CRIMINAL LAW is the branch of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and

provides for their punishment.

Special Penal Laws

- It is a criminal law
- It covers all crimes that are not covered or provided in the Revised Penal Code.
- E.g.
Anti-Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22)

Probation Law of 1976 (PD 968)

- Is not a criminal law
- It is an act of grace on the part of the State given to the accused.
Colinares v. People
- Yes, The Supreme Court ruled that Colinares may apply for probation upon remand of his
case to the RTC. Ordinarily, an accused would no longer be entitled to apply for
probation, he having appealed from the judgment of the RTC convicting him for
frustrated homicide. But in this case the Supreme Court ruled to set aside the judgment
of the RTC and found him only liable for attempted homicide, if the Supreme Court
follows the established rule that no accused can apply for probation on appeal, the
accused would suffer from the erroneous judgment of the RTC with no fault of his own,
therefore defying fairness and equity.

Theories in Criminal Law

1. Classical Theory
- also known as juristic or school of thought.
- The basis of criminal liability is the human free will.
- The purpose of penalty is RETRIBUTION . ( to make the offender to suffer)
- Under this theory, man is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free will to
choose between good and evil, thereby placing more stress upon the effect or result of
the felonious act than upon the criminal.
- It has little regard with the human element and the focus is on the penalty to make the
offender suffer.
 2. Positivist Theory
- Also known as realistic school of thought.
- The basis of the criminal liability is the sum total of the social and economic phenomena
to which the offense is expressed.
- The purpose of the penalty is REFORMATION. ( to reform or save the offender)
- Under this theory, man is subdues occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon
which constrains him to do wrong, in spite of or contrary to his volition.
- It has great regard with the human factor.
- It regards the offender as a sick person who needs to be cured.

The Revised Penal Code is based on classical theory but the amendments lean towards positivist
theory.

For example, the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (RA 9344)

3. Mixed Theory
- Also known as eclectic
- It is the combination of the classical and positivist theories.
- The classical theory should be applied to HEINOUS CRIMES, whereas, the positivist is
made to apply on economic and social crimes.
Legislative
- Congress - Senate and the House of the Representatives
- Has the power to enact and formulate laws.
- Limitations:
1. No ex post facto law shall be enacted.
2. No bill of attainder shall be enacted.
3. It should not impose cruel and unusual punishment nor should it
impose excessive fines.
An ex post facto law is a one which:
a. Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent
when done, and punishes such an act;
b. Aggravates a crime or makes its greater that it was committed;
c. Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed
to the crime when committed;
d. Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction
Upon less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the
commission of the offense;
e. Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes a penalty or
deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful; and
f. Deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to which he has
become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a
proclamation of amnesty.

Ex post facto law is a law that is not favorable or prejudicial to the accused which is given a retroactive
application.

E.g. Anti-Live-in Act

Quantum of Proof
1. Criminal case
- Proof beyond reasonable doubt
- Difficult to convict the accused.

2. Civil Cases
- Preponderance of evidence
- Evidence given by the plaintiff and defendant are being weigh down by the judge to
decide.

3. Administrative cases
- Substantial evidence

A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. It is a

violation of due process to be heard and to defend himself.
Characteristics of Criminal Law
I. General

Criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory regardless of
their nationality, race, age, sex, belief and color.

Exceptions:
a. Treaty Stipulation
- Treaties – the President is in agreement and it is ratified in the Congress.
- E.g. Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) – crimes committed within the US base are not
criminally liable and cannot be prosecuted in the Philippines.

a. Laws of Preferential Application

- E. g. RA 75 – ambassadors are exempted from criminal liability as well as their domestic

servants.

Ambassadors – are entitled because they are the official representatives of their foreign country with
the duty to take care of their citizens who are in the Philippines.

Consul – are not entitled to this immunity because they are here for commercial purposes only.
Senators or Congressman
- They are free from criminal liability while they are in sessions.

b. Principles of Public International Law

The following are not subject to the operations of our criminal laws:

Sovereigns, Heads of state, Ambassadors, Ministers Plenipotentiary, Ministers Resident and

Charges d’affaires.

Mr. Smith, an American citizen, visited Manila. When he was about to check-in at Manila Hotel,
he saw X reading a newspaper in the lobby. X is his mortal enemy and also an American
citizen. Mr. Smith approached X and hit the back of X’s head. While being tried, he invoked
that he is an American.

Is his contention untenable?

No, because penal laws are general.Under the general characteristic, criminal law is binding on
all persons who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory regardless of their nationality, race,
age, sex, belief and color. …
 II. Territoriality

Criminal laws undertake to punish crimes committed within Philippine territory.

General Rule: Penal Laws are only enforceable within its territory.

Mr. Santos is married to Greta Santos in the Philippines. Mr. Santos went to US and has
a girlfriend named Mariel. Mariel has been nagging Mr. Santos to file an annulment. Mr.
Santos files for the nullity of his marriage with Mrs. Santos. The RTC of Quezon City
dismissed the petition. He remains married to Mrs. Santos. Mr. Santos and Mariel went
to USA, Nevada and stayed there for a month. They secured a divorce and got married
there.

Did Mr. Santos and Mariel committed bigamy?

No, because the crime was not committed within the Philippine Territory. Under the law,
criminal law is enforceable only within its territory. The subsequent marriage
commenced outside the Philippines. Thus, Mr. Santos and Mariel did not commit
bigamy.
Exceptions to the Territorial application of Criminal Law:

1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;

2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations
and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations
and securities mentioned in the presiding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their
functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in
Title One of Book Two of this Code.

The vessel must be in the international waters only and not in the territory of another country.
Any coin or currency note even if it does not have legal tender (value)
Obligations and securities: Bond, Philippine charity sweepstakes ticket

A, a cashier at the Ph Embassy in Japan. A was involved in gambling and because he had a lot of debts,
he pick pocketed the money. (Malversation – may be prosecuted, must be connected to his functions)
- A held liable because he committed a crime at the Ph Embassy in Japan. Embassy is
considered as an extension of our territory.

Consular office – not liable because the crime committed is not connected to his functions.
Japan Warship in the Philippines and a crime was committed.
- Not liable because warship is considered as an extension of the country owning them.
Philippines has no jurisdiction. ( territorial Characteristic)

Foreign Merchant Vessel

1. French Rule
Gen. rule: Philippines cannot assent jurisdiction and try the offender but if the crime affects the peace and
security of the Ph, then Ph shall have jurisdiction.

2. English Rule
General rule: The offender may be prosecuted and be held liable in the Ph, unless the crime merely affects
things or internal management. Thus, the Ph shall have no jurisdiction.

III. Prospective
Criminal laws should be made to apply to crimes likely to happen in the future.

General Rule: Criminal law merely punishes crimes committed on or after its effectivity.
Exceptions:
When it is favorable to the accused, who is not a habitual delinquent.

Exception to the exception:

1. If the new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions.
2. The offender is a habitual delinquent.
2 types of repeal
1. Total or absolute repeal
- The former law has been rendered inoperative by the new law.
- E.g. RA 1700 – Anti – Subversion Law

2. Partial or relative repeal

- It does not totally decriminalizes the act
- The new law is passed which penalizes the same act in the old law, whether the penalty was
decreased or increased.

Effects of Total/Absolute Repeal

1. If the accused has been convicted and serving sentence, the accused shall be released from
prison.
Except: (no application)
a. If he is a habitual delinquent

2. The accused is in trial, the act will be decriminalized. The case will be dismissed.
3. If the case is not yet filed in court, it can no longer be filed since the act ceases to be criminal.
Other Principles.
1. Pro Reo Doctrine
- In case of doubt, the doubt shall be resolve in favor to the accused.
2. Equipoise Rule
3. The judge will weigh the evidence and if they are both equal, the judge will acquit the accused.
 Distinctions

Mala in se Mala Prohibita

It is inherently wrong and immoral such as It is merely wrong because it is prohibited by

rape, murder, etc. law such as illegal possession of firearm,
bouncing checks law, etc.

Crimes punished under the Revised Penal Crimes punished by special penal laws.
Code.
Good faith is a defense. Not a defense.
Intent is an essential element. Intent is immaterial.
There are 3 stages: attempted, frustrated and There are no stages of execution. It is always
consummated consummated.
Rules on mitigating and aggravating Does not apply.
circumstances apply
There are 3 persons criminally liable: principal, Only the principal or offender is liable.
accomplice and accessory.
The Revised Penal Code
Book 1
– art 1 to 20 – provides the basic principles affecting criminal liability
4. Art 21-113 – penalties
Book 2 – define specific felonies

Article 1. Time when Act takes effect. - This Code shall take effect on the first day of January, nineteen hundred
and thirty-two.

Article 2. Application of its provisions. - Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application,
the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its
atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:

1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship

2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities
issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and securities
mentioned in the presiding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book
Two of this Code.
Article 3. Definitions. - Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).

Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).

There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there is fault when the wrongful act results
from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.

Jurisdiction – the case must be filed where the crime/act was committed
Theft – taking personal property belonging to another with the intent to gain.
Homicide – killing a person without any circumstances.
Murder – killing a person with circumstances
E.g use of bomb, fire

Internal Acts – are mere thought and they are not punishable
No matter how evil, it cannot be punished because they are mere thoughts.
Eg. A thought of pulling B’s fingernails
External Acts – it depends
2 kinds:
1. Preparatory acts – not punishable
2. Acts of execution – punishable
E.g A stabbed B. (homicide); A stabbed B with treachery. (murder)
Felonies
- Acts or omission punishable by the Revised Penal Code.
- Act – is any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external world.
- Omission – meant inaction, it is the failure to perform a positive duty which one is bound
to do.
Elements:
1. There must be an act or omission;
2. The act or omission is punishable by the RPC; and
3. The act is performed or the omission is incurred by means of dolo (malice) or culpa
(fault).
4.
Classifications of felonies:
1. Intentional felonies
- The act of the offender is malicious and has the intention to cause an injury to another.
Elements: (FII)
1. Freedom
2. Intelligence
3. Intent

 All elements must be voluntary.

Freedom
US v. Caballeros
The Penal Code exempts from liability any person who performs the act by reason of irresistible
force (Art. 12, paragraph 5). Baculi acted, doubtless, under such circumstances when he executed
the acts which are charged against him.
Intelligence
- Art 12, p(1)
RA 9344
The offender is below 15 years old, even if he acted with discernment – not criminally liable.
Over 15 years old – not criminally liable.
With discernment – criminally liable.

Intent – is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result.

Motive – is the moving power which impels one to commit an act for a definite result

2. Culpable felonies
- The act or omission is not malicious. The injury caused by the offender to another is
unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act performed without malice.
Elements:
1. Freedom
2. Intent
3. Imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight and lack of skill
 All elements must be voluntary.
Mistake of fact
- Is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused an injury to
another.
Elements:
1. That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the
accused believed them to be;
2. The intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful; and
3. The mistake must be without fault or negligence on the part of the accused.

US v. Ah Chong
- Page 46

People v. Oanis
- Page 46
- Here, there is no mistake of fact because the requisites of MoF are not present.
- Oanis is convicted of murder with the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
Article 4. 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 an account of the employment
of inadequate or ineffectual means.
Paragraph 1
By any person committing a felony
1. Error in Personae – mistake in the identity
2. Aberratio Ictus – mistake of blow
3. Praeter Intentionem –
*all criminally liable!

Example:
A with intent to kill shot B. B was grazed by the bullet in the arm and it hit a bystander, C. C died.
A was committing a felony and responsible for the death of C. A is liable for homicide of C, even if
there is no intent to kill C and C died.. Also, A is liable for attempted homicide of B. (Complex Crime)

Consummated and frustrated

- Must inflict a fatal/mortal wound.
Use of poison, fire, bomb = always murder.
Killing, no circumstances attended the commission = homicide
Complex Crime – Art 48
- Favorable to the accused because two crimes are committed; penalty for the most serious crime
and in the maximum period.
- Assuming that C did not die due to medical attention.
- A liable for serious physical injury. There is no intent to kill C.

1. B was hit in the head but did not die and the bullet grazed C.
A is liable for frustrated homicide of B. A was able to perform all the acts of execution by inflicting a mortal/fatal
wound upon B.

A is liable for slight physical injury. (if it will heal within 9 days; not a grave or less grave felony but a light felony)

No complex crime
Parricide – killing a relative
Liable because he was committing a felony. He incurs criminal liability for all consequences of his act.

A shot B with intent to kill. And B shot A to defend himself. A was not hit but a bystander, C. C suffered physical
injury.
- B is liable for serious physical injury only because B was not committing a felony. There was an
unlawful aggression from A which B repealed by shooting A. B was committing a lawful act.
People v. Bindoy
- Page 64
Yes, A is liable. He was committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended.
US v. Villanueva
A tried to snatch the bolo of B. B stopped A from snatching the bolo and sustained physical injuries
from A.
A cannot be held criminally liable because he was not committing a felony. A snatched it because he
was just curious. There is no law penalizing a person who snatches a bolo for curiousity.

Requisites of P(1)
1. That an intentional felony has been committed; and
2. That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical
consequence of the felony committed by the offender.
A was patrolling Rizal Ave in Makati and there was a Ministop. Two robbers were robbing the cashier. One
robber had a gun and shot A, when A was about to enter. A also shot 3 times, hitting the 2 robbers and the
cashier.
- A is not committing a felony. A can invoke self-defense because there was unlawful aggression
from one of the robbers. A was performing a lawful duty or order. The cashier was accidentally
hit.
A, a policeman pursuing an arm prisoner from prison. A fired his pistol hitting a passerby.
- A is not criminally liable because he was not committing a felony. A was engaged in the
performance of a lawful duty. (state the requisites; page 212)
People v. Page -page 68 to 69
- The Sc ruled that if a man creates in another person’s mind an immediate danger, which causes
such person to try to escape and in doing so, the latter injures himself, the man who creates such
a state of mind is responsible for the resulting injuries.
US v. Valdez -page 69

Proximate Cause – is the cause, which, in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.

3 vehicles. Vehicle A, B and C. Vehicle C intentionally hit V.B. VB suffered damages and intentionally hit VA. VA
intentionally hit a pedestrian.
Immediate cause - VA
Proximate cause – VC
VA and VB may hold VC liable.
Paragraph 2.
By any person performing an impossible crime.

In reality, there is no crime. What is punished is the propensity or tendency of a person of becoming a
criminal.

Requisites:
1. That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property;
2. That the act was done with evil intent;
3. That it’s accomplishment is inherently impossible or that the means employed is
inadequate or ineffectual; and
4. That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC.
A boarded at LRT Legarda to Cubao Station. He saw B standing with a backpack and the
zipper was a bit open. A saw B’s phone. A with intent to gain, took B’s phone. At the next
station, A alighted and went home. A checked the phone and was surprised that it was his
missing phone yesterday.
- Yes, A incurs criminal liablity because he committed the impossible crime of theft.
In theft, there is intent to gain. (legal impossibility)
2 Types of Impossible Crime
1. Physical impossibility
2. Legal Impossibility

A has an old maid as a neighbor, B. A would see B naked while sleeping in his window. One night, A
climbed the second floor and passed through the window of B. A raped B without knowing that it’s
been hours since B died.
- A is liable for trespass in the dwelling of B.

A, husband, had a girlfriend, Greta. She’s been nagging A to kill his wife. A went to the drugstore and
bought racumin. His neighbor saw A and asked A what for? A answered, to kill my wife. The neighbor
called the policeman and A was interrogated.
- A is not criminally liable. The act of A is a preparatory act which means it is not yet
punishable because he can still change his mind.
Internal Act – they are not punishable no matter how evil.
External act – 2 types:
1. Preparatory Acts – as a general rule, they are not punishable.
Exception – possession of picklocks ( preparation to rob)
2. Acts of execution.

Assuming A reached the house and prepared coffee and bread for his wife. A mixed the racumin in the
coffee and gave it to his wife. If the wife drinks the coffee and dies
-A committed parricide.
A would like to kill his wife to marry Greta. He found containers with a cross bone and mix the content
with the coffee of his wife. Wife drank the coffee but did not die. It was because the container contains
sugar.
Yes, A is liable for the impossible crime of parricide.
Act would be parricide. No other provision has been violated. With evil intent, A employed ineffectual
means.
  Inadequate Means
A made a toxic substance to be given to his wife. The toxic was sufficient enough to kill his
wife. His wife drank it and nothing happened to her because his wife had
- A is liable for frustrated parricide because the means employed were adequate but
the expected result was not produced. It is not an impossible crime, but a
frustrated felony.
 Inadequate means sufficient.

People v. Intod – p 87
- Committed an impossible crime of murder of the factual impossibility of producing
the crime.
- Malicious mischief – peppered the house. However, the accused should be
penalized for destroying the house and the court found them guilty of an
impossible crime of murder.
Article 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but which are
not covered by the law, and in cases of excessive penalties. - Whenever a court has
knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by law,
it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the
Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be
made the subject of legislation.

In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of
Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the
sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the
imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the
injury caused by the offense.

Paragraph 1. Nullum Crimen, Nulla Poena Sine Lege.

Paragraph 2. Dura lex sed lex

Article 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. - Consummated felonies as well as those
which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.

A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce
the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator.

There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly or over acts,
and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some
cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance.

Formal crimes – are those which are always consummated by a single act.
Material crimes – are those crimes which have 3 stages of execution. (Attempted, Frustrated and
Consummated)

Internal Act – Mere ideas/thoughts and they are not punishable no matter how evil.
External act – it depends whether it is a PA or AE
2 types:
1. Preparatory Acts – as a general rule, they are not punishable.
Exception – possession of picklocks ( preparation to rob)
2. Acts of execution.
 1. Aberracio ictus

A with intent to kill shot B. B was not hit but C. C did not die and suffered only serious physical injuries.
- A is liable for attempted homicide and serious physical injuries.
2 phases:
Subjective Phase – attempted phase only
Objective phase – The act passes the subjective phase; frustrated or consummated .

OBJECTIVE
SUBJECTIVE
The offender commences the If the victim does not die –
beginning of the felony. FRUSTRATED.
- The offender has control over If the victim dies - consummated
his acts. He may stop or
continue.
- If he desisted, no crime
committed; an absolutory cause.
A with intent to kill and shot B. B was hit in the arm.
- Frustrated Homocide – frustrated because A was not able to inflict a mortal wound. Mortal wound
could have cause the death of the victim.

A gave poisonous food to B. B put it on his mouth but wasn’t able to swallow it because B’s back head
was hit by a ball.
- Attempted murder; A was not able to perform all the acts of execution. The act is in the
subjective phase only
Assumingly, A told B not to swallow it. B threw the food.
- A stopped in the subjective phase. Nothing happened to B. No felony was committed.
Requisite no 4 is absent. A spontaneously desisted.
 Crimes punished by special laws – there is no attempted and/or frustrated.

Physical Injuries Attempted Frustrated Consummated

No intent to kill There is always There is always There is always

and injury has intent to kill. intent to kill. intent to kill.
been inflicted;
even if mortal
wound or not
A attacked B. B got his bolo and boloed A in the neck. A died.,
- B is not liable for he acted in self-defense.
Assumingly, B used his gun and shot A in his defense. It hit A and an innocent bystander in the eye. A
died.
- B is not liable for the bystander. He was performing a lawful act. He was defending
himself and accidentally hit a bystander.
-
Distinguish Attempted and Frustrated (Estrada-p59)
Attempted Frustrated

Does not perform all the acts of execution. Does perform all the acts of execution.

Does not pass the subjective phase. Reaches the objective phase.

The accident or spontaneous desistance is The cause independent of the will of the
caused by the nopn-performance. perpetrator.

Overt act – is some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular
crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried to its complete termination
following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary
desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense.
People v. Lamahang - p 100
The SC ruled that there is no attempted robbery, only attempted to trespass to dwelling.
In Attempted, the NON PERFORMANCE was due to the voluntary desistance of the offender. ( no crime
is committed)

People v. Borenaga - Frustrated Murder

The Sc considered the belief of the accused that he was able to inflict a wound on the back of the victim
even though it was just in the attempted stage.

A with intent burn B’s building, soaked the cloth in a kerosene and put it in the wall of B’s building.
When he was about to light it, he was apprehended.
- A is liable for attempted arson.If it was lighted already; then, frustrated! If a portion of the
building or house has been blackened or burnt, consummated arson.
Valenzuela v. CA - p117

No frustrated theft and rape

People v. Diao
People v. Dino
Bribery- The receiver is the one who would be convicted and the one giving the bribe will not be held liable.
They are only liable for corruption of public officials.

A gave Judge B 100,000 so that he will favorably decide on his case.

Assumingly, Judge B is the one asking for the money. A pretended to agree with him and went to NBI. They
designed an entrapment against Judge B. A went to the office of Judge B with C, a NBI agent. A handed the
money to Judge B and Judge B accepted the money.
- Judge B is now liable for consummated bribery. A is not liable.
Assumingly, Judge B pretended to accept the money of A and use it as an evidence against A.
- A is liable for attempted corruption of public official.

Article 7. When light felonies are punishable. - Light felonies are punishable only when they have been
consummated, with the exception of those committed against person or property.

Article 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. - Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable
only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony
and decide to commit it.

There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other
person or persons.
A, B, C came to an agreement to kill D and decide to commit it. However, before they were able to commence
the killing of D, they were apprehended by the policeman.
- A, B, and C should not be charged because as a rule, conspiracy are not punishable except in the
cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
What if, A carried out the plan. A shot D with a revolver. D was hit on the neck and was rushed to the nearest
hospital. D survived. Is B and C criminally liable?
- Yes, they are liable for the crime of frustrated murder. The killing elevated to murder because
there was evident premeditation. They agreed and planned the killing of D.
Assumingly, D was only grazed in the arm.
- They are liable for attempted murder because the wound inflicted to D was not a fatal wound.
The offenders failed to perform all the acts of execution by inflicting a fatal wound. A fatal wound
is a wound inflicted that can cause the life of the victim.

 A, B and C are liable because there was conspiracy, In conspiracy, an act of one is an act of all.
There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other
person or persons.

A decided to rob Bank X. A proposes its execution to B. B agreed to rob the bank.
- A and B are not liable because as a rule proposal is not punishable except in the cases in which
the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
Assumingly, B carried out the robbery and it was successful.
- A and B are liable for robbery.
Proposal that is accepted will ripen to a conspiracy.
Conspiracy to commit: Treason; Sedition; Rebellion; Arson.
Proposal to commit: Treason, Rebellion

Mere conspiracy and mere proposal are punishable because if they succeed, the State will not
survive!

Types of conspiracy
1. As a felony
2. As a manner of incurring a criminal liability
- Not punishable but there is conspiracy in the commission of the felony. An act of
one is an act of all.

Requisites of Conspiracy:
1. That two or more persons come to an agreement;
2. That the agreement concerned the commission of a felony; and
3. That the execution of the felony be decided upon.

Requisites of Proposal:
1. That a person has decided to commit a felony; and
2. That he proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
A proposes the killing of his wife to B. B agreed.
2. A and B are not liable because proposal is not punishable except in the cases in
which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
3. If B accepts the proposal of A, it will ripen to a conspiracy.

There is no criminal proposal when:

1. The person who proposes is not DETERMINED to commit the felony.
2. There is no decided, concrete and formal proposal.
3. It is not the execution of a felony that is proposed.
Article 9. 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 Art. 25 of this Code.

Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are
correctional, in accordance with the above-mentioned Art..

Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which a penalty of arrest menor or a
fine not exceeding 40,000 pesos or both; is provided.

Article 10. 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 specially provide the contrary.

As a rule, the provision of the Revised Penal Code does not apply to special penal laws.
Exception:
It applies to supplementary or suppletory in character.
Ex: Art 100 – Civil liability is awarded to the injured party to recover damages in case of imprudence;
Mitigating or aggravating circumstances – violation of BP 22; the offender entered a plea of guilt – not
applicable because it is a special penal law.
Article 11. 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 concur;
First. Unlawful aggression.
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

2.Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or
adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those consanguinity within the fourth civil
degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the
further requisite, in case the revocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part
therein.

3.Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and second requisites
mentioned in the first circumstance of this Article are present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge,
resentment, or other evil motive.

4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes damage to another, provided that the
following requisites are present;
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.

6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.
Circumstances that Affect the criminal liability:
1. Justifying;
2. Exempting;
3. Mitigating;
4. Aggravating;
5. Absolutory causes (under art. 20, 124, 280, 332, 344); and
6. Extenuating.

Justifying Circumstance
- Are those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance with law, so that such person is
deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and civil liability, with
the exception in P(4) of Art 11. Civil liability is provided.(Transgressed – violated)
- Nature: if they are invoked, the accused has the burden of proof to prove his innocence. The
accused admits the killing therefor he must prove it by clear and convincing evidence that he
should not be punished and that he is innocent.

I. SELF – DEFENSE
- Requisites:
1. Unlawful aggression.
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
Rights embraced in Self-defense:
 Right to life
 Right to property; and
 Right to honor.

2 kinds of aggression: Lawful and unlawful

Ex. A filed a complaint against B to pay his debt of 100,000. How can A recover his money?
- The court will issue a writ of execution and order commanding the sheriff to get the
money/properties amounting to the monetary granted upon A. The properties
confiscated will be sold via an auction. The proceeds of the auction will be given to
A. The performance of the sheriff is lawful!

Unlawful aggression
- There is unlawful aggression, when there is a peril to one’s life, limb or right either
actual or imminent.
- Actual UA – there must be actual/physical weapon used
- Imminent UA – the danger is on the point of happening.
US v Merced - p156; An absolutory cause – art 247
- Penalty: destierro – a correccional penalty; a penalty to protect the husband from the
vengeance of the aggrieved.
- The husband was defensing his honor. He was able to kill the wife and the paramour.

Absolutory cause – the cause although the person commits a crime, no penalty will be impose due to
public policy or sentiment.

People v. Alconga - p167

- Alconga was able to evade the attack and his attacker ran away. But alconga, pursued and
killed him. Alconga is liable. When the attacker started to ran away, the unlawful
aggression ceased to exists or There was no more unlawful aggression on the part of the
attacker. The unlawful aggressor now is Alconga when he pursued and killed the victim.
People v Roxas.
- Slap on the face - Unlawfull aggression because the face symbolizes our whole being. An
attack to our dignity.
People v. Cabungcal - p158
US v. Carrero - p159

Retaliation - the aggression that was began by the injured party already ceased to exists when the
accused attacked him. The UA already ceased, yet the attacker attacked the original attacker.
A, an OFW and has not come home for 2 years. When he arrived in the Philippines, he contacted B, his
wife, and told her to prepare the house and herself. B cleaned the house and prepared herself. She
was waiting for A in the sala when she fell asleep while the door was open. C, a guy neighbor of A, saw
B and entered the house. C had sex with B and A arrived saying that I’m home honey. B was shocked to
realized that it was her husband whom she made love with. With that, he shot C.
- What the wife did is retaliation. A inflicted serious physical injuries upon B. Seeing B
wounded, A stopped inflicting physical injuries to B then, B inflicted physical injuries to A.

Is B liable? Yes, B is liable. A is also liable. B cannot invoke self-defense because the UA ceased to exists. What he did is
retaliation.

Agreement to fight – both of them are unlawful aggressors.

Exception: violation in the agreement.

People v. Gutierrez – p163

- A attacked B, boxed B on the face. B cant do anything because A is very tall. B used sand to weaken A.

People v. Calantoc
- A placed inside his hand inside his pocket. B thought he was gonna withdraw a gun and then he stabbed
A.
People v. Hernandez
- If the unlawful aggressor retreats to take more advantageous position and arm – there is still UA.
People v,. Quinto
2nd requsite:
-Mathematical equality is not necessary. Rational equivalence is required and instinct is more
important.

Y used a knife as a defense for a gun.

People v. Jaurigue – p186

Battered Woman Syndrome

- Phases:
1. Tension Building Phase;
2. Acute Battery Phase; and
3. Tranquil- loving Phase.
 1,2,3 - Must happen twice!
 II. DEFENSE OF A RELATIVE
Relatives that can be defended:

1. Spouse;
2. Ascendants;
3. Descendant;
4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters;
5. Relatives by affinity in the same degrees; and
6. Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil.

Requisites:
1.Unlawful aggression.
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making a defense had no part
therein.
 III. DEFENSE OF A STRANGER

Who are deemed strangers?

- Any person not included in the enumeration of relatives mentioned in p2 of this article.
Requisites:
1. Unlawful aggression.
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
3. The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
A, a buko vendor, was called by a commotion. He saw B, his son, about to be hack by C. Upon
seeing, A pulled his bolo from his cart and hacked C before C can even hack B.

- A can invoke the justifying circumstance of defense of a relative. There was an

unlawful aggression from C. There is unlawful aggression when the peril to one’s
life, limb or right is imminent or actual. It presupposes an actual, sudden and
unexpected attack. Reasonable necessity of the means employed by A to defend
B. Lastly, even though the provocation was given by B, A had no part there in.

C was the mortal enemy of A. A saw that B, his son, will be hack by C. With this, A hacked C>

- A can still invoke the justifying circumstance of defense of a relative even though
C is his mortal enemy and he was seeking revenge against C.

Assumingly, instead of A’s son, the would-be victim is the husband of A’s sister in law.

- Not a defense of a relative. It will be a defense of a stranger.

 IV. AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL OR INJURY

Requisites:

1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;

2. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; and
3. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

 No criminal liability but there is civil liability born by the person or persons who
benefitted from the act.

A, a cargo vessel with passengers, was traversing the sea when a the haul was hit and water
started to seep in the vessel. There was a need to lighten the vessel, so that, the passengers
will be save. The captain started throwing the cargoes in the sea. The passengers were safe
and sound, but the cargoes are lost. Who is liable?

- The persons civilly liable are the ship Captain, its passengers and the owner of the
vessel. They will apportion the liability depending from the beneficiary and the
Court will be the one to determine how much will it be.
 V. FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF RIGHT OR OFFICE
Requisites:
1. That the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in a lawful exercise of a right or
office; and
2. That the injury cause or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due
performance of a duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.

VI. OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED FOR SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE

Requisites:
1. That an order has been issued by a superior;
2. That such order must be for some lawful purpose; and
3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful.

The subordinate was ordered by his superior to extract confession from the prisoner through torture.
Was the order lawful?
- Yes but the means to carry out the order was wrong. Torture is unlawful. What the
subordinate should properly do is a get a lawyer for the prisoner
Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. - the following are exempt from criminal liability:
1.An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.

When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall
order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be
permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court.

2.A child fifteen (15) years of age or 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 this Act.

3.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.

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.

5.Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.

6.Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.

7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful insuperable cause.
Exempting circumstances
- Are those grounds for exemption from punishment because there is wanting in the agent
of the crime any of the conditions which make the act voluntary or negligent. (wanting –
lacking)
- Basis: based on complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action or intent
- The accused is not criminally and civilly liable except for p4( the act lacks intelligence)

Distinguish!
Justifying circumstance
- There is no crime committed and there is no criminal.
- There is no civil liability awarded except for p4 ( state of necessity )

Exempting circumstance
- There is a crime committed but there is no criminal because of absence of any elements
of voluntariness.
- There is civil liability awarded on the part of the accused except in p4 (accident).
 I. IMBECILITY/INSANITY
Imbecile – is exempt in all cases from criminal liability.
- Is a person while advanced in age, has a mental development comparable to that of children 2 and 7 years
old.
- It is incurable and permanent.
 Not due to drunkenness, drug addicts.

Insane
- Is a person mentally ill or has an unsound mind.
- Not so exempt if it can be shown that he acted during a lucid interval.
- It is curable and not permanent.

Permission of the Court and also the recommendation of the Director of the hospital/asylum is needed for the
imbecile/insane person to be release from confinement.

After being arrested, he becomes insane. The trial will be suspended because he will be ordered to confinement in a
hospital/asylum intended for afflicted persons, to cure him.

The prosecution will commence upon regaining his sanity. He will serve his sentence.

A, at the time of commission of the crime, was sane. However, when he was arrested by the police, he became insane. He
will be put in a hospital/asylum to confine and to cure him. He was able to regain his sanity. Trial will proceed. After the
trial, he was found guilty.
- A is liable because when he committed the crime, he was sane. Therefore, it is important to determine
when there is insanity. It should be at the time of the commission of the crime. Otherwise, he will be held
criminally liable.
Dementia praecox – a mental psychosis/condition
- The person cannot recall many things, relatives, etc.
- The person is delusional that he is interfered with sexually or that his property is being taken away from
him. He is willing to kill. There is homicidal attack. Not criminally liable because he is considered as an
insane person.
Kleptomania
- An urge of the person to steal anything of value.
- There is no ruling yet if the person who suffers this condition is whether liable or not.
Epilepsy
- Suffering from epileptic attack; a condition
- There is a defect in the nervous system, There are fits, uncontrollable motions on the part of the person
suffering from epilepsy.
- Not criminally liable because it can be liken to lack of intelligence

Feeblemindedness
- Not imbecile/insane, therefore, he is criminally liable.
- He know what is right from wrong.

Somnabulism or sleepwalking
- People v Taneo
- Not criminally liable
Hypnotism
- Same as kleptomania, there is no ruling yet.
People v Lacena
- Not criminally liable.
-
2 and 3 RA 9344

A child fifteen (15) years of age or 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 this
Act.

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 court will suspend the promulgation of sentence and the child will be send to a rehabilitation
center like boy’s town.

If the child brought will reform, the social worker will check if he really did and he will be release. The
court will no longer promulgate the sentence even if he acted with discernment, and the records will
be confidential

On another hand, attaining age of 21, the sentence will be read to the accused in the court.

A person over 15 but under 18 is always entitled to a privilege mitigating circumstance of minority. Two
decrees lower and can apply for probation at any time.
 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.

Requisites:
1. Person is performing a lawful act;
2. With due care;
3. Causes injury to another by mere accident; and
4. Without fault or intention of causing it.

US v. Tañedo – p 239
- There is no criminal liability because it is an accident.
US v. Tayuntong – p240
-

5.Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.

Requisites:
1. that the compulsion is by means of physical force;
2. that the physical force must be irresistible; and
3. that the physical force must come from a third person.
6.Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.

Requsites:
1. That the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than, or at least equal to, that which is required
to commit; and
2. That it promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have succumbed to it.

A killed B. A saw C and then, punched . He also pointed a gun to C and instructed to bury the body of B.
- C is nor criminally liable because he acted under the impulse of uncontrollable fear.

A told C, if you will not bury B, I will bury you alive.

- C is still not liable.

Difference between 5 and 6

In no. 5 uses violence or physical force, whereas in no. 6, it uses intimidation or threat.

7.Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful insuperable cause.

Requisites:
1. That an act is required by law to be done;
2. That a person fails to perform such act; and
3. That his failure to perform such act is due to some lawful or insuperable cause
Absolutory causes
- Are those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and
sentiment there is no penalty imposed.
1. Spontaneous desistance during attempted stage (Art 6 );
2. Light felony is only attempted or frustrated, and is not against persons or property
( Art 7);
3. The accessory is a relative of the principal (Art 20 );
4. Legal grounds for arbitrary detention (Art 124);
5. Legal grounds for trespass ( Art 280);
6. The crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief is committed against a relative
(Art 332);
7. When only slight or less serious physical injuries are inflicted by the person who
surprised his spouse or daughter in the act of sexual intercourse with another
person ( Art 247 );
8. Marriage of the offender with the offended party when the crime committed is
rape, abduction, seduction, or acts of lasciviousness ( Art 344 ); and
9. Instigation.
10. Destierro
- An AC to protect the accused from the vengeance of his spouse’s relatives.
- Girl to girl – not applicable; because sexual intercourse is between a man and woman.
The accessory is a relative of the principal (Art 20 );
- A kidnap B and asked C, his brother, to get the ransom for B. Upon receipt, A will release B. C is
an accessory. Is C liable?
- C is liable because he assisted A to profit by the effects of the crime.
The crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief is committed against a relative (Art 332);
- Theft – taking the property belonging to another, with intent to gain.
- Swindling – is estafa
- Malicious mischief – intentionally destroying the property of another.

Distinguish:
Instigation
- The public officer induces a person to commit a crime.
- It is an absolutory cause
- The criminal intent originates from the inducer.
Entrapment
- The public officer resort to ways and means for the purpose of trapping and capturing
the lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal plan.
- It is not an absolutory cause.
- The criminal intent originates from the criminal/s.

Why must the inducement come from public officials?

- Because if it comes from a private individual, they will be both criminally liable.
Ex.
PO X would like to apprehend the dealer of shabu in Manila City. PO X found X, a user of the prohibited
drug that has been rehabilitated. PO X approached B and asked B to help him catch the dealer/s. B
refused, however, PO X kept on insisting that he needs his help. Later on, B agreed to help and
designed their plan. B posed as a buyer and touched his head as a signal once the money was paid to
the dealer/s. The dealer/s were apprehended.
- B can invoke the absolutory cause of instigation. Although B committed a crime by buying
the shabu, he is not criminally liable because he merely acted as a poser buyer. Thus, B
cannot be penalized. However, the dealer/s are criminally liable. They were caught by an
entrapment.

Judge A said to litigant B to give him 150,000 in order to win his case in his sala. Litigant B agreed, and
went to the NBI and told the agents about Judge A. The agents devised a plan to entrap Judge A. LB
texted JA that the money is now ready and he will be accompanied by his uncle whom he borrowed the
money but later will be revealed as an NBI agent. Judge A texted back that they will meet in his place.
When LA gave the money to JA and JA accepted it, that’s when the NBI agent apprehended JA.
- Judge A is liable for corruption of public official.
Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. - The following are mitigating circumstances;
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify or to exempt
from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant.
2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he
shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80.
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act.
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing
the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or
obfuscation.
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that
he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the
prosecution;
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus
restricts his means of action, defense, or communications with his fellow beings.
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender without
however depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.
10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned.
Mitigating Circumstance
- Those which if present in the commission of the crime, do not entirely free the actor from
criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the penalty. 
- BASIS: Diminution of either freedom of action, intelligence, or intent, or on the lesser
perversity of the offender.
- CLASSES:
1. ORDINARY – lowers the penalty by periods
2. PRIVILEGED – lowers the penalty by degrees

Distinguish
Ordinary MC
- It is susceptible of being offset with a generic aggravating circumstances
- It lowers the penalty to the minimum period.

Privileged MC
- It cannot be offset by a generic aggravating circumstance.
- It lowers the penalty by degrees.

1. Incomplete Justifying or Exempting Circumstances

- Applies when all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal
liability are NOT attendant.
- It is considered a privileged mitigating circumstance, provided, majority of the requisites
are present. 
- But in the case of “incomplete self-defense, defense of relatives, and defense of a
stranger,” unlawful aggression must be present, it being an indispensable requisite.
 2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years. In the case
of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of
Art. 80.

UNDER 18 OR OVER 70 YEARS OLD

- It is the age of the accused at the time of the commission of the crime which should be
determined. His age at the time of trial is immaterial.

15 and below – exempting

Privileged mitigating circumstance
Above 15 but under 18 – exempting unless acted with discernment – But even with discernment, penalty is reduced by
one (1) degree lower than that imposed. (Art 68, par 2, amended by RA 9344)
Minor delinquent under 18 years of age – sentence suspended (Art 192, PD 603 as amended by PD 1179, referred to as
Children in Conflict with the Law under RA 9344).

Child in Conflict with the Law – refers to a child who is alleged as, accused of, or being adjudged as, having committed an
offense under Philippine laws.

18 years or over – full criminal responsibility

70 years or over – mitigating, no imposition of death penalty if already imposed execution of death penalty is suspended
and committed

BASIS: Diminution of intelligence

3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
(Praeter Intentionem)
- Offender did not intend to commit so grave a wrong
- Disproportion of the means employed to execute the crime and the consequences produced
- Rule for the application:
Can be taken into account only when the facts proven show that there is a notable and evident disproportion
between the means employed to execute the criminal act and its consequences.
- Intention may be ascertained by considering:
(a) The weapon used
(b) The part of the body injured
(c) The injury inflicted
(d) The manner it is inflicted
- Not applicable to felonies by negligence.
- Not applicable to felonies where intention is immaterial.
- Not appreciated in murder qualified by treachery (Reyes).
- BASIS: Lack or diminution of intent
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act.

PROVOCATION is understood as any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party, capable
of exciting, inciting, or irritating any one.

REQUISITES:
(1) The provocation must be sufficient.
- Sufficient means adequate to excite a person to commit the wrong and must accordingly be
proportionate to its gravity (People vs. Nabora, 73 Phil 434, 435)
- Depends on:
(a) The act constituting the provocation
(b) The social standing of the person provoked
(c) The place and time when the provocation is made

(2) It must originate from the offended party.

(3) The provocation must be personal and directed at the accused.
(4) The provocation must be immediate to the commission of the crime by the person who is provoked.
- The threat should not be offensive and positively strong. Otherwise, the threat to inflict real injury is
an unlawful aggression, which may give rise to self-defense.

BASIS: 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, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.

REQUISITES:
(1) That there must be a grave offense done to the one committing the felony; his spouse; ascendants;
descendants; legitimate, natural or adopted brothers
or sisters or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
(2) That the felony is committed in immediate vindication of such grave offense.

4. “Immediate” allows a lapse of time unlike in sufficient provocation, as long as the

offender is still suffering from the mental agony brought by the offense to him.

To determine whether the personal offense is grave, the following must be considered:
(1) Social standing of the person
(2) Time when the insult was made
(3) Place where the insult was made
(4) Sometimes, even the age is considered

BASIS: Diminution of the conditions of voluntariness

6.That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or
obfuscation.
- The infliction of injury must be immediate from the act that caused passion or obfuscation.

ELEMENTS:
(1) The accused acted upon an impulse.
(2) The impulse must be so powerful that it naturally produced passion or obfuscation.

REQUISITES:
(1) That here be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of mind
(2) That said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a
considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity.
(3) The act causing such obfuscation was committed by the victim himself.
- The passion or obfuscation should arise from lawful sentiments in order to be mitigating.
- May lawfully arise from causes existing only in the honest belief of the offender.

BASIS: Loss of reasoning and self-control, thereby diminishing the exercise of his willpower.

Passion or Obfuscation is NOT mitigating when committed:

(1) In the spirit of lawlessness
(2) In the spirit of revenge

Passion or obfuscation cannot CO-EXIST with:

(1) Vindication of grave offense
(2) Treachery
7.That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that
he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the
prosecution;

TWO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:

(1) Voluntary surrender to a person in authority or his agents.
(2) Voluntary confession of guilt before the court prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.
- If both are present in the same case they have the effect of two independent circumstances (People vs. Fontalba, 61 Phil
589) and in the absence of aggravating circumstances, they will reduce divisible penalties by one degree (Art 64[5]).

REQUISITES OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER:

1. That the offender had not been actually arrested
2. That the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latter’s agents
5. Person in authority is one directly vested with jurisdiction which is the power to govern and execute the
laws, whether as an individual or as a member of some court or governmental corporation, board or
commission.
6. 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 (Art 152 as amended by
RA 1978)
3.That the surrender was voluntary.
- A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally
to the authorities, either because:
(1) He acknowledges his guilt.
(2) He wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in the search and capture.

REQUISITES FOR VOLUNTARY PLEA OF GUILTY:

1. That the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt.
2. That the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before the competent court that is to try the case.
3. That the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.
7. Even after arraignment, voluntary confession can still be mitigating, when with the consent of the public
prosecutor, there is an amendment in the information.
8. Voluntary confession is usually done during the arraignment.
9. What has been admitted need not be proven by evidence; judgment can already be rendered but both
sides can still present evidence to prove aggravating or mitigating circumstances
10. 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 courts to
read charges in a language known to him.
11. Promulgation is physical and actual reading of the sentence to the accused. It can be limited to just the
dispositive portion or “wherefore” clause. If there is an acquittal, the decision is final and executory and
not appealable because of the risk of double jeopardy (People vs. Ang Cho Kio, 95 Phil 475). If there is a
conviction, the accused has 15 days to avail of legal remedies, if not availed after the said period, the
conviction becomes final and executor.
REASON: Plea of guilty is an act of repentance and respect for law; it indicates a moral disposition in the accused,
favorable to his reform.
BASIS: 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 communications with his fellow beings.

12. When the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering from some physical
defect, restricting his means of action, defense or communication with other
13. The physical defect must relate to the offense committed. E.g. blindness does not
mitigate estafa

BASIS: Offender does not have complete freedom of action; diminution of freedom and voluntariness
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender without
however depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.

REQUISITES:
(1) That the illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of his willpower.
(2) That such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts.
14. Includes illness of the mind not amounting to insanity.

BASIS: Diminution of intelligence and intent

10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned.
EXAMPLES:
(1) Impulse of jealousy, similar to passion and obfuscation.
(2) Testifying for the prosecution, analogous to plea of guilty.
(3) Over 60 years old will failing sight, similar to over 70 years of age under par 2.
Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following are aggravating circumstances:
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.
2. That the crime be committed in contempt or with insult to the public authorities.
3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on
account of his rank, age, or sex, or that is be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the
latter has not given provocation.
4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.
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.
6. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever
such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense.
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an
offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band.
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or
other calamity or misfortune.
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity.
9. That the accused is a recidivist.
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by
final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code.
10. That the offender has been previously punished by an offense to which the law attaches an equal or
greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel
or international damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice
involving great waste and ruin.
13. That the act be committed with evidence premeditation.
14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed.
15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken the defense.
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means,
methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution,
without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural
effects of the act.
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.
There is an unlawful entry when an entrance of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken.
20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age or by means of
motor vehicles, motorized watercraft, airships, or other similar means. (As amended by RA 5438).
21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other
wrong not necessary for its commissions.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES - if attendant, serves to increase the penalty.
15. Without exceeding maximum penalty provided by law for that offense
16. Based on the greater perversity of offender
17. Manifested in the felony as shown by:
1. Motivating power
2. The place of commission
3. Means and ways employed
4. The time
5. Personal circumstances of offender or offended party
4 KINDS OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. GENERIC
Generally applies to all crimes
Dwelling, Nighttime, Recidivism
1-20, (except motor vehicles)

2. SPECIFIC
Only to particular crimes.
Ignominy against chastity
Cruelty/Treachery against persons
14, except dwelling
15, 16, 17, 21

3. QUALIFYING
Change nature of crime.
Treachery + premeditation
Article 248

4. INHERENT
Must accompany the crime.
Premeditation is inherent in robbery, theft and cannot further aggravate
Article 15. Their concept. - Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into
consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and
the other conditions attending its commission. They are the relationship, intoxication and the
degree of instruction and education of the offender.

The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration when the
offended party in the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or
sister, or relative by affinity in the same degrees of the offender.

The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstances
when the offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual
or subsequent to the plan to commit said felony but when the intoxication is habitual or
intentional, it shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
Title Two

PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES

Article 16. Who are criminally liable. - The following are criminally liable for grave and less
grave felonies:

1. Principals.

2. Accomplices.

3. Accessories.

The following are criminally liable for light felonies:

1. Principals

2. Accomplices.

Article 17. Principals. - The following are considered principals:

1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;

2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;

3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without
which it would not have been accomplished.

Article 18. Accomplices. - Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in Article
17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.

Article 19. Accessories. - Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of
the crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part
subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners:

1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the

crime.
 2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments
thereof, in order to prevent its discovery.

3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the

crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever
the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take
the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other
crime.

Article 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. - The penalties prescribed for
accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses,
ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by
affinity within the same degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling within the
provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding article.