separate informations for each.
6. Motive and Intent
a) Motive: the moving power which impels one to action for a definite
result.
 Not an essential element of a crime and need not be proved for purposes of
conviction
 Extreme moral perversion may lead a man to commit a crime without a real
motive but just for the sake of committing it. The apparent lack of a motive
for committing a criminal act does not necessarily mean that there is none,
but that simply it is not known to us.
 Motive is relevant when:
o Identity of accused is in dispute,
o Ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic theories or versions of
the killing,
o There are no eyewitnesses to the crime, and where suspicion is likely
to fall upon a number of persons,
o and if the evidence of the crime is merely circumstantial or insufficient
to establish guilt.
 Motive need not be established when:
o accused has been positively identified,
o when the commission of the crime has been proven and the evidence
of identification is convincing,
o when the defendant admits the crime
o when there is no longer doubt that the defendant was the culprit
o and where guilt is otherwise established by sufficient evidence
 Motive is established by the testimony of the witnesses on the acts or
statements of the accused before or immediately after the commission of the
offense. Such may indicate a motive.
 Disclosure of the motive is an aid in completing the proof of the commission
of the crime.
 Proof of motive alone is not sufficient to support a conviction.
o It is not sufficient if there is no reliable evidence from which it may be
reasonably deduced that the accused was the malefactor.
o Strong motive to commit the crime cannot take the place of proof
beyond reasonable doubt, sufficient to overthrow the presumption of
innocence.
 Lack of motive may aid in showing the innocence of the accused.
b) Intent: the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result
7. Presumption of Criminal Intent
GENERAL RULE: General criminal intent is presumed. Specific criminal intent is shown by
an overt act which, is an element of the crime. Hence, it cannot be presumed and it must
be established.
 Criminal intent is necessary in felonies committed by means of dolo.
o Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, “the act itself does not make a
man guilty unless his intention were so.”
o Actus me invito factus non est meus actus, “an act done by me
against my will is not my act.”
 In felonies committed by dolus, the third element of voluntariness is a
general intent.
 In some particular felonies, proof of particular specific intent is required.
 General intent: accused only meant to do an act prohibited by law
 Specific intent: accused meant to do an act and intend to cause a particular
result when committing that act
 In the absence of criminal intent, there is no liability for the intentional felony.
All reasonable doubt intended to demonstrate error and not crime should
be indulged in for the benefit of the accused.
 If there is only error on the part of the person doing the act, he does not act
with malice, and for that reason he's not criminally liable for the intentional
felony.
 Burden of proof and presumption
o Disputable Presumptions
 That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent (ROC Rule
131 Section 3b)
 Conclusive presumptions. – The following are instances of conclusive
presumptions:
(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission,
intentionally and deliberately led another to believe in a particular thing is
true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of
such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it.
(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of
the commencement of this relation of landlord and tenant between them.
(ROC Rule 131 Section 2)
 It is well-settled that if the victim dies because of a deliberate act of the
malefactors, intent to kill is conclusive presumed. In such a case, even if
there was no intent to kill, the crime is homicide because with respect to
crimes of personal violence, the penal law looks particularly to the material
results following the unlawful act and holds the aggressor responsible for
the consequences thereof.
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 7

CASES
People v. Delim - if the victim dies because of a deliberate act of the malefactors,
intent to kill is conclusively presumed. Even if there was no intent to kill, the penal law
looks particularly to the material results following the unlawful act and holds the
aggressor responsible for the consequences. (eg. If A punched B so hard that B hit his
head on the pavement and died, A’s intent to kill B is conclusively presumed).
B. Criminal Liability
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.
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or
property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of
the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. (RPC Article 4)
One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences which
may naturally and logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not.
 In these cases, “the wrongful act done” is “different from that which he intended.”
 One is not relieved of criminal liability for the natural consequences of one’s illegal
acts, merely because one does not intend to produce such consequences.
 El que causa de la causa es causa del mal causado: “he who is the cause of the
cause is the cause of the evil.
“Committing a felony”
 Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person not merely performing an act but an
act or omission punishable by the RPC. If the act is not punishable by the Code, it is
not a felony.
 ACCORDING TO REYES: The felony should be committed by means of dolo. Art. 4
Par. 1 speaks of wrongful act done “different from that which he intended.” If the
wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill, his
liability should be determined under Article 365, which defines and penalizes criminal
negligence. (Judge Boom agrees with Reyes)
 ACCORDING TO BOADO: The felony can be committed by means of dolo or culpa.
The first paragraph is separated by two clauses. The first clause used the word
“delito” and per Article 3, delitos are committed either by dolo or by culpa.
 The act or omission should not be punished by a special law because the offender
violating that special law may not have the intent to do an injury to another. In such
case, the wrongful act done could not be different, as the offender did not intend to do
any other injury.
When a person has not committed a felony, he is not criminally liable for the result which is
not intended.
“Although the wrongful act done be different from that which is intended”
 A person committing a felony is still criminally liable even if:
o There is a mistake in the identity of the victim (error in personae)
o There is a mistake in the blow (aberratio ictus)
o The injurious result is greater than that intended (praeter intentionem)
In order that a person may be held criminally liable for a felony different from that which he
intended to commit, the following requisites must be present:
 That an intentional felony has been committed
 That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical
consequence of the felony committed by the offender
That a person intended the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act (ROC Rule 131
Section 3c)
1. Proximate cause vs. Immediate cause
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.
Immediate cause: final act in a series of provocations leading to a particular result,
directly producing such result without the intervention of any further provocation.
a) Natural: an occurrence in the ordinary course of human life or events
b) Logical: a rational connection between the act of the accused and the
resulting injury
c) The felony committed must be the proximate cause of the resulting injury.
d) The proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either
immediately, or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural
and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with
its immediate predecessor.
e) There must be a relation of “cause and effect,” the cause being the felonious
act of the offended, the effect being the resultant injuries and/or death of the
victim.
1. The “cause and effect” relationship is not altered or changed because
of the pre-existing conditions, such as the pathological condition of the
victim; predisposition of the offended party; or the concomitant or
concurrent conditions, such as the negligence or fault of the doctors; or
the conditions supervening the felonies act such as tetanus, pulmonary
infection or gangrene.
f) The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting injury
when:
1. There is an active force that intervened between the felony committed
and the resulting injury, and the active force is a distinct act or fact
absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused; or
2. The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim
g) The following are not efficient intervening causes:
1. The weak or diseased physical condition of the victim
2. The nervousness of temperament of the victim
3. Causes which are inherent in the victim
4. Neglect of the victim or third person
5. Erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment
6. Delay in the medical treatment of the victim
7. These causes do not break the relation of cause and effect.
HOWEVER, if injury is NOT mortal, negligence of doctors is efficient
intervening cause. If injury is mortal, negligence of doctors is not an
efficient intervening cause
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 8
 h) The death of the victim is presumed to be the natural consequence of the
physical injuries inflicted when the following facts are established:
1. That the victim at the time the physical injuries were inflicted was in
normal health
2. That death may be expected from the physical injuries inflicted
3. That death ensued within a reasonable time
i) If the consequences produced have resulted from a distinct act or fact
absolutely foreign from the criminal act, the offender is not responsible for
such consequences.
1. A person is only liable for proximate consequences.
CRIMINAL LIABILITY in Proximate cause vs. Immediate cause
WOUND INTERVENING CAUSE RESULT LIABILITY
different from that which the offender intended to commit, the following rules
shall be observed.
1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher than that
corresponding to the offense which the accused intended to commit,
the penalty corresponding to the latter shall be imposed in its maximum
period.
2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower than that
corresponding to the one which the accused intended to commit, the
penalty of the former shall be imposed in its maximum period.
3. The rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall not be
applicable if the acts committed by the guilty person shall also
constitute an attempt or frustration of another crime, if the law
prescribes a higher penalty for either of the latter offenses, in which
case the penalty provided for the attempt or the frustrated crime shall
be imposed in the maximum period. (RPC Article 49)

Not mortal wound RELATED disease Death Homicide 4. Praeter intentionem (PI)
a) “The injurious result is greater than that intended”
UNRELATED disease Physical Injuries b) A person incurs criminal liability when he commits a felony, although the
Negligence of doctors Physical Injuries wrongful act done is different from that which he intended. The wrong done
went beyond the intent in which caused the victim’s death.
Mortal wound Negligence of doctors Death Homicide c) It is a mitigating circumstance (Article 3[3]). There should be a great
disparity between the intended felony and the actual felony committed.
Disease related or unrelated is Homicide d) If the intended wrong is to injure but the means used is sufficient to result to
IMMATERIAL the graver crime, PI may be disallowed because the means used would
naturally and logically result to the latter.

2. Aberratio ictus Mitigating circumstances. – the following are mitigating circumstances:

a) “Accidental harm to a person” or “mistake in blow” 3. The offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that
b) At least three parties are involved. committed. (RPC Article 13(3))
c) It is neither exempting nor mitigating.  This circumstance can be taken into account only when the facts
d) When two crimes are the result of a single act due to aberration ictus, such proven show that there is notable and evident disproportion
is a complex crime and Article 48 of the RPC is applicable (Two grave or between the means employed to execute the criminal act and its
less grave felonies). consequences.

Penalty for complex crimes. – When a single act constitutes two or more e) Article 49 is not applicable to cases where a more serious consequence not
grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for intended by the offender befalls the same person.
committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be f) Intention, being an internal state, must be judged by overt acts
imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period. (RPC Article 48)

3. Error in personae (EIP)

a) “Mistake of the person”
b) Two parties are involved.
c) The lesser penalty is always to be imposed, only that it shall be imposed in
the maximum period.
d) The effect on the liability of the offender depends on the crime committed,
whether of the same or of different severity. If the same severity such a both
homicides, there is no effect, but if different as when the intended is
homicide but the actual; rime committed is PARRICIDE, EIP becomes
extenuating (mitigating) circumstance under Article 49.

Penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime committed is

different from that intended. – In cases in which the felony committed is
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 9
 Five Factors on INTENT and CRIMINAL LIABILITY of the Offenders  The commission of an impossible crime is indicative of criminal propensity or
criminal tendency on the part of the actor. Such person is a potential criminal.
Factor Effect on Intent Effect on Criminal Liability  Requisites of impossible crime:
Mistake of fact Negative criminal intent Negative criminal liability o That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property
o That the act was done with evil intent
Aberratio Ictus Intent is against unintended Increases criminal liability o That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the means
victim or the effect is in addition which generally results to employed is either inadequate or ineffectual
to the injury on the intended complex crime (Art. 48) o That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another
victim provision of the RPC.
Error in personae Intended result falls on another Extenuating if the resulting  “Performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property”
due to error in the identity of crime is greater than intended, o In committing an impossible crime, the offender intends to commit a felony
the victim e.g., parricide when what is against persons or a felony against property, and the act performed would
intended is homicide (Art. 49); have been an offense against persons or property. But a felony against
no effect if the resulting crime persons or property should not be committed, for, otherwise, he would be
is the same as that intended, liable for that felony. There would be no impossible crime to speak of.
e.g., homicide and homicide
Praeter Actual crime is greater than Mitigating under Article 13  If the act performed would be an offense other than a felony against persons or
Intentionem intended against property, there is no impossible crime.
 “The act was done with evil intent”
Proximate cause Results in crime although not Results in criminal liability to o Since the offender in impossible crime intended to commit an offense
intended the actor whether acting with against persons or against property, it must be shown that the actor
intent or through negligence performed the act with evil intent, that is, he must have the intent to do an
injury to another.

 “Were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of

CASES
People vs Sabalones - the accused argued that this was a case of aberratio ictus.
Court held that this was a case of error in personae because the accused thought that
the jeep that they opened fire at was carrying their intended victim, which turned out to
be different people.
People vs Ortega Jr. - a person who commits a felony is criminally liable for the direct
natural and logical consequences of his wrongful act even where the resulting crime is
more serious than that intended. However, he was acquitted because it was alleged in
the information that Garcia is guilty for homicide by stabbing but he actually committed
homicide by drowning. He also cannot be an accessory by hiding the body of the crime
to prevent its discovery since he’s the brother-in-law of Ortega Jr.
5. Impossible crimes
the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.”
o “Inherent impossibility of its accomplishment” Two kinds of inherent
impossibility:
 Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts would not
amount to a crime even if completed.
 Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances
unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the
consummation of the intended crime.
o “Employment of inadequate means”
 The means employed to produce the crime are inadequate or
insufficient in quality.
 Where the means employed is adequate and the result expected is not
produced, it not an impossible crime, but a frustrated felony.
o “Employment of ineffectual means”
 The means employed were not appropriate for the consummation of the
crime

An impossible crime is one where the acts performed would have been a
consummated crime against person or property but which is not accomplished
because of its inherent impossibility or because of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means.
 Impossible crime is NOT A CRIME.
 Offender has to have no knowledge of the crime’s impossibility.
 Objectively, the offender has not committed a crime, but subjectively, he is a
criminal.
 Inherent Impossibility of Accomplishment
o When an offender performed all the acts to consummate a crime but there is
an extraneous circumstance that prevented the crime from being produced,
making the crime impossible to accomplish
 In impossible crime, the act performed should not constitute a violation of another
provision of the RPC.
o There was an attempt to produce the crime; however, the crime is not
produced, not because of inherent impossibility of its accomplishment, but
because of a cause or accident.
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 10

 The purpose of the law in punishing the impossible crime is to suppress criminal
propensity or criminal tendencies. Objectively, the offender has not committed a
felony, but subjectively, he is a criminal.
Penalty to Be Imposed in Case of Failure to Commit the Crime Because the
Means Employed or the Aims Sought are Impossible. — When the person
intending to commit an offense has already performed the acts for the execution
of the same but nevertheless the crime was not produced by reason of the fact
that the act intended was by its nature one of impossible accomplishment or
because the means employed by such person are essentially inadequate to
produce the result desired by him, the court, having in mind the social danger
and the degree of criminality shown by the offender, shall impose upon him the
penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200 to 500 pesos. (RPC Article
59)
 There is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime.
o In impossible crime, the person intending to commit a crime has already
performed the acts for its execution but nevertheless the crime is not
produced for the reason that the act intended is by its nature one of
impossible accomplishment or because the means employed by such
person are essentially inadequate or ineffectual to produce the result
desired.
o Since the offender in impossible crime has already performed the acts for
its execution, there could be no attempted impossible crime. In attempted
felony the offender has not performed all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence.
o There is no frustrated impossible crime because the acts performed by the
offender are considered as constituting a consummated offense.
CASES
Intod v. CA - before this case, impossible crimes were limited to legal impossibility
(eg. killing a dead person, stealing property which turned out to belong to the stealer).
This case established factual/physical impossibility of impossible crimes (eg. shooting
towards the room o the intended victim who, unknown to the offender, is away on
vacation, stealing from a vault which turned out to be empty).
6. Criminal liability for omissions
Omission is inaction, the failure to perform a positive duty, which one is bound to do.
 Art. 116 – failure to disclose or concealment of treason
 Art. 125 – failure of a public officer or employee to deliver a detained person to
the proper authorities
 Art. 213(b) – failure to voluntarily issue a receipt, as provided by law for any sum
of money collected by him officially
 Art. 233 – failure of a public officer to lend his cooperation towards the
administration of justice
 Art. 270 – failure of a person entrusted with the custody of a minor to restore the
latter to his parents or guardians
 Art. 275 – Abandonment of persons in danger and abandonment of one’s own
victim
1. Anyone who shall fail to render assistance to any person whom he shall find in
an uninhabited place wounded or in danger of dying, when he can render such
assistance without detriment to himself, unless such omission shall constitute a
more serious offense.
2. Anyone who shall fail to help or render assistance to another whom he has
accidentally wounded or injured.
3. Anyone who, having found an abandoned child under seven years of age,
shall fail to deliver said child to the authorities or to his family, or shall fail to take
him to a safe place.
C. Classification of felonies
Grave felonies, less grave felonies, and light felonies. – 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 Article 25 of this Code. Less grave felonies are those which
the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional, in the
accordance with the above-mentioned article. Light felonies are those infractions of the
law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding forty
thousand pesos, or both, is provided. (RPC Article 9)
1. Grave
 Reclusion Perpetua,
 Reclusion Temporal, 12 years and 1 day to 20 years
 Perpetual or Temporary absolute disqualification
 Perpetual or Temporary special disqualification
 Prison Mayor, 6 years and 1 day to 12 years
 fine exceeding 1,200,000 pesos
2. Less grave
 Prison correccional, 6 months and 1 day to 6 years
 Arresto Mayor, 1 month and 1 day to 6 months
 Suspension, 6 months and 1 day to 6 years
 Destierro, 6 months and 1 day to 6 years
 fine not exceeding 1,200,00 pesos but not less than 40,000 pesos
3. Light
 arresto menor, 1 to 30 days
 fine less than 40,000 pesos
Article 9 classifies felonies according to their gravity. The gravity of the felonies is
determined by the penalties attached to them by law.
Fine – When afflictive, correctional, or light penalty. – A fine, whether imposed as single or
as an alternative penalty, shall be considered an afflictive penalty, if it exceeds 1,200,000
pesos; a correctional penalty, if it does not exceed 1,200,000 pesos but is not less than
40,000 pesos; and a light penalty, if it will be less than 40,000 pesos. (RPC Article 26)
 NOTE: Article 26 merely classifies fine and has nothing to do with the definition
of a light felony.
 If a fine prescribed by the law for a felony is exactly 40,000 pesos, it is a light
felony because Article 9, paragraph 3, which defines light felony, should prevail.
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 11
D. Stages of a felony
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
the 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 the 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.
(RPC Article 6)
1. Subjective and objective phases
a) The subjective phase in the commission of a felony is that portion of its
execution (or of the acts constituting the crime) starting from the point
where the offender begins by overt acts to pursue the crime to that
point where he still has control over his acts, including their natural
course or until he is prevented, against his will, by some outside cause
from performing all of the acts which would produce the offense.
1. If the subjective phase has not yet passed, the crime is only
attempted.
b) The objective phase is that portion in the commission of the crime where
the accused has performed the last act necessary to produce the
intended crime and where he has no more control over the results of his
acts
1. If the subjective phase has been done but the felony is not
produced, the crime is frustrated.
2. The crime is consummated if, following the subjective phase, the last
of the elements of the felony meets to concur.
*OVERT ACTS – external acts which if continued will logically result in a felony. It is the
start of criminal liability because the offender has commenced the commission of the
felony. (e.g. stabbing a person with a knife with the intent to kill)
*PREPARATORY ACTS – acts which still require another act so that a felony will result. It
may or may not lead to the commission of a concrete crime. (e.g. buying poison/gun)
2. Consummated - when all the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present.
a) When light felonies are punishable. – Light felonies are punishable only
when they have been consummated, with exception of those committed
against persons or property.
1. GENERAL RULE: Light felonies are punishable only when they have
been committed.
(a) EXCEPTION: Light felonies committed against persons or
property are punishable even if attempted or frustrated.
2. Light felonies produce such light, such insignificant moral and material
injuries that public conscience is satisfied with providing a light penalty
for their consummation. If they are not consummated, the wrong done
is so slight that there is no need of providing a penalty at all.
b) All felonies committed by culpa are consummated. All omissions that are
feloniees are also consummated.
c) Every crime has its own elements which must all be present to constitute a
culpable violation of a precept of law.
d) When a felony has two or more elements, and one of them is not proved by
the prosecution during trial, either (1) the felony is not shown to have been
consummated, or (2) the felony is not shown to have been committed, or
(3) another felony is shown to have been committed.
e) In determining whether the felony is only attempted or frustrated or it is
consummated, the nature of the offense, the elements constituting the
felony, and the manner of committing the same must be considered.
1. Manner of committing the crime
(a) Formal crimes: crimes consummated in one instant or by a single
act, no attempt.
(i) There are crimes like slander and false testimony which are
consummated in one instant, single act.
(ii) There can be no attempt at a formal crime because
between the thought and the deed there is no chain of acts
that can be severed at any link. There is either a crime or
no crime at all.
(b) Crimes committed by mere attempt or proposal or by overt act.
(c) Felony by omission
(i) There can be no attempted stage when the felony is by
omission because in this kind of felony the offender does
not execute acts. He omits to perform the act which the
requires him to do.
(d) Crimes requiring the intervention of two persons to commit them
are consummated by mere agreement.
(e) Material crimes: crimes not consummated in one instant or by a
single act. Here, the execution has three stages: attempt,
frustration, and consummation.
3. 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.
a) Elements of a frustrated felony:
1. The offender performs all the acts of execution
(a) The offender has performed the last act necessary to produce
the crime, an element that distinguishes frustrated felony from
attempted felony.
2. All the acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence
3. But the felony is not produced
(a) If the felony is produced, it would be consummated.
4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator
(a) Even if all the acts of execution have been performed, the crime
may not be consummated, because certain causes may prevent its
consummation.
(b) These causes may be the intervention of a third person.
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 12
 (c) If the cause which prevented the consummation of the offense was
the perpetrator’s own exclusive will, the 4th element does not exist.
b) Frustrated felony distinguished from attempted felony:
1. In both, the offender has not accomplished his criminal purpose.
2. In frustrated felony, the offender has performed all the acts of
execution which would produce the felony; the offender has reached
the objective phase. In attempted felony, the offender merely
commences the commission of a felony but does not perform all
the acts of execution; the offender has not passed the subjective
phase.
3. In frustrated felony, there is no intervention of a foreign or
extraneous cause or agency between the beginning of the
consummation of the crime and the moment when all of the acts have
been performed which would result in a consummated crime. In an
attempted felony, there is such intervention and the offender does
not arrive at the point of performing all of the acts which which would
produce the crime. In other words, he is stopped short of that point by
some cause apart from his own voluntary desistance.
c) Examples of crimes that have no frustrated stage:
1. Rape, since the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge, hence,
no matter how slight is the penetration, the felony is consummated. If
the male organ failed to touch the pudenda, by some causes or
accident other than the offender’s spontaneous desistance, the felony
is merely attempted. If he desisted spontaneously, he is not liable for
attempted rape, following Article 6, but he is liable for some other crime
such as acts of lasciviousness
2. Arson, because this is defined as the burning of property, hence, the
4.
moment burning occurs, even if a small portion only, the offense is
consummated. If overt acts have been commenced such as drenching
the property with gasoline and lighting a match but before it can be
thrown, the offender was stopped, it is attempted.
3. Corruption of public officers because the offense requires agreement
or participation of two parties. Such that when the offer is accepted, it is
consummated; but when rejected, the offense is attempted because the
offender was not able to perform all the acts f execution as he failed to
persuade the public officer.
4. Adultery because its essence is sexual congress, hence, the same
principle as in rape applies.
5. Theft and robbery because apoderamiento is complete from the
moment the offender gains possession of the thing. Prior thereto, if
extraneous matters prevented gaining complete control, like the arrival
of neighbors because of the shouts for help by the householders, the
felony is attempted.
d) If the frustration is due to inadequate or ineffectual means, it is placed on the
same footing as an impossible crime.
e) Attempted or frustrated felony distinguished from impossible crime:
1. In all three the evil intent of the offender is not accomplished.
2. In impossible crime, the evil intent of the offender cannot be
accomplished. In attempted or frustrated felony, the evil intent of the
offender can be possibly accomplished.
3. In impossible crime, the evil intent of the offender cannot be
accomplished because it is inherently impossible or because the
means employed is inadequate or ineffectual. In attempted or
frustrated felony, what prevents the accomplishment is the
intervention of certain causes or accidents in which the offender has
no part.
Penalty to be imposed upon principals of a frustrated crime. – The penalty next
lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be
imposed upon the principals in a frustrated felony. (RPC Article 50)
Penalty for frustrated parricide, murder, or homicide. – The courts, in view of the
facts of the case, may impose upon the person guilty of the frustrated crime
parricide, murder, or homicide, defined and penalized in the preceding articles, a
penalty lower by one degree than that which should be imposed under the
provisions of Article 50. The courts, considering the facts of the case, may
likewise reduce by one degree the penalty which under Article 51 should be
imposed for an attempt to commit any of such crimes. (RPC Article 250)
Attempted or frustrated robbery committed under certain circumstance. – When
by reason or on occasion of an attempted or frustrated robbery a homicide is
committed, the person guilty of such offenses shall be punished by reclusion
temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua, unless the homicide
committed shall deserve a higher penalty under the provisions of this Code.
(RPC Article 297)
Attempted – when the offender commences the commission of the felony
directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of the execution
which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident
other than his own spontaneous desistance.
a) Elements of attempted felony:
1. The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt
acts
(a) There are external acts that have direct connection with the crime
intended to be committed.
(b) Only offenders who personally execute the commission of the
crime can be guilty of an attempted felony. The word “directly”
suggests that the offender must commence the commission of the
felony by taking direct part in the execution of the act.
2. He does not perform all the acts of execution, which should produce the
felony.
(a) If anything remained for the offender to do, he would be guilty of
an attempted crime.
3. The offender’s act is not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance
(a) Act of discontinuing the execution of the felony, which will negative
criminal liability of the offender when done during the attempted
stage.
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 13
 (b) It is an absolutory clause which negates criminal liability because
the law encourages desistance from committing a crime.
4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or
accident other than his spontaneous desistance.
Penalty to be imposed upon principals of attempted crime. – the penalty lower by
two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be
imposed upon the principals in an attempt to commit a felony. (RPC Article 51)
CASES
US vs Adiao - The fact that the defendant was under observation during the entire
transaction and that he was unable to get the merchandise out of the Custom House,
is not decisive; all the elements of the completed crime of theft are present.
People vs Hernandez - There is no frustrated rape. No matter how slight the
penetration, the felony is consummated. If the male organ failed to touch the pudenda
by some causes or accident other than offender’s spontaneous desistance, the felony
is merely attempted.
People v. Borinaga - Objectively, no mortal wound was dealt to the victim. But
subjectively, in the mind of the perpetrator, he dealt a mortal wound thereby
completing all acts of execution, making him guilty of frustrated murder.
E. Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony
Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony. – 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 a proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony
proposes its execution to some other person or persons. (RPC Article 8)
 Conspiracy is bilateral or multilateral while proposal is unilateral.
GENERAL RULE: They are not punishable. It is only a manner of determining criminal
liability. They are punishable only in cases in which the law specially provides a penalty.
Two Concepts of Conspiracy:
1. As a means to commit a felony
a) Conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime are only preparatory acts and
the law regards them as innocent or at least permissible except in rare
and exceptional cases.
b) An agreement to commit a crime is reprehensible from the viewpoint of
morality but as long as the conspirators do not perform the overt acts in
furtherance of their malevolent design, the sovereignty of the State is not
outraged and the tranquility of the public remains undisturbed.
c) However, when in resolute execution of a common scheme, a felony is
committed by two or more malefactors, the existence of a conspiracy
assumes pivotal importance in the determination of the liability of the
perpetrators.
d) Conspiracy mist be proven beyond reasonable doubt. If the conspiracy is
not successfully proven, the accused will be liable only for their individual
acts.
2. As crimes in itself:
a) Art. 115 -treason
b) Art. 136 - coup d'etat, rebellion or insurrection
c) Art. 141 - sedition
d) Art. 186 - monopolies
e) Art. 306 - brigandage
f) Art. 340 - corruption of minors
g) PD 1613 - arson
h) RA 9165 - drugs
i) RA 9372 – terrorism
 Conspiracy as a felony distinguished from conspiracy as a manner of incurring
criminal liability:
o When the conspiracy relates to a crime actually committed, it is not a felony
but only a manner of incurring criminal liability, that is, when there is
conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.
o Even if the conspiracy relates to any of the crime of treason, rebellion and
sedition, but any of them is actually committed, the conspiracy is not a
separate offense; it is only a manner of incurring criminal liability, that is, all
the conspirators who carried out their plan and personally took part in its
execution are equally liable. The offenders are liable for treason, rebellion or
sedition, as the case may be, and the conspiracy is absorbed.
o When conspiracy is only a manner of incurring criminal liability, it is not
punishable as a separate offense.
 Requisites of conspiracy:
o Two or more persons coming to an agreement
o Agreement concerned the commission of a felony
 Must refer to the commission of a crime, must be an agreement to act,
to bring about, to effect what has already been conceived
o Execution of the felony be decided upon
 Conspirators have made up their minds to commit the crime
 Two Kinds of Conspiracy
o Express conspiracy (aka Conspiracy by prior agreement): two or more are
involved and agree on the crime
o Implied conspiracy: no prior agreement but overt acts by the perpetrators
suggest or point to a common design
 Moral ascendancy or support alone is not enough to prove implied
conspiracy
 Requisite of a proposal
o A person has decided to commit a felony
o He proposes its execution to some other person or persons
 It is not necessary that the person to whom the proposal is made
agrees to commit treason or rebellion. The law does not require that the
proposal be accepted by the person to whom the proposal is made.
 There is no criminal proposal when:
o The person who proposes it is not determined to commit the crime.
o There is no decided concrete formal proposed.
o It is not the execution of a felony that is proposed.
o The crimes in which conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime are
punishable are against the security of the State or economic security.
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 14

CASES
People v. Pugay - One person poured the gasoline over the victim, and another one
lit the victim on fire. Court ruled that there was no conspiracy and that they should be
held liable individually, not collectively. Because the one that poured the gasoline
only intended to shame the victim and not light him on fire.
People vs Cruz - Proof beyond reasonable doubt is required to establish criminal
conspiracy. It requires clear and convincing evidence, not by mere conjectures.
People vs. Canturia - For while the evidence does convincingly show a conspiracy
among the accused, it also as convincingly suggests that the agreement was to
commit robbery only; and there is no evidence that the other members of the band of
robbers were aware of Canturia's lustful intent and his consummation thereof so that
they could have attempted to prevent the same
F. Persons criminally liable
Who are criminally liable. – The following are criminally liable for grave and less grave
felonies:
 Principals
 Accomplices
 Accessories
The following are liable for light felonies:
 Principals
 Accomplices (RPC Article 16)
The treble division of persons criminally responsible for an offense rests upon the very
nature of their participation in the commission of the crime.
1. Principals
Principals. – The following are considered principals:
 Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;
 Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;
 Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act
without which it would not have been accomplished. (RPC Article 17)
a) Principal v. co-conspirator who is also a principal
1. A principal’s criminal liability is limited to his own acts.
2. Generally, the co-conspirator’s responsibility includes the acts of his
fellow conspirators. (The act of one is the act of all)
b) A principal by direct participation materially execute the crime. (They
MUST appear at the scene of the crime and perform acts necessary in the
commission of the offense to be liable.
1. In conspiracy by prior agreement, if the principal by direct participation
does not appear at the scene of the crime, he is not liable.
c) Two or more offenders as principals by direct participation
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.
d) In order to hold the accused guilty as co-principal by reason of EXPRESS
conspiracy, it must be established that he performed the overt act in
furtherance of the conspiracy, either by actively participating in the actual
commission of the crime, or by lending moral assistance to his co-
conspirators by being present at the scene of the crime, or by exerting moral
ascendancy over the rest of the conspirators as to move them to executing
the conspiracy.
1. Mere presence at the crime scene at the time of its commission is not
by itself sufficient to establish conspiracy.
2. In IMPLIED conspiracy, lending moral assistance does not make a
person a principal. There must be OVERT acts that contribute to the
execution of the felony.
e) When there is no conspiracy, each of the offenders is liable only for the act
performed by him.
f) One serving as guard pursuant to the conspiracy is a principal by direct
participation. He is present, aiding, and abetting in the commission of the
crime.
1. The exception is when there is no conspiracy or unity of criminal
purpose and intention indicating participation in the criminal resolution,
mere passive presence at the scene of another’s crime does not
constitute participation.
g) The principal by inducement becomes liable only when the principal by
direct participation committed the act induced. (They are still liable even if
they did not appear in the scene of the crime)
1. By forcing another to commit the crime
(a) By using irresistible force
(b) By causing uncontrollable fear
(c) There is no conspiracy, not even a unity of criminal purpose and
intention. Only the one using force or causing fear is criminally
liable.
(d) The material executor is not criminally liable.
2. By directly inducing another to commit the crime
(a) By giving price or offering reward or promise
(i) Both inducer and material executor are principals.
There is collective criminal responsibility.
(b) By using words of command
(i) Both the person who used words of command and material
executor are equally liable. There is collective criminal
responsibility.
3. The inducement must be made directly with the intention of procuring
the commission of the crime. Mere careless comment of one who does
not possess dominance or moral ascendancy over the offender will not
make the former principal by inducement.
4. The inducement must be the determining cause of the commission of
the crime by the material executor.
5. There must exist on the part of the inducer the most positive resolution
and the most persistent effort to secure the commission of the crime,
together with the presentation to the person induced of the very
strongest kind of temptation to commit the crime.
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 15
 6. A thoughtless expression without any expectation or intention to 1. Conspirators are authors of the crime and accomplices are merely the
produce the result is not an inducement to commit a crime. instruments who perform non-essential acts for the perpetration of the
7. Ascendancy or influence as to amount to moral coercion is not offense.
necessary when there is a conspiracy. 2. A co-conspirator may be held only as an accomplice if their role in the
perpetration of the crime is of a minor, nominal character or their overt
h) A principal by indispensable cooperation must have directly participated acts were not indispensable to the crime although it was done with
in the criminal design by another act without which the crime could not have knowledge of the criminal intent.
been committed. Participation in the criminal resolution, that is, there is
either anterior conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention The “Lookout” Example
immediately before the commission of the crime charged
1. The cooperation must be indispensable without which the commission Principal Accomplice
of the crime would not have been accomplished. If the cooperation is A lookout is a principal if he was a co- A lookout who was not part of the
not indispensable, the offender is only an accomplice. conspirator in the criminal design and in conspiracy but participated only after such
deciding the course of action to be decision was reached is an accomplice
taken in its commission. He is a co- since he is merely an instrument of the
CASES
author of the crime and provides his crime and cooperates after the decision to
People vs Montealgre - Capalad got his knife and stabbed Pfc. Camantigue while
companions effective means and commit the same had already been made.
Montealegre restrained Camantigue to prevent him from getting his pistol and defend
encouragement to carry out the same.
himself. His assistance was indispensable to the crime
Him being a lookout is a necessary part
People v. Alvarez - An army commander who issued an order to his men for the
of the concerted action to achieve the
investigation of a certain civilian is not criminally liable if his subordinates go beyond
desired result.
his order by beating severely the said civilian thereby bringing about his death. (Not
principal by inducement)
g) The accomplice merely concurs with the principal’s criminal design.
h) The accomplice cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or
simultaneous acts with the intention of supplying material or moral aid in the
2. Accomplices execution of the crime in an efficacious way.
Accomplices. – Accomplices are the persons who, not being included in Article i) There must be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those
17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. attributed to the person charged as an accomplice.
(RPC Article 18)
*Determination of participation is only relevant when conspiracy is established
a) To be an accomplice: (whether nominal or not).
1. Offender should take part in the execution of the crime by previous or
simultaneous acts; and CASES
2. He intends to take part in the commission of the crime. People v. Nierra - Because of this case, if a co-conspirator’s participation in the
felony is only nominal, he will be tried as an accomplice instead of a principal.
b) In case of doubt, the participation of the offender will be considered that of People vs Babierra - The two did not directly take part in the infliction of wounds that
an accomplice rather than that of a principal. harmed Haro, they still took part in the commission of the crime by mounting the
c) Where there is doubt as to whether the accused acted as a principal or as body of the Haro and holding his hands and one sitting on his knees, to allow Babiera
accomplice, accused shall be held liable only as accomplice. to search his body.
1. The doubt will always be resolved in favor of the milder form of criminal
liability.
3. Accessories
d) When the participation of an accused is not disclosed, he is only an
Accessories. – Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission
accomplice.
of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or
e) An accomplice does not have previous agreement or understanding or is not
accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following
in conspiracy with the principal by direct participation. He only participates to
manners:
a certain point in the common criminal design.
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of
f) Conspirators and accomplices have one thing in common, that is, they know
the crime;
and agree with the criminal design. Conspirators, however, know the
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime or the effects or
criminal intention because they themselves have decided upon such course
instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery;
of action. Accomplices come to know about it after the principals have
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal of
reached the decision and merely concur in it.
the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 16
 whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or Comparison of Principal, Accomplice, and Accessory
an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be
habitually guilty of some other crime. (RPC Article 19) Principal Accomplice Accessory

a) Accessories have knowledge of the commission of the crime and did not 1. When Participates before Participates before Takes part
participate in its commission. They take part subsequent to its commission or during the or during the subsequent to the
by: commission of the commission of the commission of the
1. Profiting or assisting the offender to profit from the effects of the crime. offense offense offense
2. Concealing or destroying the body of the crime (corpus delicti) or 2. Knowledge Co-authored / Knows the criminal Knows the
effects or the instruments thereof to prevent its discovery knows the criminal design of the commission of the
3. Harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal design principal offense
b) Accessories are not liable for light felonies. 3. Acts Direct participation, Provides material or Acts in the three
c) Accessories must assist the principal. You cannot be an accessory to an inducement, or moral aid in an specific ways in
accomplice. indispensable efficacious way but Article 19
cooperation not in a manner
d) An accessory may become a principal if charged under the special law. indispensable to the
The accessory must be charged in another information. Examples are: offense
1. If the crime is theft or robbery, profiting from stolen goods by selling it,
he is principal in the crime of fencing 4. Criminal No exemption from No exemption from May be exempted
2. If the crime is brigandage and he profited from the loot, he should be Liability liability liability from liability per
charged with abetting brigandage – an accomplice of brigands Articles 19 and 20
3. If the accessory assists the principal to escape, the accessory can be and for light felonies
charged as a principal under P.D. 1829 on obstruction of justice. under Article 16
5. Penalty Penalty prescribed One degree lower Two degrees lower
e) Two kinds of accessory by concealing or harboring the offender: by law to principals than the principal’s than the principal’s
1. A public officer who acts with abuse of public functions is liable of a felony
whatever crime may have been committed by the offender
2. A private individual if the author of the crime is guilty of treason,
attempt on the life of the Chief Executive, murder, parricide or is known
to be habitually guilty of some other crime. CASES
Mendoza vs People - Based on said article, the Court finds Mendoza an accessory to
Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. – The penalty prescribed for the crime because the Court is convinced Mendoza agreed to buy stolen rice from
accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their Frank. While there is no direct proof that Mendoza knew the rice had been stolen, the
spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers totality of the circumstantial evidence point to the fact that he knew the rice he was
and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single receiving was stolen. Mendoza hardly knew Frank’s identity; Mendoza was not a duly
exception of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph of the next licensed warehouseman; nor does he appear to have a bodega
preceding article. (RPC Article 20) Vino vs People - Vino was seen driving a bicycle with Salazar holding an armalite, and
they were together when they left. It is thus clear that Vino actively assisted Salazar in
f) Accessories exempt from criminal liability: the offender’s spouse, his escape. Vino’s liability is that of an accessory.
descendant, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or
relatives by affinity within the same degrees as those enumerated.
1. When relatives assist the principal by concealing or destroying the body
G. Multiple felonies from “single intent”
of the crime or by assisting in the escape of the principal, the law
recognizes that they are doing so because they are motivated by their Penalty for Complex Crimes. – When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less
natural affection for the offender. grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the
2. They are exempt from all acts enumerated in Article 19 EXCEPT FOR penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the to be applied in its
PROFITING by the effects of the crime. Because they are doing so maximum period. (RPC Article 48)
because of greed and not because of filial affection. Hence, they are
not exempted from criminal liability.  Light felonies produced by the same act should be treated and punished as
separate offenses or may be absorbed by the grave felony.
o Several light felonies resulting from one single act is not a complex crime.

D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 17

Commission of two crimes that will NOT result to a complex crime:
 A crime to conceal another for the law requires a crime to commit another, not
to conceal the other crime
 A crime which is an element of the other for in that case, the former shall be
absorbed by the latter such as trespassing which is an element of robbery.
o Trespass to dwelling will be considered an aggravating circumstance of
unlawful entry or of breaking a part of the dwelling.
 A crime which has the same element as the other crime committed
o Estafa and falsification of PRIVATE documents have the same element of
damage. The same damage cannot give rise to two crimes. Thus, there is
no complex crime of estafa through falsification of private documents.
(Batulanon vs. People)
 Where intent is really to commit the second crime but the first act although also a
crime is incidental to the commission of the second crime.
o In the taking away of a woman for the original intent to commit rape, the
taking is merely incidental to the crime of rape; hence, it is not complex
crime of abduction with rape but only simple rape.
Complex crime in general:
 No complex crime when one offense is penalized by a special law. Illegal
possession of firearm is not a necessary means to commit homicide.
o The use of an unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is now considered,
not as a separate crime, but merely a special aggravating circumstance.
 No complex crime when two or more crimes are committed but not by a single
act or one is not a necessary means for committing the other.
 No complex crime of rebellion with murder, arson, robbery, or other common
crimes.
o These are mere ingredients to the crime of rebellion, as means necessary
for the perpetration of the offense. Such are absorbed in the crime of
rebellion.
 The penalty for a complex crime is the penalty for the most serious crime, the
same to be applied in its maximum period.
 Only one information should be filed for a complex crime.
 Light felonies are absorbed in complex crimes but you can file a separate
information for the light felony.
 If one of the crimes in the information charging a complex crime is not proven,
the accused may still be convicted of the other offense
1. Compound or Delito Compuesto
a) When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies
(Compound Crime)
b) Only a single act is performed by the offender and that such single act
produces two or more grave felonies, one or more grave and one or more
less grave felonies, or two or more less grave felonies.
CASES
People vs Pama -there is a compound crime in a single act in firing a shot, the same
bullet causing the death of two persons who were standing in the same line of the
direction of the bullet
People vs Buyco - The shot was fired from a submachine gun where a single pull at
the trigger would fire several bullets automatically in succession. The court held that
there was only one single act.
People vs Lawas - when in obedience to an order several accused simultaneously
shot many persons, without evidence how many each killed, there is only a single
offense arising from a single criminal impulse. There was no intent on the part of the
accused to fire at the victims so distinctly and separately from each other. (Lawas
doctrine can only be applied if: (1) there is no conspiracy; (2) multiple offenders; (3)
multiple victims; (4) single criminal impulse; (5) singularity of acts)
People vs Caldito - 2 accused killed 2 victims and it cannot be determined who killed
who. Since implied conspiracy was established, it becomes immaterial who dealt the
mortal wound. Lawas doctrine is not controlling in this case. They are both guilty of 2
counts of homicide.
People vs Tabaco - Successive bursts of fire resulting in multiple deaths does not
constitute a complex crime
People vs Desierto - it is not the act of pressing the trigger which should produce the
several felonies but the number of bullets which actually produced them
**Ivler vs San Pedro - Article 48 and 365 cannot be complexed together. the
procedural rule in complex crimes cannot apply to the substantive law on quasi-
offense
People vs Gonzalez - A grave felony cannot be complexed with a light felony (the
slight physical injuries sustained from the shrapnel)
2. Complex crime proper or Delito Complejo
a) When an offense is a necessary means for committing the other
1. At least two offenses are committed, one or some of the offenses must
be necessary to commit the other, and both offenses must be punished
under the same statute.
(a) “Necessary means” does not mean indispensable means.
(i) “Necessary means” has been interpreted not to mean
indispensable means. If it did, the offense as a “necessary
means” to commit another would be an indispensable
element of the latter and would be an ingredient thereof.
(b) In complex crime, when the offender executes various acts, he
must have a single criminal purpose.
CASES
Batulanon vs People – Estafa and falsification of PRIVATE documents have the
same element of damage. The same damage cannot give rise to two crimes. Thus,
there is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of private documents.
3. Special complex crimes or composite crimes
a) Single and indivisible offense in the eyes of the law but it is actually more
than one crime.
b) Defines the specific combination of offenses and provides for a specific
penalty therefor
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 18
 c) Light felonies are absorbed in composite crimes
Examples of composite crimes
 Art. 266-B - Rape with homicide
 Art. 267 - Kidnapping with homicide, kidnapping with rape, kidnapping with
serious physical injuries
 Art. 294 - Robbery with homicide, robbery with rape, robbery with mutilation,
robbery with serious physical injuries
 Art. 297 – Attempted robbery with homicide, frustrated robbery with
homicide
 Art. 320 - Arson with homicide
4. Continued crimes or Delito Continuado; Distinguish from Continuing
crimes
Continued crimes are those where the offender, impelled, by a single criminal impulse,
commits a series of overt acts at about the same time in about the same plac e and all the
overt acts violate one and the same provision of law.
 Although there is a series of acts, there is only one crime committed. Hence, only
one penalty shall be imposed.
 Continued crimes are only applies to crimes against property. Crimes against
persons or crimes against chastity cannot be continued crimes.
Requisites to be a continued crime
a) committing a series of acts
a) arising from a single criminal impulse
b) committed about at the same time
c) committed about the same place
d) one provision of law being violated
 The penalty for continued crime is not to be imposed in the maximum period.
 There is no provision in the RPC or any other penal law defining and specifically
penalizing a continued crime. The principle is applied in connection with two or
more crimes committed with a single intention.
 A continued crime is not a complex crime.
Continuing crime is any offense which is continuing in time in which subsequent acts
contribute to the crime (e.g. rebellion, insurrection
 The offender in continued or continuous crime does not perform a single act, but
a series of acts. One offense is not a necessary means to commit another.
Transitory offense (also called a moving crime) is one where any of the elements of the
offense was committed in different localities; the accused may be indicted in any of those
localities.
CASES
Santiago vs. Carchitorena – Santiago’s illegal act of legalizing the stay of 32 aliens was
continued crime because: (1) series of acts, (2) arising from single criminal impulse to
legalize the aliens, (3) committed in one day, (4) committed in her office, (5) E.O. 324 was
being violated.
The taking of a woman forcibly and thereafter, rape was committed on her. How
should the offenders be charged?
a. If the original intent is to rape, the taking is merely incidental to commit the
intended offense the crime is simple rape.
b. If the intention is to take the woman against her will with lewd designs, complex
crime of forcible abduction with rape provided in the information will allege lewd
designs
c. If the original intention is to kidnap the woman for ransom and thereafter, rape is
committed, it is special complex crime of kidnapping with rape.
d. If in (b), there were several counts of rape, the first rape shall be complexed with
the forcible abduction and the subsequent rapes shall be treated as separate
crimes.
H. Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability
1. Justifying Circumstances (RPC Article 11)
 Justifying circumstances are those where the act of a person is said to be in
accordance with the law, so that such person is deemed not to have
transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and civil liability (ex delicto).
 The law recognizes the non-existence of a crime by expressly stating in the
opening sentence of Article 11 that persons therein mentioned “do not incur any
criminal liability.”
 There is no crime committed, the act being justified.
 Such persons are not criminals.
 It is incumbent upon the accused to prove the justifying circumstance claimed by
him in order to avoid criminal liability.
Justifying circumstances. – The following do not incur any criminal liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following
circumstances occur: (Self-defense)
First. Unlawful aggression;
 Unlawful aggression is equivalent to assault or at least threatened assault of
an actual, immediate or imminent kind.
 Actual: that the danger must be present or in existence
 Imminent: that the danger is on the point of happening. It is not required
that the attack already begins
 There must be peril to one’s life, limb, or right, and an actual physical force
or use of weapon.
 Mere threatening attitude is not unlawful aggression.
 Aggression must be real, not merely imaginary.
 Aggression that is expected is still real provided that it is imminent.
 An indispensable requisite; for the right of self-defense to exist, it is
necessary that we be assaulted or attacked or at least threatened.
 No unlawful aggression when there is agreement to fight (duel).
 There is no unwarranted and unexpected aggression which legalizes self-
defense
 “Stand ground when in the right.”
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 19
 When the unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has the rights
to kill or even wound the former aggressor. If he persists in attacking his
adversary, he can no longer invoke the justifying circumstance of self-
defense.
 Self-defense does not justify the unnecessary killing of an aggressor who is
retreating from the fray.
 If the aggressor is retreating in order to attain a more advantageous
position, unlawful aggression still exists
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
 The reasonableness of the necessity depends upon the circumstances.
 The measure of rational necessity is to be found in the situation as it
appeared to the person defending himself at the time when the blow was
struck.
 This entirely depends on the existence of unlawful aggression and upon the
nature and extent of the aggression.
 Whether the means employed is reasonable will depend upon the following:
o nature and quality of the weapon used by the aggressor,
o his physical condition,
o character size,
o and other circumstances, and those of the person defending himself,
o and also the place and occasion of the assault.
 The person attacked is not duty-bound to expose himself to be wounded or
killed. He has the perfect and indisputable right to repel such danger by
wounding his adversary and, if necessary, disabling him completely so that
he may not continue the assault.
 Perfect equality between the weapon used by the one defending himself and
that of the aggressor is not required because the person assaulted does not
sufficient tranquility of mind to think, to calculate, and to choose which
weapon to use.
 What the law requires is rational equivalence in the consideration of which
will enter as principal factors the emergency, the imminent danger to which
the person attacked is exposed, and the instinct, more than reason, that
moves or impels the defense. The proportionality does not depend on the
harm done, but rests on the imminent danger of such injury.
 NOTE: The peace officer, in the performance of his duty, represents the law
which he must uphold. While the law on self-dense allows a private
individual to prevent or repel an aggression, the duty of a police officer
requires him to overcome his opponent. A police officer is not required to
afford a person attacking him the opportunity for a fair and equal struggle.
 The person defending is not expected to control his blow.
 One is not required when hard pressed to draw fine distinctions as to the
extent of the injury which a reckless infuriated assailant might probably inflict
on him.
 He must aim at his assailant and not indiscriminately anywhere else.
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
 When the person defending himself from an attack by another gave
sufficient provocation to the latter, the former is also to be blamed for having
given cause to the aggression.
 The one defending himself must not have given cause for the aggression by
his unjust conduct or by inciting or provoking his assailant.
 The third requisite of self-defense is present:
o When no provocation at all was given to the aggressor by the person
defending himself
o When even if provocation was given, it was not sufficient
o When even if provocation was sufficient, it was not given by the person
defending himself
o When even if a provocation was given by the person defending himself,
it was not proximate or immediate to the act of aggression
 Retaliation is not self-defense and is not a justifying circumstance.
o In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured party
already ceased to exist when the person “defending himself” attacked
him.
 Burden of proof is with the accused even if prosecution evidence is weak. It
must be proved with certainty by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing
evidence that excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the
person invoking it.
 It cannot be justifiably entertained where it is not only uncorroborated by any
separate competent evidence but, in itself, is extremely doubtful.
 It would be quite impossible for the State in all cases to prevent aggression
upon its citizens and offer protection to the person unjustly attacked.
 It also cannot be conceived that a person should succumb to an unlawful
aggression without offering any resistance.
 Self-defense finds justification in man’s natural instinct to protect, repel, and
save his person or rights from impending danger or peril.
 It is based on that impulse of self-preservation born to man and part of his
nature as a human being.
 Flight, after the commission of the crime, is highly evidentiary of guilt, and
incompatible with self-defense.
 If not all elements of self-defense are present, the accused is entitled to
either a privileged or ordinary mitigating circumstance: Art. 12, Sec.1 or Art.
68/69..
2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, or legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers and sisters, or of his relatives by
affinity in the same degrees, and those by 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 the defense had no part therein. (Defense of relative)
First. Unlawful aggression
 Same as self-defense
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
 Same as self-defense
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 20
 Third. in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one
making the 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 because the latter was
prompted by some noble or generous sentiment in protecting and saving a
relative.
 This does not mean that the relative defended should give provocation to
the aggressor. It merely states an event which may or may not take place.
 If the person defending his relative was also induced by revenge or hatred,
there would be a legitimate defense of relative a long as the three requisites
of defense are present.
 Relatives by affinity because of marriage are parents-in-law, son or
daughter-in-law, and brother or sister-in-law.
 Relatives by consanguinity refers to blood relatives.
 The basis of justification of defense of relatives is founded not only upon a
humanitarian sentiment, but also on the impulse of blood which impels men
to rush, on occasion of great perils, to the rescue of those close to them by
the ties of blood.
3. Anyone who acts in the defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the
first and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this article are present
and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive.
(Defense of stranger)
First. Unlawful aggression
 Same as self-defense
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
 Same as self-defense
Third. The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other
evil motive
 The defense of a stranger is required to be actuated by a disinterested or
generous motive.
 Strangers are any person not included in the enumeration of relatives in the
preceding paragraph. A close friend or distant relative is a stranger within
the meaning of paragraph 3.
 Persons acting in defense of others are in the same condition and upon the
same plane as those who act in defense of themselves. The ordinary would
not stand idly by and see his companion killed without attempting to save his
life.
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to
another, provided that the following requisites are present: (State of necessity)
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.
 Damage covers injury to persons and damage to property.
 That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists. If the evil sought to be avoided
is merely expected or anticipated or may happen in the future, this paragraph is
not applicable.
 That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it. The 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.
 The person invoking state of necessity must not have been the source of the
damage/injury.
 When the person avoiding a greater evil was not actually avoiding any evil, he
cannot invoke the justifying circumstance of avoidance of a greater evil or injury.
 The evil which brought about the greater evil must not result from a violation of
law by the actor.
 There is civil liability under this paragraph to be borne by the persons
benefiting from the act. But there is still no civil liability EX DELICTO (arising
from the crime done)
 State of necessity cannot be appreciated when looting during times of calamity
(eg. Super typhoon Yolanda in Leyte)
5. Any person who acts in the fulfilment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or
office.
First. That the accused acted in performance of a duty or in lawful exercise of a right or
office
Second. That the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence
of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office
 There must be no negligence in the fulfillment of their duties
 The defense of fulfillment of a duty does not avail in the illegal performance of
duty.
 The absence of the second requisite, the justification becomes incomplete
thereby converting it into a mitigating circumstance under Articles 13 and 69.
 It is not necessary that there be unlawful aggression in this paragraph.
o Shooting of a prisoner by a guard must be in self-defense or be absolutely
necessary to avoid his escape. (People v. Lagata)
o Shooting an offender who refused to surrender is justified.
o Shooting a thief who refused to be arrested is not justified.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful
purpose.
First. That an order has been issued by a superior
Second. That such order must be for some lawful purpose
Third. That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful
 Both the person who gives the order and the person who executes it must be
acting within the limitations prescribed by the law.
 When the 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:
o not aware of the illegality of the order; AND
o he is not negligent.
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 21
  While the imbecile is exempt in all cases from criminal liability, the insane is not
CASES so exempt if it can be shown that he acted during a lucid interval.
People vs Narvaez - Defense of property can only be invoked when coupled with form o During a lucid interval, the insane acts with intelligence.
of attack on person defending property. Life > Property  An imbecile is one who, while advanced in age, has a mental development
US vs Mojica - A police officer, in the performance of his duty, must stand his ground comparable to that of children between two and seven years of age.
and cannot, like a private individual, take refuge in flight; his duty requires him to o He is completely deprived of reason or discernment and freedom of the
overcome his opponent. will at the time of committing the crime.
People vs Lagata - While custodians should take care for prisoners not to escape, only  To constitute insanity, there must be complete deprivation of intelligence or that
absolute necessity would authorize them to fire against them. there be a total deprivation of the freedom of the will.
Valcorza vs People – The prison guard may fire only if the prisoner is deemed already o Mere abnormality of mental faculties is not enough especially if the
escaped and restraint was already demonstrated offender has not lost consciousness of his acts. At most, it is only a
Ty vs People - speculative fear is not the uncontrollable fear contemplated by law. mitigating circumstance.
 Presumption of sanity: the law presumes every man to be sane
2. Exempting Circumstances (RPC Article 12) o Burden rests upon the accused to prove that he was insane before or at
the time of the commission of the crime.
 Exempting circumstances (non-imputability) are those grounds for exemption o In the absence of sufficient evidence to prove insanity, the legal presumption
from punishment because there is wanting in the agent of the crime any of the of sanity stands.
conditions which make the act voluntary or negligent.  In order to ascertain a person’s mental condition at the time of the act, it is
 The exemption from punishment is based on the complete absence of permissible to receive evidence of the condition of his mind during the
intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on the reasonable period both before and after that time.
part of the accused. o Direct testimony is not required, nor are specific acts of derangement
 In exempting circumstances, there is a crime committed but no criminal essential to establish insanity as defense.
liability arises because of circumstances pertaining to the offender.  State of mind can only be only known by outward acts.
 The circumstances must be proved by the defendant to the satisfaction of the  When he was sane at the time of the commission of the crime, but he becomes
court. insane at the time of the trial, he is criminally liable.
 In all exempting circumstances, intent is wanting in the agent of the crime which  Evidence of insanity must refer to the time preceding the act under prosecution
presupposes the exercise of freedom and the use of intelligence. or to the very moment of its execution. If the evidence points to sanity
subsequent to the commission of the crime, the accused cannot be acquitted.
Justifying circumstances vs Exempting Circumstances  If the insanity is only occasional or intermittent in its nature, the presumption of its
continuance does not arise.
JUSTIFYING EXEMPTING
o Schizophrenia is not exempting since they are still conscious of their acts
The act is legal, within the bounds of the The act is criminal.
except for those aspects where they confuse reality and fantasy.
law
o It is only an impairment of the mental faculties, such was not so complete as
There is no crime, hence, no criminal There is a crime and a criminal. to deprive the accused of intelligence or the consciousness of his acts.
Since there is no crime, there is no Since there is a crime, there is a criminal o Schizophrenic reaction may be considered as a mitigating circumstance
criminal and no civil liabilities (ex delicto). (but exempt from criminal liability) and under Article 13 (9)
there is civil liability
 The exempting circumstance of insanity or imbecility is based on the complete
The emphasis of the law is on the act. The emphasis of the law is on the
absence of intelligence, an element of voluntariness.
offender.
 When the imbecile or insane has committed the felony, the court shall order his
confinement in a hospital or asylum and shall not be able to leave without
Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. – The following are exempt from
permission from the same court.
criminal liability:
(Paragraphs 2 and 3 on the exempting circumstance of minority is deemed repealed
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.
by RA No. 9344, otherwise known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Law. Minority
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a
as an exempting circumstance is now found in Section 6 of RA No. 9344)
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
SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. - A child fifteen (15) years of age or
obtaining the permission of the same court.
under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability.
However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of
 2 tests for insanity
this Act.
o Cognition = complete deprivation of intelligence
o Volition = total deprivation of the freedom of the will

D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 22

A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be
exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she
has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate
proceedings in accordance with this Act.
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from
civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws. (RA 9344 Sec. 6)
 Age of absolute irresponsibility raised to fifteen years of age or under
 The exempting circumstance of minority is based also on the complete absence
of intelligence.
 Children above fifteen but below eighteen years of age who acted without
discernment are exempt from criminal liability.
o Acting without discernment is a presumption.
o It is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that such minor has acted with
discernment in order for the minor not to be entitled to this exempting
circumstance.
 Periods of criminal responsibility
o Age of absolute irresponsibility: 15 years and below
o Age of conditional responsibility: 15 years and 1 day to below 18 years
o Age of full responsibility: 18 years to 70 years
o Age of mitigated responsibility: 15 years and 1 day to 18 years the offender
acting with discernment; over 70 years of age.
 Discernment means the capacity of the child at the time of the commission of the
crime to understand the differences between right and wrong and the
consequences of the wrongful act.
o The determination of discernment shall take into account the ability of the
child to understand the moral and psychological components of criminal
responsibility and the consequences of the wrongful act.
o Intent refers to the desired act of the person. Discernment relates to the
moral significance that a person ascribes to the said act.
o Discernment may be shown by the manner the crime was committed or the
conduct of the offender after its commission.
 The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the presumption of minority and shall
enjoy the rights of a child in conflict with the law until proven to be 18 years or
older at the time of the commission of the offense.
o In the initial determination, the arresting officer determines the age of the
child and whether or not the child acted with discernment.
 A child under 18 at the time of commission of the crime who is found guilty of the
offense charged shall be placed under suspended sentence without need of
application even if the child is already 18 or more at the time of the
pronouncement of guilt unless disqualified under PD 603.
o If child reached 18 while under suspended sentence, the court shall either:
 Discharge the child;
 Order execution of sentence; OR
 Extend the suspended sentence for a certain period until he reaches
the maximum age of 21 years.
 Diversion refers to an alternative, child-appropriate process of determining the
responsibility of a child in conflict with the law on the basis of his/her social,
cultural, economic, psychological, or educational background without resorting to
formal court proceedings.
o If the imposable penalty of the crime committed is not more than six years of
imprisonment:
 There is a victim – diversion shall be conducted by the law enforcement
officer or Punong Barangay with the assistance of the DSWD or other
members of the LCPC.
 There is no victim – diversion shall be conducted by the Social Welfare
Development Officer (SWDO) with the child and his parents or
guardians.
o If the imposable penalty is for the crime committed exceeds six years of
imprisonment, diversion measures may be resorted to only by the court.
 In case the penalty imposable is not more than 12 years, regardless of
the fine, or fine only regardless of amount, and before arraignment of
the child, the court shall determine whether or not diversion is
appropriate. (If above 12 years penalty, criminal proceedings will start)
 The period of prescription of the offense shall be suspended during the
effectivity of the diversion program but not exceeding 2 years.
o If the offense does not fall under any of the above or if the child, his parents
or guardian does not consent to a diversion, the authority handling the case
shall be forwarded the records to the prosecutor or court within three days
from the determination of absence of jurisdiction or termination of the
proceedings and shall be filed according to the regular process.
 Intervention refers to a series of activities which are designed to address issues
that caused the child to commit an offense. It may take the form of an
individualized treatment program which may include counseling, skills training,
education, and other activities that will enhance his/her psychological, emotional,
and psycho-social well-being.
 The exempting circumstance under this paragraph is also based on the complete
absence of intelligence.
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.
 The following must concur:
o The person must be performing a lawful act.
o The person performing a lawful act must do so with due care, without fault or
negligence.
o But causes an injury to another by mere accident.
 An accident is something that happens outside the sway of our will. Although it
comes about through some act of our will, it lies beyond the bounds of
humanly foreseeable consequences.
 An accident is a fortuitive circumstance, event or happening; an event happening
without any human agency, or if happening wholly or partly through human
agency, an event which under the circumstance is unusual or unexpected by the
person to whom it happens.
 If the consequences are plainly foreseeable, it will be a case of negligence.
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 23
 o Negligence is the failure to observe for the protection of the interest of
another person, that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which
circumstances justly demand without which such other person suffers injury.
 There is no accidental self-defense
o Accident presupposes lack of intention to commit the wrong done while
self-defense assumes voluntariness, but induced only be necessity.
o Accident and negligence are intrinsically contradictory. One cannot exist
with the other.
 The exempting circumstance under this paragraph is based on lack of
intelligence and intent. Under this circumstance, a person does not commit
either an intentional felony or culpable felony.
5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force.
 The following elements must concur:
o The force must produce such an effect upon the individual that, in spite of all
resistance, it reduces to a mere instrument and, as such, incapable of
committing a crime.
o It must be such that in spite of the resistance of the person on whom it
operates, it compels his members to act and his mind to obey.
o The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and
impending and of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension
of death or serious bodily harm if the act is not done.
 This exempting circumstance presupposes that a person is compelled by means
of force or violence to commit a crime.
 For duress to be validly availed of as a defense, it should be anchored on a real,
imminent or reasonable fear for one’s own life or limb
 The compulsion employed upon the accused must have been of such character
as to leave no opportunity for him to spring an escape or to himself foist
any act of defense for self-preservation
 The compulsion must be by means of physical force which must be irresistible
and must come from a third person.
 Passion or obfuscation cannot be irresistible force.
 The basis of this exempting circumstance is based on the complete absence of
freedom, an element of voluntariness.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or
greater injury.
 The following elements must concur:
o The threat which causes fear is of an evil greater than or at least equal to
that which he is required to commit.
o It promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man
would have succumbed to it.
 This exempting circumstance also presupposes that a person is compelled to
commit a crime by another, but the compulsion is by means of intimidation or
threat, not force or violence.
 Duress as a valid defense should be based on real, imminent, or reasonable fear
for one’s life or limb and should not be speculative, fanciful, or remote fear.
 The accused must not have an opportunity for escape or self-defense.
 A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of a character
as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal
combat.
 In the irresistible force under paragraph 5, the offender uses violence or
physical force to compel another person to commit a crime. In uncontrollable
fear under paragraph 6, the offender employs intimidation or threat in
compelling another to commit a crime.
 The basis of this exempting circumstance is based on the complete absence of
freedom.
 Actus me invito factus, non est meus actus = “An act done by me against my will
is not my act.”
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful
or insuperable cause.
 The circumstance under this paragraph exempts the accused from criminal
liability because he acts without intent, the third condition of voluntariness in
intentional felony.
 A person who acts by virtue of a justifying circumstance does not transgress the
law, that is, he does not commit any crime in the eyes of the law, because there
is nothing unlawful in the act as well as in the intention of the actor. The act of
such person is in itself both just and lawful.
 Holidays, calamity, etc.
CASES
Llave vs People - A minor acting with discernment is liable for his actions
Pomoy vs People - Accident and Self Defense cannot co-exist, intent is present in
latter and absent in the former
3. Absolutory Circumstances/Cause
 Where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and
sentiment there is no penalty imposed. (Not found under Art 11 or 12)
o Art. 6(3) - Spontaneous desistance
o Art. 7 - Unconsummated light felonies with the exception of those committed
against person or property
o Art. 16 - Accessories in light felonies
o Art. 20 - Relatives as accessories, except when they profit or help profit from
the crime
o Art. 124 – Legal grounds for arbitrary detention
o Art. 247- Spouse catches spouse in the act of having sex with another; if
homicide or serious PI, he shall suffer the penalty of destierro. If any other
kind of PI, he shall be exempt from punishment.
o Art. 266-C – Pardon by valid marriage between rapist and offended;
Pardoned rape in a valid marriage
o Art. 280 – Qualified trespass to dwelling to prevent harm to himself
o Art. 332 - Swindling, estafa, malicious mischief between relatives
o Art. 344 - Pardon in adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, and acts
of lasciviousness (rape is removed here)
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 24
 o RA 9262 - Battered Woman Syndrome o For those with only 2 requisites, 1 is the majority
o RA 9344 - Minors exempt from vagrancy and prostitution o In the case of self-defense, defense of a relative, and defense of a stranger,
o Somnambulism- Sleepwalking unlawful aggression must be present, it being an indispensable requisite.
o Mistake of Fact
o Instigation 2. That the offender is under eighteen years of age or over seventy years. In the case of
the minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Article 80.
o A favorable repeal of a penal law
 That the offender is over 70 years of age is only a generic mitigating
4. Mitigating Circumstances (RPC Article 13)
circumstance, not a privileged one
 Mitigating circumstances are those which, if present in the commission of the  Minority is always privileged
crime, do not entirely free the actor from criminal liability but serve only to reduce  The basis for the mitigating circumstance under this paragraph is the diminution
the penalty. of intelligence, a condition of voluntariness.
 based on the diminution of either freedom of action, intelligence, or intent, or on
the lesser perversity of the offender. 3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
(Praeter intentionem)
a. Kinds of mitigating circumstances:
i. Ordinary  This circumstance can be taken into account only when the facts proven show
 Can be offset by any aggravating circumstance that there is a notable and evident disproportion between the means employed to
 Absent any other modifying circumstances, it lowers the penalty to execute the criminal act and its consequences.
its minimum period  Intention, being an internal state, must be judged by external acts.
 Can only apply to divisible penalties o This may be deduced from the proven facts that the accused had no intent
ii. Privileged to kill the victim, his design only to maltreat him.
 Cannot be offset by ANY aggravating circumstance  Intention may be ascertained by:
 It lowers the penalty by 1 or 2 degrees o The weapon used
 Can apply to divisible or indivisible penalties o The part of the body injured
iii. Specific (AKA Extenuating according to Judge Boom)
o The injury inflicted
o The manner it is inflicted
 applies to a specific felony. It can be ordinary or privileged
depending on the effect of the penalty.  This is not applicable to felonies by negligence and felonies where intention is
immaterial, and not appreciated in murder qualified by treachery. The word
 Art. 255 – Infanticide (3 days)
“intentionem” denotes intentional felonies
 Art. 258 – Abortion practiced by the woman herself/parents
 Art. 268 (3) – Slight illegal detention (3 days) release  Lack of intent to kill is not mitigating in physical injuries.
 Art. 333 (3) – Adultery (abandoned) o In crimes against persons who do not die as a result of the assault, the
absence of the intent to kill reduces the felony to mere physical injuries, but
it does not constitute a mitigating circumstance.
ORDINARY PRIVILEGED
o It is only mitigating when the victim dies.
Can be offset by a generic aggravating CANNOT be offset by ANY aggravating
circumstance circumstance  The basis of the mitigating circumstance under this paragraph is the diminution of
intent.
Penalty is lowered to the minimum period Penalty is lowered by one or two degrees
of the penalty prescribed  It CANNOT BE INVOKED if the acts of the accused are sufficient to bring about
Not considered when penalty prescribed Always considered whether the penalty the result intended or when the means employed would naturally result to the
is SINGLE and INDIVISIBLE imposable is divisible or indivisible felony committed.

4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately
Mitigating circumstances. – The following are mitigating circumstances:
preceded the act.
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify
the act or exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant.  Provocation is understood as any unjust or improper conduct or act of the
offended party, capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating any one.
 Applies when all the requisites to justify or to exempt from criminal liability are not  Elements:
attendant. o The provocation must be sufficient.
 It is considered a privileged mitigating circumstance under Art. 69 provided that a  It must be adequate to excite a person to commit the wrong and must
majority of the elements required to justify are present. accordingly be proportionate to its gravity.

D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 25

  The sufficiency depends upon the act constituting the provocation, the
social standing of the person provoked, the place and the time when
the provocation was made.
o The provocation must be immediate to the commission of the crime.
 Between the provocation by the offended party and the commission of
the crime by the person provoked, there should not be any interval of
time.
o The provocation must originate from the offended party.
 When there is an interval of time between the provocation and the commission of
the crime, the conduct of the offended party could not have excited the accused
to the commission of the crime, he having the time to regain his reason and to
exercise self-control.
 Sufficient provocation as a requisite of incomplete self-defense is different from
sufficient provocation as a mitigating circumstance.
o As an element of self-defense, it pertains to the absence on the part of the
person defending himself.
o As a mitigating circumstance, it pertains to its presence on the part of the
offended party.
 The threat should not be offensive and positively strong because if it is, the threat
to inflict real injury is an unlawful aggression, which may give rise to self-defense.
 The basis for the mitigating circumstance under this paragraph is the diminution
of intelligence and intent.
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one
committing the felony (delito), his spouse, his ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural
or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
 A lapse of time is allowed between the vindication and the doing of the grave
offense.
 To determine whether the personal offense is grave, the following must be
considered:
o Social standing of the person
o Time when the insult was made
o Place where the insult was made
o Sometimes, age
 There is a greater leniency in the case of vindication due undoubtedly to the fact
that it concerns the honor of a person, an offense which is more worthy of
consideration than mere spite against the one giving the provocation or threat.
o In case of 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 relatives.
o In vindication, the offended party must have done a grave offense to the
offender or his relative. In provocation, the cause that brought about the
provocation need not be a grave offense.
o In provocation, it is necessary that the provocation of threat immediately
preceded the act and that there be no interval of time between the two. In
vindication, the vindication of the grave offense may be proximate.
 The provocation should be proportionate to the damage caused by the act and
adequate to stir one to its commission.
o The offense must warrant and justify the crime and must be directed to the
accused.
 Vindication of a grave offense incompatible with passion or obfuscation.
 The basis for the mitigating circumstance under this paragraph is the diminution
of the conditions of voluntariness.
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced
passion or obfuscation.
 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.
 Passion or obfuscation may constitute a mitigating circumstance only when the
same arose from lawful sentiments.
 Requisites:
o That there be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition
of the mind (Unlawful, unjust, improper)
o That said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the
commission of the crime by a considerable amount of time, during which the
perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity
o That the act causing such passion or obfuscation was committed by the
victim himself.
 Passion or obfuscation may lawfully arise from causes existing only in the honest
belief of the offender.
 This is not mitigating when committed:
o In the spirit of lawlessness
o In the spirit of revenge
 Passion or obfuscation cannot coexist with vindication of a grave offense or
treachery.
o They cannot be considered separately unless the other circumstance came
from a different set of facts.
 The basis for the mitigating circumstance under this paragraph is the loss of
reasoning or self-control and thereby the diminishing of one’s exercise of his
willpower.
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his
agents, or that he voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation
of the evidence for the prosecution.
 There are two mitigating circumstances under this paragraph:
o Voluntary surrender to a person in authority or his agents
o Voluntary confession of guilt before the court prior to the presentation of
evidence for the prosecution
 They can be appreciated separately since they occur at different places and at
different times.
 If both are present in the same case, they have the effect of two independent
circumstances.
 In the absence of any aggravating circumstance, when both are present, they will
reduce divisible penalties by one degree (Privileged mitigating)
 Requisites of voluntary surrender:
o Offender surrendered before arrest is effected
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 26
  ACCORDING TO JUDGE BOOM: it must be that the offender
surrendered before the filing of the return of the arrest warrant
o Offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agent
o Offender surrendered voluntarily (spontaneous and must show the intent of
the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities)
 He acknowledges his guilt; OR
 He wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred
in search and capture
 A person with authority is one directly vested with jurisdiction which is the power
to govern and execute laws, whether as an individual or as a member of some
court or government corporation, board, or commission.
o Agent of a person in authority is one who by direct provision of the law or by
election or by appointment by competent authority is charged with the
maintenance of public order, and the protection and security of life and
property, and any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority.
 Requisites for voluntary plea of guilt:
o That the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt
o That the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is before the
competent court that is to try the case
o That the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence
for the prosecution
 Even after arraignment, voluntary confession can still be mitigating, when with
the consent of the public prosecutor, there is an amendment to the information
o Voluntary confession is usually done during arraignment.
o What has been admitted need not be proven by evidence. Judgment can
already be rendered but both parties can still present evidence to prove
aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
o During arraignment, charges must be read to the accused in open court in a
language known to him.
 If the charges are read in a language not known to him, the arraignment
or plea is void.
 It is the duty of the courts to read charges known to the accused.
o Promulgation is physical and actual reading of the sentence to the accused.
It can be limited to just the dispositive portion.
 If there is acquittal, the decision is final and executory and not
appealable because of the risk of double jeopardy.
 If there is conviction, the accused has 15 days to avail of legal
remedies. If not availed after the said period, the conviction becomes
final and executory.
o A plea of guilt is an act of repentance and respect for law. It indicates the
moral disposition of the accused, favorable to his reform.
 The basis for the mitigating circumstance under this paragraph is the lesser
perversity of the offender.
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind, or otherwise suffering some physical defect
which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or communication with his fellow beings.
 The physical defect must relate to the crime committed.
 The basis of the mitigating circumstance under this paragraph is that the offender
does not have complete freedom of action. Freedom and voluntariness are
diminished (not total deprivation).
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the willpower of the
offender without however depriving him of consciousness of his acts.
 Such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts.
o This includes illness of the mind not amounting to insanity.
 The basis for the mitigating circumstance under this paragraph is the diminution
of intelligence and intent.
10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those above-
mentioned.
 Examples are: restitution in malversation of public funds analogous to voluntary
plea of guilt, psychological paralysis is analogous to illness that diminish
consciousness of one’s act
CASES
People vs Dagatan - The one who caused such grave offense should be the
victim and not anyone else
People vs Sales - lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that actually
perpetrated cannot be appreciated where the acts employed by the accused were
reasonably sufficient to produce and did actually produce the death of the victim
5. Extenuating circumstances (Please refer to page 25)
6. Aggravating Circumstances (RPC Article 14)
 Aggravating circumstances are those which, if attendant in the commission of the
crime, serve to increase the penalty without, however, exceeding the maximum
of the penalty provided by law for the offense.
 These are based on the greater perversity of the offender manifested in the
commission of the felony as shown by:
o The motivating power itself
o The place of commission
o The means and ways employed
o The time
o The personal circumstance of the offender or the offended party
a. There are four kinds of aggravating circumstances.
i. Generic:
o Those that can generally apply to all crimes
o Can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance
o Increases the penalty to the maximum period of the penalty prescribed
ii. Qualifying:
o Those that change the nature of the crime and the designation of the
offense
o Cannot be offset by ANY mitigating circumstance
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 27
 o Must be proved as conclusively as the guilt of the offender because of  This is applicable only if the offender is a public officer.
its effect which is to change the nature of the offense and consequently  The public officer must:
increase the penalty by degrees. o Use the influence, prestige, or ascendancy which his office gives him
iii. Special: those which arise under special conditions to increase the penalty o As a means by which he realizes his purpose
of the offense and cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstances.
Examples:  When a public officer commits a common crime independent of his official
o Complex crimes (Art 48) functions and does acts that are not connected with the duties of his office, he
o Advantage by the offender of his public position (Art 62[1]) should be punished as a private individual without this aggravating circumstance.
o Quasi-recidivism - commission of another crime during service of  Even if the defendant did not abuse his office, if it is proven that he has failed his
penalty imposed for another previous offense duties as a public officer, the aggravating circumstance will be appreciated.
o Use of an unlicensed firearm for homicide or murder (RA 8294)  The circumstance cannot be taken into consideration in offenses where taking
o ***Habitual delinquency (Art 62[5]) advantage of the official position is made by law an integral element of the crime
iv. Inherent: an element of the felony committed thus no longer considered such as in malversation or falsification of public documents.
against the offender in the determination of the penalty
 Basis: greater perversity of the offender as shown.
o ACCORDING TO JUDGE BOOM, this is not exactly a type of
aggravating circumstance.
 Always a special aggravating circumstance, penalty to imposed in the
maximum period regardless of mitigating circumstances (Art 62,1(a))
b. Specific: those that apply only to particular crimes
o Violation of domicile (Art 128)
2. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to public authorities.
o Interruption of religious worship (Art 132)
o Direct assaults (Art 148)
o Less serious physical injuries (Art 265)  Requisites:
o Slavery (Art 272) o That the public authority is engaged in the exercise of his functions
o Qualified trespass to dwelling (Art 280) o That he who is thus engaged in the exercise of his functions is not the
person against whom the crime is committed
o Grave threats (Art 282) o The offender knows him to be a public authority
o Grave coercions (Art 286) o His presence has not prevented from committing the criminal act
o Marriage contracted against provisions of laws (Art 350.
 Public authority or a person in authority is a person directly vested with
 To be appreciated, aggravating circumstances MUST ALWAYS BE ALLEGED IN jurisdiction, a public officer who has the power to govern and execute the laws.
THE INFORMATION by virtue of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
· Councilor · Mayor
o Failure to do so would be a violation of due process and the accused’s right · Governor · Barangay captain
to be informed of what is being charged against him · Barangay chairman · School teacher
· Town municipal health officer · BIR agent
Aggravating vs Mitigating
· Chief of Police
AGGRAVATING MITIGATING
Recognizes the offender is of greater Considers the lesser perversity of the
 This circumstance is not applicable if committed in the presence of an agent only.
perversity, hence, the penalty is increased offender, hence, the penalty is reduced
The list in Article 14 is exclusive – no The list in Article 13 is not exclusive
 An agent is a subordinate public officer charged with the maintenance of public
order and the protection and security of life and property.
analogous circumstances due to the strict because there are analogous
· Barrio policemen
interpretation of the law against the state circumstances which manifest the liberal
· Councilmen
interpretation of the law in favor of the
· Any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority
offender
They are required to be always alleged in They are not required to be alleged in the
the information because they increase the information because they are matters of
 Knowledge that a public authority is present is essential.
penalty and the offender must be given DEFENSE  Lack of knowledge indicates lack of intention to insult public authority.
the opportunity to defend himself against  If the crime is committed against the public authority while in the
these. performance of his duty, the offender commits direct assault without this
aggravating circumstance.
 Basis: greater perversity of the offender as shown by his lack of respect for public
Aggravating circumstances. – The following are aggravating circumstances: authorities.

1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.

D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 28

3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended
party on the account of his rank, age, or sex, or that it be committed in the dwelling of the
offended party, if the latter has not given provocation.
 The four circumstances are enumerated in this paragraph and can be considered
singly or together.
 If all four circumstances are present, they have the weight of one aggravating
circumstance only.
 There must be evidence that in the commission of the crime, the accused
deliberately intended to offend or insult the se or age of the offended party.
 Disregard of rank, age, or sex may be taken into account only in crimes against
persons or honor.
 Rank of the offended party
o Designation or title used to fix the relative position of the offended party in
reference to others
o There must be a difference in the social condition of the offender and the
offended party
 Age of the offended party
o This may refer to old age or tender age of the victim.
 Sex of the offended party
o Must be shown that the offender saw to it that his victim would be a woman
o If sex is inherent in the crime, such as intentional abortion, it does not apply
 The aggravating circumstance is not to be considered in the following cases:
o When the offender acted with passion or obfuscation
o When there exists a relationship between the offended party and the
offender
o When the condition of being a woman is indispensable in the commission of
the crime. Thus, in rape, abduction, or seduction, sex is not aggravating
 Dwelling
o This refers to the building or structure exclusively used for rest and
comfort.
o A combination of a house and a store or a market stall where victim slept is
not a dwelling.
o This is considered an aggravating circumstance because there is an abuse
of confidence which the offended party reposed in the offender by opening
the door to him.
o Dwelling need not be owned by the offended party.
o Dwelling should not be understood in the concept of a domicile.
o If there is regularity, it can be considered as dwelling such as going to the
same hotel room to sleep.
o A person may have more than one dwelling.
o In abduction and illegal detention, dwelling may be appreciated if the victim
is taken from his house
o If the victim was inside and then the perpetrator shot him while outside,
dwelling may be appreciated
o Dwelling is not included in treachery
o Dwelling is not appreciated in:
 Adultery, if the paramour also lives in the same dwelling. If not, then it
may be considered aggravating
 When the crime committed is robbery by use of force upon things
 Dwelling is inherent
o The offended party must not give provocation.
o Basis: greater perversity of the offender as shown by the personal
circumstances of the offended party and the place and commission of the
crime.
4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.
 They may be independently appreciated.
 Abuse of confidence
o That the offended party trusted the offender
o That the offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the
offended party
o That the abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime
o The confidence between the offender and the offended party must be
immediate and personal.
 May not be appreciated if it is inherent in the crime such as:
o It is inherent in malversation, qualified theft, estafa by conversion or
misappropriation, and qualified seduction
o Such confidence must be immediate and personal
 Obvious ungratefulness
o That the offended party had trusted the offender
o That the offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the
offended party
o That the act be committed with obvious ungratefulness
o The ungratefulness must be obvious: manifest and clear.
 Basis: greater perversity of the offender as shown by the means and ways
employed.
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.
 Whether it is Malacañang or a church, it is aggravating regardless of whether
State or official or religious functions were being held.
o The President does not need to be in the palace.
o His presence alone in any place where the crime is committed is enough to
constitute an aggravating circumstance.
o It also applies even if he is not engaged in the discharge of his public duties
in the place where the crime was committed.
o Places dedicated to religious worship do not include cemeteries.
o Offender must have the intention to commit a crime when he entered the
palace.
o As regards the place where public authorities are engaged in the discharge
of their duties, there must be some performance of public functions.
 Basis: greater perversity of the offender as shown by the place of the
commission of the crime, which must be respected.
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 29
6. That the crime be committed in the nighttime 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.
 There are three circumstances under this paragraph which may be considered
separately
o When their elements are distinctly perceived and
o Can subsist independently
o Revealing a greater degree of perversity
 Requisites:
o When it facilitated the commission of the crime
o When especially sought for by the offender to ensure the commission of the
crime or for the purpose of impunity (Impunity=to prevent himself from being
recognized or to secure himself against detection and punishment)
 Nighttime
o The commission of the crime must begin and be accomplished in the
nighttime (after sunset and before sunrise)
o Especially sought by the offender
o By and of itself, this is not an aggravating circumstance.
o The offense must actually be committed in the darkness of the night.
o When the place is well lit even though it’s night, nighttime is not aggravating.
o Nighttime may be absorbed by treachery depending on the circumstances.
o Nighttime need not be specifically sought for when:
 The offender purposely took advantage of nighttime
 It facilitated the commission of the crime
**Two tests:
Objective= facilitated the crime
Subjective=sought to afford impunity
 Uninhabited place
o This is not determined by the distance of the nearest house to the scene of
the crime but whether in the place of the commission of the crime, there was
a reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help.
o Solitude must be sought to better attain the criminal purpose.
o The offenders must choose the place as an aid either:
 To an easy and uninterrupted accomplishment of their criminal designs
 To ensure concealment of the offense, that he might thereby be better
secured against detection and punishment
 Band
o A band is whenever more than three (at least 4) armed malefactors shall
have acted together in the commission of an offense.
o Presupposes the presence of a conspiracy
o If one of the four armed men is a principal by inducement, they do not form a
band (Gamara v Valero
o Abuse of superior strength is absorbed in Band
o Requisites:
 At least four persons
 At least four of them should be armed
 All four are principals by direct participation
o This aggravating circumstance is absorbed in the circumstance of abuse or
superior strength.
o This is inherent in brigandage.
o The armed men must have acted together in the commission of the crime.
o Basis: on the time and place of the commission of the crime and the means
and ways employed.
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake,
epidemic, or other calamity or misfortune.
 The rationale for this aggravating circumstance is the debased form of criminality
of 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 and despoiling
them.
 The offender must take advantage of the calamity or misfortune.
 “Or other calamity or misfortune” refers to other conditions of distress similar to
“conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, or epidemic.”
 Basis: to the time of the commission of the crime
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford
impunity.
 Requisites:
o That the armed men or persons took indirect part in the commission of the
crime
o That the accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the
crime was committed
o There must be at least two armed men
o The armed men are mere accomplices.
o When at least one of the offenders merely relied on their aid for actual aid is
not necessary
 This is not applicable:
o When both the attacking party and the offended party were equally armed
o When the accused as well as those who cooperated with him in the
commission of the crime acted under the same plan and for the same
purpose
o Casual presence, or when the offender did not avail himself of their aid nor
knowingly count upon their assistance in the commission of the crime
 Basis: means and ways of committing the crime.
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 or this Code.
10. That the offender has been previously punished for an offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter
penalty.
That the accused is a recidivist.
 Requisites:
o That the offender is on trial for an offense
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 30
 o That he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime o That he is convicted of the new offense
o That both the first and second offenses are embraced in the same title of the
RPC  The previous and subsequent offenses do not have to be embraced in the same
o That the offender is convicted of the new offense title of the Code.

 Different forms of repetition or habituality of the offender:
o Recidivism under Article 14(9)
o Repetition (Reiteracion) under Article 14(10) – the offender has been
previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or
greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter
penalty.
o Habitual delinquency under Article 62(5) – the offender within a period of
10 years from the date of his last release or conviction of the crimes of
serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa, or
falsification, is found guilty of any of the said crimes a third time or oftener.
o Quasi-recidivism under Article 160 – any person who shall commit a felony
after having been convicted by final judgment before beginning to serve
such sentence or while serving such sentence shall be punished by the
maximum period prescribed by law for the new felony.
RECIDIVISM AND HABITUAL DELINQUENCY CANNOT BE APPRECIATED
TOGETHER
 In recidivism or habituality, it is essential that the offender be previously punished
and that he has served his sentence.
 It is not always an aggravating circumstance.
 The rationale behind this is the proven resistance to rehabilitation.
 This paragraph speaks of a penalty attached to the offense, not the penalty
actually imposed.
 Basis: greater perversity of the offender as shown by his inclination to crime.

 In recidivism, the crimes committed should be felonies.

o There is no recidivism if the crime committed is a violation of a special law.
o What is controlling is the time of the trial, not the time of the commission of
the crime in that there was already a conviction by final judgment of at the
time of the trial for the second crime.
 What is required is previous conviction at the time of the trial.
o The best evidence of a prior conviction is a certified copy of the original
judgment of conviction.
o Such evidence is always admissible and conclusive unless the accused
denies his identity with the person convicted at the former trial.
 At the time of the trial means from the arraignment until after the sentence is
announced by the judge in open court.
 Recidivism does not prescribe.
 Pardon does not erase recidivism, even if it is absolute because it only excuses
the service of the penalty, not the effects of the offense (conviction).
 The rationale of recidivism as an aggravating circumstance is the proven
tendency to commit a similar offense.
 If the offender has already served his sentence and he was given amnesty:
o The amnesty shall erase the conviction including recidivism because there is
no more conviction and penalty
o Recidivism is erased as long as amnesty was given
 Basis: greater perversity of the offender, as shown by his inclination to crime.

That the offender has been previously punished for an offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a
lighter penalty.
 Requisites:
o That the accused is on trial for an offense
o That he previously served sentence for
o Another crime to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty
o Or for two or more crimes to which it attaches lighter penalty than that for
the new offense

D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 31

 Type Requisite 1st Offense 2nd Offense Prescription Rationale AC Type

Recidivism At the time of his trial for one
crime,
Previously convicted by final
judgment,
Is convicted of the new offense
Felony Felony embraced in the None as no time limit given Inclination to Generic, can be offset by
same title by law between the 1st and commit crime ordinary MC
2nd convictions
If not offset, increases the
penalty to maximum period

Repetition At the time of his trial for one Offense attached to equal Need not be a felony nor None as no time limit given Resistance to Generic, can be offset by
(Reiteracion) crime, or greater penalty under the same Title by law between the 1st rehabilitation ordinary MC
Previously convicted by final OR and 2nd convictions
judgment, Two or more crimes If not offset, increases the
Has served sentence, attached to a lighter penalty to maximum period
Is convicted of the new offense penalty

Habitual Convicted for a third time or Robbery, theft, less Robbery, theft, less Prescribes after a period of Inclination to Special, cannot be offset by an
Delinquency oftener of the crimes: serious PI, serious PI, serious PI, serious PI, 10 years between the last commit crime ordinary MC
falsification, estafa falsification, estafa conviction or release to the
(Third or oftener offense present conviction Additional penalty will be
must also be among the imposed upon third conviction,
enumerated) fourth, and so on (unique)

Quasi- Convicted by final judgment, Felony Felony None as no time limit given Inclination to Special, cannot be offset by an
recidivism before serving sentence or by law between the 1st commit crime ordinary MC
while serving sentence and 2nd convictions
Increases the penalty to
maximum period

11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
 In this aggravating circumstance, there must be two or more principals.
o The one who offers the price or promise as he directly induces the latter to
commit the crime
o The one who accepts it as he commits the crime
 Evidence must show that one of the accused used the money or valuable
consideration for the purpose of inducing another to perform the deed.
 If without previous promise it was given voluntarily after a crime was committed
as an expression of his appreciation for the sympathy and aid shown by the other
accused, it should not be taken into consideration for the purpose of increasing
the penalty.
 The price, reward, or promise need not consist of material things or that the
same be actually delivered.
 It is sufficient that the offer made by the principal by inducement was accepted by
the principal by direct participation before the commission of the crime.
 Only applies to the principal by direct participation
 Basis: greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the motivating power itself.
12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
stranding of a vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by use
of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin.
 Unless used by the offender as a means to accomplish a criminal purpose, any
of the circumstances under this paragraph cannot be considered to increase the
penalty or to change the nature of the crime.
 When another aggravating circumstance already qualifies the crime, any of these
shall be considered a generic aggravating circumstance only.
 There is no such crime as murder with arson or arson with homicide. The crime
is only murder.
o If the intent is to destroy property, the crime is arson even if someone dies
as a consequence.
o If the intent is to kill, there is murder even if the house is burned in the
process.
 Basis: means and ways employed.
13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation.
 Requisites:
o The time when the offender determined to commit the crime
o An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 32
 o A sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow
him to reflect upon the consequences of his act and to allow his conscience
to overcome the resolution of his will
 Evident premeditation implies deliberate planning of the act before executing it.
 The criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection of the
resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to
arrive at a calm judgment.
 The premeditation must be based on external facts and must be evident, not
merely suspected indicating deliberate planning.
 Where conspiracy is directly established with proof of attendant deliberation and
selection of the method, time, and means of executing the crime, the existence of
evident premeditation may be taken for granted.
 If conspiracy is only implied, it may not be appreciated
 It may only be presumed only where conspiracy is directly established, not when
the conspiracy is only implied
 Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery, adultery, estafa, and falsification.
 It may be aggravating in robbery with homicide if the premeditation included the
killing of the victim.
 Evident premeditation is not appreciated when:
o Inherent element of the crime
o Attack was made in the heat of anger
o Meeting of the accused and victim was a chance encounter and not sought
on purpose
 Must have direct evidence, otherwise it cannot be considered.
 Proof of alleged resentment does not constitute conclusive proof of EP
 Basis: reference to the ways and means of committing the crime because evident
premeditation implies a deliberate planning of the act before executing it.
14. That craft, fraud, or disguise be employed.
 This involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the accused.
 It is employed as a scheme in the execution of the crime.
 Fraud
o Insidious words or machinations used to induce the victim to act in a manner
which would enable the offender to carry out his design
 Craft
o The act of the accused done in order not to arouse suspicion
o Fraud and craft may be absorbed in treachery if they have been deliberately
adopted as the means, methods, or forms of treacherous strategy.
o They may co-exist independently where they are adopted for a different
purpose in the commission of the crime.
 Disguise
o Resorting to any device to conceal identity
o Offender was intended to or did make identification more difficult.
 Basis: means employed in the commission of the crime.
15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken the
defense.
 To take advantage of superior strength means to use purposely excessive force
out of proportion to the means of defense available to the persons attacked.
 Superiority may arise from the aggressor’s sex, build, weapon, or number as
compared to that of the victim.
 There is no advantage of superior strength:
o When one who attacks is overcome with passion or obfuscation
o When quarrel arose unexpectedly and the fatal blow was stuck while the
victim and the accused were struggling
 Abuse of superior strength does not take into account the number of aggressors
nor the fact that they are armed but their relative physical might vis-à-vis the
offended party.
 Mere number is not enough, they must act in such a way as to weaken the
defense
 Superior strength: there must be a notorious inequality
 “Means employed to weaken defense” applies only to crimes against persons
and sometimes against persons and property such as robbery with physical
injuries or homicide.
 The means must not totally eliminate possible defense of the victim, otherwise it
will fall under treachery.
16. That the act with 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.
 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.
 Requisites:
o The employment of means of execution that gave the person attacked no
opportunity to defend himself or retaliate
o The offender consciously adopted the particular means, method, or form of
the attack employed by him
 If the offended party was able to put up a defense, even a token one, there is no
treachery.
 The mode of attack must be consciously adopted.
 This is only applicable to crimes against persons.
 Means, methods, or forms need not insure accomplishment or consummation of
the crime.
 The treacherous character of the means employed in the aggression does not
depend on the outcome thereof but upon the means itself.
 Frustrated murder could be aggravated by treachery.
 It must be the result of meditation, calculation, or reflection.
 Treachery cannot be presumed. The suddenness of the attack does not of itself,
suffice to support a finding of treachery.
o It may be presumed when the victim is of tender age
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 33
  It must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.
 Attacks show intention to eliminate risk: (HOWEVER, these must be intentionally
sought by the offender)
o Victim is asleep/unconscious
o Victim is half-awake or just awakened
o Victim grappling or being held (hogtied)
o Victim is attacked from behind
 NOTE: A frontal attack is generally not treachery. But when the attack although
frontal is sudden and in a manner that tends directly and especially to insure its
execution free from danger and without risk to oneself on account of what the
victim might make to defend himself, there is treachery.
 When aggression is continuous, treachery must be present in the beginning of
the assault.
 When the assault was not continuous, in that there was an interruption, it is
sufficient that treachery was present at the moment the fatal blow was given.
 Location of wound is not conclusive of treachery or lack thereof
 Treachery absorbs:
o Abuse of superior strength
o Use of means to weaken defense
o Aid of armed men
o Nighttime
o Craft
o By a band
17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the
natural effects of the act.
 This pertains to the moral order which adds disgrace to the material injury
caused by the crime.
 The means employed or the circumstances brought about must tend to make the
effects of the crime more humiliating or to put the offended party to shame.
 Applicable to crimes against chastity, rape, less serious physical injuries, light or
grave coercion, and murder.
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.
There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the
purpose.
 There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for
the purpose. It must NOT be a conventional means of entry.
 There is unlawful entry when an entrance of a crime, a wall, roof, floor, door, or
window be broken.
 Unlawful entry must be a means to effect entrance, not escape.
 There is no unlawful entry when the door is broken and thereafter the accused
made an entry through a broken door.
 The breaking of the door is covered by the next paragraph.
 Unlawful entry is inherent in the crime of trespass to dwelling and robbery with
force upon things but aggravating in the crime of robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons.
19. That as a means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be
broken.
 To be considered as an aggravating circumstance, the breaking must be utilized
as a means to the commission of the crime.
 It is only aggravating in cases where the offender resorted to any of the said
means to enter the house.
 If the wall, etc. is broken in order to get out of the place, it is not aggravating.
 It is not necessary that the offender should have entered the building.
 What aggravates the liability of the offender is the breaking a part of the building
as a means to the commission of the crime.
20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age or by
means of motor vehicle, airships, or other similar means.
 This is to repress, so far as possible, the frequent practice resorted to by
professional criminals of availing themselves of minors taking advantage of their
lack of criminal responsibility.
 The latter part is to counteract the great facilities found by modern criminals in
said means to commit crime and flee and abscond once the same is committed.
 This circumstance is only aggravating when used in the commission of the
offense.
 If the motor vehicle is used only as an escape, it is not aggravating.
 “By means of” - the vehicle must have been used to facilitate the commission of
the crime to be aggravating.
21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by
causing other wrong not necessary for its commission.
 Requisites:
o That the injury caused be deliberately increased by causing another wrong
o That the other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of the purpose of the
offender
 For it to exist, it must be shown that the accused enjoyed and delighted in
making his victim suffer.
 If the victim was already dead when the acts of mutilation were being performed,
it is not cruelty but this would qualify the killing to murder due to outraging of his
corpse.
 Cruelty vs Ignominy: Rubbing salt to the wound vs Adding insult to injury
CASES
Lumiguis vs People - from the mere fact that more than one person participated in the
offense, it must appear that the accused cooperated together in some way designed to
weaken the defense
People vs Montinola - special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm
under Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866
People vs De Jesus - Recidivism and Habitual delinquency cannot be appreciated
together
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 34
TABLE ON MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES AND AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES o the person is not a habitual drinker and intoxication was not used with the
intention to reinforce his resolve to commit the crime
KIND EFFECT CAN IT BE APPLIES TO  Aggravating if:
OFFSET? o the person is a habitual drunk; OR
o intoxication was intentional to strengthen the resolve of the person to
commit the crime
MC Ordinary Lowers the penalty to Can be offset by Divisible penalties
(OMC) its minimum period a GAC only
 It is intentional when the offender drinks liquor fully knowing the its effects, to find
in the liquor a stimulant to commit a crime or a means to suffocate any remorse.
Privileged Lowers the penalty by Cannot be offset Divisible or  The accused’s state of intoxication must be proved.
(PMC) 1 or 2 degrees lower by ANY AC indivisible penalties  It must be shown that at the time of the commission of the crime, the accused
has taken such quantity of alcoholic drinks as to blur his reason and deprive him
Specific / Lowers the penalty in Depends on the The specific felony of a certain degree of control.
Extenuating general (Depends on specific felony  A habitual drunk is one given to intoxication by excessive use of intoxicating
the specific felony) drinks.
o The habit should actually be confirmed, but it is not necessary that it be
AC Generic Increases the penalty Can be offset by Generally applies continuous or by daily occurrence.
(GAC) to its maximum period a OMC to all crimes o What is contemplated by law is the degree of intoxication (Assuming that
you have a high tolerance, if you drink 20 bottles of Red Horse but you did
not get drunk, you are not a habitual drunk).
Qualifying Changes the nature of Cannot be offset Crimes that can  Even if intoxication is not habitual, it is aggravating when subsequent to the plan
(QAC) the crime and changes by ANY MC have a QAC to commit the crime.
the penalty (increases  Presumption is that intoxication is accidental.
the degree)  Prosecution must prove that the intoxication of the offender is habitual or
intentional.
Special Increases the penalty Cannot be offset Crimes that provide o In the absence of proof to the contrary, it will be presumed that intoxication
(SAC) to its maximum period by a OMC for it is not habitual but accidental.
o The fact that the accused was drunk at the time of the commission of the
crime must be considered as a mitigating circumstance.

b. Relationship
7. Alternative Circumstances (RPC Article 15)
 The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration
when the offended party is the:
Their concept. – Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into
o Spouse
consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime
o Ascendant
and the other conditions attending its commission. They are the relationship,
o Descendant
intoxication, and the degree of instruction and education of the offender.
o Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister
o Relative by affinity within the same degree
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration when the
offended party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted
 Mitigating when:
brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender.
o Less serious physical injuries
o Crimes against property
The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating
o Trespass to dwelling
circumstance when the offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the
 Aggravating when:
same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit said felony; but when the
o Crimes against persons
intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as an aggravating
o Serious physical injuries
circumstance. (RPC Article 15)
o Homicide or murder
o Crimes against chastity
a. Intoxication
 Relationship is neither mitigating nor aggravating when relationship is an
 For it to be mitigating, the person must show that:
INHERENT element of the offense. (Such as parricide, adultery, concubinage)
o he has taken a quantity of alcoholic beverage prior to the commission of the
crime sufficient to produce the effect of obfuscating reason; AND

D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 35

c. Degree of instruction and education of the offender III. PENALTIES
 Whether to be considered as aggravating or mitigating depends upon the nature
of the crime committed.
 Low degree of instruction and education is generally mitigating. Penalty: The suffering that is inflicted by the State for the transgression of the law. In its
o This cannot be taken into account where the accused admitted that he general sense, it signifies pain, specially considered in the juridical sphere; it means
studied in the first grade in a public elementary school. Article 15 applies suffering undergone, because of the action of human society, by one who commits the
only to him who really has not received any instruction. crime.
o But the accused lacks education and instruction if he did not finish even the  Different Juridical Conditions Of Penalty:
first grade in elementary school. o Must be PRODUCTIVE OF SUFFERING, without affecting the integrity of
o Mere illiteracy is not sufficient to constitute a mitigating circumstance. There the human personality.
must also be a lack of intelligence. o Must be COMMENSURATE to the offense – different crimes must be
o This is not mitigating when the offender is a city resident who knows how to punished with different penalties.
sign his name. o Must be PERSONAL – no one should be punished for the crime of another.
o Lack of instruction must be proved by the defense. o Must be LEGAL – it is the consequence of ajudgment according to law.
o The question of lack of instruction cannot be raised for the first time in the o Must be CERTAIN – no one may escape itseffects.
appellate court. o Must be EQUAL for all.
o It is for the trial court to find and consider the circumstance of lack of o Must be CORRECTIONAL.
instruction.
o When the trial court did not make any finding as to the degree of instruction  Theories justifying penalty:
of the offenders, that alternative circumstance cannot be considered on o PREVENTION – to suppress danger to the State.
appeal in fixing the penalty. o SELF-DEFENSE – to protect the society from the threat and wrong inflicted
by the criminal.
 Degree of instruction is irrelevant in the following crimes: (Why? Because the o REFORMATION – to correct and reform the offender.
crimes enumerated are basic wrongs) o EXEMPLARITY – to serve as an example to deter others from committing
o Crimes against property crimes.
o Estafa o JUSTICE – for retributive justice, a vindication of absolute right and moral
o Robbery law violated by the criminal.
o Theft
o Arson  Purpose of penalty under the RPC:
o Crimes against chastity o RETRIBUTION OR EXPIATION – the penalty is commensurate with the
o Rape gravity of the offense. It permits society to exact proportionate revenge, and
o Adultery the offender to atone for his wrongs.
o Treason o CORRECTION OR REFORMATION – as shown by the rules which regulate
o Murder the execution of the penalties consisting in deprivation of liberty.
 *EXCEPTION: when offender believes in witchcraft or when the murder is o SOCIAL DEFENSE – shown by its inflexible severity to recidivist and
qualified by premeditation habitual delinquents

 High degree of instruction and education is aggravating:

o When the offender avails himself of his learning in committing the crime. A. Classification of Penalties
o It is not necessary that the crime committed is complicated as it requires a 1. Penalties that may be imposed
high degree of instruction.
o What is being contemplated by law is the degree of instruction of the Penalties which may be imposed. – The penalties which may be imposed, according to
offender and its relation to the crime committed whether his education puts this Code, and their different classes, are those included in the following:
him in a better position than ordinary offenders.
PRINCIPAL PENALTIES
o NOTE: If the degree of instruction is inherent in the crime, it is not an
alternative circumstance (eg. a physician committing abortion)  Capital Punishment: (D)
o Examples: o Death
 A lawyer committing estafa  Afflictive penalties: (RP, RT, PAD, PSD, PM)
 A medical student committing slander by deed o Reclusion perpetua
 A doctor poisoning the victim in a way as to avoid detection o Reclusion temporal
o Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification
o Perpetual or temporary special disqualification
o Prision mayor
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 36
  Correctional penalties: (PC, AM, S, D)
o Prision correccional
o Arresto mayor
o Suspension
o Destierro
 Light penalties: (Am, Pc)
o Arresto menor, and Public censure
 Penalties common to the 3 preceding classes: (F, Bond)
o Fine, and bond to keep the peace.
ACCESSORY PENALTIES (PAD, PSD, S, CI, I, F, Pay)
 Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification
 Perpetual or temporary special disqualification
 Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the profession
or calling
 Civil interdiction
 Indemnification
 Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense
 Payment of costs (RPC Article 25)

 “The penalties which may be imposed, according to this Code x x x are those
included in Article 25 only.
o The penalty of life imprisonment (or, cadena perpetua) imposed by the trial
court is an erroneous designation. The correct term is reclusion perpetua.
The penalty of cadena perpetua was abolished by the RPC.
 “Life imprisonment” should be denominated reclusion perpetua since
that technical term is the penalty that carries with it the imposition of the
accessory penalties.
 Cadena perpetua, which was imposed by the Spanish Penal Code of
1870, was repealed by the RPC. It is a barbarous, cruel, and unusual
punishment belongs to a bygone era and is no longer imposed in this
era.

D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 37

 PENALTY DURATION EFFECT ACCESSORIES

A Death (Repealed) Indivisible

F
F Death, when not (1) PAD; and
L executed due to (2) Civil interdiction 30 years from sentence
I pardon or *Except when expressly remitted
C commutation
T (Repealed)
I
V Reclusion Perpetua Indivisible; 20 years and 1 day (1) PAD;
E to 40 years (2) Civil interdiction 30 years from sentence

Perpetual Absolute Indivisible; For life (1) Deprivation of public office, even if by election;
Disqualification (PAD) (2) Deprivation of right to vote & be voted for;
P
E (3) Disqualification from public office held; and
N (4) Loss of retirement rights
A Perpetual Special Indivisible; For life (1) Deprivation of office, employment, profession, or calling
L
Disqualification (PSD) affected; and
T
I (2) Disqualification from similar offices or employments
E Reclusion Temporal Divisible; 12 years and 1 day (1) PAD; and
S to 20 years (2) Civil interdiction during duration of sentence

Prision Mayor Divisible; 6 years and 1 day to (1) TAD; and

12 years (2) PSD of suffrage

Temporary Absolute Divisible; 6 years and 1 day to (1) Deprivation of public office, even if by election;
Disqualification (TAD) 12 years (2) Deprivation of right to vote & be voted for;
(3) Disqualification from public office held; and
(4) Loss of retirement rights

Temporary Special Divisible; 6 years and 1 day to (1) Deprivation of office, employment, profession, or calling
Disqualification (TSD) 12 years affected; and
(2) Disqualification from similar offices or employments
C Prision Correccional Divisible; 6 months and 1 day (1) Suspension from public office;
O to 6 years (2) Suspension from profession or calling; and
R (3) PSD of suffrage, if the duration of imprisonment
R exceeds 18 mos.
E
C Suspension Divisible; 6 months and 1 day (1) Public office;
T to 6 years (2) Profession or calling; and
I (3) Suffrage
O
N Destierro Divisible; 6 months and 1 day Prohibition to enter within 25-250 km radius from the designated
A to 6 years place
L
Arresto Mayor Divisible; 1 month and 1 day to (1) Suspension of right to hold office; and
6 months (2) Suspension of the right of suffrage

L Arresto Menor Divisible; 1 day to 30 days

I
G Bond To Keep the Divisible; Period during which
H Peace the bond shall be effective is
T discretionary with the Court D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 38
 2. Preventive measures not considered as penalties (Arts. 24 and 9)
Measures for prevention or safety which are not considered penalties. – The following shall
not be considered as penalties.
1. The arrest and temporary detention of accused persons, as well as their detention by
reason of insanity or imbecility, or illness requiring their confinement in a hospital.
2. The commitment of a minor to any of the institutions mentioned in Art. 80 and for the
purposes specified therein.
3. Suspension from the employment or public office during the trial or in order to institute
proceedings.
4. Fines and other corrective measures which, in the exercise of their administrative or
disciplinary powers, superior officials may impose upon their subordinates.
5. Deprivation of rights and the reparations which the civil law may establish in penal form.
(RPC Article 24)
 Art. 24 (1) refers not to the confinement of an insane or imbecile who has not
been arrested for a crime, but to “accused persons” who are detained by “by
reason of insanity or imbecility.”
 Why are they not considered penalties?
o They are not penalties, because they are not imposed as a result of judicial
proceedings.
 Art. 24 (1) (3) & (4) are merely preventive measures before the
conviction of offenders.
 Art. 24 (2) is not a penalty because it is not imposed by the court in a
judgement of conviction; the imposition of the sentence in such case is
suspended.
 The fines should not be imposed by the court. (If they are imposed by the court,
they constitute a penalty.)
Grave felonies, less grave felonies, and light felonies. – Grave felonies are those 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 article.
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of
arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P40,000, or both, is provided. (RPC Article 9)
 Classification of felonies according to GRAVITY*
(The gravity of the felonies is determined by the penalties attached to them by
law.)
o Grave
o Less grave
o Light
3. Classification of penalties (Art. 25)
a) Principal penalties: Those expressly imposed by the court in the judgement
of conviction
o The principal penalties may be classified as divisible or indivisible.
 Divisible penalties are those that have a fixed duration and are
divisible into 3 periods (i.e., minimum, medium, and maximum).
 Indivisible penalties are those which have no fixed duration.
 Death;
 Reclusion perpetua;
 Perpetual absolute or special disqualification; and
 Public censure
b) Accessory penalties: Those that are deemed included in the imposition of
the principal penalties.
o The accessory penalties are understood to be always imposed upon
the offender by the mere fact that the law fixes a certain penalty for a
given crime.
o Accessory penalties do not determine jurisdiction. They do not modify,
or alter the nature of the penalty provided by the law.
 What determines jurisdiction in criminal cases is the extent of the
principal penalty which the law imposes for the crime charged in
the information or complaint.
NOTE—Censure, being a penalty, is not proper in acquittal. In a criminal case, there is
only 1 issue: whether the accused is guilty or not guilty. If he is found guilty, the court
acquires jurisdiction to impose a penalty; if he is found not guilty, no court has the power to
mete out punishment; a finding of guilt must precede the punishment.
But a competent court, while acquitting an accused, may permit itself nevertheless to
criticize or reprehend his acts and conduct in connection with the transaction out of which
the accusation arose.
 Penalties that are either principal or accessory:
o Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification;
o Perpetual or temporary special disqualification; and
o Suspension
 May be principal or accessory penalties, because they are formed in
the 2 general classes.
Other classifications of penalties:
 According to SUBJECT-MATTER—
o Corporal (death);
o Deprivation of freedom (reclusion, prision, arresto);
o Restriction of freedom (destierro);
o Deprivation of rights (disqualification and suspension); and
o Pecuniary (fine)
4. Principal penalties: Duration and Effect of Penalties
When the laws speak of years, months, days or nights, it shall be understood that years
are of 365 days each; months, of 0 days; days, of 24 hours; and nights from sunset to
sunrise. If months are designated by their name, they shall be computed by the number of
days which they respectively have.
In computing a period, the first day shall be excluded, and the last day included. (CC
Article 13)
(a) Death (Arts. 40 and 47, 81-85)
Death – Its accessory penalties. – The death penalty, when it is not executed by reason of
commutation or pardon shall carry with it that of perpetual absolute disqualification and
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 39
that of civil interdiction during 30 years following the date of the sentence, unless such
accessory penalties have been expressly remitted in the pardon. (RPC Article 40)
In what cases the death penalty shall not be imposed; Automatic review of death penalty
cases. – The death penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which it must be imposed
under existing laws, except when the guilty person is below 18 years of age at the time of
the commission of the crime or is more than 70 years of age or when appeal or automatic
review of the case by Supreme Court, the required majority vote is not obtained for the
imposition of the death penalty, in which cases the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.
In all cases where the death penalty is imposed by the trial court, the records shall be
forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review and judgement by the court en banc,
within 20 days but not earlier than 15 days after promulgation of the judgement or notice of
denial of any motion for new trial or reconsideration. The transcript shall also be forwarded
within 10 days after the filing thereof by the stenographic reporter. (RPC Article 47)
 Since the Supreme Court is composed of 15 members, the vote of 8 members is
required to impose the death penalty.
 “While the Constitution requires a mandatory review by the Supreme Court of
cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or
death, nowhere, however, has it proscribed an intermediate review. If only to
ensure utmost circumspection before the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or
life imprisonment is imposed, the Court now deems it wise and compelling to
provide in these cases a review by the Court of Appeals before the case is
elevated to the Supreme Court.” (People v. Mateo)
 Where the penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed, in lieu of the death penalty,
there is a need to perfect an appeal.
 The records of all cases imposing the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment shall be forwarded by the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court
for review.
 Art. III, Sec. 19 (1) merely suspended the imposition of the death penalty.
 RA 7659 (Death Penalty Law) restored the death penalty, while RA 9346
prohibited the imposition of the death penalty.
o RA 7659, which took effect on 31 Dec. 1993, restored the death penalty for
certain heinous crimes.
o RA 9346, enacted on 24 June 2006, prohibited the imposition of the death
penalty, and provided for the imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua
in lieu of death.
Death penalty is not imposed in the following cases:
 When the guilty person is below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of
the crime;
 When the guilty person is more than 70 years of age; and
 When upon appeal or automatic review of the case by the Supreme Court, the
vote of 8 members is not obtained for the imposition of the death penalty.
 Social defense and exemplarity justify the penalty of death, where the accused is
proven to be “a dangerous enemy of society.” The death penalty imposed upon
him is a warning to others.
 The death penalty is not excessive, unjust, or cruel within the meaning of the
Constitution.
o Punishments are cruel when they involve torture or lingering death.
o Cruel punishment implies something inhuman and barbarous, something
more than the mere extinguishment of life.
 The trial court must require the prosecution to present evidence, despite plea of
guilty when the crime charged is punished with death.
o A sentence of death is valid only if it is susceptible of a fair and reasonable
examination by this court. This, however, is impossible if no evidence of
guilty was taken after a plea of guilty.)
In what crimes is death penalty imposed? : (T, Pi, QP, QB, Pa, M, I, KSid, RoH, DA,
RaH, P, DDA, C)
 Treason;
 Piracy;
 Qualified Piracy;
 Qualified bribery;
 Parricide;
 Murder;
 Infanticide;
 Kidnapping and serious illegal detention;
 Robbery with homicide;
 Destructive arson;
 Rape with homicide;
 Plunder;
 Certain violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act; and
 Carnapping.
When and how the death penalty is to be executed. — The death sentence shall be
executed with preference to any other penalty and shall consist in putting the person under
the sentence to death by lethal injection. The death sentence shall be executed under the
authority of the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, endeavoring so far as possible to
mitigate the sufferings of the person under the sentence during the lethal injection as well
as during the proceedings prior to the execution.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections shall take steps to ensure that the lethal injection
to be administered is sufficient to cause the instantaneous death of the convict.
Pursuant to this, all personnel involved in the administration of lethal injection shall be
trained prior to the performance of such task.
The authorized physician of the Bureau of Corrections, after thorough examination, shall
officially make a pronouncement of the convict's death and shall certify thereto in the
records of the Bureau of Corrections.
The death sentence shall be carried out not earlier than 1 year nor later than 18 months
after the judgment has become final and executory without prejudice to the exercise by the
President of his executive clemency powers at all times. (RPC Article 81)
 RA 9346 expressly repealed the RA 8177 (Act Designating Death by Lethal
Injection), which prescribed death by lethal injection.
o Sec. 1 of RA 9346 provides:
 “SECTION 1. The imposition of the penalty of death is hereby
prohibited. Accordingly, Republic Act No. No. 8177, otherwise known
as the Act Designating Death by Lethal Injection is hereby repealed.
Republic Act No. 7659, otherwise known as the Death Penalty Law,
and all other laws, executive orders and decrees, insofar as they
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 40
 impose the death penalty are hereby repealed or amended
accordingly.”
 In view of the enactment of RA 9346, the death penalty may not be imposed.
Thus, Arts. 81-85 of the RPC have no application.
 Death penalty shall be executed with preference to any other penalty.
 Death penalty is executed by lethal injection.
o Prior to the enactment of RA 8177 which provided the death sentence to be
executed by means of lethal injection, the death sentence was executed by
electrocution.
Notification and execution of the sentence and assistance to the culprit. — The court shall
designate a working day for the execution but not the hour thereof; and such designati on
shall not be communicated to the offender before sunrise of said day, and the execution
shall not take place until after the expiration of at least eight hours following the
notification, but before sunset. During the interval between the notification and the
execution, the culprit shall, in so far as possible, be furnished such assistance as he may
request in order to be attended in his last moments by priests or ministers of the religion he
professes and to consult lawyers, as well as in order to make a will and confer with
members of his family or persons in charge of the management of his business, of the
administration of his property, or of the care of his descendants. (RPC Article 82)
 A convict sentenced to death may make a will.
o Such a convict shall have the right to consult a lawyer and to make a will for
the disposition of his property.
 May a convict sentenced to death dispose of his property by an act or
conveyance inter vivos?
o According to Art. 40, one of the accessory penalties of death is civil
interdiction.
o According to Art. 34, civil interdiction shall deprive the offender the right to
dispose of his property by any act or conveyance inter vivos.
o But, Art. 40 specifically provides that civil interdiction is its accessory penalty
only when the death penalty is not executed by reason of commutation or
pardon.
Suspension of the execution of the death sentence. — The death sentence shall not be
inflicted upon a woman within the 1 year after delivery, nor upon any person over 70 years
of age. In this last case, the death sentence shall be commuted to the penalty of reclusion
perpetua with the accessory penalties provided in Article 40.
In all cases where the death sentence has become final, the records of the case shall be
forwarded immediately by the Supreme Court to the Office of the President for possible
exercise of the pardoning power. (RPC Article 83)
Death sentence shall be suspended when the accused is a—
 A woman, while pregnant;
 A woman, within 1 year after giving delivery;
 Person over 70 years of age; and
 Convict who becomes insane after final sentence of death. (But, if he recovers
his reason and before the penalty has prescribed, he may be put to death.)
DISTINCTION BETWEEN ARTICLE 83 and ARTICLE 47 ART. 47 ART. 83
ARTICLE 47 ARTICLE 83
Provides for cases in which death penalty Provides for the suspension only of the
is not to be imposed. They are: execution of death sentence
1. When the guilty person is more than
70 years of age
2. When upon appeal or automatic
review of the case by the SC, the
required majority was not obtained for
imposing the death penalty
3. When the convict is a minor under 18
years of age
 The Regional Trial Court which imposed death penalty has the power to suspend
temporarily the execution of the sentence, after the judgement has become final,
and after the death has been fixed for execution, upon petition on behalf of the
prisoner, based upon grounds arising after judgement has become final, the
adjudication of which does not challenge the validity of the judgement or involve
a review or reconsideration of the proceedings.
o Among such grounds: (1) insanity or pregnancy of the convict; (2) the
alleged non-identity of the prisoner with the person actually convicted and
sentenced; (3) the alleged lack of suitable opportunity to be heard on
application for executive clemency, and the like.
o BUT, the court cannot grant indefinite, permanent, or conditional suspention
of the execution of sentences pronounced in criminal cases.
 Under the old Code, the death sentence could be executed only after lapse of 40
days from delivery. Under RA 7659, the execution of death sentence upon a
pregnant woman will be carried out only one year after her delivery.
Place of execution and persons who may witness the same. — The execution shall take
place in the penitentiary or Bilibid in a space closed to the public view and shall be
witnessed only by the priests assisting the offender and by his lawyers, and by his
relatives, not exceeding 6, if he so request, by the physician and the necessary personnel
of the penal establishment, and by such persons as the Director of Prisons may authorize.
(RPC Article 84)
People who may witness the execution:
 Priests assisting the offender;
 Offender’s lawyers;
 Offender’s relatives, not exceeding 6 if so requested
 Physician
 Necessary personnel of penal establishment
*NOTE—A person below 18 years of age may not be allowed to witness an execution.
(Amended Rules and Regulations to Implement RA 8177)
Provisions relative to the corpse of the person executed and its burial. — Unless claimed
by his family, the corpse of the culprit shall, upon the completion of the legal proceedings
subsequent to the execution, be turned over to the institute of learning or scientific
research first applying for it, for the purpose of study and investigation, provided that such
institute shall take charge of the decent burial of the remains. Otherwise, the Director of
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 41
Prisons shall order the burial of the body of the culprit at government expense, granting penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon. (RPC Article
permission to be present thereat to the members of the family of the culprit and the friends 41)
of the latter. In no case shall the burial of the body of a person sentenced to death be held
with pomp. (RPC Article 85)
Prision mayor; Its accessory penalties. — The penalty of prision mayor, shall carry with it
that of temporary absolute disqualification and that of perpetual special disqualification
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9346 from the right of suffrage which the offender shall suffer although pardoned as to the
principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon. (RPC
AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES Article 42)
SECTION 1. The imposition of the penalty of death is hereby prohibited. Accordingly, (1) Reclusion Perpetua
Republic Act No. Eight Thousand One Hundred Seventy-Seven (R.A. No. 8177), otherwise
known as the Act Designating Death by Lethal Injection is hereby repealed. Republic Act  Duration: 20 years and 1 day to 40 years
No. Seven Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-Nine (R.A. No. 7659), otherwise known as the  Accessory Penalties:
Death Penalty Law, and all other laws, executive orders and decrees, insofar as they o Civil interdiction (for life or during the period of the sentence as the case
impose the death penalty are hereby repealed or amended accordingly. may be); and
o Perpetual Absolute Disqualification (which the offender shall suffer even
SEC. 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed. (a) the penalty of though pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have
reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties been expressly remitted in the pardon.)
of the Revised Penal Code; or (b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated
does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RECLUSION PERPETUA AND LIFE IMPRISONMENT
RECLUSION PERPETUA LIFE IMPRISONMENT
SEC. 3. Person convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose
sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible RECLUSION PERPETUA LIFE IMPRISONMENT
for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as
amended. Prescribed by the RPC Imposed for serious offenses penalized by
special laws
SEC. 4. The Board of Pardons and Parole shall cause the publication at least one a week
for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation of the names of persons Carries with it accessory penalties Does not carry with it accessory penalties
convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment by reason of Entails imprisonment for at least 30 years Does not appear to have any definite
this Act who are being considered or recommend for commutation or pardon; Provided,
after which the convict becomes eligible extent or duration
however, That nothing herein shall limit the power of the President to grant executive
for pardon although the maximum period
clemency under Section 19, Article VII of the Constitutions.
shall in no case exceed 40 years
SEC. 5. This Act shall take effect immediately after its publication in two national
newspapers of general circulation.
NOTE—Under RA 7659, the duration of reclusion perpetua is now 20 years and 1 day to
b) Afflictive Penalties
40 years.
(1) Reclusion perpetua. — The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be from twenty years
(2) Reclusion Temporal
and one day to forty years. (As amended by RA 7659)
 Duration: 12 years and 1 day to 20 years
(2) Reclusion temporal. — The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be from 12 years and 1
 Accessory Penalties:
day to 20 years.
o Civil interdiction (for life or during the period of the sentence as the case
(3) Prision mayor and temporary disqualification. — The duration of the penalties of prision may be.)
mayor and temporary disqualification shall be from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years, except o Perpetual Absolute Disqualification (which the offender shall suffer even
when the penalty of disqualification is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case its though pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have
duration shall be that of the principal penalty. (RPC Article 27) been expressly remitted in the pardon.)
(3) Prision Mayor

Reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal; Their accessory penalties. — The penalties of  Duration: 6 years and 1 day to 12 years
reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal shall carry with them that of civil interdiction for  Accessory Penalties:
life or during the period of the sentence as the case may be, and that of perpetual absolute o Temporary Absolute Disqualification
disqualification which the offender shall suffer even though pardoned as to the principal

D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 42

 o Perpetual Special Disqualification (from the right to suffrage which the
offender shall suffer although pardoned as to the principal penalty
unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon)
c) Correctional Penalties
(4) Prision correccional, suspension, and destierro. — The duration of the penalties of
prision correccional, suspension and destierro shall be from 6 months and 1 day to 6
years, except when suspension is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case, its
duration shall be that of the principal penalty.
(5) Arresto mayor. — The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor shall be from 1 month
and 1 day to 6 months. (RPC Article 27)
Prision correccional; Its accessory penalties. — The penalty of prision correccional shall
carry with it that of suspension from public office, from the right to follow a profession or
calling, and that of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage, if the
duration of said imprisonment shall exceed 18 months. The offender shall suffer the
disqualification provided in the article although pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless
the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon. (RPC Article 43)
Arresto; Its accessory penalties. — The penalty of arresto shall carry with it that of
suspension of the right to hold office and the right of suffrage during the term of the
sentence. (RPC Article 44)
Destierro. — Any person sentenced to destierro shall not be permitted to enter the place or
places designated in the sentence, nor within the radius therein specified, which shall be
not more than 250 and not less than 25 kilometers from the place designated (RPC Article
87)
(1) Prision correctional
 Duration: 6 months and 1 day to 6 years
 Accessory Penalties:
o Suspension from public office;
o Suspension from the right to follow a profession or calling; and
o Perpetual Special Disqualification (for the right of suffrage, if the duration of
the imprisonment shall exceed 18 months)
(2) Arresto Mayor
 Duration: 1 month and 1 day to 6 months
 Accessory Penalties:
o Suspension of right to hold office; and
o Suspension of the right of suffrage during the term of the sentence
(3) Suspension
 Duration: 6 months and 1 day to 6 years
 Effect:
o Public office;
o Profession or calling; or
o Suffrage
(4) Destierro
 Duration: 6 months and 1 day to 6 years
 Effect: Prohibition to enter within 25-250 km radius from the designated place
In what cases is destierro imposed?
1. Serious physical injuries or death under exceptional circumstances (Art. 247);
2. In case of failure to give bond for good behaviour (Art. 284);
3. As a penalty for concubine in concubinage (Art. 334); and
4. In cases where after reducing the penalty by 1 or more degrees destierro is the proper
penalty
Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of imprisonment. — Offenders who
have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentence
consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which they have undergone
preventive imprisonment, if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by
the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, except in the following
cases:
1. When they are recidivists or have been convicted previously twice or more times of any
crime; and
2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence they have failed to
surrender voluntarily.
If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed
upon convicted prisoners, he shall be credited in the service of his sentence with four-fifths
of the time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment.
Whenever an accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to or
more than the possible maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to which he may be
sentenced and his case is not yet terminated, he shall be released immediately without
prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding on appeal, if the same is
under review. In case the maximum penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is
destierro, he shall be released after 30 days of preventive imprisonment. (RPC Article 29)
 Why is there preventive imprisonment? The accused undergoes preventive
imprisonment when the offense charged is non-bailable, or even if bailable, he
cannot furnish the required bail.
 The full time or 4/5s of the time during which the offender have undergone
preventive imprisonment shall be deducted from the penalty imposed.
 Credit for preventive imprisonment for the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be
deducted from 30 years.
o The credit given in the service of sentenes “consisting of the deprivation of
liberty.”
 If the offense for which the offender is undergoing preventive
imprisonment is punishable by imprisonment or a fine, and upon
conviction the court imposed on him only a fine, there is no credit to be
given.
 Computation of preventive imprisonment for purposes of immediate release shall
be the actual period of detention with good conduct time allowance.
 Destierro constitutes “deprivation of liberty.”
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 43
 o Although it does not constitute imprisonment, it is nonetheless a deprivation
of liberty.
 Convict to be released immediately if the penalty imposed after trial is less than
full time or 4/5s of the time of the preventive imprisonment.
 Accused shall be released immediately whenever he has undergone preventive
imprisonment for a period equal to the possible maximum imprisonment for the
offense charged.
 If the maximum penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is destierro.
o In destierro, the accused sentenced to that penalty does not serve it in
prison. S/he is free, only that he cannot enter the prohibited area specified in
the sentence.
Offenders not entitled to the full time or 4/5s of the time of preventive imprisonment:
1. Recidivists or those convicted previously twice or more times of any crime;
2. Those who, upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence, failed to
surrender voluntarily;
3. Habitual delinquents;
4. Escapees; and
5. Persons charged with heinous crimes.
d) Light Penalties
(5) Arresto menor. — The duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall be from 1 day to
30 days.
(6) Bond to keep the peace. — The bond to keep the peace shall be required to cover
such period of time as the court may determine. (RPC Article 27)
Arresto; Its accessory penalties. — The penalty of arresto shall carry with it that of
suspension of the right to hold office and the right of suffrage during the term of the
sentence. (RPC Article 44)
(1) Arresto menor
 Duration: 1 day to 30 days
 Accessory Penalties:
o Suspension of right to hold office; and
o Suspension of the right of suffrage during the term of the sentence.
(2) Public censure
5. Accessory Penalties
Presumption in regard to the imposition of accessory penalties. — Whenever the courts
shall impose a penalty which, by provision of law, carries with it other penalties, according
to the provisions of Articles 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44 of this Code, it must be understood that
the accessory penalties are also imposed upon the convict. (RPC Article 73)
 The accessory penalties provided for in Arts. 40 to 45 are deemed imposed by
the courts without the necessity of making an express pronouncement of their
imposition.
 Subsidiary imprisonment is not an accessory penalty.
o The judgement of the conviction must expressly state that the offender shall
suffer the subsidiarity imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Anticipation of duties of a public office. — Any person who shall assume the performance
of the duties and powers of any public officer or employment without first being sworn in or
having given the bond required by law, shall be suspended from such office or
employment until he shall have complied with the respective formalities and shall be fined
from P200 to P500. (RPC Article 236)
Removal, concealment or destruction of documents. — Any public officer who shall
remove, destroy or conceal documents or papers officially entrusted to him, shall suffer:
1. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not exceeding P1,000, whenever serious
damage shall have been caused thereby to a third party or to the public interest.
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium period and a fine not
exceeding P1,000, whenever the damage to a third party or to the public interest shall not
have been serious.
In either case, the additional penalty of temporary special disqualification in its maximum
period to perpetual disqualification shall be imposed. (RPC Article 226)
ART. 227. Officer breaking seal. — Any public officer charged with the custody of papers
or property sealed by proper authority, who shall break the seals or permit them to be
broken, shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its minimum and medium
periods, temporary special disqualification and a fine not exceeding P2,000. (RPC Article
227)
Opening of closed documents. — Any public officer not included in the provisions of the
next preceding article who, without proper authority, shall open or shall permit to be
opened any closed papers, documents or objects entrusted to his custody, shall suffer the
penalties or arresto mayor, temporary special disqualification and a fine of not exceeding
P2,000. (RPC Article 228)
a) Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification (Art. 30)
Effects of the penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification. — The
penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification for public office shall produce
the following effects:
1. The deprivation of the public offices and employments which the offender may have
held even if conferred by popular election.
2. The deprivation of the right to vote in any election for any popular office or to be elected
to such office.
3. The disqualification for the offices or public employments and for the exercise of any of
the rights mentioned.
In case of temporary disqualification, such disqualification as is comprised in paragraphs 2
and 3 of this article shall last during the term of the sentence.
4. The loss of all rights to retirement pay or other pension for any office formerly held.
(RPC Article 30)
EFFECTS:
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 44
 1. Deprivation of any public office or employment of offender; The person suspended from holding public office shall not hold another having similar
2. Deprivation of the right to vote in any election or to be voted upon; functions during the period of his suspension. (RPC Article 33)
3. Disqualification for the offices or public employments and for the exercise of
any of the rights mentioned; and
4. Loss of rights to retirement pay or pension. EFFECTS:
NOTE – Perpetual absolute disqualification is effective during the lifetime of the convict 1. Disqualification from holding such office or the exercise of such profession
and even after the service of the sentence. Temporary absolute disqualification lasts or right of suffrageduring the term of the sentence; and
during the term of the sentence except (1) deprivation of the public office or employment; 2. Cannot hold another office having similarfunctions during the period of
and (2) loss of all rights to retirement pay or other pension for any office formerly held (See suspension.
Art. 30 (3)).
b) Perpetual or temporary special disqualification (Arts. 31-32)
d) Civil interdiction (Art. 34)
ART. 31. Effect of the penalties of perpetual or temporary special disqualification. — The
penalties of perpetual or temporal special disqualification for public office, profession or Civil interdiction. — Civil interdiction shall deprive the offender during the time of his
calling shall produce the following effects: sentence of the rights of parental authority, or guardianship, either as to the person or
property of any ward, of marital authority, of the right to manage his property and of the
1. The deprivation of the office, employment, profession or calling affected; right to dispose of such property by any act or any conveyance inter vivos.(RPC Article
2. The disqualification for holding similar offices or employments either perpetually or 34)
during the term of the sentence according to the extent of such disqualification. (RPC EFFECTS:
Article 31)
Deprivation of the following rights:
Effect of the penalties of perpetual or temporary special disqualification for the exercise of
the right of suffrage. — The perpetual or temporary special disqualification for the exercise 1. Parental authority;
of the right of suffrage shall deprive the offender perpetually or during the term of the 2. Guardianship over the ward;
sentence, according to the nature of said penalty, of the right to vote in any popular 3. Marital authority; and
election for any public office or to be elected to such office. Moreover, the offender shall 4. Right to manage property and to dispose of the same by acts inter vivos
not be permitted to hold any public office during the period of his disqualification. (RPC NOTE – The convict can still dispose his property mortis causa.
Article 32)
 Civil interdiction is an accessory penalty to thefollowing principal penalties: (1)
EFFECTS: Death if commuted to life imprisonment; (2) Reclusion perpetua; and (3)
For public office, profession or calling— Reclusion temporal.

1. Deprivation of the office, employment, profession or calling affected; and Minority, insanity or imbecility, the state of being a deaf-mute, prodigality and civil
2. Disqualification for holding similar offices, or employments during the period of interdiction are mere restrictions on capacity to act, and do not exempt the incapacitated
disqualification. person from certain obligations, as when the latter arise from his acts or from property
relations, such as easements. (CC Article 38)
For the exercise of right to suffrage:
e) Indemnification (RPC Articles 38 and 101)
1. Deprivation of the right to vote or to be elected in an office; and f) Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense
2. Cannot hold any public office during the period of disqualification. g) Payment of costs (RPC Article 37-38)
NOTE – The penalty for disqualification if imposed as an accessory penalty is imposed for
6. Penalties common to all
PROTECTION and NOT for the withholding of a privilege. (If temporary disqualification or a) Fine (RPC Articles 26, 39, 66, and 75)
suspension is imposed as an accessory penalty, the duration is the same as that of the
b) Bond to keep the peace (RPC Articles 27 and 35) – is basically nonexistent
principal penalty.)
FOR THE NEXT PART OF THE SYLLABUS, PLEASE REFER TO JUDGE BOOM’S
c) Suspension (Art. 33) NOTES ON GRADUATION OF PENALTIES + ISLAW.
Effects of the penalties of suspension from any public office, profession or calling, or the
Important concepts in the syllabus:
right of suffrage. — The suspension from public office, profession or calling, and the
exercise of the right of suffrage shall disqualify the offender from holding such office or  Subsidiary Penalty – A penalty that takes the place of the fine for insolvent
exercising such profession or calling or right of suffrage during the term of the sentence. convicts. It is neither a principal or accessory penalty, but a substitute penalty for
a fine ONLY.

D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 45

 o Imposable whether the violation is under the RPC or under special laws
such as BP 22.
o The penalty should be:
 Purely a fine
 Fine or imprisonment of not more than prision correctional
 Fine and destierro
 Fine and suspension
 also apply to co-principals, accomplices, and accessories) (RPC Article 344)
 Subsidiary Imprisonment – it is proper if the court is able to expressly state that
subsidiary penalty shall be served in case of insolvency because this is not an
accessory penalty that follows the principal penalty as a matter of course.
o It is not proper when:
 The principal penalty imposed is not more than 6 years.
 Principal penalty is other than prison sentence which is not of fixed
duration
 Subsidiary penalty is not expressly stated in the sentence to take the
place of fine in case of insolvency
 The sentence imposed does not include a fine
 Convict has the means to pay fine
 Prescription of offenses – Refers to the loss of the right of the State to
prosecute offenders. It is not waivable. Since it is for the benefit of the accused,
the period of prescription cannot be extended. Crimes that are punishable by the
following penalties have the prescription period of:
o 20 years – Death, Reclusion perpetua, Reclusion temporal
o 15 years – Other afflictive penalties
o 10 years – Correctional penalties EXCEPT arresto mayor
o 5 years – Arresto mayor
o 1 year – libel or other similar offenses
o 6 months – oral defamation and slander by deed
o 2 months – light offenses
o NOTE: It begins to run from the period of discovery of the crime by: (This is
an exclusive list. Discovery of the crime by the neighbor will not start
prescription)
 The offended
 The authorities
 The agents of authorities
 Prescription of penalties – It is the loss of the right of the State to enforce the
sentence imposed on the convict by the lapse of time. Prescription of penalty
becomes operative when the convict escapes from detention or evades the
service of his sentence (Take note of the phrase EVADES the service of his
sentence)
o 20 years - Reclusion Perpetua
o 15 years – Reclusion temporal, disqualification, and Prision Mayor
o 10 years – Prision Correccional, suspension, and destierro
o 5 years – Arresto Mayor
o 1 year - Arresto menor, public censure
o NOTE: It begins to run when the convict evades his service of sentence by
escaping during the term of his sentence. If the convict has not yet suffered
deprivation of liberty before his arrest and as a consequence, never evaded
sentence by escaping during the term of his sentence, the period of
prescription never began
 Pardon by offended party
o Does not extinguish criminal action except in Article 344, but civil liabilities
with regard to the injured party is extinguished with his express waiver.
(RPC Article 24)
o In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness, marriage between
the offender and the offended party shall extinguish criminal action (shall
 Pardon by the President – crime was still committed but penalties will no longer
be imposed upon the criminal
o Conditional vs Absolute
 Amnesty – granted by the president to a class of persons and obliterates the
offense as if it never occurred.
 Marriage
o The subsequent valid marriage between the offender and the offended party
shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed. (only applies to
the spouse and not to others) (RPC Article 266-C)
o If rape was between spouses, subsequent forgiveness by the offended will
extinguish criminal action (RPC Article 266-C)
 However it will not be extinguished if the marriage is void ab initio
 Probation Law – it extinguishes criminal liability (According to Judge Boom, this
should be amended)
o Who may apply: Any sentenced offender, not disqualified, can apply for
probation before serving their prison/jail sentence
o May an accused who appealed the conviction apply for probation on remand
of the case to the trial court?
 As a rule, probation and appeal are mutually exclusive remedies.
However, if the judgment of conviction that was appealed imposed non-
probationable penalty and the same was modified through the
imposition of probationable penalty or conviction for a lesser crime,
which is probationable, the accused shall be allowed to apply for
probation based on the modified decision before such decision
becomes final. The application for probation based on the modified
decision shall be filed in the trial court, which tried and convicted the
accused or in a trial court where such case has been re-raffled.
o Who are disqualified:
 Those who are sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of
more than 6 years
 Those who are convicted of any crime against national security
 Those who have been previously been convicted by final judgment of
an offense punished by imprisonment of more than 6 months and 1 day
and/or a fine of more than P100,000 pesos
 Those who have been once on probation under this law
 Those who are already serving sentence
 Those legally disqualified under SPL
 Offenders guilty of any election offense
 Offenders guilty of violating Wage Rationalization Act
 Offenders found guilty of violating The Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act (Except Sec. 12, 14, 17, and 70.)
D-linquents 2022 | Abrazaldo, Blanco, Borja, Perez 46