NOTES ON CRIM.

LAW REVIEW PART 2

MANILA LAW COLLEGE
Prof: Prosecutor Ma. Julpha Maningas
1st Sem. SY 2019-2020

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES (Cont’d) –

 In People vs. Santonero, the High Court held that the failure to account for the non-
presentation of the weapon allegedly wielded by the victim is fatal to the plea of self-
defense (cited in People vs. Bosito, GR No. 209346, Jan. 12, 2015)

Self-defense, when invoked as a justifying circumstance, implies the admission by the

 There can be no self-defense unless the victim committed unlawful aggression against
the person who resorted to self-defense. For unlawful aggression to be appreciated,
there must be an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not
merely a threatening or intimidating attitude as against the one claiming self-defense.. It
is well-settled that the moment the first aggressor runs away, unlawful aggression on the
part of the first aggressor ceases to exist; and when unlawful aggression ceases, the
defender no longer has any right to kill or wound the former aggressor. Otherwise,
retaliation, and not self-defense, is committed. Retaliation is not the same as self-
defense. In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured party already
ceased when the accused attacked him, while in self-defense the aggression was still
existing when the aggressor was injured by the accused (People vs. Casas, GR No.
212565, Feb.20, 2015)

 When the accused admits that he is the author of the death of the victim and his
defense is anchored on self-defense, it becomes incumbent upon him to prove the
justifying circumstance to the satisfaction of the court. In People vs. Ramos (702 SCRA
204), THE ACCUSED ADMITTED KILLING THE VICTIM IN SELF-DEFENSE AND THUS THE
BURDEN OF EVIDENCE IS SHIFTED TO HIM TO PROVE THAT ALL THE ELEMENTS OF SELF-
DEFENSE ARE PRESENT.

 A plea of self-defense is belied by the nature, number and location of the wounds
inflicted on the victim “since the gravity of said wounds is indicative of a determined
effort to kill and not just to defend. With regard to the second element of self-defense,
the Court finds that the means employed by the accused is grossly disproportionate to
the victim’s alleged unlawful aggression who was violently slain and practically
butchered (Ibid)

***UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION (Bar ’79, ’90 ’00, ’03)

*Among the elements of self-defense, the most important is unlawful aggression. It is

well-settled that there can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless
the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-
defense. Jurisprudence states that not every form or degree of aggression justifies a
claim of self-defense. For actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger
thereof, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude, as against the one claiming
self-defense (People vs. Matibag, GR No. 206381, March 25, 2015)

 Unlawful aggression is an actual, physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real

imminent injury. It presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger. In
case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful intent to
cause injury. It is present only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to
his life (People vs. Vergara, 700 SCTA 412).
  To escape criminal liability, the accused must prove by clear and convincing evidence the
concurrence of the following requisites under the second paragraph of Art. 11, RPC: 1)
unlawful aggression; reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
and 3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the Person defending himself (People
vs. Delos Santos, GR 207818, July 23, 2014).

 Self-defense, when invoked as a justifying circumstance, implies the admission by the

accused that he committed the criminal act. Generally, the burden lies upon the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt rather than the
accused that he was in fact innocent. When the accused, however, admits killing the
victim, it is incumbent upon him to prove any claimed justifying circumstance by clear
and convincing evidence… To invoke self-defense, in order to escape criminal liability, it
is incumbent upon the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence the
concurrence of the following requisites under the second paragraph of Art. 11, RPC: 1)
unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
and 3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. In this
case, the High court that there was unlawful aggression when the accused killed her
husband. The aggression still continued as when the accused was able to take hold of
the knife from her husband, he did not stand down but instead, continued to move
towards her despite her plea that he should not come nearer. He grabbed her by the
arm which could have precipitated her well-grounded belief that her life was still in
danger if he would be able to wrest the weapon from her. (People vs. Cristina Samson,
GR No. 214883, Sept. 2, 2015)

 There was no unlawful aggression. The petitioner was not justified in using his knife as
against the bare fists of the unarmed group of his alleged assailants. The accused was a
little too fast and imprudent in the use of his breadknife, for there really was no
imminent danger to his life and limb when he wielded it against the deceased and
Rodolfo Cumarat. The second requisite of self=defense was absent. ( Andres vs. Court
of Appeals, GR L-48957, June 23, 1987)

***SELF-DEFENSE and DEFENSE OF RELATIVES –

Both self-defense and defense of relatives require that unlawful aggression to be present in
order to be held valid. For the accused to be entitled to exoneration based on self-defense
or defense of relatives, complete or incomplete, it is essential that there be unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim, for if there is no unlawful aggression, there would be
nothing to prevent or repel. For unlawful aggression to be appreciated, there must be an
actual sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not merely a threatening
or intimidating attitude (People vs. Credo, 700 SCRA 63, 2013)

In order that defense of a relative is to be appreciated in favor of Ricardo, the following

requisites must concur, namely: 1) unlawful aggression by the victim; 2) reasonable
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression and 3) in case the
provocation was given by the person attacked, that the person making the defense took no
part in the provocation (Medina vs. People, GR No. 161308)

 At the very least, petitioner acted in defense of a stranger…To properly invoke the
justifying circumstance of defense of a stranger, it must be shown that there was
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, that the means employed to repel the
victim were reasonably necessary and that the accused was not induced by revenge,
resentment or other evil motive…An attack showing the aggressor’s intention is enough
to consider that unlawful aggression was committed. Thus, the attack on Pamela should
have been considered as unlawful aggression for purposes of invoking the justifying
circumstance of defense of stranger…The state of mind of the accused during the alleged

2
 act of self-defense or defense of a stranger must be considered in determining whether
a person’s means of repelling an aggressor were reasonable. Reasonable necessity does
not mean absolute necessity. It must be assumed that one who is assaulted cannot have
sufficient tranquility of mind to think, calculate and make comparisons which can easily
be made in the calmness of the home. It is not the indispensable need but the rational
necessity which the law requires. In each particular case, it is necessary to judge the
relative necessity, whether more or less imperative, in accordance with the rules of
rational logic. The defendant may be given the benefit of reasonable doubt as to
whether he employed rational means to repel the aggression (Mariano vs. People, GR
No. 224102, July 26, 2017)

*** EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES (Bar ’78-’80. ’84, ’89, ’90, ’92, ’94, ’95, ’98, ’00, ’03, ’04,
’10, ’11, ’12)

 INSANITY (BAR ’10, ’11)

Insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence while committing the
act, i.e., when the accused is deprived of reason, he acts without the least discernment
because there is a complete absence of power to discern, or there is total deprivation of
freedom of the will. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties is not enough, especially
if the offender has not lost consciousness of his acts. Insanity is evinced by a deranged
and perverted condition of the mental faculties and is manifested in language and
conduct . Thus, in order to lend credence to a defense of insanity, it must be shown that
the accused had no full and clear understanding of the nature and consequences of his
or her acts ( People vs. Umawid, GR No. 208714)

Insanity must be present at the time the crime had been committed.. .The defense of
insanity or imbecility must be clearly proved for there is a presumption that the acts
penalized by law are voluntary…Insanity under Art. 12 Par. 1 of the RPC exists when
there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act i.e., the appellant is
deprived of reason, he acts without the least discernment because of complete absence
of the power to discern, or there is a total deprivation of the freedom of the will. The
onus probandi rests upon him who invokes insanity as an exempting circumstance, and
he must prove it by clear and convincing evidence. In People vs. Isla, the Court
elucidated that insanity must related to the time immediately preceding or simultaneous
with the commission of the offense with which the accuse dis charged. Otherwise, he
must be adjudge guilty for the said offense. In short, in order for the accused to be
exempted from criminal liability under a plea of insanity, he must categorically
demonstrate that: 1) he was completely deprived of intelligence because of his mental
condition or illness and 2) such complete deprivation of intelligence must be manifest AT
THE TIME OR IMMEDIATE BEFORE THE OFFENSE…Establishing the insanity of an accused
often requires opinion testimony which may be given by a witness who is intimately
acquainted with the accused; has rational basis to conclude that the accused was insane
based on his own perception or he is qualified as an expert, such as a psychiatrist.
(Verdadero vs. people, GR No. 216021, March 2, 2016)

 ACCIDENT -

To successfully claim the defense of accident, the accused must show that the following
circumstances are present: 1) a person is performing a lawful act; 2) with due care; 3) he
causes an injury to another by mere accident and 4) he had no fault in or intention of
causing the injury (Nieva vs. People, GR No. 188751, Nov. 16, 2017)

3
 The defense invoked Art. 12 Par. 4, RPC to release the accused-appellant from criminal
liability. Pursuant to said provision, the essential requisites of accident as an exempting
circumstance are : 1) a person is performing a lawful act; 2) with due care; 3) he causes
an injury t another by mere accident and 4) without fault or intention of causing it.
Accused-appellant was not performing a lawful act at the time his wife Auria was
stabbed. ..The defense of ACCIDENT presupposes lack of intention to kill. This certainly
does not hold true in the instant case based on the aforequoted testimony of the
accused-appellant. Moreover, the prosecution witnesses, who were then within hearing
distance from the bedroom testified that they distinctly heard Auria screaming that she
was going to be killed by the accused-appellant. (People vs. Macal, GR No.211062,
January 13, 2016)

Appellant’s version that he “ACCIDENTALLY SHOT” the 2 victims is incredible. Accident is

an exempting circumstance under Art. 12 of the RPC. It must be stressed that in raising
this defense, appellant has the burden of the evidence and it was incumbent upon him
to establish that he was exempt from criminal liability. He must show with clear and
convincing proofs that: 1) he was performing a lawful act with due care; 2) the injury
was caused by a mere accident and 3) he had no fault or intention of causing the injury.
Appellant’s manner of carrying his M-14 rifle negates his claim of ‘DUE CARE’ in the
performance of an act. Knowing that his rifle was automatic, he should have seen to it
that its safety lock was intact. Worse, he admitted that his finer was constantly on the
trigger…Second, the number of wounds sustained by the victim shows that the shooting
was not merely accidental. Third, appellant manifested an unmistakable intent to kill the
victim when re reloaded his rifle after his first unsuccessful attempt to kill them. (People
vs. Genita, Jr., GR no. 126171, March 11, 2004).

***MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES (Bar ’75, ’79, ’81, ’83, ’88, ’90, ’92, ’93, ’96, ’97,
’99-’03, ’08, ’09, ’11-’14)

 Voluntary Surrender (Bar ’81, ’92, ’96, ’97, ’99, ’09)

The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender may be appreciated in favor of

appellant, however, considering that the imposable penalty of reclusion perpetua is
single and indivisible (People vs. LINSIE, GR No. 199494, Nov.. 27, 2013)

 PASSION AND OBFUSCATION –

For passion and obfuscation to be considered a mitigating circumstance, it must be
shown that: 1) an unlawful act sufficient to produce passion and obfuscation was
committed by the intended victim; 2) the crime was committed within a reasonable
length of time from the commission of the unlawful act that produced the obfuscation
arose from lawful sentiments and not from a spirit of lawlessness or revenge.

However, it is not mitigating when committed: a) in the spirit of lawlessness; b) in

the spirit of revenge. It cannot co-exist with a) vindication of grave offense and b)
treachery. (Jabalde vs. People, GR 195224, June 15, 2016).

Before Art. 247 of the RPC can be operative, the following requisites must be present: 1)
that a legally married person or a parent surprises his spouse or his daughter, the latter
under 18 years of age and living with him, in the act of committing sexual intercourse
with another person; 2) that he or she kills any or both of them or inflicts upon any or
both of them any serious physical injury in the act of immediately thereafter; 3) that he
has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or that he or she
has not

4
 consented to the infidelity of the other spouse.. Implicit in this exceptional circumstance
is that the death caused must eb the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the
accused after chancing upon his spouse in the act of infidelity (People vs. Gelaver, GR
No. 94347, June 9, 1993)

In the present case, the act committed by accused-appellant neither appears to be

heinous nor represents a greater degree of perversity and viciousness as distinguished
from those acts punishable under Art. 320 of the RPC. No qualifying circumstance was
established to convert the offense to Destructive Arson. The special aggravating
circumstance that accused-appellant was motivated by spite or hatred towards the
owner or occupant of the property burned cannot be appreciate din the preset case
where it appears that he was acting more on impulse, heat of anger or risen temper
than real spite or hatred that impelled him to give vent to his wounded ego. .In
addition, we find that there exists a mitigating circumstance that should have been
appreciated by the trial court in determining the penalty to be imposed on the accused-
appellant: a circumstance similar and analogous to passion and obfuscation. AN impulse
of invidious or resentful feelings contemplates a situation akin to passion and
obfuscation. This circumstance is mitigating since, like passion and obfuscation, the
accused who acts with these feelings suffers a diminution of his intelligence and intent, a
reduction in his mental and rational faculties (People vs. Soriano, GR No. 142565, July
29, 2003).

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTACES (Bar ’76,’78,’79, ’80, ’81, ’83, ’86, ’87 – ’89, ’91, ’93, ’94,
’96-‘9, ’00, ’01, ’03, ’08, ’11, ’12, ’14, ’15)

 EVIDENT PREMEDITATION

For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following elements must be proved: a)

the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; b) an act manifestly
indicating that the accused has clung to his determination and c) sufficient lapse of time
between he determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences
of his act. The essence of evident premeditation is that the. Execution of the criminal
act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out
the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment (People
vs. Alinao, GR no. 191256, Sept. 18, 2013)

 It is elementary law that to establish EVIDENT PREMEDITATION, there must be proof of

1) the time when the offender determined t commit the crime; 2) an act manifestly
indicating that the culprit has lung to his determination and 3) a sufficient lapse of time
between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the
consequences of hi act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his
will had he desired to hearken to its warnings. The essence of premeditation is that the
execution of the criminal act was preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the
resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a
clam judgement. When it is not shown as to how and when the plan to kill was hatched
or what time had elapsed before it was carried out, evident premeditation cannot be
considered. Evident premeditation must be based one external acts and must be
evident, not merely suspected, indicating deliberate planning (People vs. Derilo, GR No.
117818, April 18, 1997)

 TO PROPERLY APPRECIATE EVIDNET PREMDITATION, as aggravating circumstance, it is

indispensable that the fact of planning the crime be established. Particularly, evidence
must show how and when the plan to kill was hatched or how much time had elapsed
before it was carried out. Absent such proof, evident premeditation cannot prosper
(People vs. Maglente, GR No. 201445, Nov. 27, 2013).

5
  TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE and thereby resultantly
increase the criminal liability of an offender, the same must accompany and be an
integral part or concomitant of the commission of the crime specified in the information,
and although it is not necessarily an element thereof, it must not be factually and legally
discrete therefrom… The lower court erred in considering against the accused the
supposed aggravating circumstances of craft, fraud or disguise (People vs. Medina, GR
No. 127157, July 10, 1998)

 IN CRIMINAL CASES, DISGUISE IS AN AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE because like night

time, it allows the accused to remain anonymous and unidentifiable as he carries out his
crimes. The introduction of the prosecution of testimonial evidence that tends to prove
that accused were masked but the masks fell off does not prevent them from including
disguise as an aggravating circumstance. What is important in alleging disguise as an
aggravating circumstances is that there was a concealment of identity by the accused
(People vs. Feliciano, GR No.196735, May 5, 2014).

 ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH

The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is

a notorious inequality is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces
between he victim and the aggressor that is plainly and obviously disadvantageous to
the aggressor and purposely selected or taken advantage of to facilitate the commission
of the crime. Mere superiority in numbers is not indicative of the presence of this
circumstance. The appreciation of this qualifying circumstance in the commission of the
crime of murder depends on the age, size, and strength of the parties (People vs. Suarez,
GR No.. 224889, Oct.. 19, 2016)

Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces

between the victim and the aggressor that is plainly and obviously advantageous to the
aggressor and purposely selected or taken advantage of to facilitate the commission of
the crime. It has been held that the mere presence of 2 assailants, one of them armed
with a knife, does not ipso facto indicate an abuse of superior strength. Mere
superiority in numbers is not indicative of the presence of this circumstance (Ibid).

ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH IS ABSORBED IN TREACHERY –

The Court agrees with the trial court when it held that abuse of superior strength
is deemed absorbed in treachery. Since treachery qualifies the crime of murder, the
generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is necessarily included in
the former (People vs Bosito, GR No. 209346, Jan. 12, 2015).

MURDER is the unlawful killing by the accused of a person, which is not parricide or
infanticide, committed with any of the attendant circumstances enumerated in Art. 248,
RPC, one of which is treachery. The killing committed in this case is neither parricide or
infanticide and the same was attended with treachery. There is treachery when the
offender commits any of the crimes against the person employing means, methods or
forms int he execution thereof which tend directly and especially to insure its execution,
without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make…
In this case, treachery is evident form the fact that the victim cold not have been aware
of the imminent peril to his life. He was unprepared for the sudden, unexpected and
unprovoked attack on his person when appellant stabbed his back with a knife then
swiftly run away )People vs Jalbonian, 700 SCRA 280).

*TREACHERY -
Treachery is present when the following conditions are present: 1) the employment of
such means of execution that gave the one attacked no opportunity to defend oneself or to

6
retaliate and 2) deliberate or conscious adoption of the means of execution. In People vs.
Osianas, the SC held that there is treachery when the means used by the accused-appellants to
insure the execution of the killing of the victims, so a to afford the victims no opportunity to
defend themselves was the tying of the hands of the victims.

There is treachery when the victim was too unprepared and helpless to defend himself as when
he was unwarily texting inside the tent (People vs. Buenafe, GR No. 212930, Aug. 3, 2016)

Treachery is present when the victim had no inkling that he would be shot such that h3e did not
have any real chance to defend himself (People vs. Joven Geron, GR No. 208758, Aug. 24, 2016)

When the shooting of the unsuspecting victim was sudden and unexpected, TREACHERY WAS
PRESENT (People vs. Berk, G.R. No. 204896, Dec. 7, 2016)

HOWEVER, THERE IS NO TREACHEY WHEN THE ACCUSED DID NOT CONSCIOUSLY AND
DELIEBRATELY ADOPT THE PARTICULAR MEANS, METHODS AND FORMS OF ATTACK. In Rustia
vs. People, GR No. 208351, Oct. 5, 2016), the Supreme Court held that accused had not set out
to kill the victim when they both agreed to meet; he did not appear to have prepared his own
weapon to commit the crime; he was filled with anger and rage and excitement and had not
time to reflect on his actions, hence TREACHERY SHOULD NOT BE APPRECIATED AGAINST HIM.

THE ESSENCE OF TREACHERY is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift
and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to
resist or escape. The manner the victim was stabbed by accused-appellant has treachery
written all over it. The Court cannot think of any other reason accused-appellant would make
the friendly gesture of offering a drink t a person he intended to kill, other than to intentionally
lure the latter into a false sense of security (People vs. Hatsero, GR No.m192179, July 3, 2013)

THE ESSENCE OF TREACHERY is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed
and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape. Treachery may be committed even if
the attack is frontal, but no less sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to
repel it or offer any defense to his person. Treachery may still be appreciated even when the
victim was forewarned of the danger to his person. What is decisive is that the execution of the
attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself. (People vs Pidoy, GR 146696, July 3,
2003 )

NOTE ON DAMAGES – The SC said that the trial court erred when it awarded the amount
of P50,000 as moral and exemplary damages without indicating what amount constitutes moral
damages and exemplary damages. The award of P50,0000 by the trial court should be
deeme3d as moral damages, which are awarded without need of further proof and in line with
prevailing jurisprudence. It is awarded for the anguish suffered by the victim’s wife because of
the victim’s death. In addition, exemplary damages must also be awarded considering the
attendance of treachery which qualified the killing to MURDER. Under Art. 2230 of the Civil
Code, exemplary damages as part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was
committed with one or more aggravating circumstances, which should be understood in its
generic or broad sense since the law did not specify otherwise. The ordinary qualifying nature
of an aggravating circumstance is a distinction that should be of consequence to the criminal,
rather than to the civil liability of the offender (Ibid)

NOTE: TREACHERY IS A GENERIC AGGRAVATING CIRUCMSTANCE IN ROBBERY WITH HMICIDE

WHEN THE VICTIM OF HOMICIDE IS KILLED BY TREACHERY. HOWEVER, treachery cannot be
appreciated against the accused because the same was not alleged in the information (as
provided by. Sec. 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure) Although at the time
the crime was committed, generic aggravating circumstance need not be alleged in the
Information, however, the general rule had been applied retroactively because it is more
favorable to the accused. Even if treachery is proven but it is not alleged in the Information,
treachery cannot aggravate the penalty for the crime (PEOPLE VS. ESCOTE, GR No. 140756, April
4, 2003)

7
**WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE COUP DE GRACE TO A FINDING OF TREACHERY IN THIS CASE IS
THE APRECIATION BY THE TRIAL COURT OF THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF PASSION.
Passion cannot co-exist with treachery because in passion, the offender loses his control and
reason while in treachery the means employed are consciously adopted. One who loses his
reason and self-control could not deliberately employ a particular means, method or form of
attack in the execution of the crime

WE END THE DISCUSSION on treachery by emphasizing that its presence under the
attendant facts has not been proven as fully and convincingly as the crime itself. The doubt,
must therefore, be resolved in favor of the appellant. But while the trial court may have erred
on this issue, its findings as to the presence of the mitigating circumstances of voluntary
surrender and passion, nonetheless, deserve affirmance. Voluntary surrender was correctly
appreciated because it appeared spontaneous and unconditional as appellant’s claim that he
voluntarily gave himself up to the policeman after shooting the victim remains undisputed.
Passion also existed as it clearly arose from lawful sentiments or legitimate feelings, having
committed the serious crime due to the maltreatment inflicted by the victim on his mentally
retarded brother, that triggered his anger which diminished and weakened the exercise of his
power .

APPELLANT SHOULD BE CONVICTED OF THE LESSER CRIME OF HMICIDE which, under

Art. 249 of the RPC, carries with it the penalty of reclusion temporal, Considering the presence
of 2 mitigating circumstances and the absence of any aggravating circumstance, the imposable
penalty is prision mayor. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence law, the minimum of the
indeterminate sentence to be meted appellant should be within the range of prision
correccional and the maximum thereof, within the range of prision mayor ( People vs. Germina,
GR No.120881, May 19, 1998)

***THERE IS TREACHERY WHEN THE OFFENDER COMMITS ANY OF TH CRIMES AGAINST

PERSONS, emplying means, methods or forms in the execution thereof that tend to directly and
especially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defensive or
retailiatory acts of the victim and b) the said means, method and manner of execution were
deliberately adopted. The circumstances surrounding the killing must be proved as indubitably
as the crime itself. Treachery cannot be presumed (People vs. Ala Wig, GR No. 187731, Sept. 18,
2013)

***AN UNEXPECTED AND SUDDEN ATTACK WHICH RENDERS THE VICTIM UNABLE and
unprepared to put a defense is the essence of treachery. Likewise, ti has been held that the
killing of a child is characterized by treachery even if the manner of the assault is not shown
because the weakness of the victim due to her tender age results in the absence of any danger
to the accused…IT SHOULD BE MADE CLEAR THAT THE ESSENC EOF TREACHERY IS TH SUDDEN
AND UNEXPECTED ATTACK ON AN UNSUSPECTING VICTIM WTHOUT THE SLIGHTEST
PROVICATION ON HIS PART. This is event truer if the ASSAILANT IS AN ADULT AND THE VICTIM
IS A MINOR. Minor children, who by reason of their tender years cannot be expected to put up
a defense. Thus, when an adult person illegally attacks a minor, treachery exists (People vs.
Umawid, GR No. 208719, June 9, 2014).

***CRUELTY –
Cruelty is present when the victim suffered excessively prior to his death. ..THERE IS
CRUELTY WHEN THE CULPRIT ENJOYS AND DELIGHTS IN MAKING HIS VICTIM SUFFER SOWLY
AND GRADUALLY, causing him unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of the criminal
act. The test is whether respondent deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by
causing another wrong not necessary for its commission or inhumanly increased the victim’s
suffering or outraged or scoffed t his person or corpse…The autopsy results that LAUDE died of
‘asphyxia due to drowning and strangulation” shows that while he was still breathing,
respondent drowned him by forcefully submerging his head in the water inside the toilet bowl.
This grisly scenario, coupled with Laude’s other major injuries, clearly show that he suffered
excessively prior to his death. Respondent opted to kill him in a manner that increased his

8
suffering and caused him unnecessary physical pain before his death (Joseph Scott Pemberton
vs Leila de lima, GR No. 217508, April 18, 2016).

***SPECIAL QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE IN RAPE – When rape is committed by an assailant

who has no knowledge of the victim’s mental retardation, the penalty is increased to death
(People vs. ROSALES, GR No.197537, July 24, 2013).

ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES (BAR ’78, ’91, ’94, ’00,, ’02, ’11)

RELATIONSHIP (Bar ’91, ’94, 11)

In crimes against chastity, such as ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS, relationship is always

aggravating.
With regard to the crime of sexual abuse under RA 7610, the penalty provided for
Violation of Sec. 5, Art. III thereof is reclusion temporary in its medium period to reclusion
perpetua. With the presence of this aggravating circumstance, the penalty shall be applied in
its maximum period – reclusion perpetua (People vs. Gaduyon, GR No.. 181473, Nov. 11 2013).

RELATIONSHIP OF A COMMON-LAW HUSBAND CAN NO BE CONSIDERED AS AN ORDINARY

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTACE TO INCREASE THE IMPOSABLE PENALTY. While it is true that the
alternative circumstance of relationship is always aggravating in crimes against chastity,
regardless of whether the offender is a relative of a higher or lower degree of the offended
party, it is only take into consideration under Art. 15 of the RPC when the offended party is the
spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister, or relative by
affinity in the same degree of the offender. The relationship between the victim and the
accused is not covered by any of the relationships mentioned. Thus, the accused-appellant is
found GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of Simple Statutory Rape, Simple Rape by Sexual
Assault and Acts of Lasciviousness (People vs Barcela, GR No. 208760, April 23, 2014).

PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES

A. Principal by indispensable cooperation (Bar ’00)

The Court agrees with the trial court that while there may be no evidence of n
appreciable time that these persons greed on the criminal resolution prior to the
incident, the stabbing were not separate but were geared towards the consummation of
the same end – to attack and kill the victim. Appellant’s positive identification by the
witness as one of those persons who stabbed the victim makes him criminally
responsible as a principal by indispensable cooperation (People vs. Villarmea, GR No
200029, Nov. 3, 2013)

***Par. 3, Art. 17 of the RPC considers as principals by indispensable cooperation THOSE

WHO COOPERATE IN THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE BY ANOTHER ACT WITHOUT WHICH IT
COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED. Its requisites are: 1) participation of the subject
accused in the criminal resolution and 2) performance by him of another act indispensable to
the accomplishment of the crime. Records show that appellant’s participation in the
commission of the crime consisted of : 1) leading eh members of the armed group to the house
where the victims were found; 2) tying the victims hands and 3) digging the grave where the
victims were buried. HOWEVER, it has been established through the testimony of Alex Utrera, a
former member of the NPA, that appellant was only picked up by the armed men for the
purpose of pointing the residence of the victims. The armed n=men never disclosed their
purpose in looking for the brothers Balaan who were former members of the AFP nor did the
armed men inform appellant of their plan to abduct and kill the 2 brothers.. .THE ACTS
PERFORMED BY THE APPELLANT ARE NOT, BY THEMSELVES, INDISPENSABLE TO THE KILLING OF
BROTHERS BALAAN. As aforesaid to be considered as a principal by indispensable cooperation,
there must be direct participation in the criminal design by another act without which the crime
would not have been committed. His acts of joining the armed men in going to the mountains,
and his failure to object to their unlawful orders, or show any reluctance in obeying the same
may be considered as circumstances evincing his concurrence with the objectives of the

9
malefactors and had effectively supplied them with material and mora aid, THERBEY MAKING
HIM AN ACCOMPLICE.

Art. 18 of the RPC provides that an accomplice is one wo, not being a principal,
cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. A person is
considered as an accomplice if his role in the perpetration of the crime is of a minor character.
To be convicted as such, it is necessary that he be aware of the criminal intent of the principal
and thereby cooperates knowingly or intentionally by supplying material or moral aid for the
efficacious execution of the crime, It is well-settled that if there is ample of criminal
participation but a doubt exist as to the nature of liability, courts should resolve to favor the
milder form of responsibility that of an accomplice (People vs. Fronda, GR Nos. 102361-62, May
14, 1993).

*** The above circumstances do not disprove conspiracy, Based on the facts proven by the
prosecution, appellant is liable for the crime as a principal by indispensable cooperation under
Art. 17, Par. 3 of the RPC. The fact that appellant held the deceased whew the latter was
assaulted by Antonio Go constitutes direct participation in the commission of the crime. It is
true that there is no evidence on record of a previous agreement between the accused to kill
victim Danilo de Claro, and to having seen or heard the accused conspire at no witness
testified. (People vs. Obello, GR No. 108772, Jan. 14, 1998)

***ACCOMPLICE (BAR ’79, ’80, ’07-’09, ’11, ’12)

In order that a person may be considered an accomplice, 3 elements must be shown to

concur, namely: a) that there be a community of design, that is, knowing the criminal design of
the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose; 2) that he
cooperates in the execution by previous or simultaneous act, with the intention of supplying
material or moral aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way and 3) that there be a
relation between he acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged as
accomplice (Rustia vs. people, GR No. 208351, Oct. 5, 2016)

Art. 14 of the RPC, considered in connection with Art. 13 defines an accomplice to be

one who does not take. Direct part in the commission of the act, who does nor force or induce
others to commit it, nor cooperates in the commission of the act by another act without which
it would not have been accomplished, yet cooperates in the execution of the act by previous or
simultaneous actions…In the case of accused-appellant, there is no evidence of moral or
material cooperation, and none of an agreement to commit the crime in question. Her mere
presence and silence while they are simultaneous acts, do not constitute cooperation, for it
does not appear that they encouraged or nerved Martin Atienza to commit the crime of arson,
and as for her failure to give the alarm, it being a subsequent act it does not make her liable as
an accomplice (people vs. Silvestre, GR No. L-35748, Dec. 14, 1931).

***ACCESSORY -
Art. 19, Par. 2 o the RPC defines accessories as those who, having knowledge of the
commission of the crime, and without having participated therein either as principals or
accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission by concealing or destroying the body of
the crime or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery. In the case at
bar, the evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove Radan’s liability as an accessory were
neither clear nor convincing. His presence during t he time when the DENR officers turned over
custody of the seized items to Arriola is not enough roof of complicity nor the fact that the
confiscated lumber was placed in his fathers house.

CLASSIFICATION OF PENALTIES

** RECLUSION PERPETUA is an indivisible penalty, it has no minimum, medium and maximum

periods. It is imposed in its entirety regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances
that may have attended the commission of the crime (BAR ’09)

10
11