People v.

Siton 600 SCRA 476 (2009) FACTS: Siton and Sagarano

CRIMINAL LAW I  were charged with Vagrancy as defined in Article 202(2) for “loitering
about public or semi-public buildings or places or trampling or wandering
about the country or the streets without visible means of support;” The
accused filed a motion to quash the information 
I. DEFINITION AND SOURCES 

1 
A. DEFINITION 

Criminal law is that branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats
of their nature, and provides for their punishment. 
alleging that Article 202(2) is unconstitutional for being vague and
overbroad. 
B. STATE AUTHORITY TO PUNISH CRIME 
HELD: Article 202(2) is a public order law. These laws were crafted to
1. SOURCES OF PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL LAW  maintain minimum standards of decency, morality and civility in human
a. The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) as  society. These laws may be traced all the way back to ancient times, and
amended; b. Special penal laws passed by the Philippine today, they have also come to be associated with the struggle to improve
Commission, Philippine Assembly, Philippine Legislature, National the citizens quality of life, which is guaranteed by our Constitution.
Assembly, Congress of the Philippines, and the Batasang Criminally, public order laws encompass a whole range of acts from
Pambansa; c. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during  public indecencies and immoralities, to public nuisances, to disorderly
conduct. The acts punished are made illegal by their offensiveness to
Martial Law.  society’s basic sensibilities and their adverse effect on the quality of life
of the people of society. The dangerous streets must surrender to orderly
1987 Constitution, Article II Section 5. Declaration of Principles and society. It must not be forgotten that police power is an inherent attribute
State Policies. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of of sovereignty. It has been defined as the power vested by the
life, liberty and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are Constitution in the legislature to make, ordain, and establish all manner
essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances, either with
democracy.  penalties or without, not repugnant to the Constitution, as they shall
judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and for the
subjects of the same. The power is plenary and its scope is vast and
1987 Constitution, Article VI Section 1. The legislative power shall be pervasive, reaching and justifying measures for public health, public
vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate safety, public morals, and the general welfare. 
and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the
people by the provision on initiative and referendum. 
Quinto v. Andres 453 SCRA 511 (2005) FACTS: Quinto and Garcia
were invited by Andres and Pacheco to fish inside a drainage culvert.
People v. Santiago 43 Phil 124 (1922) FACTS: Santiago was driving an Quinto went inside the drainage system with Pacheco and Andres while
automobile at a high speed notwithstanding the fact that he had to pass Garcia stayed outside. After a while, the dead body of Quinto was
a narrow space between a wagon standing on one side of the road and a carried out by Andres. The body of Quinto was buried without autopsy
heap of stones on the other side where there were two boys standing. and no criminal complaint was filed by the deceased’s relatives. The NBI
He ran over Parondo who was instantly killed as a result of the accident. conducted an investigation and found that Quinto sustained head injuries
Santiago was convicted by the lower court of the crime of homicide by and the cause of death was drowning. An information for Homicide was
reckless imprudence. The accused appealed challenging the validity of filed against Andres and Pacheco. The trial court and the CA held that
Act No. 2886 which amended General Order No. 58 (which provides that the accused did not commit the criminal acts complained of. 
all prosecutions for public offenses shall be in the name of the United
States against the persons charged with the offenses), claiming that the ISSUE: Whether or not the accused can still be held civilly liable despite
legislature is not authorized to amend the latter because its provisions acquittal in the criminal charge. 
have the character of Constitutional Law. Section 2 of Act No. 2866
contains that “all prosecutions for public offenses shall be in the name of
the People of  HELD: Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. The
the Philippine Islands against the person charged with the offense.”  civil liability of such person established in Articles 100, 102 and 103 of
the RPC includes restitution, reparation of the damage caused, and
indemnification for consequential damages. When a criminal action is
HELD: The procedure in criminal matters is not incorporated in the instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the
Constitution of the States, but is left in the hands of the legislature, so it offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action
that it falls within the realm of public statutory law.  unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to
The states, as part of police power, have a large measure of discretion in institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal
creating and defining criminal offenses. It is urged that the right to action. With the implied institution of the civil action in the criminal action,
prosecute and punish crimes is an attribute of sovereignty, but by reason the two actions are 
of the principle of territoriality as applied in the suppression of crimes, merged into one composite proceeding, with the criminal action
such power is delegated to subordinate government subdivisions such predominating the civil. The prime purpose of the criminal action is to
as territories. The Philippine Legislature by virtue of the Jones Law, like punish the offender in order to deter him and others from committing the
other territories of the US, has the power to define and punish crimes. same or similar offense, to isolate him from society, to reform and
The present government of the Philippines created by the US Congress rehabilitate him or, in general, to maintain social order. The sole purpose
is autonomous. It is within the power of the legislature to prescribe the of the civil action is the restitution, reparation or indemnification of the
form of the criminal complaint as long as the constitutional provision of private offended party for the damage or injury he sustained by reason of
the accused to be informed of the nature of the accusation is not the delictual or felonious act of the accused. The extinction of the penal
violated.  action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action. However,
the civil action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a
finding in a final judgment in the civil action that the act or omission from
US v. Pablo 35 Phil 94 (1916) FACTS: Pablo, a policeman, arrested
where the civil liability may arise does not exist. In the present case, we
Dato who was found in a vacant lot where a jueteng game was
rule that, as held by the trial court and the CA, the prosecution failed to
conducted. He presented a memorandum to his chief claiming that he
adduce preponderant evidence to prove the facts on which the civil
saw Malicsi and Rodrigo leaving the area. However, during the trial, he
liability of the respondents rest, i.e., that the petitioner has a cause of
changed his statement and claimed that he did not see Malicsi nor
action against the respondents for damages. 
Rodrigo leaving the area. As a result, the two accused were acquitted.
Pablo was charged with the crime of perjury and was convicted under
Act. No. 1697. It was claimed that the Act repealed the provisions of the 2. LIMITATIONS TO STATE AUTHORITY TO 
Penal Code relative to perjury, and the last provision of the PUNISH CRIMES 
Administrative Code repealed the Act, thus, there is no penal sanction
for the crime of false testimony or perjury. 
1987 Constitution, Article III Section 1. No person shall be deprived of
life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person
HELD: Notwithstanding that Act No. 1697 has been interpreted by this be denied the equal protection of the laws. Section 14. No person shall
court in its decisions to have repealed provisions of the Penal Code be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. In all
relating to false testimony, it did not expressly repeal the pertinent criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the
provisions of the Penal Code. Also, the Administrative Code, in totally contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and
repealing Act No. 1697, did not expressly repeal the said articles of the counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
Penal Code. Hence, the provisions of the Penal Code relative to perjury against him, to have a speedy, impartial and public trial, to meet the
remain in force. The reason behind such interpretation is that crimes witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the
should not go unpunished or be freely committed without punishment of attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
any kind.  However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the
absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his
failure to appear is unjustifiable. Section 18. No person shall be
detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations. No
involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. Section 19.
Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel degrading or inhuman
punishment inflictp
2  the need to correct
penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law. 
(i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner 
prescribed by law. 
Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a
poll tax. Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of
punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an
ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to
another prosecution for the same act. Section 22. No ex post facto law
or bill of attainder shall be enacted. 
2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 115 Section 1. Rights of
accused at the trial. 鈥
proved beyond reasonable doubt. (b)To be informed of the nature
and cause of the  the RTC promulgated a Decision acquitting the accused- appellant. On
accusation against him. (c)To be present and defend in person and
by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to
promulgation of the judgment. The accused may, however, waive his
presence at the trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail,
unless his presence is specifically ordered by the court for purposes of
identification. The absence of the accused without justifiable cause at the
trial of which he had notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be
present thereat. When an accused under custody escapes, he shall be
deemed to have waived his right to be present on all subsequent trial
dates until custody over him is regained. Upon motion, the accused may
be allowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to the
court that he can properly protect his right without the assistance of
counsel. (d)To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-
examination on matters covered by direct examination. His silence shall
not in any manner prejudice him. (e)To be exempt from being compelled
to be a  What is peculiar in this case is that a judgment of acquittal was rendered
witness against himself. (f) To confront and cross-examine the
witnesses against him at the trial. Either party may utilize as part of its
evidence the testimony of a witness who is deceased, out of or cannot
with due diligence be found in the Philippines, unavailable or otherwise
unable to testify, given in another case or proceeding, judicial or
administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, the
adverse party having the opportunity to cross-examine him. (g) To have
compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and
production of other evidence in his behalf. (h) To have speedy, impartial
and public trial.  FACTS: Accused Domingo was charged before the trial court for 2
Civil Code, Article 2 Penal laws and those of public security and safety
shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory,
subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty
stipulations.  a speedy trial. The prosecution moved for reconsideration of the said
Pesigan v. Angeles 129 SCRA 174
(1984)  Accused contends that his right to speedy trial was violated, and that the
FACTS: Anselmo and Marcelo Pesigan were transporting carabaos in
the evening of April 2, 1982 from Camarines Sur to Batangas when the
carabaos were confiscated purportedly in accordance with EO No. 626-
A, which prohibits transportation of carabao and carabeef from one
province to another. 
HELD: The EO should not be enforced against the Pesigans because it
is a penal regulation (because of its confiscation and forfeiture provision)
and was published only in the Official Gazette on June 14, 1982. Justice
and fairness dictate that the public must be informed of that provision by
means of publication in the Gazette before violators of the executive
order can be bound thereby. The summary confiscation was not in order.
The carabaos must be returned. However, the Pesigans cannot transport
the carabaos to Batangas because they are now bound by the said EO.  given to it. Every day spent in jail is oppressive, more so when the
Ta 帽 ada v. Tuvera 136 SCRA 27 (1985) FACTS: The petitioners seek
a writ of mandamus to compel respondent public officials to publish or
cause the publication of various PDs, EOs, LOIs, etc. invoking the
Constitutional right of the people to information on matters of public
concern.  deprived of a fair opportunity to present its evidence. Such failure and
HELD: The publication of all presidential issuances of a public nature or
of general applicability is mandated by law. It is a requirement of due
process. It is a rule of law that before a person may be bound by law, he
must first be officially and specifically informed of its contents. The Court
therefore declares that presidential issuances of general application
which have not been published shall have no force and effect. However,
the implementation of the PDs prior to its publication is an operative fact
which may have consequences which cannot be justly ignored. The past
cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration. From the report
submitted by the clerk of court, it is undisputed that none of these
unpublished PDs has ever been implemented by the government. 
Ynot v. IAC G.R. No. 74457 (1987) EO 626-A was declared
unconstitutional for being violative of due process as it imposes penalty
without any previous trial for conviction. The Court also held that there is
no immediacy of the problem sought to be corrected and the urgency of
 
3 
it therefore not an exceptional case where trial may be omitted. To justify
the State in thus interposing its authority in behalf of the public, it must
appear, first, that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished
from those of a particular class, require such interference; and second,
that the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the
purpose, and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. 
People v. Pimentel G.R. No. 223099 (11 January 2018)
FACTS: Accused-appellant was charged with 2 counts of rape, defined
and penalized under Article 266-A, paragraph l(a) of the RPC, in relation
to R.A. No. 83693, of a 12-year old minor. Upon arraignment, accused-
appellant entered a plea of not guilty and trial ensued. On July 26, 2011,
the same day, however, the RTC recalled the said decision and issued
an Order. Accused-appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing
that a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory and can
neither be withdrawn nor modified, because to do so would place an
accused- appellant in double jeopardy. The RTC denied the motion in an
Order. 
ISSUE: Whether or not double jeopardy has attached. 
HELD: Yes. In our jurisdiction, We adhere to the finality-of-acquittal
doctrine, that is, a judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable. Here,
all the elements were present. There was a valid information for 2 counts
of rape over which the RTC had jurisdiction and to which the accused-
appellant entered a plea of not guilty. After the trial, a judgment of
acquittal was thereafter rendered and promulgated on July 25, 2011.
based on the mistaken notion that the private complainant failed to
testify; allegedly because of the mix-up of orders with a different case
involving the same accused-appellant. This, however, does not change
the fact that a judgment of acquittal had already been promulgated.
Indeed, a judgment of acquittal, whether ordered by the trial or the
appellate court, is final, unappealable, and immediately executory upon
its promulgation. 
People v. Joel Domingo G.R. No. 204895 (21 March 2018)
counts of murder and one count of attempted murder. During the trial,
the prosecution failed to present evidence against Domingo. The trial
court granted Domingo’s Motion to Dismiss based on the latter’s right to
order, which was granted. Thereafter, the trial court convicted accused
for the crimes charged. 
prosecution’s reconsideration violated his right to double jeopardy. 
ISSUE: Whether or not the conviction of accused violated his right
against double jeopardy and speedy trial, inasmuch as the trial court
already dismissed the case against him. 
HELD: Yes, the Court held that the conviction of accused violated his
right against double jeopardy and speedy trial. Prejudice to the accused
is determined through its effect on three interests of the accused that the
right to a speedy trial is designed to protect, which are: (i) to prevent
oppressive pretrial incarceration; (ii) to minimize anxiety and concern of
the accused; and (iii) to limit the possibility that the defense will be
impaired. Accused-appellant was therefore prejudiced when the
prosecution failed to present its evidence during all the settings that were
reason for the prolongation of incarceration is the prosecution's
unreasonable motions for postponement. 
In instances where the State has been given every opportunity to
present its evidence, yet it failed to do so, it cannot claim to have been
the resulting dismissal of the case is deemed an acquittal of the accused
even if it is the accused who moved for the dismissal of the case. To the
mind of the Court, an accused cannot be made to needlessly and
baselessly suffer incarceration or any anxiety arising from criminal
prosecution, no matter the duration. Any day in jail or in fear of criminal
prosecution has a grave impact on the accused. When the prosecution is
needlessly and baselessly prolonged, causing him prejudice, the Court is
constrained, as in this case, to arrive at a finding that accused-
appellant's right to a speedy trial was violated. 
 People v. Randolph S. Ting G.R. No. 221505 (5 December 2018) Example: An American who visits the Philippines in order to kill his
FACTS: In an Information, respondent City Mayor Ting and City Filipina girlfriend because of extreme jealousy is still liable for murder
Treasurer Garcia were charged with violation of Section 261(w)(b) of although he is a foreigner. 
B.P. Blg. 881, otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code. Upon
arraignment, respondents entered a plea of not guilty. During pre-trial, it GENERAL RULE: The jurisdiction of the civil courts is not affected by
was found that COMELEC eventually dismissed the charges against the military character of the accused. 鉁
them finding that since the issuance of the treasury warrant was not for
public works, no liability could arise therefrom. After the pre-trial, the
prosecution filed its Formal Offer of Evidence but instead of presenting
their evidence, respondents filed a Motion for Leave to File a Demurrer
to Evidence and, subsequently, a Demurrer to Evidence. The RTC 5 
granted the same and acquitted respondents. 

a. Exceptions to the general application of 

criminal law 
it cannot be subject to the laws of another country. (Reyes, p.30) 
4 
Article 2, RPC, “Except as provided in the treaties or laws of preferential
application...” 
ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred in granting the demurrer to
evidence despite sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence on record.  Article 14, Civil Code, “... subject to the principles of public international
law and to treaty stipulations.” 
HELD: Yes. The RTC should not have granted the demurrer to
evidence, but petitioners should be acquitted due to double jeopardy.  i. Treaty Stipulations 

The attending circumstances in the instant case depict a violation of the

An example of a treaty or treaty stipulation is the Bases Agreement
provision cited above. However, petitioners should be acquitted due to
entered into by the Philippines and the US on March 14, 1947 and
the rule on double jeopardy. The rule on double jeopardy is not without
expired on September 16, 1991. 
exceptions. It has been held in the past that the only instance when the
accused can be barred from invoking his right against double jeopardy is
when it can be demonstrated that the trial court acted with grave abuse Another example would be the VFA signed on February 10, 1998 where
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, such as where the Philippines agreed: a. US military authorities shall have the right to
the prosecution was not allowed the opportunity to make its case against exercise within the Philippines all criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction
the accused or where the trial was a sham. In the instant case, the Court conferred on them by the military law of the US over US personnel in RP;
finds that the elements of double jeopardy are present herein.  b. US authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over US personnel with
respect to offenses, including offenses relating to the security of the US
punishable under the law of the US, but not under the laws of RP; c. US
Palacios v. People G.R. No. 240676 (18 March 2019)
military authorities shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction
FACTS: Ramirez filed a complaint for violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No.
over US personnel subject to the military law of the US in relation to: (1)
9262. In her Sinumpaang- Reklamong Salaysay, she provided an
offenses solely against the property or security of the US or offenses
address different from the true address of the petitioner. Petitioner failed
solely against the property or person of US personnel; and (2) offenses
to appear during the preliminary investigation and submit his counter-
arising out of any act or omission done in performance of official duty. 
affidavit despite being given ample opportunity to do so. Consequently,
the corresponding Information was filed with the RTC, which issued a
warrant for petitioner's arrest was issued. Petitioner filed with the RTC an ii. Laws of Preferential Application 
extremely very urgent Motion for Reinvestigation and to recall warrant of
arrest, arguing that his right to due process was violated because Parliamentary Immunity under Section 11, Article VI of the
Ramirez supplied the wrong address when she filed the present Constitution 鈥
complaint against him. The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, denied
petitioner’s Motion. 
An example of a law of preferential application would be R.A. No. 75,
which penalizes acts which would impair the proper observance by the
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in upholding the denial of Republic and inhabitants of the Philippines of the immunities, rights, and
petitioner's motion for preliminary investigation and to recall warrant of privileges of duly accredited foreign diplomatic representatives in the
arrest.  Philippines. 

HELD: Yes. Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to R.A. No. 75 exempts from arrest and imprisonment, as well as from
determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded distrain, seizure or attachment of property, Public Ministers,
belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably Ambassadors and Domestic Servants of Ambassadors and Public
guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. Due process is comprised of Ministers except (a) when such person is a citizen or an inhabitant of the
two components 鈥 Philippines and the writ issued against him is founded upon a debt
The Court found no showing that indeed, petitioner had been (a) duly contracted before he entered such service; or (b) when said domestic
notified of the charges filed against him by Ramirez or (b) served with a servant is not registered with the DFA. 
subpoena relative to the preliminary investigation conducted by the
OCP-QC. Consequently, the criminal case pending before the RTC must
Warship Rule 鈥
be suspended until the completion of a preliminary investigation in order
iii. Principles of Public International Law 
to afford petitioner a chance to present his counter-affidavit and any
countervailing evidence. 
Persons exempt from the operation of our criminal laws by virtue of the
principles of public international law: (1) Sovereigns and other chiefs of
C. BASIC PRINCIPLES  state. (2) Ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary, 
ministers resident, and charges d’affaires. 
Criminal law has three main characteristics: 1) general, 2) territorial, and
3) prospective.  鈥(Schneckenburger v. Moran, 63 Phil 250). 
鈥
1. GENERALITY OF CRIMINAL LAW 
US v. Sweet 1 Phil 18 (1901) FACTS: Sweet was an employee of the
1987 Constitution, Article VI Section 1. The legislative power shall be US army in the Philippines. He assaulted a prisoner of war for which he
vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate was charged with the crime of physical injuries. Sweet interposed the
and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the defense that the fact that he was an employee of the US military
people by the provision on initiative and referendum.  authorities deprived the court of the jurisdiction to try and punish him. 

Civil Code, Article 14 Penal laws and those of public security and
safety shall be obligatory upon all those who live or sojourn in the
Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public international law
and to treaty stipulations. 
The criminal law of the country governs and applies to all persons in
Philippine Territory, regardless of nationality, age, gender or other
personal circumstances.  defamation for allegedly uttering defamatory words against his
HELD: The case is open to the application of the general principle that
the jurisdiction of the civil tribunals is unaffected by the military or other
special character of the person brought before them for trial, unless
controlled by express legislation to the contrary. 
Liang v. People 355 SCRA 125 FACTS: Petitioner is an economist
working at the Asian Development Bank (ADB). Sometime in 1994, he
was charged before the MeTC of Mandaluyong City with 2 counts of oral
colleague. Thereafter, petitioner was arrested by virtue of a warrant.
 After fixing petitioner’s bail, the MeTC judge received an office of
protocol from the DFA stating that petitioner is covered by immunity from
legal processes under Section 45 of the Agreement between ADB and
the Philippine Government. As a result, the MeTC judge dismissed the
criminal case without notice to the prosecution.  the Philippine embassy, he may be prosecuted here since it is as if he
HELD: Petitioner is not covered by the immunity. Courts cannot blindly
adhere to the communication from the DFA that the petitioner is covered
by any immunity. It has no binding effect in courts. The court needs to
protect the right to due process not only of the accused but also of the
prosecution. Secondly, the immunity under Section 45 of the Agreement
is not absolute, but subject to the exception that the acts must be done in
“official capacity.” Slandering a person could not possibly be 
6 
鉁 Illustration: A Philippine consulate official who is validly married here
in the Philippines and who marries again in a foreign country cannot be
prosecuted here for bigamy because this is a crime not connected with
his official duties. However, if the second marriage was celebrated within
contracted the marriage here in the Philippines. 
Miquiabas v. Commanding General 80 Phil 262 (1948) FACTS:
Petitioner is a Filipino citizen and a civilian employee of the US army. He
has been charged with disposing in the Port of Manila area things
belonging to the US army. He is under the custody of Commanding
General, Philippines-Ryukus command and an appointed General Court
Martial found him guilty and sentenced him to 15 years imprisonment. 
c. Commit any of the crimes against national security and the law
of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of the RPC (Article
2[5]) 
Examples: Piracy, Treason, Espionage 

covered by the immunity agreement as the same was not committed in US v. Bull 15 Phil 7 (1910) 
the performance of petitioner’s official duty. 
FACTS: Norwegian steamship Standard docked in Manila carrying cattle
and other animals. It travelled from Formosa without providing the
2. TERRITORIALITY OF CRIMINAL LAW  animals with adequate stalls as required by the laws. Instead, the
鈥 Example: a murder committed by a Filipino seaman aboard a animals were tied by means of rings passed through their noses causing
Filipino-owned vessel registered in China while it is sailing the high the noses of the animals to be cruelly torn. Some animals were tossed
seas is not cognizable by Philippine Courts, but the courts of China.  about upon the decks of the vessel wounded, bruised and killed. 

1987 Constitution, Article I The national territory comprises the
Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein,
and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domain
including the territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves,
and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and
connecting the islands of the archipelago regardless of their breadth and
dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.  of the United States has recently said that the merchant vessels of one
Article 2. Application of its provisions. 鈥
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. 
HELD: The Philippines has jurisdiction over the offense. When the
vessel came within 3 miles from the coastline embracing Manila Bay, the
vessel is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines. It is admitted
by the most thoroughgoing asserters of the territoriality of merchant
vessels that so soon as the latter enter the ports of a foreign state they
become subject to the local jurisdiction on all points in which the interests
of the country are touched. (Hall, Int. Law, p.263.). The Supreme Court
country visiting the ports of another for the purpose of trade, subject
themselves to the laws which govern the ports they visit, so long as they
remain; and this as well in war as in peace, unless otherwise provided by
treaty (US v. Diekelman, 92 US, 520-525). 
US v. Ah Sing 36 Phil 978 (1917) FACTS: Defendant is a subject of
China who bought 8 cans of opium in Saigon and brought them on board
the steamship Shun Chang during the trip to Cebu. When the steamer
anchored in the port of Cebu, the authorities in making the search found
the 8 cans of opium. Defendant admitted being the owner but did not
confess as to his purpose in buying the opium. 

HELD: Bringing opium in local territory even if it is merely for personal

The RPC has therefore territorial and extraterritorial application. The use and does not leave the foreign merchant vessel anchored in
maritime zone extends to three miles from the outermost coastline. Philippine waters is subject to local laws particularly under Section 4 of
Beyond that is the “high seas” which is outside the territorial waters of the Opium Law. Under said law, importation includes merely bringing the
the Philippines.  drug from a foreign country to Philippine port even if not landed. 
HELD: The General Court Martial has no jurisdiction because the Port of
a. Crimes committed aboard merchant vessels  Manila is not a base under the Bases Agreement entered into by the
(Article 2[1])  Philippines and the US. The Port area is merely a temporary quarters.
Also, a civilian employee cannot be considered a member of the US
Army as stated in the agreement. Lastly, no waiver of jurisdiction can be
鉁 made either by the prosecuting attorney or by the Secretary of Justice. 
鈥
鈥 People v. Wong Cheng 46 Phil 729 (1922) FACTS: Wong Cheng
smoked opium aboard the English merchant vessel Changsa while
鉁 NOTE: the country of registry determines the  anchored 2 1 鈦
nationality of the vessel, not its ownership. 
鉁 HELD: The accused committed the offense within the territorial waters of
the Philippines, hence, the Philippine Courts had jurisdiction. There are
鈥 French Rule 鈥 two fundamental rules on this particular matter in connection with
鈥 English Rule 鈥 International Law; to wit, 1. the French rule, according to which crimes
committed aboard a foreign merchant vessels should not be prosecuted
in the courts of the country within whose territorial jurisdiction they were
committed, unless their commission affects the peace and security of the
territory; and 
鉁 People v. Wong Cheng, G.R. No. L-18924, 19 October 1922). 鉁 US
v. Fowler, 1 Phil 614). 鉁 Absolute Theory of Aerial Jurisdiction that 2. the English rule, based on the territorial principle and followed in the
the subjacent state has complete jurisdiction only to the innocent United States, according to which, crimes perpetrated under such
circumstances are in general triable in the courts of the country within
passage by aircraft of a foreign country. 鉁 no matter how high, as long
territory they were committed. Of these two rules, it is the last one that
as it can be established it is within the Philippine atmosphere, Philippine
obtains in this jurisdiction, because at present the theories and
criminal law will govern (See: R.A. No. 6235 or the Anti-Hijacking law). 
jurisprudence prevailing in the United States on this matter are authority
in the Philippines which is now a territory of the United States. 
b. When public officers or employees commit an offense in the
exercise of their functions (Article 2[4]) 
Evangelista v. People G.R. No. 163267 (5 May 2010) FACTS:
Accused was charged of the crime of illegal possession of firearms for
鉁 bringing unlicensed firearms from Abu Dhabi to the Philippines. He
insisted that since Dubai is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the
Philippines, our criminal laws are not applicable. 

7  HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that in order for the courts to acquire
jurisdiction in criminal cases, the offense should have been committed or
any one of its essential ingredients should have taken place 
 8  9 

within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. The accomplishment by 1. makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which
accused of the Customs Declaration Form upon his arrival at the NAIA is was innocent when done, and punishes such an act. 2. aggravates a
“very clear evidence” that he was in possession of the subject firearms crime, or makes it greater than it 
when he entered the Philippines. Thus, since he does not have any was when committed; 3. changes the punishment and inflicts a
license for the firearms which were proven to be in his possession when greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed;
he arrived in the Philippines, accused Evangelista’s conviction was 4. alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less
affirmed.  or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission
of the offense; 5. assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in
3. PROSPECTIVITY OF CRIMINAL LAW  effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when
done was lawful; and 
GENERAL RULE: Acts or omissions will only be subject to a penal law if 6. deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to
they are committed AFTER a penal law had already taken effect.  which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former
conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty. The constitutional
An act or omission which has been committed before the effectivity of a inhibition refers only to criminal laws which are given retroactive effect.
penal law could not be penalized by such penal law because penal laws While it is true that Section 18 penalizes a violation of any provision of
operate only prospectively.  R.A. No. 6132 including Section 8 thereof, the penalty is imposed only
for acts committed after the approval of the law and not those
perpetrated prior thereto. 
Article 21. Penalties that may be imposed. 鈥 No felony shall be
punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission. 
People v. Bracamonte 257 SCRA 380
(1996) 
Civil Code, Article 4 Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the
contrary is provided.  FACTS: On September 23, 1987, Bracamonte and 2 others were seen
essentially a usurpation of judicial power by a legislative body (J. dashing away from the house of the victims. The mother found her son
Feliciano).  and their maid dead inside the house and P1,100 was stolen from them.
The accused were charged with robbery with double homicide on
October 6, 1987. The accused were convicted of the crime charged in
Different effects of repeal of penal law. 1. If the repeal makes the 1990. R.A. No. 7659 reimposed the death penalty as capital offense in
penalty lighter in the new law, the new law shall be applied, except when December 31, 1993. 
the offender is a habitual delinquent or when the new law is made not the conviction. Each act by each gunman pulling the trigger of their
applicable to pending action or existing causes of action. 2. If the new respective firearms, aiming each particular moment at different persons
law imposes a heavier penalty, the law in force at the time of the constitute distinct and individual acts which cannot give rise to the
commission of the offense shall be applied. 3. If the new law totally complex crime of multiple murder. Valdez was convicted of 4 counts of
repeals the existing law so that the act which was penalized under the murder and 2 counts of frustrated murder. Pursuant to R.A. No. 8294
old law is no longer punishable, the crime is obliterated.  which became effective in 1997, illegal possession would have to be an
aggravating circumstance. However, given that its retroactive application
鉁 will raise the penalty from 4 reclusion perpetua to 4 counts of death, and
be criminal. 鉁 therefore not beneficial to the accused, it will not be retroactively
applied. 
EXCEPTION: 
Hernan v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 217874 (5
Article 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. 鈥 Penal laws shall have a December 2017) 
retroactive effect in so far as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who For as long as it is favorable to the accused, said recent legislation shall
is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of find application regardless of whether its effectivity comes after the time
this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final when the judgment of conviction is rendered and even if service of
sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.  sentence has already begun. 

Ex-Post Facto Law is prohibited Ex post facto law is prohibited. Ex In Re: Correction / Adjustment of Penalty Pursuant to R.A. No.
post facto law is one that is specifically made to retroact to cover acts 10951, in relation to Hernan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 237721 鈥
before it became effective to the prejudice of the accused; or to make a FACTS: Petitioner was charged with 4 counts of malversation of public
certain crime graver or prescribe a heavier penalty for it (The Matter Of funds through falsification of a public document under Articles 217 and
The Petition For The Declaration Of The Petitioner's Rights And Duties 171, in relation to Article 48 of the RPC. After trial, Elbanbuena was
Under Section 8 Of R.A. No. 6132, G.R. No. L-32485, 22 October found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged in the
1970).  Information. Since Elbanbuena did not appeal the decision of the RTC, it
became final and executory on 10 August 2000. On 9 January 2003,
鉁 Elbanbuena started serving his sentence at the New Bilibid Prison. On
29 August 2017, R.A. No. 10951 was promulgated, which amended the
Bill of Attainder is prohibited A bill of attainder is a legislative act RPC and reduced the penalties for certain crimes, including
which inflicts punishment without judicial trial (Montenegro v. Castaneda, malversation 
91 Phil 882, G.R. No. L-4211). It is 
Gumabon v. Director of Prisons 37 SCRA 420
(1971)  HELD: Although R.A. No. 7659 reimposed the death penalty for certain
heinous crimes, including robbery with homicide, the capital punishment
FACTS: Petitioners who were serving their sentence of life imprisonment
could not be imposed in the case at bench. The crime here was
for the complex crime of rebellion with murder and other crimes seek the
committed way back in September 23, 1987, while R.A. No. 7659 took
retroactive application of the Hernandez doctrine which was promulgated
effect only on December 31, 1993. To impose upon appellant the death
after their conviction. The Hernandez ruling negated the existence of the
penalty would violate the basic rule in criminal law that, if the new law
crime charged stating that rebellion cannot be complexed with other
imposes a heavier penalty, the law in force at the time of the commission
crimes. Thus, the accused in the Hernandez case was sentenced only to
of the offense shall be applied. 
10 years of imprisonment. 

People v. Valdez 304 SCRA 611 (1999) In 1995, Valdez and others
HELD: Both the RPC and the Civil Code allow for the retroactive
fired at Montano’s group. This caused the death of 4 persons; 2 were
application of judicial decisions. While reference in Article 22 of the Civil
fatally wounded but survived the attack. Valdez was charged and
Code is made to legislative acts, it would be merely an exaltation of the
convicted of complex crime of Multiple Murder with double Frustrated
literal to deny its application to a case like the present. The Civil Code
Murder, and likewise separately for the crime of Illegal Possession of
provides that judicial decisions applying or interpreting the constitution,
Firearms and Ammunitions. On appeal, SC modified 
as well as legislation, form part of our legal system. 
ISSUE: Whether or not Elbanbuena is entitled to be released from
confinement. 
In Re: Kay Villegas Kami 35 SCRA 429 (1970) FACTS: Petition for
declaratory relief challenging the validity of Section 8 of R.A. No. 6132
HELD: Case remanded to RTC. As held by this Court in Hernan v.
on the ground that it violates due process, right of association, freedom
Sandiganbayan, the passage of R.A. No. 10951 is an exceptional
of expression and that it is an ex post facto law. 
circumstance which warrants not only the re-opening of an already
terminated case, but also the recall of an Entry of Judgment for purposes
HELD: An ex post facto law is one which:  of modifying the penalty to be served. Thus, in Hernan, this Court re-
opened the case for the sole purpose of re-computing the proper
sentence to be imposed in accordance with R.A. No. 10951. In contrast,
petitioner Elbanbuena here seeks not only a modification of his sentence
in accordance with R.A. No. 10951, he also seeks immediate release 1987 Constitution, Article III Section 14(2). In all criminal prosecutions,
from confinement on account of his alleged full service of the re- the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved x x
computed sentence. The determination of whether he is entitled to x. 
immediate release, however, would necessarily involve ascertaining,
among others, the actual length of time Elbanbuena has actually been in
NOTE: The Doctrine of Pro Reo 鈥
confinement and whether time allowance for good conduct should 

鉁 the interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the offender

will be adopted (Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales Vda. De
10  Carungcong, v. People, G.R. No. 181409, 11 February 2010). 

Constitutional Limitations on the Power of the Congress to enact

be allowed. Such an exercise would, at the first instance, be better Penal Laws: 
undertaken by a trial court, which is relatively more equipped to make
findings of both fact and law.  a. Equal Protection 

4. NULLUM CRIMEN NULLA POENA SINE LEGE  No person or class of persons shall be deprived to the same protection
of the laws which is enjoyed by 
Article 3. Definitions. 鈥 delitos). 
11 
Article 21. Penalties that may be imposed. 鈥

鉁 other persons or other classes in the same place and in like

it. 鉁
lawlessness and the connivance of extremists to bring down the
government. Pursuant to such laws, GMA cancelled all plans to
celebrate EDSA I and revoked all permits issued for rallies and other
public organization / meeting. Notwithstanding the cancellation of their
permit, KMU head Randolf David proceeded to rally which led to his
arrest. Later that day, the Daily Tribune was raided by the CIDG,
resulting in the confiscation of its anti-GMA articles and write-ups.
Another anti-GMA news agency was likewise raided on the same day. 
HELD: PP 1017 is unconstitutional as it grants President GMA the
authority to promulgate decrees. It is settled that legislative power is
peculiarly within the province of the Legislature as stated under Section
1, Article VI of the Constitution. Neither Martial Law, state of rebellion nor
a state of emergency can justify the President’s exercise of legislative
power by issuing decrees. Thus, PP 1017 is void and cannot be
enacted. 
Bernardo v. People 123 SCRA 365 (1983) FACTS: The accused were
charged and convicted for violating P.D. No. 772 for possessing and
squatting on a parcel of land owned by Cruz.  Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman
HELD: Conviction is null and void. P.D. No. 772 does not apply to
pasture lands because its preamble shows that it was intended to apply
to squatting in urban communities. It is a basic principle of criminal law
that no person should be brought within the terms of a penal statute who
is not clearly within them nor should any act be pronounced criminal
which is not clearly made so by the statute.  7659 (Death Penalty Law) and all other laws, executive orders and
People v. Pimentel 288 SCRA 542 (1998) FACTS: Respondent Tujan
was charged with subversion under R.A. No. 1700. When he was
arrested 7 years after he was charged, an unlicensed revolver and
ammunition was found in his possession. As such, he was also charged
with Illegal Possession of Firearms under P.D. No. 1866.  - aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it
HELD: Tujan was not placed in double jeopardy because the issue had
not yet arisen for he had not yet been actually convicted.  - alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less
R.A. No. 7636 totally repealed R.A. No. 1700 making subversion no
longer a crime. Based on Article 22 of the RPC, this law should be given
retroactive effect since the law is favorable to the accused, and since he
is not a habitual delinquent. The Court convicted Tujan with simple illegal
possession of firearm and ammunition but since Tujan’s length of
detention is greater than the penalty prescribed, the court ordered his
immediate release. 
circumstances. For classification to be reasonable, it must: (a) Rest on
substantial distinctions; (b) Germane to the purpose of the law; (c) Not
limited to existing conditions only; (d) Apply equally to all members of the
same class (Mendoza v. People, G.R. No. 183891, 19 October 2011). 
b. Due Process 
In criminal proceedings, due process requires that the accused be
informed why he is being proceeded against and what charge he has to
meet, with his conviction being made to rest on evidence that is not
tainted with falsity after full opportunity for him to rebut it and the
sentence being imposed in accordance with a valid law. It is assumed,
therefore, that the court that renders the decision is one of competent
jurisdiction (Ang Tibay v. CA, 69 Phil 635). 
c. Non-imposition of Cruel and Unusual 
Punishment or Excessive Fines 
punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for
compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter
provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to
reclusion perpetua (1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 19). - The
imposition of the penalty of death is prohibited. Accordingly, R.A. No.
8177 (Act Designating Death by Lethal Injection) is repealed. R.A. No.
decrees, insofar as they impose the death penalty, are repealed or
amended accordingly (Section 1 of R.A. No. 9346, otherwise known as
“An Act Prohibiting The Imposition of Death Penalty in The Philippines”). 
d. Bill of Attainder 
 
was, when committed; - changes the punishment and inflicts a
greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed;
or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission
of the offense; - assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in
effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when
done was lawful; and - deprives a person accused of a crime of some
lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection
of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty
disadvantage (In Re Kay Villegas Kami, G.R. No. L-32485, 22 October
1970). 

David v. GMA 489 SCRA 160, 259 FACTS: President Arroyo (GMA)
Rules of Construction of Penal Laws 1. Criminal statutes are liberally
issued Presidential Proclamation (PP) 1017, to be implemented by
construed in favor of the offender. This means that no person shall be
General Order No. 5. These laws aim to suppress 
brought within their terms of the law who is not clearly within them, nor
Villareal v. People G.R. No. 151258 (1 February 2012) FACTS:
should any act be pronounced criminal which is not clearly made so by
Several members of the Aquila Legis Fraternity were charged of
statute. 2. The original text in which a penal law is approved will govern
Homicide for the death of their neophyte Lenny Villa during the initiation
in case of a conflict with an official translation. Hence, the RPC, which
rites. 
was approved in Spanish text, is controlling over its English translation.
3. Interpretation by analogy has no place in criminal 
HELD: The accused are guilty of slight physical injuries to reckless
matters. - reasoning by analogy is applied only when similarities are
imprudence resulting in homicide. Had the Anti-Hazing Law been in
limited and it is admitted that significant differences also exist. 
effect then, these 5 accused fraternity members would have all been
convicted of the crime of hazing punishable by reclusion perpetua (life
imprisonment). Since there was no law prohibiting the act of hazing Pascual v. Board of Medical Examiners 28 SCRA 344 (1969) FACTS:
when Lenny died, we are constrained to rule according to existing laws Pascual was charged in an administrative case for immorality and was
at the time of his death.  announced by counsel of complainants to be their first witness. 

5. STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS 

AGAINST THE STATE  A statute becomes a bill of attainder when it applies either to named
individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group inflicting
punishment on them amounting to a deprivation of any right, civil or
political, without judicial trial. Stated otherwise, the singling out of a
definite class, the imposition of a burden on it, and a legislative intent, 13 
suffice to stigmatize a statute as a bill of attainder (Montenegro v. Casta CRIMINAL LAW 1 ESGUERRA NOTES 
帽 eda, 91 Phil 882).  Definition of Terms 鉁 ACT 鈥
thought or intent is not punishable). 
e. Ex Post Facto Law  Actus Reus / Physical Act - To be considered as a felony, there must
be an 
act or omission; - An act refers to any kind of body movement 
An Ex Post Facto Law is one which: - makes criminal an act done
that produces change in the outside world. - A mere imagination,
before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done, and
no matter how wrong, does 
punishes such an act; 
not amount to a felony. 
HELD: The Board of Medical examiners cannot, consistently with the
self-incriminating clause, compel the person proceeded against to take 鉁 OMISSION 鈥 ie. failure to render assistance, failure to issue receipt,
the witness stand without his consent. A proceeding for malpractice non-disclosure of knowledge of conspiracy against the government. 
possesses a criminal or penal aspect in the sense that the respondent Classification of felonies according to the means by which they are
would suffer the revocation of his license as a medical practitioner which committed (IN GENERAL ONLY): 
is even a greater form of deprivation than forfeiture of property. While 1. DOLO 
crime should not go unpunished and that the truth must be revealed, REQUISITES OF DOLO OR MALICE: 1. Freedom 鈥
such desirable objective should not be accomplished according to voluntary and without external compulsion. 2. Intelligence 鈥 Intent 鈥
means offensive to high sense of respect accorded to human commission of the unlawful act (Reyes, pp. 38-39). 
personality. More and more in line with the democratic creed, the 鉁 Dolus is actually equivalent to malice, which is the intent to do an
deference accorded to an individual even those suspected of the most injury to another (Reyes, p.35). 鉁
heinous crimes is given due weight.  the use of intelligence (Reyes, supra.). 鉁
of a person (Reyes, supra.). 鉁
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea - “The act itself does not make
a man guilty unless 
his intention were so” - A crime is not committed if the mind of the
12  person performing the act complained of be innocent. - It must be borne
CRIMINAL LAW 1 ESGUERRA NOTES  in mind that the act from which the presumption of existence of criminal
People v. Ladjaalam G.R. Nos. 136149-51 (19 September 2000) intent springs must be a criminal act. 
Penal laws are construed liberally in favor of the accused; Where the Actus me invito factus non est meus actus - “An act done by me
crime committed was direct assault and not homicide or murder, illegal against my will is not my act” 
possession of firearms cannot be deemed an aggravating (US v. Ah Chong, 15 Phil 499) 
circumstance.  Presumption of Criminal Intent Criminal intent is presumed from the
D. GENERAL PROVISIONS  commission of an unlawful act BUT the presumption of criminal intent
Article 1. Time when Act takes effect. 鈥 This Code shall take effect does not arise from the proof of the commission of an act, which is not
on the 1st day of January, 1930.  unlawful (Reyes, supra). 
鉁 INTENT v. MOTIVE 
鈥 CLASSICAL  INTENT MOTIVE 
鈥 POSITIVIST 鉁 The purpose to use a 
classical school.  The moving power which particular means to 
Characteristics of the Classical Theory a. The basis of criminal impels one to action for effect such result. 
liability is human free will and the purpose of the penalty is retribution. b. a define result. 
That man is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free will to There is no felony by dolo if there is no intent. 
choose between good and evil thereby placing more stress upon the - Motive is not an essential element of a crime, and, hence need not be
effect or result of the felonious act than upon the man, the criminal proved for purposes of conviction (People v. Aposaga, G.R. No. L-
himself. c. It has endeavored to establish a mechanical and direct 32477, 30 October 1981). - Motive is essential only when there is
proportion between crime and penalty. d. There is a scant regard to the doubt as to the identity of the assailant. It is immaterial when the
human element.  accused has been positively identified (People v. Gadiana, G.R. No.
Characteristics of the Positivist Theory a. That man is subdued 92509, 13 March 1991). - Proof of motive alone is not sufficient to
occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which constrains support a conviction but lack of motive may be an aid in showing the
him to do wrong, in spite of or contrary to his volition. b. That crime is innocence of the accused (People v. Corput, 107 Phil 44). 
essentially a social and natural phenomenon, and as such, it cannot be People v. Temblor 161 SCRA 623 (1988) FACTS: Cagampang and his
treated and checked by the application of abstract principles of law and wife were conversing in the store adjacent to their house when Temblor
jurisprudence nor by the imposition of a punishment which is fixed and arrived and asked to buy cigarettes. Temblor then shot Cagampang and
determined a priori; but rather through the enforcement of individual demanded the wife to bring out her husband’s firearm. Months after, the
measures in each particular case after a thorough, personal and wife was summoned to the police station and there she identified the
individual investigation conducted by a competent body of psychiatrists accused. The accused’s defense was alibi and lack of motive. 
and social scientists.  HELD: The knowledge of the accused that Cagampang possessed a
Article 2. Application of its provisions. 鈥 firearm was enough motive to kill him as killings were perpetrated by
maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who: 1. members of the NPA for the sole purpose of acquiring more arms and
Should commit an offense while on a Philippine  ammunition. Their group is prevalent not only in Agusan del Norte but
ship or airship; 2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note elsewhere in the country. It is known as the NPA’s “agaw armas”
of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the campaign. Moreover, proof of motive is not essential when the culprit
Government of the Philippine Islands; 3. Should be liable for acts has been positively identified. 
connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and People v. Hassan 157 SCRA 261 (1988) FACTS: The accused, an
securities mentioned in the presiding number; 4. While being public illiterate, 15-year-old pushcart cargador, was convicted of the crime of
officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their murder for the death of Ramon. The lone eyewitness 
functions; or 5. Should commit any of the crimes against national 14 
security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this
Code. 
II. FELONIES 
A. HOW COMMITTED  claimed he saw the accused stab Ramon only once at the back. He
Article 3. Definitions. 鈥 delitos). Felonies are committed not only be identified the accused alone at the funeral parlor without being placed in
means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa). There is deceit a police line- up. HELD: The testimony of witness was weak. It conflicted
when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there is fault when with the findings of the medico-legal officer who identified 2 stab wounds
the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, which were inflicted while assailant was in front of the victim. The
or lack of skill.  manner by which the witness was made to identify the accused was
Felonies are acts and omissions punishable by the RPC.  pointedly suggestive and activated visual imagination when there was
FELONY v. OFFENSE  none. The method of identification became just a confrontation and was
FELONY OFFENSE  made in violation of the constitutional right of the accused. The Court
The term felony is  noted the total absence of motive ascribed to the accused for stabbing
A crime punished under limited to violations of  Ramon who is a complete stranger to him. While as a general rule,
a special law is called a the RPC.  motive is not essential for purposes of complying with the requirement
statutory offense.  that a judgment of guilty must stem from proof beyond reasonable doubt,
MISDEMEANOR v. CRIME  the lack of motive on the part of the accused plays a pivotal role towards
MISDEMEANOR CRIME  his acquittal. This is especially true where there is doubt as to the identity
A misdemeanor is a minor infraction of the law, such as a violation of an of the culprit as when the identification is extremely tenuous as in this
ordinance.  case. 
Elements of Felonies 1. There must be an act or omission; 2. That the
act or omission must be punishable by  People v. Delos Santos 403 SCRA 153 (2003) FACTS: Delos Santos
the RPC; and 3. That the act is performed by means of dolo or the  stabbed Flores with a kitchen knife hitting him on the different parts of his
omission incurred by means of culpa.  body, inflicting upon him mortal wounds which directly caused his death.
Whether the wrongdoing is punished under the RPC or under a special Delos Santos then argues that since the prosecution witnesses testified
law, the generic word “crime” can be used. 
 that there was no altercation between him and Flores, it follows that no
motive to kill can be attributed to him.  Modesto and his family was preparing to have dinner, the Delim brothers
distinction instead is whether the felony itself was actually produced by
the acts of execution. The determination of whether the felony was
produced after all the acts of execution had been performed hinges on
the particular statutory definition of the felony. It is the statutory definition
that generally furnishes the elements of each crime under the RPC,
while the elements in turn unravel the particular requisite acts of
execution and accompanying criminal intent. 
The long-standing Latin maxim actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea
supplies an important characteristic of a crime, that ordinarily, evil intent
must unite with an unlawful act for there to be a crime, and accordingly,
there can be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting. Accepted in
this jurisdiction as material in crimes mala in se, mens rea has been
defined before as a guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful purpose or criminal
intent, and essential for criminal liability. It follows that the statutory
definition of our mala in se crimes must be able to supply what the mens
rea of the crime is, and indeed the US Supreme Court has comfortably
held that a criminal law that contains no mens rea requirement infringes
on constitutionally protected rights. The criminal statute must also
provide for the overt acts that constitute the crime. For a crime to exist in
our legal law, it is not enough that mens rea be shown; there must also
be an actus reus. It is from the actus reus and the mens rea, as they find
expression in the criminal statute, that the felony is produced. In this
case, the crime of theft is consummated when the act unlawful taking
was performed regardless whether the perpetrator had the capacity or
opportunity to dispose the stolen goods. There is no frustrated theft.  victim. If the victim dies because of a deliberate act of the malefactor,
HELD: The Court held that the argument of Delos Santos is
inconsequential. Proof of motive is not indispensable for a conviction,
particularly where the accused is positively identified by an eyewitness
and his participation is adequately established. In People v. Galano, the
court ruled that in the crime of murder, motive is not an element of the
offense. It becomes material only when the evidence is circumstantial or
inconclusive and there is some doubt on whether the accused had
committed it. In this case, the court finds that no such doubt exist as
witnesses De Leon and Tablate positively identified Delos Santos.  People v. Glenn De Los Santos 355 SCRA 415 (2001) FACTS: Glenn
Valenzuela v. People 525 SCRA 306
(2007)  bottles of beer. From Bukidnon to Cagayan de Oro City, Glenn’s truck
FACTS: A grocery boy was caught trying to abscond a box of Tide
Ultrabar laundry soap from the Super Sale Club. The guards
apprehended him at the store parking lot while trying to board a taxi. He
claimed the theft was merely frustrated for he was not able to dispose of
the goods. 
HELD: The determination of whether a crime is frustrated or
consummated necessitates an initial concession that all of the acts of
execution have been performed by the offender. The critical  motor vehicle as the qualifying circumstance.
Recuerdo v. People 493 SCRA 517 (2006) FACTS: Recuerdo issued
several checks to Floro. She did not pay the amounts due from the
closed accounts. In her defense, the accused claims good faith in issuing
the checks. 
HELD: Estafa is a felony committed by dolo (with malice). For one to be
criminally liable for estafa under paragraph (2)(d) of Article 315 of the
RPC, malice and specific intent to defraud are required. General criminal
intent is an element of all crimes but malice is properly applied only to
deliberate acts done on purpose and with design. Evil intent must unite
with an unlawful act for there to be a felony. A deliberate and unlawful
act gives rise to a presumption of malice by intent. On the other hand,
specific intent is a definite and actual purpose to accomplish some
particular thing. The general criminal intent is presumed from the criminal
act and in the absence of any general intent is relied upon as a defense,
such absence must be proved by the accused. Generally, a specific
intent is not presumed. Its existence, as a matter of fact, must be proved
by the State just as any other essential element. This may be shown,
however, by  felt the first bumping thuds. Had he done so, many trainees would have
15 
the nature of the act, the circumstances under which it was committed,
the means employed and the motive of the accused There can be no
estafa if the accused acted in good faith because good faith negates
malice and deceit. Good faith is an intangible and abstract quality with no
technical meaning or statutory definition, and it encompasses, among
other things, an honest belief, the absence of malice and the absence of
design to defraud or to seek an unconscionable advantage. An
individual’s personal good faith is a concept of his own mind, therefore,
may not conclusively be determined by his protestations alone. It implies
honesty of intention and freedom from knowledge of circumstances
which ought to put the holder upon inquiry. The essence of good faith
lies in an honest belief in the validity of one’s right, ignorance of a
superior claim, and absence of intention to overreach another. 
In this case, the accused had the intention to evade the payment by
claiming that the checks were not issued as payment for the jewelries
issued to her. Therefore, there was intent to defraud the victim. 
People v. Delim 396 SCRA 386 (2003) FACTS: One evening, as
forcefully entered the house and hogtied Modesto and took him outside
the house. 2 other Delims remained in the house preventing Modesto’s
wife and child from asking for help. It was only the next day that the
attackers left. The dead body of Modesto was found 3 days after the
incident. He sustained several stab wounds and his cause of death was
due to a gunshot to the head. 
HELD: The prosecution was burdened to prove the corpus delicti which
consists of two things: first, the criminal act and second, defendant’s
agency in the commission of the act. Wharton says that corpus delicti
includes two things: first, the objective; second, the subjective element of
crimes. 
In homicide (by dolo) and in murder cases, the prosecution is burdened
to prove: (a) the death of the party alleged to be dead; (b) that the death
was produced by the criminal act of some other than the deceased and
was not the result of accident, natural cause or suicide; and (c) that
defendant committed the criminal act or was in some way criminally
responsible for the act which produced the death. To prove the felony of
homicide or murder, there must be incontrovertible evidence, direct or
circumstantial, that the victim was deliberately killed (with malice); in
other words, that there was intent to kill. Such evidence may consist inter
alia in the use of weapons by the malefactors, the nature, location and
number of wounds sustained by the victim and the words uttered by the
malefactors before, at the time or immediately after the killing of the
intent to kill is conclusively presumed. 
The prosecution is burdened to prove corpus delicti beyond reasonable
doubt either by direct evidence or by circumstantial or presumptive
evidence. In this case, the prosecution was able to prove by
circumstantial evidence that the accused killed the victim. The accused
were convicted of homicide since the circumstances which would have
qualified the crime into murder were not alleged in the information. 
Delos Santos and his 3 friends went to Bukidnon on his Isuzu Elf truck.
On their way, they decided to pass by a restaurant where Glenn had 3
hit, bumped, seriously wounded and claimed the lives of several
members of the PNP who were undergoing an endurance run on a
highway wearing black shirts and shorts and green combat shoes. 12
trainees were killed on the spot, 12 were seriously wounded, one of
whom eventually died, and 10 sustained minor injuries. At the time of the
occurrence, the place of the incident was very dark as there was no
moon. Neither were there lamp posts that illuminated the highway. The
trial court convicted Glenn of the complex crime of multiple murder,
multiple frustrated murder and multiple attempted murder, with the use of
 
HELD: We are convinced that the incident, tragic though it was in light of
the number of persons killed and seriously injured, was an accident and
not an intentional felony. It is significant to note that there is no shred of
evidence that Glenn had an axe to grind against the police trainees that
would drive him into deliberately hitting them with intent to kill. Although
proof of motive is not indispensable to a conviction especially where the
assailant is positively identified, such proof is, nonetheless, important in
determining which of two conflicting theories of the incident is more likely
to be true 
Neither is there any showing of a political angle of a leftist-sponsored
massacre of police elements disguised in a vehicular accident. Even if
there be such evidence, i.e., that the motive of the killing was in
furtherance of a rebellion movement, Glenn cannot be convicted
because if such were the case, the proper charge would be rebellion,
and not murder. Glenn's offense is in failing to apply the brakes, or to
swerve his vehicle to the left or to a safe place the moment he heard and
been spared. He committed the complex crime of reckless imprudence
resulting in multiple homicide with serious physical injuries. 
Salvador v. People 559 SCRA 461
(2008) 
It is a rule in criminal law that motive, being a state of mind, is
established by the testimony of witnesses 
16 
on the acts or statements of the accused before or immediately after the
commission of the offense, deeds or words that may express it or from
which his motive or reason for committing it may be inferred; Motive and
intent may be considered one and the same in some instances. 
MISTAKE OF FACT It is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the
person who caused injury to another. He is not, however, criminally
liable, because he did not act with criminal intent (Reyes, p.42). 
 REQUISITES 1. That the act done would have been lawful had the facts signed the attendance sheet and he has not actually signed the Roll of
been as the accused believed them to be; 2. That the intention of the Attorneys. He now appeals to sign the roll of attorneys. 
accused in performing  People v. Buan 22 SCRA 1383 (1968) FACTS: The accused was
the act should be lawful; and 3. That the mistake must be without driving a passenger bus. Allegedly because of his recklessness, the bus
fault or  collided with a jeep injuring the passengers of the latter. A case was filed
Yapyuco v. Sandiganbayan G.R. Nos. 120744-46 (25 June against the accused for slight physical injuries through reckless
2012) We find that the invocation of the concept of mistake of fact faces imprudence for which he was tried and acquitted. Prior to his acquittal, a
certain failure. In the context of criminal law, a “mistake of fact” is a case for serious physical injuries and damage to property through
misapprehension of a fact which, if true, would have justified the act or reckless imprudence was filed. Accused claimed that he was placed in
omission which is the subject of the prosecution. Generally, a reasonable twice in jeopardy. 
mistake of fact is a defense to a charge of crime where it negates the
intent component of the crime. It may be a defense even if the offense HELD: While an honest mistake of fact could be used to excuse a
charged requires proof of only general intent. The inquiry is into the person from the legal consequences of his acts as it negates malice or
mistaken belief of the defendant, and it does not look at all to the belief evil motive, a mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification,
or state of mind of any other person. A proper invocation of this defense because everyone is presumed to know the law and its consequences.
requires (a) that the mistake be honest and reasonable; (b) that it be a Ignorantia facti excusat; ignorantia legis neminem excusat. In this case,
matter of fact; and (c) that it negate the culpability required to commit the Medado was allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys a year after the
crime or the existence of the mental state which the statute prescribes resolution of the case. He was fined for unauthorized practice of law and
with respect to an element of the offense.  was barred from practicing the profession for 1 year. 
carelessness on the part of the accused. 
2. CULPA 
US v. Ah Chong 15 Phil 488 (1910) A houseboy who stabs his
roommate in the dark, honestly mistaking the latter to be a robber Article 365, par. 7 Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but
responsible for a series of break-ins in the area, and after crying out without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material damage
sufficient warnings and believing himself to be under attack, cannot be results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the
held criminally liable for homicide. Stabbing the victim whom the accused person performing or failing to perform such act, taking into
believed to be an intruder showed a mistake of fact on his part which led consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence
him to take the facts as they appear to him and was pressed to take physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and
immediate action. People v. Oanis  place. Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in
74 Phil 257 (1943) Police officers who shot a sleeping those cases in which the damage impending to be the cause is not
man in the back mistaking him for a notorious escaped convict wanted immediate nor the danger clearly manifest. 
dead or alive, could still be held liable for the killing since they did not
take reasonable precautionary measures. Police officers are still liable REQUISITES OF CULPA 1. Freedom; 2. Intelligence; and 3.
because they are not justified in killing a man whose identity they did not Imprudence, negligence or lack of foresight and 
ascertain. The third requisite of mistake of fact is lacking. In this case,
self-defense is not tenable as a defense as there was no unlawful lack of skill. 
aggression but they may avail of the defense of fulfillment of duty as a
mitigating circumstance.  鉁 unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act performed
without malice (Reyes, p.49). 鉁
Baxinela v. People 485 SCRA 331 (2006) A mistake of fact will exempt 鈥 Imprudence 鈥 lack of precaution to avoid injury, usually involves lack of skill. 
a person from criminal liability so long as the alleged ignorance or 鈥 Negligence 鈥 danger, usually involves lack of foresight. 
mistake of fact was not due to negligence or bad faith. In the present HELD: The second case must be dismissed. Once convicted or
case, the Court finds that there was negligence on the part of Baxinela. acquitted of a specific act of reckless imprudence, the accused may not
Lajo, when he was shot, was simply turning around to see who was be prosecuted again for the same act. For the essence of the quasi-
accosting him. Moreover, he identified himself saying "I am MIG." These offense under Article 365 of the RPC lies in the execution of an
circumstances alone would not lead a reasonable and prudent person to imprudent act which would be punishable as a felony. The law penalizes
believe that Baxinela’s life was in peril. Thus, his act of shooting Lajo the negligent act and not the result. The gravity of the consequences is
constitutes clear negligence.  only taken into account to determine the penalty. It does not qualify the
鉁 culpa.  substance of the offense. 

MISTAKE OF LAW People v. Bitdu  People v. Pugay 167 SCRA 439 (1988) FACTS: Miranda and the
G.R. No. L-38230 (21 November 1933) FACTS: Bitdu was accused Pugay are friends. On the evening of May 19, 1982 a town
married in accordance with Mohammedan rites while her first marriage fiesta was held in the public plaza of Rosario Cavite. Sometime after
was still subsisting. She was charged and convicted of bigamy. In her midnight accused Pugay and Samson with several companions arrived
defense, she claims that she already obtained a divorce decree in (they were drunk), and they started making fun of Bayani Miranda.
accordance with the Muslim law, therefore, she contracted her second Pugay after making fun of the Bayani, took a can of gasoline and poured
marriage in good faith.  its contents on the latter, Gabion (principal witness) told Pugay not to do
the deed. Then Samson set Miranda on fire making a human torch out of
HELD: It seems to us unnecessary to determine whether or not the him. They were arrested the same night and barely a few hours after the
divorce in question was granted in accordance with the Mohammedan incident gave their written statements. 
religious practices, as to which there seems to exist considerable
uncertainty, because in our view of the case a valid divorce can be HELD: Having taken the can from under the engine of the ferris wheel
granted only by the courts and for the reasons specified in Act No. 2710. and holding it before pouring its contents on the body of the deceased,
It is not claimed that the appellant was divorced from her first husband in this accused knew that the can contained gasoline. The stinging smell of
accordance with said Act.  this flammable liquid could not have escaped his notice even before
pouring the same. Clearly, he failed to exercise all the diligence
With respect to the contention that the appellant acted in good faith in
necessary to avoid every undesirable consequence arising from any act
contracting second marriage, believing that she had been validly
that may be committed by his companions who at the time were making
divorced from her first husband, it is sufficient to say that every one is
fun of the deceased. Thus, he is guilty of homicide through reckless
presumed to know the law, and the fact that one does not know that is
imprudence. 
act constitutes a violation of the law does not exempt him from the
consequences thereof. As to the suggestion of the Solicitor-General that
divorces among the Moros according to their religious practices should Villareal v. People G.R. No. 151258 (1 February 2012) 
be recognized as valid as a matter of public policy, because in the FACTS: The Court was asked to revisit its Decision in the case involving
contrary case, "there would be no end of criminal prosecutions, for the death of Leonardo "Lenny" Villa due to fraternity hazing. 
polygamy still abounds among them, and the remarriages of people
divorced under the Koran are the order of the day," that is a matter for
the  HELD: The Court is constrained to rule against the trial court’s finding of
malicious intent to inflict physical injuries on Lenny Villa, there being no
proof beyond reasonable doubt of the existence of 

17 
18 

consideration of the Legislature and the Governor- General. 

In Re: Petition to sign in the roll of Attorneys Michael M. Medado,
B.M. No. 2540 (2013) FACTS: Medado graduated from UP College of
Law in 1979. He passed the bar exams and took the Attorney’s Oath in
1980. He practiced law for 30 years before he learned that he only
malicious intent to inflict physical injuries x x x. The absence of malicious
intent does not automatically mean, however, that the accused fraternity
members are ultimately devoid of criminal liability. The RPC also
punishes felonies that are committed by means of fault (culpa).
According to Article 3 thereof, there is fault when the wrongful act results
from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. (N.B. This just as effectively if made in the best of good faith as if made with the
ruling shall be interpreted without prejudice to the applicability of the most corrupt intent. The display itself, without the intervention of any
Anti-Hazing Law to subsequent cases.)  other factor, is the evil. 

Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro 635 SCRA 191 (2010) Article 365 is a People v. Dela Rosa G.R. No. 84857 (16 January 1988) FACTS: Dela
substantive rule penalizing not an act, defined as a felony but the mental Rosa and others were recruited by the New People’s Army. Before they
attitude xxx behind the act, the dangerous recklessness, lack of care or could execute their attack, they killed the rebel commander and
foresight xxx, a single mental attitude regardless of the resulting surrendered to the authorities. After they talked to the barangay
consequences.  chairman and the mayor, the police charged them with illegal possession
Even if the crime is punished under a special law, if the act punished is of firearms. 
one which is inherently wrong, the same is malum in se, and therefore,
good faith and the lack of criminal intent is a valid defense; unless it is HELD: While mere possession is malum prohibitum, there must be
the product of criminal negligence or culpa (Arsenia Garcia v. CA, G.R. animus possidendi on the part of the accused. In this case, Dela Rosa
No. 157161, 14 March 2006).  intended to surrender to the authorities. Temporary, incidental, casual or
harmless possession is not punishable. 
Intengan v. CA 377 SCRA 63
(2002)  2. RELATION OF RPC TO SPECIAL LAWS 
While it is true that, as a rule and on principles of abstract justice, men
are not and should not be held criminally responsible for acts committed Article 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. 鈥
by them without guilty knowledge and criminal or at least evil intent, the
courts have always recognized the power of the legislature, on grounds
of public policy and compelled by necessity, “the great master of things,” Padilla v. Dizon 158 SCRA 127 (1988) FACTS: Padilla filed an
to forbid in a limited class of cases the doing of certain acts, and to make administrative complaint against RTC Judge Dizon for rendering a
their commission criminal without regard to the intent of the doer.  manifestly erroneous decision acquitting Lo Chi Fai of the offense
charged for smuggling foreign currency out of the country in violation of
Central Bank Circular No. 960. The Circular prohibits transmission of
B. CRIMES DEFINED AND PENALIZED BY foreign currency out of the Philippines without authorization from the
SPECIAL LAWS  Central Bank. Penal sanction for such violation is provided in P.D. No.
1883. Judge Dizon then acquitted accused because of lack of intent to
violate and benefit from the act alone. 
There are 3 classes of crimes. The RPC defines and penalizes the first
two classes: 1) intentional, and 2) culpable felonies. 
HELD: Judge showed gross ignorance of the law. He ought to know that
proof of malice or mens rea is not essential in offense punished by
The third class of crimes is those defined and penalized by special laws,
special laws which are mala prohibita. The judge did not take into
which include crimes punished by municipal or city ordinances. 
consideration the admission of the accused that he was a “carrier” of
foreign currency for other people but chose to give credence to the
鉁 fantastic tale of the accused that he and his alleged business associate
can be given suppletory effect. 鉁 Dolo is not required in crimes were using the money for a particular investment. 
punished by special laws because these crimes are mala prohibita. 鉁
Padilla v. CA 269 SCRA 402 (1997) FACTS: Padilla, driving his Pajero
1. MALA IN SE and MALA PROHIBITA  at high speed despite the bad weather, hit a balot vendor. A chase took
place and eventually, Padilla’s vehicle was stopped. He was arrested
and several firearms were 
Mala in se 鈥 an act, by its very nature, is inherently and morally wrong;
found inside his vehicle. He admitted possession claiming he used them
it is committed with criminal intent. 
for shooting but was not able to produce any permit to carry. 

Malum prohibitum 鈥 HELD: P.D. No. 1886 provides only 2 requisites to establish crimes
involving illegal possession of firearm: (1) existence of subject firearm
NOTE: Not all violations of special laws are mala prohibita. While and (2) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed the firearm
intentional felonies are always mala in se, it does not follow that does not have the corresponding permit to possess. 
prohibited acts done in violation of special laws are always mala
prohibita.  Either the testimony of a representative of or a certification from the PNP
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan 369 SCRA 394 (2001) FACTS: Estrada is Firearms and explosives office would suffice to prove beyond reasonable
challenging the plunder law. One of the issues he raised is whether doubt the second element of illegal possession. P.D. No. 1866 is
plunder is malum prohibitum or mala in se.  constitutional. To justify nullification, there must be a clear breach of the
constitution. The contention that the penalty of simple illegal possession
is cruel and excessive in contravention of the constitution does not merit
HELD: Plunder is mala in se which requires proof of criminal of criminal serious consideration. The severity of a penalty does not ipso facto make
intent. Precisely because the constitutive crimes are mala in se the the same cruel and excessive. The Court cited the doctrine of People v.
element of mens rea must be proven in a prosecution for plunder. It is Simon as to the penalties to be imposed although P.D. No. 1866 is a
noteworthy that the amended information alleges that the crime of special law, the penalties therein were taken from the RPC, hence, the
plunder was committed “willfully, unlawfully and criminally.” It thus rules in the said code for graduating by degrees or determining the
alleges guilty knowledge on the part of the petitioner.  proper period should be applied. 

US v. Go Chico 14 Phil 128 (1909) FACTS: Go Chico displayed in the
window of his store medallions with the head of Aguinaldo, the flag and
the banner of the insurrection. He was charged of violation of Section 1
of Act No. 1696 which punishes any person who displays, exposes to
public view any material or symbol of the Revolution. In his defense, Go
Chico claims that he did not intend to violate the law and that he did not
display such objects were not actually used in the insurrection. 
People v. Saley 291 SCRA 715 (1998) FACTS: Saley was
convicted of 16 cases of illegal recruitment, one of which was on the
large scale. She was also convicted of 11 counts of estafa. She claims
that she was not engaged in recruitment but is merely acting as an
agent. She also claimed that she was merely aiding the processing of
the complainant’s visas. 

HELD: It is not necessary that the appellant should have acted with the
criminal intent. In many crimes, made such by statutory enactment, the
intention of the person who commits the crime is entirely immaterial. This
is necessarily so. If it were not, the statute as a deterrent influence would
be substantially worthless. It would be impossible of execution. In many
cases the act complained of is itself that which produces the pernicious
effect which the statute seeks to avoid. In those cases the pernicious
effect is produced with precisely the same force and result whether the
intention of the person performing the act is good or bad.  accused sold 2 tea-bags of marijuana to a poseur buyer for P40.
HELD: Saley is guilty of illegal recruitment and estafa. She has no valid
license or authority to engage in placement of workers. There is no
double jeopardy in this case. Conviction under the Labor Code for illegal
recruitment is malum prohibita while estafa under the RPC is malum in
se. 
People v. Simon 234 SCRA 555 (1994) FACTS: The accused was
arrested after a buy-bust operation conducted by the police wherein the
 

HELD: To sustain a conviction for selling prohibited drugs under the

Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, the sale must be clearly established. The
commission of the offense of illegal sale of prohibited drugs requires
19  merely the consummation of the selling transaction. The Court held that
in the instant case the imposable penalty under R.A. No. 6425 as
amended by R.A. No. 7659 is prison correccional to be taken from the
medium period thereof pursuant to Article 64 of the RPC, there being no
The display of a flag or emblem used particularly within a recent period, aggravating and mitigating circumstance. 
by the enemies of the Government tends to incite resistance to
governmental functions and insurrection against governmental authority
 20  Suffice it to state that cockfighting, or sabong in the local parlance, has a
Dissent: It is thus clear that an offense is punished by the RPC if both its
definition and the penalty therefore are found in the special law. That the
latter imports or borrows from the RPC its nomenclature of penalties. In
short, the mere use by a special law of a penalty found in the RPC can
by no means make an offense thereunder an offense “punished or
punishable” by the RPC. 
Ladonga v. People 451 SCRA 673 (2005) FACTS: Spouses Ladonga
were convicted by the RTC for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 (3 counts). The
husband applied for probation while the wife appealed arguing that the
RTC erred in finding her criminally liable for conspiring with her husband
as the principle of conspiracy is inapplicable to B.P. Blg. 22 which is a
special law.  the activity as it sees fit. In the exercise of its own discretion, the
HELD: B.P. Blg. 22 does not expressly prescribe the suppletory
application of the provisions of the RPC. Thus, in the absence of
contrary provision in B.P. Blg. 22, the general provisions of the RPC
which, by their nature, are necessarily applicable, may be applied
suppletorily. The court cited the case of Yu v. People, where the
provision on subsidiary imprisonment under Article 39 of the RPC to B.P.
Blg. 22 was applied suppletorily. The suppletory application of the
principle of conspiracy in this case is analogous to the application of the
provision on principals under Article 17 in US v. Ponte. For once
conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a criminal design is shown, the
act of one is the act of all the conspirators, and the precise extent or
modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary, since all
the conspirators are principals.  the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and
The Court in this case however ruled in favor of Ladonga (wife) as the
prosecution failed to prove that she performed any overt act in
furtherance of the alleged conspiracy.  others. xxx The quality of a crime involving grave infringement of the
People v. Bustinera 431 SCRA 284 (2004) FACTS: Bustinera was
convicted by the trial court for qualified theft under Article 310 of the RPC
for the unlawful taking of the taxi cab driven by him which is owned and
operated by Cipriano and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua. 
HELD: The unlawful taking of motor vehicles is now covered by the anti-
carnapping law (R.A. No. 6539) and not by the provisions on qualified
theft or robbery. The trial court having convicted Bustinera of qualified
theft instead of carnapping, erred in the imposition of the penalty. While
the information alleges that the crime was attended with grave abuse of
confidence, the same cannot be appreciated as the suppletory effect of
the RPC to special laws, as provided in Article 10 of said Code, cannot
be invoked when there is a legal impossibility of application, either by
express provision or by necessary implication.  are:
Moreover, when the penalties under the special law are different from
and are without reference or relation to those under the RPC, there can
be no suppletory effect of the rules, for the application of penalties under
the said Code or by other relevant statutory provisions are based on or
applicable only to said rules for felonies under the Code. 
The Court cited the case of People v. Panida which involved the crime of
carnapping and the penalty imposed was the indeterminate sentence of
14 years and 8 months, as minimum, to 17 years and 4 months, as
maximum, this Court did not apply the provisions of the RPC suppletorily
as the anti- carnapping law provides for its own penalties which are
distinct and without reference to the said Code. Bustinera was sentenced
to an indeterminate penalty of 14 years and 8 months as minimum, to 17
years and 4 months, as maximum for the crime of carnapping under R.A.
No. 6539, as amended.  connection with the interest in the cockpit, not that he hid this interest by
Go-Tan v. Tan 567 SCRA 231 (2008)  law prohibiting the possession of interest. The ponencia significantly noted,
If the principle of conspiracy under Article 8 of the RPC is applied to B.P.
Blg. 22 in the absence of a contrary provision therein, with more reason
could the same principle be applied suppletorily to R.A. No. 9262
because of the express provision of Section 47 that the RPC shall be
supplementary to said law. 
3. CRIMES INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE 
Teves v. COMELEC G.R. No. 180636 (28 April 2009)
FACTS: Petitioner was a candidate for Representative of the 3rd
legislative district of Negros. During his tenure as a Mayor, he was
convicted of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the
Local Government Code for possessing pecuniary or financial interest in
a cockpit. A case for disqualification was filed against him alleging that
the violation he committed was a crime of moral turpitude.  1. WRONGFUL ACT DIFFERENT FROM THAT
HELD: "It (moral turpitude) implies something immoral in itself,
regardless of the fact that it is punishable by law or not. It must not be
merely mala prohibita, but the act itself must be inherently immoral. The
doing of the act itself, and not its prohibition by statute fixes the moral
turpitude. Moral turpitude does not, however, include such acts as are
not of themselves immoral but whose illegality lies in their being
positively prohibited."  clothes. She got into an argument with her husband before she poured
long and storied tradition in our culture and was prevalent even during
the Spanish occupation. While it is a form of gambling, the morality
thereof or the wisdom in legalizing it is not a justiciable issue. In
Magtajas v. Pryce Properties, it was held that: The morality of gambling
is not a justiciable issue. Gambling is not illegal per se. While it is
generally considered inimical to the interests of the people, there is
nothing in the Constitution categorically proscribing or penalizing
gambling or, 
21 
for that matter, even mentioning it at all. It is left to Congress to deal with
legislature may prohibit gambling altogether or allow it without limitation
or it may prohibit some forms of gambling and allow others for whatever
reasons it may consider sufficient. 
conduct clearly contrary to the accepted rules of right and duty, justice,
honesty and good morals; it is illegal solely because of the prohibition that
exists in law or in the Constitution. Thus, no depravity immediately leaps up or
suggests itself based on the elements of the crime committed. 
Brion, J., concurring The most common definition of moral turpitude is
similar to one found in the early editions of Black’s Law Dictionary: [An]
act of baseness, vileness, or the depravity in private and social duties
which man owes to his fellow man, or to society in general, contrary to
man. xxx Act or behavior that gravely violates moral sentiment or
accepted moral standards of community and is a morally culpable quality
held to be present in some criminal offenses as distinguished from
moral sentiment of the community as distinguished from statutory mala
prohibita. 
The Approaches Applied to TEVES 
The Objective Approach The crime for which petitioner Teves was convicted
(possession of pecuniary or financial interest in a cockpit) is, at its core,
related to gambling 鈥
From the Perspective of Elements of the Crime Under this approach, we
determine whether a crime involves moral turpitude based solely on our
analysis of the elements of the crime alone. 
The essential elements of the offense of possession of prohibited interest
(Section 3(h) of the Anti-Graft Law) for which the petitioner was convicted
 
1. The accused is a public officer; 
2. He has a direct or indirect financial or pecuniary 
interest in any business, contract or transaction; and 
3. He is prohibited from having such interest by the 
Constitution or any law. 
From the perspective of moral turpitude, the third element is the critical
element. This element shows that the holding of interest that the law covers is
not a 
The Subjective Approach This approach is largely the ponencia’s approach,
as it expressly stated that "a determination of all surrounding circumstances
of the violation of the statute must be considered." In doing this, the ponencia
firstly considered that the petitioner did not use his official capacity in
transferring it to his wife, as the transfer took effect before the effectivity of the
too, that the violation was not intentionally committed in a manner contrary to
justice, modesty, or good morals, but due simply to Teves’ lack of awareness
or ignorance of the prohibition. This, in my view, is the clinching argument that
no moral turpitude can be involved as no depravity can be gleaned where
intent is clearly absent. 
C. PUNISHABLE CONDUCT 
Article 4. Criminal liability. 鈥 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. 
 
INTENDED 
鉁 el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado 鈥
People v. Mananquil 132 SCRA 196 (1984) FACTS: One evening,
Valentina went to NAWASA where her husband works as a security
guard. She accuses her husband of keeping a mistress and burning her
 gasoline on him and set him on fire. Her husband died as a result. She
was charged with Parricide. In her defense, she claims that the real
cause of death was her  鈥
22 
husband’s pneumonia and that the burns were only secondary causes of
death. 
HELD: Appellant's case falls squarely under Article 4(1) of the RPC, the
essential requisites of which are: (a) that an intentional felony has been
committed; and (b) that the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the
direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed by the
offender.  (1957)
One who inflicts injury on another is deemed guilty of homicide if the
injury contributes immediately or immediately to the death of such other.
The fact that other causes contribute to the death does not relieve the
actor of responsibility. He would still be liable "even if the deceased
might litem recovered if he had taken proper care of himself, or
submitted to surgical operation, or that unskilled or improper treatment
aggravated the wound and contributed to the death, or that death was
men." caused by a surgical operation rendered necessary by the
condition of the wound. The principle on which this rule is founded is one
of universal application. It lies at the foundation of criminal jurisprudence.
It is that every person is held to contemplate and be responsible for the
natural consequences of his own acts. A different doctrine would tend to
give immunity to crime and to take away from human life a salutary and
essential safeguard. 
The absence of eyewitness-testimony as to the jumping from the train of
the 4 victims already named precludes the imputation of criminal
responsibility to the appellants for the ghastly deaths of the said victims. 
People v. Sabalones 294 SCRA 751 (1988) Mistake in the identity of
the victim carries the same gravity as when the accused zeroes in on his
intended victim. Where the case involves the killing of persons other than
the intended victims, the same is better characterized as error in
personae or mistake in the identity of the victims, rather than aberratio
ictus which means mistake in the blow, characterized by aiming at one
but hitting the other due to imprecision in the blow.  first event should, as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person,
The felony committed must be the proximate cause of the resulting
injury.  therefrom.
PROXIMATE CAUSE 鈥
鉁
consequence of physical injuries inflicted: 1. That the victim at the
time the physical 
People v. Toling 62 SCRA 17 (1975) FACTS: The Toling brothers
suddenly started stabbing their co-passengers in a train going to Bicol.
Several passengers died of stab wounds from the brothers. Four
persons were found dead near the railroad tracks. Apparently they
jumped off the train to avoid being killed. 
HELD: Article 4 of the RPC provides that "criminal liability shall be
incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful
act done be different from that which he intended". The presumption is
that "a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act"
(Section 5[c], Rule 131, Rules of Court). The rule is that "if a man creates
in another man's mind an immediate sense of danger which causes such
person to try to escape, and in so doing he injures himself, the person
who creates such a state of mind is responsible for the injuries which
result" (Reg. v. Halliday 61 L. T. Rep. [N.S.] 701, cited in US v. Valdez,
41 Phil 4911, 500). Following that rule, is was held that "if a person
against whom a criminal assault is directed reasonably believes himself
to be in danger of death or great bodily harm and in order to escape
jumps into the water, impelled by the instinct of self- preservation, the
assailant is responsible for homicide in case death results by drowning"
(US v. Valdez, supra; People v. Buhay, 79 Phil 371). 
injuries were inflicted was in normal health. 2. That the death may be
expected from the 
physical injuries inflicted. 3. That death ensued within a
reasonable time.  ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to
鉁 sequence of events from Iligan’s assault on him to the time Qui 帽 ones,
of the resulting injury when: a. There is an active force that
intervened between the felony committed and the resulting injury,
and the active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from
the felonious act of the accused; or b. The resulting injury is due to
the intentional  EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE
act of the victim. 
鉁 his palay flooded. Javier admitted to opening the irrigation canal which
from that which the offender intended are: a. ERROR IN
PERSONAE 鈥 ABERRATIO ICTUS 鈥 PRAETER INTENTIONEM
23 
PROXIMATE CAUSE 
Vda. De Bataclan v. Medina 102 Phil 181
 
FACTS: A bus traveling from Cavite to Pasay overturned to the side of
the highway because its front tire burst. Three of the passengers were
stuck behind the driver seat. During this time, oil spilled out of the bus.
The people living near the area responded to the calls for help. They
carried torches because it was dark as it was already past midnight.
Unfortunately, the bus was set ablaze because the torches ignited the
gasoline which leaked and spread around the bus. The bus company
claims that the proximate cause of the death of the victims was the torch
which triggered the fire and not their negligence. 
HELD: A definition of proximate cause is found in Volume 38, pp.695-
696 of American jurisprudence, cited by plaintiffs-appellants in their brief.
It is as follows: 
. . . 'that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury,
and without which the result would not have occurred.' And more
comprehensively, 'the proximate legal cause is that acting first and
producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in
motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events,
each having a close causal connection with its immediate
predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the
injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first
acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the
have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or
default that an injury to some person might probably result
 
In this case, the proximate cause of the death is the carrier’s negligence
in transporting their passengers. The tires of the bus were not replaced
and during the incident, the driver and the conductor did not do anything
to prevent the people with the torches from approaching the overturned
bus. 
Villareal v. People (supra) Article 4(1) of the RPC dictates
that the perpetrator shall be liable for the consequences of an act, even if
its result is different from that intended. Thus, once a person is found to
have committed an initial felonious act, such as the unlawful infliction of
physical injuries that results in the death of the victim, courts are required
to automatically apply the legal framework governing the destruction of
life. This rule is mandatory, and not subject to discretion. 
People v. Iligan G.R. No. 75369 (26 November 1990)
FACTS: Before the incident, Quinones and 2 others got into an
altercation with Ilagan. They were able to run away from Ilagan. Later on,
while the three were walking to Quinones’ house, Ilagan suddenly
emerged and hacked Quinones in the head with a bolo. The blow
caused Quinones to fall on the highway where he was ran over by a
vehicle causing his death. 
HELD: Under these circumstances, we hold that while Iligan’s hacking of
Qui 帽 ones, Jr.’s head might not have been the direct cause, it was the
proximate cause of the latter’s death. Proximate legal cause is defined
as "that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by
setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous
chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its
immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting
the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted,
under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event
should, as an ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable
some person might probably result therefrom." In other words, the
Jr. was run over by a vehicle is, considering the very short span of time
between them, one unbroken chain of events. Having triggered such
events, Iligan cannot escape liability. 
 
Urbano v. IAC 157 SCRA 1 (1998) FACTS: One morning, Urbano found
angered Urbano. This led to a heated argument which ended with
 Urbano hitting Javier on the palm with a bolo. The wound was treated
but Javier died a month later due to tetanus.  FACTS: One morning, a Toyota Corolla drove alongside a Honda CRV
HELD: The proximate cause of the death of Marcelo Javier was due to
his own negligence, that Dr. Mario Meneses found no tetanus in the
injury, and that Javier got infected with tetanus when after 2 weeks he
returned to his farm and tended his tobacco plants with his bare hands
exposing the wound to harmful elements like tetanus germs. 
The medical findings lead us to a distinct possibility that the infection of
the wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause later or between
the time Javier was wounded to the time of his death. The infection was,
therefore, distinct and foreign to the crime.  proceeded to the house of Stephen Lim when Sabalones et. al. fired
24 
ERROR IN PERSONAE (Mistake in Identity) 
People v. Oanis (supra) 74 Phil 257
(1943) 
FACTS: Police Officer Oanis and other officers were instructed to arrest
Balagtas, an escaped convict. On the day of the operation, the police
officers were given tips on where to find the convict. When they arrived
at a house where Balagtas was believed to be at, Oanis and Galanta
saw a man sleeping with his back towards the door. They shot
simultaneously or successively at him with their .32 and .45 caliber
revolvers. As it was found later, the man killed was an innocent citizen
named Tecson. In their defense, the accused claims that there was a
mistake in identity.  (1933)
HELD: The crime committed by appellants is not merely criminal
negligence, the killing being intentional and not accidental. In criminal
negligence, the injury caused to another should be unintentional, it being
simply the incident of another act performed without malice. A deliberate
intent to do an unlawful act is essentially inconsistent with the idea of
reckless imprudence, and where such unlawful act is wilfully done, a
mistake in the identity of the intended victim cannot be considered as
reckless imprudence to support a plea of mitigated liability. As the
deceased was killed while asleep, the crime committed is murder with
the qualifying circumstance of alevosia.  methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
People v. Gona 54 Phil 605 (1930) FACTS: A celebration with liberal
supply of alcohol was taking place at a house. The Gona and Dunca got
into a quarrel. Later on, Dunca left the house with several people. Gona
took a bolo and followed the group with the intent to kill Dunca. He
hacked someone in the neck which caused the person’s death. It turns
out that the person hacked was Mapudul. Gona’s defense was that there
was error in personae as he really intended to kill Dunca and not
Mapundul.  person be the direct consequence of the crime committed by the
HELD: Mistake in killing one man instead of another cannot be
considered a mitigating circumstance when it is proved that he acted
maliciously and willfully.  Ronald's head and body. The next day, she got hold of the broom again,
HELD: The allegation does not advance the cause of the appellants. It
must be stressed that the trial court relied on the concept of aberratio
ictus to explain why the appellants staged the ambush, not to prove that
appellants did in fact commit the crimes. In any event, the lower court
was not engaging in conjecture because the conclusion that the
appellants killed the wrong persons was based on the extrajudicial
statement of appellant Beronga and the testimony of one witness.
Nonetheless, the fact that they were mistaken does not diminish their
culpability. Mistake in the identity of the victim carries the same gravity
as when the accused zeroes in on his intended victim.  then, accused did not stop; she got hold of the broom and using its
People v. Esteban 103 SCRA 520 (1981) FACTS: Earlier in the day,
Maravilla and Lulu went to the house of Camaya to collect the balance
from a compromise agreement in the killing of Lulu’s husband. Camaya
said that Esteban would pay the balance. Later that evening, Maravilla
went to the house of Maria Pascua where there was a drinking session.
At around 11 in the evening, gunshots were fired at Maravilla and his
companions. The owner of the house Maria was found dead while
Maravilla was fatally wounded but survived due to timely medical
intervention.  2. OMISSION
HELD: The fact that Esteban intended to kill Maravilla and in the course
of the assault incidentally killed Maria Pascua makes him liable for
murder just the same because a person committing a felony is criminally
liable although the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended (Article 4, RPC). This rule covers aberratio ictus or mistake as
to victim. Esteban is guilty of murder of Maria Pascual and frustrated
murder of Maravilla.  qualifying circumstance of treachery.
People v. Adriano y Samson G.R. No. 205228 (15 July 2015)
and the passenger of the Corolla shot the CRV causing it to swerve and
fall into a canal. Four men alighted the Corolla and started shooting at
the driver. A bystander was also killed by a stray bullet. The accused
were convicted of 2 counts of murder. 
ABERRATIO ICTUS (Miscarriage in the Blow) 
People v. Sabalones 294 SCRA 751 (1988) FACTS: 2 vehicles
towards the vehicles killing 2 of the passengers and seriously injuring 3
others. The lower court convicted the accused. Appellants accuse the
trial court of engaging in conjecture in ruling that there was aberratio
ictus in this case. 
HELD: Although the bystander’s death was by no means deliberate, we
shall adhere to the prevailing jurisprudence pronounced in People v.
Flora, where the Court ruled that treachery may be appreciated in
aberratio ictus. In Flora, the accused was convicted of 2 separate counts
of murder: for the killing of 2 victims, Emerita, the intended victim, and
Ireneo, the victim killed by a stray bullet. The Court, due to the presence
of the aggravating circumstance of treachery, qualified both killings to
murder. The material facts in Flora are similar in the case at bar. Thus,
we follow the Flora doctrine. 
25 
PRAETER INTENTIONEM 
People v. Cagoco 58 Phil 524
 
FACTS: Father and son Yu were standing on the sidewalk in Manila.
While they were talking, Cagoco was moving back and forth behind Yu
Lon before hitting him at the back of the head with his fist. Yu died later
that night. Cagoco claims that he should be convicted only for slight
physical injuries instead of murder. 
HELD: Since the accused struck the deceased from behind and without
warning, he acted with treachery. "There is treachery when the offender
commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means,
especially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might make." Article 4(1) of the RPC
provides that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing
a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended; but in order that a person may be criminally liable for
a felony different from that which he proposed to commit, it is
indispensable that the two following requisites be present, to wit: (a) That
a felony was committed; and (b) that the wrong done to the aggrieved
offender. 
People v. Gonzales G.R. No. 217022 (3 June 2019) FACTS: Using a
hanger, accused hit Ronald several times until it snapped. Still, she did
not stop. She got hold of the broom and using its wooden handle, hit
and using its wooden handle, hit Ronald's head and body. Accused was
convicted of parricide. On appeal, accused faulted the trial court for
finding her guilty of parricide. She also argued that even assuming she
killed Ronald, the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit
so grave a wrong must be appreciated in her favor. 
HELD: Accused was sufficiently shown to have used brute force on
Ronald so much so that the hanger she initially used snapped. Even
wooden handle hit Ronald in the head and all over his body. The
following morning, accused saw Ronald's critical condition. There was
vomit on his bed and on the floor. His jogging pants were wet with urine.
He was so weak he could neither get up, nor hold a spoon. He later fell
to the ground. But accused still did not take pity on her young child.
Again, she got the broom and pushed its handle inside Ronald's mouth.
Accused, therefore, cannot be credited with the mitigating circumstance
of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong. 
 
We have seen that under the circumstances of this case the defendant is
liable for the killing of Yu Lon, because his death was the direct
consequence of defendant's felonious act of striking him on the head. If
the defendant had not committed the assault in a treacherous manner.
he would nevertheless have been guilty of homicide, although he did not
intend to kill the deceased; and since the defendant did commit the crime
with treachery, he is guilty of murder, because of the presence of the
 
 People v. Sales G.R. No. 177218 (3 October 2011)
Appellant attempts to evade criminal culpability by arguing that he
merely intended to discipline Noemar and not to kill him. In order that a
person may be criminally liable for a felony different from that which he
intended to commit, it is indispensable (a) that a felony was committed
and (b) that the wrong done to the aggrieved person be the direct
consequence of the crime committed by the perpetrator. Here, there is
no doubt appellant in beating his son Noemar and inflicting upon him
physical injuries, committed a felony. As a direct consequence of the
beating suffered by the child, he expired. Appellant’s criminal liability for
the death of his son, Noemar, is thus clear. 
Article 116. Misprision of treason. 鈥
3. PROPOSAL AND CONSPIRACY 
Article 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. 鈥
Article 340. Corruption of minors. 鈥 Any person who shall promote or
facilitate the prostitution or corruption of persons underage to satisfy the
lust of another, shall be punished by prision mayor, and if the culprit is a
pubic officer or employee, including those in government-owned or
controlled corporations, he shall also suffer the penalty of temporary
absolute disqualification. 

Article 137. Disloyalty of public officers or employees. 鈥 prision

correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon public officers
or employees who have failed to resist a rebellion by all the means in
their power, or shall continue to discharge the duties of their offices 27 
under the control of the rebels or shall accept appointment to office
under them. 

鉁
Article 208. Prosecution of offenses; negligence and tolerance. 鈥 PROPOSAL 

REQUISITES OF PROPOSAL: a. That a person has decided to commit

a felony; 

GENERAL RULE: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony are not

26  punishable. 

Article 223. Conniving with or consenting to evasion. 鈥 prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods and temporary special
disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual special
disqualification, if the fugitive shall have been sentenced by final
judgment to any penalty. 2. By prision correccional in its minimum period
and temporary special disqualification, in case the fugitive shall not have
been finally convicted but only held as a detention prisoner for any crime
or violation of law or municipal ordinance. 
Article 234. Refusal to discharge elective office. 鈥 arresto mayor or a
fine not exceeding P1,000, or both, shall be imposed upon any person
who, having been elected by popular election to a public office, shall
refuse without legal motive to be sworn in or to discharge the duties of
said office. 
Article 275. Abandonment of person in danger and abandonment of
one’s own victim. 鈥 arresto mayor shall be imposed upon: 1. Any one
who shall fail to render assistance to any person whom he shall find in
an uninhabited place wounded or in danger of dying, when he can
render such assistance without detriment to himself, unless such
omission shall constitute a more serious offense. 2. Anyone who shall
fail to help or render assistance to another whom he has accidentally
wounded or injured. 3. Anyone who, having found an abandoned child
under 7 years of age, shall fail to deliver said child to the authorities or to
his family, or shall fail to take him to a safe place.  and b. That he proposes its execution to some other
- It is the failure to perform a duty required by law. - It is important that
there is a law requiring the performance of an act. If there is no positive
duty, there is no liability. - Examples: failure to render assistance,
failure to issue receipt or non-disclosure of knowledge of conspiracy
against the government. 
Article 115. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason; Penalty. 鈥
prision mayor and a fine not exceeding P10,000, and prision
correccional and a fine not exceeding P5,000. 
Article 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d’etat,
rebellion or insurrection. 鈥 coup d’etat shall be punished by prision
mayor in minimum period and a fine which shall not exceed P8,000.  rebellion or insurrection; - Conspiracy to commit sedition; -
Article 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition. 鈥
Article 186. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade. 鈥
prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from P200 to
P6,000, or both, shall be imposed upon: 1. Any person who shall enter
into any contract or agreement or shall take part in any conspiracy or
combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, in restraint of trade or
commerce or to prevent by artificial means free competition in the
market; x x x.  the Government of the United States in the Philippine Islands and the
Article 306. Who are brigands; Penalty. 鈥 prision mayor in its medium
period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period if the act or acts
committed by them are not punishable by higher penalties, in which
case, they shall suffer such high penalties. If any of the arms carried by
any of said persons be an unlicensed firearm, it shall be presumed that
said persons are highway robbers or brigands, and in case of convictions
the penalty shall be imposed in the maximum period. 
EXCEPTION: They are punishable only in the cases in which the law
specially provides a penalty therefore. 
RATIONALE: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime are only
preparatory acts and the law regards them as innocent or at least
permissible except in rare and exceptional cases. 
CONSPIRACY 鈥
INDICATIONS OF CONSPIRACY - for a collective responsibility among
the accused to be established, it is sufficient that at the time of the
aggression, all of them acted in concert, each doing his part to fulfill their
common design to commit the felony (Reyes, p.124). 
REQUISITES OF CONSPIRACY: a. That 2 or more persons came to
an 
agreement; - Agreement presupposes meeting of the minds 
of 2 or more persons. b. That the agreement concerned the 
commission of a felony; and - The agreement must refer to the
commission of a crime. It must be an agreement to act, to effect, to bring
about what has already been conceived and determined. c. That the
execution of the felony be decided 
upon. - The conspirators have made up their minds to commit the
crime. There must be a determination to commit the crime of
treason, rebellion or sedition. 
 
person or persons. 
鉁
a. The person who proposes is not determined 
to commit the felony. b. There is no decided, concrete and formal 
proposal. c. It is not the execution of a felony that is 
proposed (Reyes, p.128). 鉁
Conspiracy / Proposal are punishable in the following cases: -
Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason; - Conspiracy and proposal
to commit coup d'etat, 
Conspiracy or combination in restraint of trade; - Conspiracy to commit
arson; - Conspiracy to commit terrorism; and - Conspiracy to commit
importation, sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery,
distribution, transportation, manufacture, cultivation of dangerous drugs
and maintenance of a den, dive or resort where any dangerous drug is
used in any form. 
US v. Bautista 6 Phil 581 (1906) FACTS: Appellants Bautista, Puzon
and De Guzman were convicted in the Court of First Instance of Manila
of the crime of conspiracy to overthrow, put down, and destroy by force
Government of the Philippine Islands, as defined and penalized in
section 4 of Act No. 292 of the Philippine Commission. 
HELD: Only Bautista and Puzon are guilty of conspiracy. In this case,
evidence on record shows that Bautista was fully aware of the purposes
of the meetings he participated in, and even gave an assurance to the
chief of the military forces that he is making the necessary preparations.
On the other hand, Puzon voluntarily accepted his appointment and in
doing so, assumed all the obligations implied by such acceptance. These
are considered evidence of the criminal connection of the accused. De
Guzman, on the other hand, is not guilty of conspiracy. While he might
have been helping the conspirators by accepting bonds in bundles, he
was not aware of the contents nor did he assume any obligation with
respect to these bonds.  People v. Bagano 375 SCRA 470 (2002) FACTS: Jeremias and his wife
28 
People v. Fabro 325 SCRA 285 (2000) FACTS: Petitioner Fabro,
together with her common- law husband Pilay and Irene Martin, was
charged with the crime of "violation of Section 21 (b) Article IV, in relation
to Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425 as amended, for selling to PO2
Apduhan, who acted as poseur buyer, one kilo of dried marijuana leaves.
Fabro contends that her guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt
as based on the testimony of the NBI, the real possessor of the
confiscated properties was her co-accused Martin.  not a condition precedent. From the mode and manner in which the
HELD: Fabro’s contention that Martin was the real curlprit being the
source of the contraband does not in any way absolve her of the crime of
selling marijuana. While it is true that it was Martin who took the money,
it was Fabro who negotiated with the poseur buyers, fetched her co-
accused; and carried and handed over the marijuana to Apduhan. The
acts of Martin and Fabro clearly show a unity of purpose in the
consummation of the sale of marijuana. It is clear that Section 21(b) of
R.A. No. 6425 punishes the mere conspiracy to commit the offense of
selling, delivering, distributing and transporting of dangerous drugs.
Conspiracy herein refers to the mere agreement to commit the said acts
and not the actual execution thereof. While the rule is that a mere
conspiracy to commit a crime without doing any overt act is not
punishable, the exception is when such is specifically penalized by law,
as in the case of Section 21 of R.A. No. 6425. Conspiracy as crime
should be distinguished from conspiracy as a manner of incurring
criminal liability the latter being applicable to the case.  Clemente sustained head wounds. The lower court convicted both
People v. Bello 428 SCRA 388 (2004) FACTS: Accused Bello, et.
al. mapped out a plan to rob a moneychanger. Calling the
moneychanger from a motel room, Bello misrepresented that she came
from Japan and would like to convert her 40 pieces of yen to pesos. She
requested that the currency conversion be made in her room as she did
not want to carry around a huge sum of money. During the occasion of
the robbery, Andasan, the messenger who brought the money to Bello
was killed. The trial court ruled that Bello conspired with the other
accused and was found guilty as principal for the crime of robbery with
homicide. Bello, argued that her alleged conspiracy with the other
accused was not sufficiently established by circumstantial evidence as
there was no showing that she had the same purpose and united with
the other accused in the execution of the crime. She alleged that her
mere presence in the crime scene is not per se a sufficient indicium of
conspiracy. She insists that she acted against her will due to the
irresistible force employed by her co-accused.  confederating with her co-accused for the murder of her live-in-partner
HELD: The Court held that Bello conspired with her co-accused to
commit the crime. Records clearly reveal that Bello was part of the plan
to rob the moneychanger. The chain of events and the conduct of Bello
lead to no other conclusion than that she conspired with her co-accused
to commit the crime. Conspiracy exists where the plotters agree,
expressly or impliedly, to commit the crime and decide to pursue it.
Conspiracy is predominantly a state of mind as it involves the meeting of
the minds and intent of the malefactors. Consequently, direct proof is not
essential to establish it. The existence of the assent of minds of the co-
conspirators may be inferred from proof of facts and circumstances
which, taken together, indicate that they are parts of the complete plan to
commit the crime.  commission of the offense, either morally, through advice,
Li v. People 427 SCRA 217 (2004) FACTS: Because of an altercation
between Arugay and Li, the latter armed himself with a baseball bat and
used the same to hit Arugay on the arm. Arugay armed with a bolo,
retaliated by hacking Li on the head causing the bat to fall from his hand
and leaving him unconscious or semi-unconscious. At this point in time,
Sangalang, who was also present stabbed Arugay several times which
resulted to the latter’s death. The lower court held that there was
conspiracy in the present case  in bringing the victim to the residence of Ramos, her brother-in-law.
HELD: The existence of conspiracy should be ruled out. Sangalang was
the main actor in stabbing Arugay to death. As Li was incapacitated or
probably unconscious at the time Sangalang stabbed Arugay, it cannot
be assumed that Sangalang did what he has done with the knowledge or
assent of Li, much more in coordination with each other. Based on the
circumstances, the Court is hard put to conclude that Sangalang and Li
had acted in concert to commit the offense. In fact, the stabbing of
Arugay could very well be construed as a spur-of-the-moment reaction
by Sangalang upon seeing that his friend Li was struck on the head by
Arugay. From such a spontaneous reaction, a finding of conspiracy
cannot arise. Proving conspiracy is a dicey matter, especially difficult in
cases such as the present wherein the criminal acts arose
spontaneously, as opposed to instances wherein the participants would
have the opportunity to orchestrate a more deliberate plan. Spontaneity
alone does not preclude the establishment of conspiracy, which after all,
can be consummated in a moment’s notice 鈥
29 
Merlinda were sleeping in their home when they were awakened by
someone repeatedly calling Jeremias' name. Jeremias went to the
window to see who it was and thereafter left their room to go outside.
Merlinda remained in their room, but peering through the window, she
saw Ca 帽 ete suddenly embrace Jeremias as the latter was opening the
gate. Thereupon, Bagano with ice pick in hand stabbed Jeremias on the
chest. Jeremias struggled to free himself from Ca 帽 ete's clasp and ran,
but Bagano gave chase. Jeremias died upon arrival at the hospital. 
HELD: Conspiracy is attendant in the commission of the crime. For
conspiracy to exist, it is sufficient that at the time of the commission of
the offense the accused had the same purpose and were united in its
execution. Proof of an actual planning of the perpetuation of the crime is
offense was perpetrated, and as can be inferred from their acts, it is
evident that Bagano and Ca 帽 ete were one in their intention to kill
Jeremias. Hence, in accordance with the principle that in conspiracy the
act of one is the act of all, the fact that it was Bagano who delivered the
fatal blow on Jeremias and Ca 帽 ete's participation was limited to a mere
embrace is immaterial. Conspiracy bestows upon them equal liability;
hence, they shall suffer the same fate for their acts. 
People v. Bangcado 346 SCRA 189 (2000) FACTS: SPO1 Bangcado
together with SPO1 Banisa frisked and searched Cogasi, Clemente,
Adawan and Lino to see if they were concealing any weapons. After
making sure that the victims were unarmed, Bangcado directed the
victims to form a line against a Ford Fierra. Because Bangcado and
Banisa were holding handguns, Cogasi and his friends did as they were
told and were caught unaware when they were shot by Bangcado.
Adawan and Lino died of gunshot wounds in the head, while Cogasi and
Bangcado and Banisa for 2 counts of murder and 2 counts of frustrated
murder. 
HELD: There being no finding of conspiracy with Bangcado, the Court
acquitted Banisa of all the charges against him. In the absence of any
previous plan or agreement to commit a crime, the criminal responsibility
arising from different acts directed against one and the same person is
individual and not collective, and that each of the participants is liable
only for his own acts. Consequently, Banisa must be absolved from
criminal responsibility for the assault on the victims. It is clear that neither
the victims nor Banisa could have anticipated Bangcado's act of shooting
the victims since the attack was sudden and without any reason or
purpose. Thus, the criminal design of Bangcado had not yet been
revealed prior to the killings. 
People v. Ramos 427 SCRA 299 (2004) FACTS: The trial court
found appellant Eulalia San Roque guilty for conspiring and
Lomida. Lomida was stabbed, shot and burned resulting to his death.
Appellant argues that the fact of such conspiracy has not been
satisfactorily proven during the trial of the case. She vigorously contends
that she did not participate in the killing of the victim. 
HELD: In determining the existence of conspiracy, it is not necessary to
show that all the conspirators actually hit and killed the victim. The
presence of conspiracy among the accused can be proven by their
conduct before, during or after the commission of the crime showing that
they acted in unison with each other, evincing a common purpose or
design. There must be a showing that appellant cooperated in the
encouragement or agreement or materially through external acts
indicating a manifest intent of supplying aid in the perpetration of the
crime in an efficacious way. In such case, the act of one becomes the
act of all, and each of the accused will thereby be deemed equally guilty
of the crime committed. The series of events in this case convincingly
show that appellant and her co-accused acted in unison and cooperated
with each other in killing Lomida. Appellant was the one who opened the
door and allowed the other accused to enter the house. She joined them
While her co-accused dragged the helpless victim, tied him to a santol
tree, stabbed him twice by a bladed knife, and shot him 5 to 7 times,
appellant merely watched intensely. She even “turned her back” as the
lifeless body of the victim was being burned. And after attaining their
purpose, she fled with the other accused. The above circumstances
clearly show the common purpose and concerted efforts on the part of
appellant and her co-accused. 
People v. Amar G.R. No. 194235 (2016) Each of the accused-
appellants had intentional, direct, and substantial participation in the
victim’s kidnapping for ransom. The victim's abduction, his being taken to
and held up in a house in Ilocos Norte under guard, the ransom demand
and negotiation, and finally, the ransom payout, which all happened in a
span of 6 days, clearly took planning and coordination among accused-
appellants. Accused- appellant Efren Gascon (“Gascon”), in particular,
was among the 4 men who abducted the victim in Meycauayan, Bulacan
on October 8, 2002, and kept guard over the victim for 6 days in Dingras,
Ilocos Norte. In view thereof, accused-appellant Gascon could not be a
 mere accomplice as his presence at the scene/s of the crime was
definitely more than  execution. In this case, the presence of accused-appellant and his
30 
just to give moral support; his presence and company were
indispensable and essential to the perpetration of the kidnapping for
ransom. Thus, all the accused-appellants, as co-conspirators, were
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping for
ransom. 
People v. Olazo G.R. No. 220761 (2016) FACTS: An Information for the
crime of Robbery with Homicide was filed with the RTC against Eddie
Olazo, Miguel and Charito, together with Rogelio, Joseph, Dionesia,
Rommel and Eddie. The RTC convicted Charito, together with Rogelio,
Eddie Olazo and Miguel. Aggrieved Charito appealed before the CA,
along with Eddie Olazo and Miguel. The CA affirmed the decision of the
RTC insofar as the conviction of Charito. Charito then filed an Appeal
with the Supreme Court claiming that the prosecution was unable to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt since his participation in the
planning stages of the crime was insufficient to sustain his conviction
and the finding of conspiracy between him and his co-accused.  the late SPO 1 Fernando Gaabucayan, Jr. While the Supreme Court
HELD: There is conspiracy when 2 or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit
it. Conspiracy is present when one concurs with the criminal design of
another, indicated by the performance of an overt act which produces
the crime. In proving conspiracy, direct evidence is not indispensable as
its existence may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before,
during, and after the commission of the crime. In this, Joseph positively
identified Charito and declared that he saw him during the initial planning
of the commission of the crime and noted Charito’s express agreement.
He also testified that he saw Charito in the evening of August 8, 2004,
when he brought the accused near the house of spouses Vallecera and
again upon return to the drop- off area almost an hour later. Hence,
Charito’s appeal was dismissed. 
People v. Peralta G.R. No. L-19069 (29 October 1968)
FACTS: A commotion happened inside the New Bilibid Prison. While
members of the Sigue-Sigue gang were preparing to attend a mass at
7AM, members of the OXO gang attacked with improvised weapons
killing a number of Sigue Sigue members and sympathizers. Peralta was
among those identified as an attacker for the OXO.  former President Estrada. The allegation of conspiracy in the information
HELD: A conspiracy exists when 2 or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit
it. Generally, conspiracy is not a crime except when the law specifically
provides a penalty therefore as in treason, rebellion and sedition. An
agreement to commit a crime is a reprehensible act from the view- point
of morality, but as long as the conspirators do not perform overt acts in
furtherance of their malevolent design, the sovereignty of the State is  irrespective of his declared intent. It is that quality of being equivocal that
not outraged and the tranquility of the public remains undisturbed. Once
an express or implied conspiracy is proved, all of the conspirators are
liable as co-principals regardless of the extent and character of their
respective active participation in the commission of the crime or crimes
perpetrated in furtherance of the conspiracy because in contemplation of
law the act of one is the act of all.  overt act should have been the ultimate step towards the consummation
People v. Listerio 335 SCRA 40 (2000) FACTS: One afternoon, the
Araque brothers tried to collect a sum of money from one of their debtors
in Alabang, After failing to collect anything, the brothers were attacked by
Listerio and company with bladed weapons and lead pipes. This caused
the death of Jeonito while Marlon survived due to timely medical
intervention. Listerio and his co-attackers were charged with murder and
frustrated murder.  Escobal fled the crime scene together; that Aba 帽 o got the firearm back
HELD: Direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found for criminals do not write
down their lawless plans and plots. Conspiracy may be inferred from the
acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime
which indubitably point to and are indicative of a joint purpose, concert of
action and community of interest  against Aba 帽 o. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to
Conspiracy must be shown to exist by direct or circumstantial evidence,
as clearly and convincingly as the crime itself. In the absence of direct
proof thereof, as in the present case, it may be deduced from the mode,
method, and manner by which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred
from the acts of the accused themselves when such acts point to a joint
purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest. Hence,
it is necessary that a conspirator should have performed some overt acts
as a direct or indirect contribution in the execution of the crime planned
to be committed. The overt act may consist of active participation in the
actual commission of the crime itself, or it may consist of moral
assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the commission of
the crime or by exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-
conspirators. Conspiracy transcends mere companionship; it denotes an
intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance
of the common design and purpose. Conspiracy to exist does not require
an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence. From
the legal standpoint, conspiracy exists if, at the time of the commission of
the offense, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its
colleagues, all of them armed with deadly weapons at the locus criminis,
indubitably shows their criminal design to kill the victims. 
31 
People v. Comadre 431 SCRA 366 (2004) FACTS: Antonio Comadre
lobbed a grenade that landed on the roof of Agbanlog. The explosion
killed Robert Agbanlog and injured others who were having a drinking
session at the terrace of the house. When the grenade was thrown,
Antonio was seen with George and Danilo. They were all charged as
conspirators to complex crime of murder with multiple attempted murder. 
have an immediate and necessary relation to the offense. 
People v. Escobal G.R. No. 206292 (11 October 2017) FACTS: Estrillo
Escobal and Melvin Aba 帽 o were found guilty of murder for the killing of
rejected Escobal’s claim of self-defense and sustained his conviction, it
found that Aba 帽 o did not conspire with Escobal to commit the alleged
crime. 
HELD: A conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive
evidence. It must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the
commission of the crime itself. Mere presence of a person at the scene
of the crime does not make him a conspirator for conspiracy transcends
companionship. The evidence shows that George Comadre and Danilo
Lozano did not have any participation in the commission of the crime and
must therefore be set free. Their mere presence at the scene of the
crime as well as their close relationship with Antonio are insufficient to
establish conspiracy considering that they performed no positive act in
furtherance of the crime. 
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 148965 (26
February 2002) 
The gravamen of the conspiracy charge is that each of them, by their
individual acts, agreed to participate, directly or indirectly, in the
amassing, accumulation and acquisition of ill-gotten wealth of and/or for
must not be confused with the adequacy of evidence that may be
required to prove it. 
Arroyo v. People G.R. No. 220598 (18 April 2017) The
raison d’锚 tre for the law requiring a direct overt act is that, in a majority
of cases, the conduct of the accused consisting merely of acts of
preparation has never ceased to be equivocal; and this is necessarily so,
must be lacking before the act becomes one which may be said to be a
commencement of the commission of the crime, or an overt act or before
any fragment of the crime itself has been committed, and this is so for
the reason that so long as the equivocal quality remains, no one can say
with certainty what the intent of the accused is. It is necessary that the
of the design. It is sufficient if it was the “first or some subsequent step in
a direct movement towards the commission of the offense after the
preparations are made.” 
The act done need not constitute the last proximate one for completion.
It is necessary, however, that the attempt must have a causal relation to
the intended crime. In the words of Viada, the overt acts must 
HELD: The circumstances listed by the lower courts, that Aba 帽 o and
from Escobal after the shooting and hid it in the house of his friend; and
that Aba 帽 o did not report the shooting to the police authority or any
other proper government agency but instead reported for duty on the
following day as if nothing had happened the night before, did not
establish a conspiracy between them, or, at least, should not be taken
an agreement concerning the commission of a felony, and decide to
commit it; hence, the agreement concerning the commission of the crime
must be shown to precede the decision to commit it. Indeed, the acts of
Aba 帽 o adverted to did not necessarily reflect his community of purpose
with Escobal in the killing of the victim. The former's mere passive
presence at the scene of the crime did not constitute proof of concerted
action between him and Escobal. Knowledge of, or acquiescence in, or
agreement to cooperate is not enough to constitute one party to a
conspiracy, absent any active participation in the commission of the
crime with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose. 
People v. Golidan G.R. No. 205307 (11 January 2018) The
Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of appellants Golidan, Nacionales
and Ogsila for the crimes of rape with homicide, murder and frustrated
murder. As to the issue of conspiracy, the Court held that conspiracy
need not be proven by direct evidence, for conspiracy may be inferred
from the acts of the accused in accomplishment of a common unlawful
design.  execution
Conspiracy was shown in this case from the concerted actions of
Golidan, et al. The surviving victim, Cherry Mae, testified regarding the
specific acts perpetrated by the appellants against her and the other
victims, which show a unity of purpose and sentiment, and a concerted
effort on the part of the appellants to commit the gruesome crimes.
Cherry Mae pointed to appellant Nacionales as the one who struck her
and Elizabeth Leo, and to appellant Ogsila as the one who struck one-
year-old Namuel Aniban. When asked who went on top of Elizabeth Leo,
Cherry Mae pointed to appellant Golidan. 
32  behind with a bolo severing muscles and tissues. He threw the victim’s
People v. Dillatan G.R. No. 212191 (5 September 2018)
Accused-appellants Dillatan and Garcia were convicted with the crime of
robbery with homicide. The Supreme Court sustained their conviction
and affirmed the existence of conspiracy in committing the crime.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during,
and after the commission of the crime which indubitably point to, and are
indicative of, a joint purpose, concert of action and community of interest.
For conspiracy to exist, it is not required that there be an agreement for
an appreciable period prior to the occurrence; it is sufficient that at the
time of the commission of the offense, the malefactors had the same
purpose and were united in its execution. In the present case, the
coordinated acts and movements of accused-appellants before, during
and after the commission of the crime point to no other conclusion than
that they have acted in conspiracy with each other. Dillatan and Garcia
were on board a motorcycle when they declared a hold up on Violate
and Henry Acob, who were also sitting atop their motorcycle, with their
son, Homer Acob. Dillatan grabbed Violeta’s bag and Garcia shot Homer
Acob on the chest, causing his death, and wounding Violeta on her left
hand and Henry on his knee. Moreover, it is settled that when homicide
is committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery, all those who took
part as principals in the robbery would also be held liable as principals of
the single and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide although they
did not actually take part in the killing, unless it clearly appears that they
endeavored to prevent the same. People v. Ragurio  through the subjective phase. The crime, however, is execution of the
implicate him as a co-conspirator, must be beyond a merely preparatory
act.  not consummated by reason of the intervention of starting from the
STAGES OF COMMISSION OF A CRIME  causes independent of the will of the offender. He did where the
Article 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. 鈥
DEVELOPMENT OF A CRIME a. internal acts 鈥 external acts 鈥
of execution. c. preparatory 鈥 acts of execution 鈥
G.R. No. 224301 (30 July 2019) FACTS: Accused-appellants
were all charged with murder and frustrated murder. The RTC convicted
all of the accused. Aggrieved, all of the accused appealed to the CA
which affirmed the ruling of the lower court, giving no weight to their
argument that all of the prosecution witnesses incorrectly identified them.
The CA maintained that the witnesses were consistent in their
description of the exact participation of each of the accused. 
felony directly by overt acts; 2. He does not perform all the acts of
 
which should produce the felony; 3. The offender’s act is not stopped by
his own 
spontaneous desistance; 4. The non-performance of all acts of
execution was due to cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance. 
鉁
OVERT ACT 鈥
鉁
INDETERMINATE OFFENSE 鈥
鉁
SUBJECTIVE v. OBJECTIVE PHASES 
If it is already passed but the felony is not produced, it is frustrated. 
34 
US v. Eduave 36 Phil 209 (1917) FACTS: Eduave struck a girl from
body into the bushes. He surrendered himself to the authorities and
declared that he killed the victim. However, the victim was not actually
killed. 
HELD: The crime is frustrated murder. Article 3 of the RPC defines a
frustrated felony as: 
A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony as a consequence, but
which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent
of the will of the perpetrator. An attempted felony is defined thus: 
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of
the felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of
execution which constitute the felony by reason of some cause or
accident other than his own voluntarily desistance. The essential
element which distinguishes attempted from frustrated felony is that, in
the latter, there is no intervention of a foreign or extraneous cause or
agency between the beginning of the commission of the crime and the
moment when all of the acts have been performed which should result in
the consummated crime; while in the former there is such intervention
and the offender does not arrive at the point of performing all of the acts
which should produce the crime. He is stopped short of that point by
some cause apart from his voluntary desistance. In case of an attempt
the offender never passes the subjective phase of the offense. He is
interrupted and compelled to desist by the intervention of outside causes
before the subjective phase is passed. On the other hand, in case of
frustrated crimes the subjective phase is completely passed.
SUBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE 
Subjectively the crime is complete. Nothing interrupted the offender
while he was passing That portion of the 
crime 
point 
offender still 
all that was necessary to commit the crime. If the has control over his 
crime did not result as a consequence it was due to acts. 
something beyond his control. 
People v. Lamahang 61 Phil 703 (1935) 
FACTS: The accused was caught in the act of making an opening with
an iron bar on the wall of a store where the owner was sleeping. The
accused had only succeeded in breaking one board and in unfastening
another from the wall, when the The result of the acts of execution, that
is, the accomplishment of the crime. 
If the offender reaches the point where he has no more control over is
acts, the subjective phase is passed. 
If the subjective and objective phases are present, there is
consummated felony. 

HELD: The conviction of accused Levie de Mesa was erroneous. His

incrimination as a co-conspirator was based on pure speculation and policeman showed up, who instantly arrested him. The trial court
conjecture. There was no proof adduced to show that he had at least lent convicted him of attempted robbery. 
moral support to his co-accused-appellants when they attacked the
victims. Conspiracy could not be deduced from his being merely present HELD: The conviction is erroneous. It is the opinion of the SC that the
at the scene of the crime. He must be shown at least to have committed attempt to commit an offense which the Penal code punishes is that
an overt act that indicated his concurrence in the common criminal which has a logical relation to a particular, concrete offense; that, which
design to kill their victim that had animated the attack by the others. is the beginning of the execution of the offense by overt acts of the
Such overt act by de Mesa, to be sufficient to  perpetrator, leading directly to its realization and consummation. What
FORMAL CRIME OR CRIMES OF EFFECT Felonies whereby a single we have here is an attempt to commit an indeterminate offense. There is
act of the accused consummates the commission thereof. There are no no doubt that it was the intention of the accused to enter the store by
stages to its commission.  means of violence, passing through the opening which he had started to
make on the wall, but it is not sufficient, for the purpose of imposing
MATERIAL CRIMES Crimes that may be committed in stages, i.e., penal sanction to make an assumption that the act was in preparation for
attempted, frustrated, and consummated.  the commission of robbery. There is no logical and natural relation
between the act of entering and robbery. Thus, he should be guilty of
attempted trespass to dwelling. People v. Dio 
STAGES OF COMMISSION 1. Attempted 鈥 Frustrated 鈥
130 SCRA 151 (1984) FACTS: The appellant and his
companion tried to divest Crispulo of his Seiko wrist watch but Crispulo
resisted their attempt and fought the robbers. The victim was stabbed
and later died. The Seiko watch was still strapped to his wrist. The lower
court convicted the appellant of the special complex crime of robbery
33  with homicide. 
CRIMINAL LAW 1 ESGUERRA NOTES 
3. Consummated 鈥 HELD: The decision of the lower court was erroneous. The accused
4. ATTEMPT  were unsuccessful in their criminal venture since the watch was still
ELEMENTS: 1. The offender commences the commission of the  securely strapped to the victim’s wrist. The crime of robbery was
therefore not consummated. The killing may be considered as merely HELD: The RPC provisions on theft have not been designed in such
incidental to the plan to carry out the robbery. The accused must be fashion as to accommodate the Adiao, Dino and Empelis rulings. Again,
convicted of attempted robbery with homicide.  there is no language in Article 308 that expressly or impliedly allows that
the “free disposition of the items stolen” is in any way determinative of
People v. Trinidad 169 SCRA 51 (1989) FACTS: Deceased Soriano whether the crime of theft has been produced. We thus conclude that
and Laroa together with Tan were inside a Ford Fierra when Trinidad under the RPC, there is no crime of frustrated theft. 
asked for a ride. The accused shot the 2 deceased. Tan got off the
Fierra and rode a jeepney which just passed by. When he saw the People v. Pareja G.R. No. 188979 (5 September 2012)
accused riding at the back of the jeep, he tried to run but when the jeep FACTS: According to the testimony of the victim, Pareja removed her
started driving away, he clung to its side. The accused fired 2 shots at clothes and tried to insert his penis but wasn’t able to penetrate as he
Tan, one hitting him on his thigh. The lower court convicted him of stopped when the victim’s cries got louder. The lower courts convicted
frustrated murder.  Pareja of rape. 

HELD: The accused can only be convicted of Attempted Murder
because the accused was unable to perform all acts of execution which
would have produced the murder. The victim’s wound in the right thigh
was not fatal and the doctrinal rule is that where the wound is inflicted on
the victim is not sufficient to cause his death, the crime is only attempted
murder. 
People v. Campuhan 329 SCRA 270 (2000) FACTS: The mother of
the 4-year-old victim caught the houseboy Campuhan in the act of
almost raping her daughter. The hymen of the victim was still intact but
since in previous Orita ruling, entry into labia is considered rape even
without rupture of hymen and full penetration is not necessary, question
arises whether what transpired was attempted or consummated rape.  back of the chair and Mooney was unharmed.
HELD: Pareja committed Attempted Rape. According to the victim’s
testimony, the accused was able to touch the mons pubis, the rounded
eminence which becomes hairy around the vagina. However, Pareja was
not able to penetrate the labia majora or the outer lips of the vagina. In
rape cases, the penetration of the labias consummates the rape. 
People v. Borinaga 55 Phil 433 (1930) FACTS: A misunderstanding
regarding the payment for the construction of Mr. Mooney’s fish corral
angered Borinaga, an associate to the said project. That evening, while
Mooney was sitting in a neighbor’s store with his back facing the window,
Borinaga tried to stab Mooney with a knife. However, the knife hit the
 

HELD: Attempted rape only. Mere touching of external genitalia by penis
is already rape. However, touching should be understood as inherently
part of entry of penis into labia and not mere touching of the pudendum.
There must be clear and convincing proof that the penis indeed touched
the labia and slid into the female organ and NOT MERELY STROKED
THE EXTERNAL SURFACE. Some degree of penetration beneath the
surface must be achieved and the labia majora must be entered.
Prosecution did not prove that the Campuhan’s penis was able to
penetrate victim’s vagina because the kneeling position of the accused
obstructed the mother’s view of the alleged sexual contact. The
testimony of the victim herself claimed that penis grazed but did not
penetrate her organ. There was only a shelling of the castle but no
bombardment of the drawbridge yet.  uttered by the offender at the time he inflicted injuries on the victim as
People v. Listerio (supra) 335 SCRA 40 (2000) FACTS: Brothers
Jeonito and Marlon were passing by Tramo, Muntinlupa when a group
composed of Agapito Listerio, Samson, George, and Marlon, all
surnamed Dela Torre and Bonifacio Bancaya blocked their path and
attacked them with lead pipes and bladed weapons. Listerio, Marlon and
George, who were armed with bladed weapons, stabbed Jeonito from
behind. Jeonito’s brother, Marlon, was hit on the head by Samson and
Bancaya with lead pipes and momentarily lost consciousness. When he
regained his senses, he saw that Jeonito was already dead. Their
assailants then fled after the incident. Marlon who sustained injuries in
the arm and back, was thereafter brought to a hospital for treatment. The
lower court found Listerio guilty for the “attempt” to kill Marlon. 
HELD: SC held that the crime is a frustrated felony not an attempted
offense considering that after being stabbed and clubbed twice in the
head as a result of which he lost consciousness and fell, Marlo n's
attackers apparently thought he was already dead and fled. A crime
cannot be held to be attempted unless the offender, after beginning the
commission of the crime by overt acts, is prevented, against his will, by
some outside cause from performing all of the acts which should
produce the crime. In other words, to be an attempted crime the purpose
of the offender must be thwarted by a foreign force or agency which
intervenes and compels him to stop prior to the moment when he has
performed all of the acts which  inflicts physical injuries on another but the latter survives, the crime
35  victim.
HELD: The crime was frustrated murder. The essential condition of a
frustrated crime, that the author performs all the acts of execution,
attended the attack. Nothing remained to be done to accomplish the
work of the assailant completely. The cause resulting in the failure of the
attack arose by reason of forces independent of the will of the
perpetrator. 
HELD: The following factors to determine the presence of an intent to
kill: (1) the means used by the malefactors; (2) the nature, location, and
number of wounds sustained by the victim; (3) the conduct of the
malefactors before, at the time, or immediately after the killing of the
victim; and (4) the circumstances under which the crime was committed
and the motives of the accused. We also consider motive and the words
additional determinative factors. The crucial point to consider is the
nature of the wound inflicted which must be supported by independent
proof showing that the wound inflicted was sufficient to cause the victims
death without timely medical intervention. When nothing in the evidence
shows that the wound would be fatal without medical intervention, the
character of the wound enters the realm of doubt; under this situation,
the doubt created by the lack of evidence should be resolved in favor of
the petitioner. Thus, the crime committed should be attempted, not
frustrated, homicide. 
Colinares v. People 662 SCRA 266
(2011) 
The main element of attempted or frustrated homicide is the accused’s
intent to take his victim’s life; The intent to kill is often inferred from,
among other things, the means the offender used and the nature,
location and number of wounds he inflicted on his victims. When the
accused intended to kill his victim, as shown by his use of a deadly
weapon and the wounds he inflicted, but the victim did not die because
of timely medical assistance, the crime is frustrated murder or frustrated
homicide. If the victim’s wounds are not fatal, the crime is only attempted
murder or attempted homicide. 
People v. Jugueta G.R. No. 202124 (5 April 2016) If one
committed is either consummated physical injuries, if the offender had no
intention to kill the victim, or frustrated or attempted homicide or
frustrated murder or attempted murder if the offender intends to kill the
 

36 
should produce the crime as a consequence, which acts it is his intention CRIMINAL LAW 1 ESGUERRA NOTES 
to perform. If he has performed all the acts which should result in the 5. FRUSTRATION 
consummation of the crime and voluntarily desists from proceeding ELEMENTS: 1. The offender performs all the acts of execution; 2. All
further, it cannot be an attempt.  the acts performed would produce the felony 
as a consequence; 3. But the felony is not produced; 4. By reason of
Valenzuela v. People (2007)  causes independent of the will of 
the perpetrator. 
FACTS: A grocery boy was caught trying to abscond a box of Tide 鉁
Ultrabar laundry soap from the Super Sale Club. The guards FRUSTRATED FELONY v. ATTEMPTED FELONY 1. In both, the
apprehended him at the store parking lot while trying to board a taxi. He offender has not accomplished his 
claimed the theft was merely frustrated for he was not able to dispose of criminal purpose. 2. While in frustrated felony, the offender has
the goods.  performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a
Serrano v. People G.R. No. 175023 (5 July 2010) FACTS: consequence, in attempted felony, the offender merely commences the
Anthony Galang was stabbed in the stomach with a bladed weapon commission of a felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all
during a rumble between 2 groups in UP Diliman. Galang was ganged the acts of execution. 
up by members of the opposing group when he was stabbed while being People v. Eri 帽 a 50 Phil 998 (1927) 
held. The petitioner, Gener and Orieta thereafter continued to beat and FACTS: The victim of the crime was a child of 3 years and 11 months.
stone the victim until he fell into a nearby creek. The petitioner and his There are doubts whether the accused succeeded in penetrating the
group left him there. The RTC held that it was frustrated homicide while vagina before being disturbed in the timely intervention of the mother
the CA held that the wounds were not fatal, therefore, the crime was and sister. The physician found a slight inflammation of the exterior
attempted homicide. 
parts of the organ, indicating an effort had been made to enter the estafa, the offended party must actually be prejudiced or damaged
vagina but it is doubtful whether the entry had been effected.  (Adiao case v. Domiguez case). 
HELD: Though complete penetration is not necessary, penetration of
the labia is sufficient. However, since there is no sufficient evidence of 3. The manner of committing the crime 
such penetration, the act is merely frustrated. 
Dissent: It is consummated rape.  a. Formal crimes 
People v. Orita 184 SCRA 105 (1990)  - Consummated by a single act. - Example: Slander, adultery. -
FACTS: The victim was a 19-year old college student. She arrived at No ATTEMPT in a formal crime. b. Crimes consummated by
her boarding house early morning coming from a late-night party. The mere attempt 
accused suddenly held her and poked a knife to her neck. They entered
a room and the victim was ordered to lie down. The accused made the - Example: Attempt to flee to an enemy 
victim hold his penis and insert it in her vagina. Because of their country, treason. - No ATTEMPTED crime because the overt 
position, the accused cannot fully penetrate her. Only a small part of his act in itself consummates the crime. c. Felonies by
penis inserted her vagina. The victim was able to escape and report to omission 
the police what happened. The lower court convicted the accused of - In view of this rule, it would seem that there is no frustrated bribery
frustrated rape.  but in People v. Diego Quin, SC ruled that if the public officer
HELD: Perfect penetration is not essential for the consummation of returned the money given by the defendant, there is frustrated
rape. Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ without rupture of the bribery. d. Material crimes 
hymen or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant conviction.
- There are three stages of execution: 
Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal
knowledge of his victim, he actually attains his purpose and, from that attempted, frustrated and consummated. 
moment also all the essential elements of the offense have been
accomplished. Nothing more is left to be done by the offender, because US v. Adiao 38 Phil 754 (1955) FACTS: Adiao is a customs inspector.
he has performed the last act necessary to produce the crime. Thus, the He abstracted a leather belt from the luggage of a Japanese and
felony is consummated rape. ATTEMPTED / FRUSTRATED IMPOSSIBLE CRIME  secreted the belt under his desk in the Customs House where it was
Taking into account the nature, elements and manner of execution of found by other customs employees. Adiao was convicted of frustrated
the crime of rape and  theft. 
The evil intent of the offender is not accomplished. 
jurisprudence on the matter, it is hardly conceivable how the frustrated HELD: Since the defendant performed all the acts of execution
stage in rape can ever be  necessary for the accomplishment of the felony, he is guilty of
The evil intent of the 
consummated crime of theft. The fact that he was under observation
committed. 
during the entire transaction and was unable to get the merchandise out
offender is possible of accomplishment. 
of the Customs House is not decisive; all the elements of the completed
People v. Caballero 400 SCRA 424 (2003) 
crime of theft are present. People v. Hernandez 
FACTS: As Eugene walked by the gate of the Mondragon Compound,
Armando Caballero suddenly grabbed Eugene towards the compound. 49 Phil 980 (1925) FACTS: The accused, a 70-year-
Eugene resisted. Spontaneously, Armando’s brothers Ricardo, old man was convicted by the trial court of frustrated rape for having
Marciano, Jr., and Robito joined Armando and assaulted Eugene. intercourse with his granddaughter who was at that time only 9 years of
Armando took the wooden pole supporting the clothesline and hit age. The lower court claimed that there can be no consummated rape
Eugene with it. Eugene’s sister, Myrna, saw the Caballero brothers without a complete penetration of the hymen. HELD: Finding the hymen
assaulting Eugene and shouted for help. Arnold saw the commotion and intact is not always proof that no rape has been committed. The law may
rushed to the scene to pacify the protagonists. However, Ricardo now be considered as settled that while the rupturing of the hymen is not
accosted Arnold and stabbed the latter on the left side of his body. indispensable to a conviction, there must be proof of some degree of
Forthwith, Robito, Marciano, Jr. and Armando ganged up on Arnold. 2 of entrance of the male organ within the labia of pudendum. In the present
them stabbed Arnold on his forearm. Arnold fled for his life and hid case, the physician found the labia and the opening of the vagina
under the house of a neighbor. Leonilo, who likewise rushed to the inflamed together with an abundance of semen. Child even testified that
scene was stabbed by Robito. Eugene and Leonilo eventually died from defendant succeeded partial penetration. The accused is guilty of
the stab wounds they sustained. Dr. Quisumbing, who attended to and consummated rape. 
operated on Arnold, testified that the stab wound sustained by Arnold on
the left side of his body was mortal and could have caused his death Valenzuela v. People (supra) FACTS: A grocery boy was
were it not for the timely and effective medical intervention:  caught trying to abscond a box of Tide Ultrabar laundry soap from the
HELD: A crime is frustrated when the offender has performed all the Super Sale Club. The guards apprehended him at the store parking lot
acts of execution which should The evil intent of the offender cannot be while trying to board a taxi. He claimed the theft was merely frustrated
accomplished.  for he was not able to dispose of the goods. 
The evil intent cannot be accomplished because of the intervention of certain
cause or accident in which the offender had no participation.  - No ATTEMPTED stage because the offender does not execute
The evil intent of the offender cannot be accomplished because it is acts; he omits to perform an act which the law requires him to do. d.
inherently impossible of accomplishment or because the means employed by Crimes committed by mere agreement 
the offender is inadequate or ineffectual. 
- The offer made by one of the parties to the other constitutes
37 
attempted felony, if the offer is rejected. 
HELD: The determination of whether a crime is frustrated or
consummated necessitates an initial concession that all of the acts of
execution have been performed by the offender. The critical distinction
result in the consummation of the crime. The offender has passed the instead is whether the felony itself was actually produced by the acts of
subjective phase in the commission of the crime. Subjectively, the crime execution. The determination of whether the felony was produced after
is complete. Nothing interrupted the offender while passing through the all the acts of execution had been performed hinges on the particular
subjective phase. He did all that is necessary to consummate the crime. statutory definition of the 
However, the crime is not consummated by reason of the intervention of
causes independent of the will of the offender. In homicide cases, the
offender is said to have performed all the acts of execution if the wound
inflicted on the victim is mortal and could cause the death of the victim 38 
barring medical intervention or attendance. 

6. CONSUMMATION 
felony. It is the statutory definition that generally furnishes the elements
of each crime under the RPC, while the elements in turn unravel the
ELEMENTS: 1. All the acts of execution are present; and 2. particular requisite acts of execution and accompanying criminal intent.
The result is achieved.  The long-standing Latin maxim actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea
supplies an important characteristic of a crime, that ordinarily, evil intent
鉁 must unite with an unlawful act for there to be a crime, and accordingly,
there can be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting. Accepted in
How to determine whether the felony is attempted, frustrated or this jurisdiction as material in crimes mala in se, mens rea has been
consummated?  defined before as a guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful purpose or criminal
intent, and essential for criminal liability. It follows that the statutory
definition of our mala in se crimes must be able to supply what the mens
1. The nature of the offense  rea of the crime is, and indeed the US Supreme Court has comfortably
- In arson, it is not necessary that the property is totally destroyed by held that a criminal law that contains no mens rea requirement infringes
fire. The crime of arson is consummated even if only a portion of the on constitutionally protected rights. The criminal statute must also
wall or any other part of the house is burned.  provide for the overt acts that constitute the crime. For a crime to exist in
our legal law, it is not enough that mens rea be shown; there must also
2. The elements constituting the felony  be an actus reus. It is from the actus reus and the mens rea, as they find
expression in the criminal statute, that the felony is produced. In this
- In theft, the mere removal of the personal property belonging to case, the crime of theft is consummated when the act unlawful taking
another with intent to gain is sufficient to consummate the offense. In
was performed regardless whether the perpetrator had the capacity or REQUISITES: 1. That the act performed would be an offense 
opportunity to dispose the stolen goods. There is no frustrated theft.  against persons or property. 

D. CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES  Felonies Against Persons are: a. Murder b.

Homicide c. Infanticide d. Abortion e. Duel f.
Article 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light felonies. 鈥 Physical Injuries g. Rape 

Felonies Against Property: a. Robbery b. Brigandage c. Theft d.

Article 9 classifies felonies according to their gravity.  Usurpation e. Culpable Insolvency f. Swindling and other deceits g.
higher or highest of the penalties must be a correctional penalty. 鉁 Chattel Mortgage h. Arson and other crimes involving destruction i.
- prision correccional - arresto mayor - suspension - destierro c. LIGHT Malicious Mischief 
FELONIES 鈥 arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P200 or both. 鉁
censure is a light felony, because public censure, like arresto menor, is a 2. That the act was done with evil intent. 
light felony. 
- The offender must have intent to do injury to 
another. 
Article 7. When light felonies are punishable. 鈥 arresto menor or a
fine not exceeding P200 or both is provided.  3. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the means
employed is either inadequate or ineffectual. - In impossible crime, the
鉁 crimes against persons and property, every stage of execution is act performed by the offender cannot produce an offense against
punishable but only the principals and accomplices are liable in light persons or property because: a. the commission of the offense is
felonies, the accessories are not. 鉁 inherently impossible of accomplishment. - The act intended by the
offender is by its nature one of impossible accomplishment. - There must
be either 
III. CRIMINAL LIABILITY  鈥
鈥 Examples: (1) when one tries to kill another by putting in
his substance which he believes to be arsenic when 

40 
a. GRAVE FELONIES 鈥
- reclusion perpetua - reclusion temporal - perpetual or
temporary absolute 
in fact it is common salt; (2) when one tries to murder a corpse.
disqualification - perpetual or temporary special 
b. the means employed is either 
disqualification - prision mayor b. LESS GRAVE FELONIES 鈥
inadequate or ineffectual. - Example: when one tries to
maximum period are correctional. 鉁 poison another but the quantity of arsenic added in his
substance was not sufficient to kill a person. - But where the
means employed is adequate and the result expected is not
produced, it is not an impossible crime, but a frustrated
Article 4. Criminal liability. 鈥 delito) although the wrongful act done be felony. 
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 4. That the act performed should not constitute a 
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.  Intod v. CA 215 SCRA 52 (1992) FACTS: Intod went to Palangpangan’s
house, all armed with firearms. They went to the bedroom and began
firing their weapons. However, Palangpangan was in another city and
鉁 her home was occupied by her son-in-law and his family. No one was in
the room when the accused fired their weapons. RTC convicted the
accused of attempted murder. 
39 
HELD: The accused is guilty of an impossible crime. The factual
situation in the case presents a physical impossibility which rendered the
intended crime impossible of performance. 
鉁 violation of another provision of the RPC. - Example: A pointed a gun
incurred by those mentioned by the said article.  at B to rob the latter of a watch but B was not wearing a watch. It is
not an impossible crime because A’s pointing his gun at B already
1. By any person committing a felony although the wrongful act constituted at least the crime of grave threats. 
done be different from that which he intended. 
Why is an impossible crime punishable? - It is punishable in order to
REQUISITES: 1. That an intentional felony has been committed;  suppress criminal tendencies. Objectively, the offender has not
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense committed a felony, but subjectively, he is a criminal. 
against persons or property, were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the People v. Balmores 85 Phil 493 (1950) The removal of the true and
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.  real unidentified number of sweepstakes ticket and substitution and
writing in ink thereon of the number of a winning ticket and the attempt to
3. Impossible Crimes  cash the ticket so altered as a prize- winning number constitute the crime
of falsification of government obligation. 

and 2. That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct and
natural and logical consequence of the felony.  Urbano v. IAC (supra) FACTS: Urbano went to his rice
field and found his palay flooded with water. Urbano found out that it was
Javier who was responsible for the opening of the irrigation canal. He got
鉁 angry and tried to hack Javier but the latter tried to parry the attack and
logical consequence of the felony committed. - where it clearly appears in the process, a 2-inch incised wound was inflicted on the right palm of
that the injury would not have cased death, in the ordinary course of Javier’s hand. The wound was treated and incapacitation was diagnosed
events, but would have healed in so many days and where it is shown to be from 7-9 days. 22 days after, Javier was rushed to the hospital in a
beyond all doubt that the death was due to the malicious or careless acts very serious condition caused by tetanus toxin. Javier died the next day.
of the injured person or a third person, the accused is not liable for Urbano was convicted of homicide. 
homicide. 鉁
cause of the resulting injury. 鉁 Proximate Cause 鈥(Bataclan v. HELD: Urbano is acquitted because the infection was distinct and
Medina, 102 Phil 181). 鉁 Efficient Intervening Cause - there is an foreign to the crime. The proximate cause of Javier’s death was due to
efficient supervening event if the event breaks the sequence leading his own negligence as he went back to work even if his wound had not
from the cause of the ultimate result (Allied Banking v. Wan, G.R. No. yet healed properly. The evidence also shows that the wound inflicted by
13319). 鉁 Urbano did not exhibit any signs of being infected with tetanus; at most,
from that which the offender intended are: a. ERROR IN it was only infected with a mild form of tetanus and not the severe form
PERSONAE 鈥 ABERRATIO ICTUS 鈥 PRAETER INTENTIONEM that killed him. 
鈥 Quinto v. Andres (supra) FACTS: Garcia, a Grade 4
elementary school pupil, and his playmate, Wilson Quinto (about 11
years old) saw Andres and Pacheco who invited them to go fishing
NOTE: Article 13. Mitigating circumstance 鈥
inside a drainage culvert. Wilson assented but Garcia seeing that it was
dark inside opted to remain seated in a grassy area about 2 meters from
the entrance of the drainage system. Pacheco, Andres and Quinto,
entered the drainage system which was covered by concrete culvert
about a meter high and a meter wide, with water about a foot deep. After
a while, Pacheco, who was holding a fish, came out of the drainage
system and left without saying a word. Andres also came out, went back
inside, and emerged again, this time, carrying Wilson who was already
dead. Andres laid the boy's lifeless body down in the grassy area.
Shocked at the sudden turn of events, Garcia fled from the scene. For
his part, Andres went to the house of Melba Quinto, Wilson's mother,
and informed her that her son had died. Melba Quinto rushed to the
drainage culvert while Andres followed her. 
right, there is no unlawful aggression. 
PERIL TO ONE’S LIFE (1) ACTUAL 鈥
that is, actually in existence. (2) IMMINENT- that the danger is on the
point of happening. It is not required that the attack already begins, for it
may be too late. - A slap on the face constitutes unlawful aggression
since the face represents a person and his dignity. Slapping it is a
serious personal attack. Obligation of suffering the consequences of the
crime. 
Implies that a deed may be imputed to a person. 
Implies that the person must take the consequence of such deed. 
42 

HELD: The Court ruled that respondents cannot be held criminally nor - Retaliation is different from an act of self- defense. In retaliation, the
civilly liable for the death of Wilson. In this case, the petitioner failed to aggression that was begun by the injured party already ceased to exist
adduce proof of any ill-motive on the part of either respondent to kill the when the accused attacked him. In self- defense, the aggression was
deceased before or after the latter was invited to join them in fishing. still existing when the aggressor was injured or disabled by the person
Indeed, the petitioner testified that respondent Andres used to go to their making a defense. - In self-defense, the person must have no time nor
house and play with her son before the latter's death. When petitioner's occasion for deliberation and cool thinking. - The unlawful aggression
son died inside the drainage culvert, it was respondent Andres who must come from the 
brought out the deceased. He then informed the petitioner of her son's o When, even if a provocation was giver, it 
death. Even after informing the petitioner of the death of her son, was not sufficient; or o When, even if the provocation was sufficient, it
respondent Andres followed the petitioner on her way to the grassy area was not given by the person defending himself; or o When, even if a
where the deceased was.  provocation was given by the person defending himself, it was not
proximate and immediate to the act of aggression. 
People v. Valledor 383 SCRA 653 (2002) Accused should be held liable
only for attempted murder and not frustrated murder. The wound person who was attacked by the accused. - There is no unlawful
sustained by Roger Cabiguen on his right forearm was not fatal. The aggression when there is agreement to fight because where the fight has
settled rule is that where the wound inflicted on the victim is not sufficient been agreed upon, each of the protagonists is at once assailant and
to cause his death, the crime is only attempted murder,  assaulted. But when the aggression is ahead of the stipulated time and
place, it is unlawful. - The rule now is STAND GROUND WHEN IN THE
RIGHT. So, where the accused is where he has the right to be, the law
does not require him to retreat when his assailant is rapidly advancing
upon him with a deadly weapon. - The belief of the person may be
41  considered in determining the existence of unlawful aggression. - If the
CRIMINAL LAW 1 ESGUERRA NOTES  aggressor used a toy pistol but the accused believed it was a real gun,
since the accused did not perform all the acts of execution that would he may claim self- defense. 
have brought about death. 
Jacinto v. People 592 SCRA 426 (2009) The personal property subject 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to 
of the theft must have some value, as the intention of the accused is to
gain from the thing stolen. This is further bolstered by Article 309, where prevent or repel it. - The second requisite presupposes the 
the law provides that the penalty to be imposed on the accused is existence of unlawful aggression. - The law protects not only the
dependent on the value of the thing stolen. In this case, petitioner person who repels an aggression (meaning actual), but even the
unlawfully took the postdated check belonging to Mega Foam, but the person who tries to prevent an aggression that is expected
same was apparently without value, as it was subsequently dishonored. (meaning imminent). - The reasonableness of the necessity depends
Thus, the question arises on whether the crime of qualified theft was upon the circumstances particularly the time and location where the
actually produced.  aggression took place. - The means employed by the person making
B. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY  a defense must be rationally necessary to prevent or repel an
1. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES  unlawful aggression. - The reasonableness of the means used will
depend upon the NATURE and QUALITY of the weapon used by the
鉁
aggressor, his PHYSICAL CONDITION, SIZE and other
Article 11. Justifying circumstances. 鈥
circumstances, and those of the person defending himself, and also
First. Unlawful aggression Second. Reasonable necessity of the means
the place and occasion of the assault. 
employed to prevent or repel it. Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on
the part of the person defending himself. 2. Any one who acts in defense
of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or NOTE: The first two requisites are common to three kinds of legitimate
legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by defenses: 1) Self- defense; Defense of Relatives; 3) Defense of
affinity in the same degrees and those consanguinity within the fourth Stranger. 
civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in
the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further  3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the 
requisite, in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that person defending himself. - The third requisite of self-defense is
the one making defense had no part therein. 3. Anyone who acts in present: 
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 o When no provocation at all was given to the aggressor by the
present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, person defending himself; or 
resentment, or other evil motive. 4. Any person who, in order to avoid an BATTERED WOMAN DEFENSE Sections 3 & 26, R.A. No.
evil or injury, does an act which causes damage, provided that the 9262 (27 March 2004) in relation to People v. Genosa, 419 SCRA 537
following requisites are present:  (2004) - Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists. Second. That from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil
the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; Third. That there liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying
be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.  circumstances of self- defense under the RPC. 
IMPUTABILITY RESPONSIBILITY 
5. Any person who acts in fulfillment of a duty or in  PAR. 2 : DEFENSE OF RELATIVES 
the lawful exercise of a right or office. 
Quality by which an act may be ascribed to a  RELATIVES THAT CAN BE DEFENDED 1. Spouse 2. Ascendants 3.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order  Descendants 4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters, or
issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.  relatives by affinity in the same degrees. 5. Relatives by consanguinity
person as its author or owner.  within the fourth civil 
鉁
PAR. 1 : SELF-DEFENSE  degree. 
- Self-defense includes not only the defense of the person or body of the
one assaulted but also that of his rights, that is, those rights the - Relatives by affinity, because of marriage, are parents-in-law, son or
enjoyment of which is protected by law. - Includes Right to Honor and daughter-in-law, and brothers or sisters-in-law. - Death of the spouse
Defense of Property  terminates the relationship by affinity; unless the marriage has resulted
Rights.  in issue who is still living, in which case the relationship of affinity
REQUISITES: 1. There must be unlawful aggression.  continues. - Consanguinity refers to blood relatives. Brothers and sisters
- This is an indispensable requisite. - If there is no unlawful aggression, are within the second civil degree; uncle and niece or aunt and nephew
there is  are within the third civil degree; and first cousins are within the 4th civil
nothing to prevent or repel. - Unlawful aggression is equivalent to degree. 
assault or at least threatened assault of an immediate and imminent
kind. - There must be an ACTUAL PHYSICAL assault upon a person, or REQUISITES: 1. There must be unlawful aggression. 
at least a THREAT to inflict real injury. - When there is no peril to one’s
life, limb or 
 - Unlawful aggression may not exist as a matter of fact, it can be HELD: The wife who being strangled and choked by a furious aggressor
made to depend upon the honest belief of the one making a defense. had no other recourse but to get hold of any weapon within her reach to
- Example: The sons of A honestly believed that their father was the save herself. The claim that it was not proper for the wife to be standing
victim of an unlawful aggression when in fact it was their father who in the middle of the night outside a yard giving the impression that she is
attacked B. If they killed B under such circumstance, they are prostituting herself, is not sufficient provocation. All that the accused did
justified.  was to provoke an imaginary commission of a wrong in the mind of her
husband which is not a sufficient provocation under the law of self-
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to  defense. 
prevent or repel it. - The gauge of reasonable necessity of the
means employed to repel the aggression as  People v. Alconga 78 Phil 366
(1947) 
FACTS: The deceased Barion was the banker in the game of black jack.
43  Raposo played the game while the accused posted himself behind
Barion acting as a spotter of the cards of the latter and communicating it
to his partner Raposo. When Barion learned about what Raposo and
Alconga were doing, an exchange of words ensued. One morning, when
against one’s self or in defense of a relative is to be found in the Alconga was in the guardhouse, Barion arrived and swung his pingahan
situation as IT APPEARS TO THE PERSON REPELLING THE at the former but the accused was able to avoid the blow. In a crawling
AGGRESSION (the defender).  position, Alconga avoided the following blows and was able to draw his 

3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one
making a defense had no part therein. - There is still legitimate defense
of relative even if the relative being defended has given provocation,
provided that the one defending such relative has no part in the
provocation. - Reason for the rule: Although the provocation prejudices
the person who gave it, its effects do not reach the defender who took no
part therein, because the latter was prompted by some noble or
generous sentiment in protecting and saving a relative. 
PAR. 3 : DEFENSE OF STRANGER 
REQUISITES: 1. Unlawful aggression. 2. Reasonable necessity of the
means employed to  aggressor, there being no more aggression to defend against, the same
prevent or repel it. 3. The person defending be not induced by
revenge,  People v. Dela Cruz 61 Phil 344 (1935) FACTS: Accused was found
resentment or other evil motive. 
Who are deemed strangers? - Any person not included in the
enumeration of relatives mentioned in paragraph 2 of this article, is
considered stranger for the purpose of paragraph 3.  embraced and kissed her and touched her private parts. She didn’t know
BASIS: What one may do in his defense, another may do for him. The
ordinary man would not stand idly by and see his companion killed
without attempting to save his life. 
when Fleischer angrily ordered the continuance of the fencing. The third
element of self-defense is also present because there was no sufficient
provocation on the part of Narvaez since he was sleeping when the
deceased where fencing. However, the second element was lacking.
Shooting the victims from the window of his house is disproportionate to
the physical aggression by the victims. Thus, there is incomplete self-
defense and the accused is entitled to a penalty lower by one or 2
degrees. Dissent: Defense of property is not of such importance as the
right to life and defense of property can only be invoked when it is
coupled with some form of attack on the person of one entrusted with
said property. In this case before us, there is no evidence that an attack
was attempted. The utterance, “no, gaddemit, proceed, go ahead,” is not
unlawful aggression which entitles him neither to a plea of self-defense
nor to a mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense.  assaulted can use a weapon in any way reasonably necessary to his
People v. Boholst-Caballero 61 SCRA 180 (1974) FACTS: Boholst
(wife) and Caballero (husband) are married to each other. But since their
marriage was an unhappy one, they separated. One evening, the wife
went caroling with her friends and she was seen by her husband
standing in a corner of the yard of Barabad. He accused her of
prostituting and threatened to kill her as he held her by the hair, slapped
her face until her nose bled. He, then, choked her and at the same time
continuously saying that he will kill her. The wife then pulled out the knife
of her husband tucked inside the belt line and stabbed him. When she
was released, she ran home. The wife is claiming self-defense.  away. The deceased threatened the accused with a knife to compel her
People v. Narvaez 121 SCRA 389
(1983)  An attempt to rape is a sufficient aggression for a legitimate claim of self-defense. We have the
44 
revolver and shoot Barion. He was able to crawl out of the guardhouse
and a hand-to-hand fight ensued. Having sustained several wounds,
Barion ran away but was followed by the accused and another fight took
place. Alconga then slashed Barion’s head with a bolo which caused the
latter’s death. The accused pleaded self-defense. 
HELD: An accused was no longer acting in self- defense when he
pursued and killed a fleeing adversary, though originally the unlawful
having ceased from the moment the deceased took to his heels. 
guilty of homicide for stabbing and killing Rivera. Prosecution claimed
that Dela Cruz and Rivera had a relationship and that the accused was
madly in love with the deceased and was extremely jealous of another
woman with whom Rivera also had a relationship. Dela Cruz claimed, on
the other hand, that on her way home one evening, Rivera followed her,
that it was Rivera and that she was unable to resist the strength of
Rivera so she got a knife from her pocket and stabbed him in defense of
her honor. 
People v. Sumicad 56 Phil 643 (1932) FACTS: Sumicad was hauling
logs when Cubol suddenly struck him with his fist. Sumicad tried to
escape but Cubol continued to strike him with his fists. Sumicad receded
until he found himself cornered by a pile of logs which prevented him
from further retreat. As Cubol advanced towards him, Sumicad drew out
his bolo and struck him. Cubol tried to wrest the bolo from Sumicad and
to prevent this, the latter struck him again twice which broke Cubol’s
cranium resulting to his death. 
HELD: As a general rule, a man is not justified in killing an assailant who
is not armed with any dangerous weapon. This rule applies only when
the contending parties are in the open and the person assaulted can
escape. However, where one has no means of escaping, the one who is
protection against the aggressor. The deceased here is a bully of known
violent character and although unarmed, he attempted to take from the
accused a bolo which is the only means of defense possessed by the
latter. It would have been an act of suicide on the part of the accused to
allow the bolo to pass into the hands of his antagonist. 
People v. Luague 62 Phil 504
(1935) 
FACTS: The deceased tried to rape the accused while her husband was
to have sex with him. As the deceased was preparing to lie down with
her, he placed the knife on the floor and so the accused took advantage
of the situation by getting the knife and stabbing the deceased with it. HELD:

FACTS: Narvaez was taking his rest inside his house when he heard right to HONOR. Woman’s honor is a right as precious as her very
that the wall of his house was being chiseled. He saw that Fleischer and existence because chastity once defiled cannot be restored. 
Rubia, together with their laborers, were fencing the land of the father of HELD: She is justified in using the pocketknife in repelling what she
the deceased Fleischer. If the fencing would go on, Narvaez would be believed to be an attack upon her honor. It was a dark night and she
prevented from getting into his house and the bodega of his rice mill so could not have identified Rivera. There being no other means of self-
he asked the group to stop but they refused. The accused got mad so he defense. 
got his shotgun and shot Fleischer. Rubia ran towards the jeep and
knowing there is a gun on the jeep, the accused fired at Rubia as well. People v. Jaurigue 76 Phil 174 (1946) FACTS: Amado (deceased) has
Narvaez claimed he acted in defense of his person and rights.  been courting the accused Avelina in vain. On the day of the crime,
Avelina and Amado were in Church. Amado sat beside Avelina and
HELD: The court took into consideration the fact that the 2 deceased placed his hand on her thigh. Thereafter, Avelina took out her knife and
were accompanied with three laborers and that the were using tools stabbed Amado in the neck, causing the death of Amado. 
which could be lethal weapons such as nail and hammer, bolo, etc. and
that the jeep the deceased used contained a gun leaning near the HELD: Although the defense of one’s honor exempts one from criminal
steering wheel. There was aggression on the part of the victims not on liability, it must be proved that there is actual danger of being raped. In
the person of the accused but on his property rights  this case, 1) the church was well-lit, 2) there were several people in the
church, including the father of the accused and other town officials. In
light of these circumstances, accused could not have possibly been
raped. The means employed in defense of her honor was evidently
excessive.  ended up attacking each other. During the scuffle, the scissors which
US v. Bumanglag 14 Phil 644 (1909) FACTS: Bumanglag was missing
40 bundles of palay. Later, accompanied by his co-defendants, he
awaited the culprit and caught Ribis so they confronted him assaulted
him with sticks and other cutting and stabbing weapons. As a result,
Ribis died. Defendants declared that during the fight they only beat the
deceased with sticks and Ribis unsheathed his bolo. Bumanglag was
convicted of homicide.  armed with a bladed weapon pursuing another constitutes unlawful
HELD: The bolo of the deceased was sheathed when the body was
discovered. There was no unlawful aggression on the part of Ribis. Thus,
there can be no claim of self-defense. Separate Opinion: A man who
ambushed one he suspects to be a thief can claim defense of property.
Not only was there unlawful aggression against Bumanglag, there was
also a wrongful invasion of his habitat and attempt to commit a felony
against his property. With the imminence of danger to his life, he realized
that he had to ask assistance from his  Reynaldo, his father Juanito, brothers Ricardo and Ramon, all surnamed
45  seeing Senando, Reynaldo turned his attention on him and gave chase.
friends, considering Ribis’ criminal record, character and unusual
strength. 
Toledo v. People 439 SCRA 94 (2004) FACTS: Toledo saw his
nephew, Ricky, and the latter's friends about 5 m away from his house,
having a drinking spree. He ordered them not to make loud noises, and
they obliged. He then went to his house and went to sleep. After some
time, Ricky and his friends also went to sleep. They had not laid down for
long when he heard stones being hurled at the roof of the house. Ricky
saw Toledo stoning their house and asked him why he was doing the
same. Toledo did not answer but met Ricky at the doorstep of his house
and without warning stabbed Ricky on the abdomen with a bolo which
resulted to his death. In the lower court, Toledo defended himself by
alleging that his bolo accidentally hit the stomach of the victim and that
he was able to prove all the essential elements of self-defense.  was also hit on the leg. The RTC and CA convicted Ricardo of Homicide.
HELD: The Court ruled that it is an aberration for Toledo to invoke the 2
defenses at the same time because the said defenses are intrinsically
antithetical. There is no such defense as accidental self-defense in the
realm of criminal law. The Court further ruled that Toledo was not
justified in stabbing Ricky. There was no imminent threat to his life
necessitating his assault. Records reveal that there is no unlawful
aggression, a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of
self-defense, on the part of Ricky. Ricky arrived at Toledo’s house
unarmed. With no weapon to attack Toledo or defend himself, no sign of
hostility may be deduced from him.  punishable per se, and allow a claim of exemption from liability on the
People v. Enfectana 381 SCRA 359 (2002) FACTS: While Adelaida
and her husband Leo were on their way home, they were sideswiped by
a tricycle driven by appellant Erwin with Efren both surnamed Enfectana
as passenger. As a result, her husband fell in a crouching position.
When he was about to get up, Eusebio also surnamed Enfectana came
from behind to stab him. Then Erwin and Efren took turns in stabbing
Leo. He died as a result. In court, Eusebio Enfectana admitted that he
killed Leo. He, however, alleged that he acted in self-defense  same. With the exception of his self-serving allegations, there is nothing
HELD: It is an established principle that once this justifying circumstance
is raised, the burden of proving the elements of the claim shifts to him
who invokes it. The elements of self-defense are: (1) that the victim has
committed unlawful aggression amounting to actual or imminent threat to
the life and limb of the person claiming self-defense; (2) that there be
reasonable necessity in the means employed to prevent or repel the
unlawful aggression; and (3) that there be lack of sufficient provocation
on the part of the person claiming self- defense or, at least, that any
provocation executed by the person claiming self-defense be not the  the 3 accused, ganged up on, and took turns in stabbing, Hilario. At that
proximate and immediate cause of the victim's aggression. The condition
of unlawful aggression is a sine qua non; otherwise stated, there can be
no self- defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim has
committed unlawful aggression against the person defending himself.
Given the fact that the relationship between the parties had been marred
by ill will and animosities, and pursuant to the rule on the burden of
evidence imposed by law on the party invoking self-defense, the
admission of Eusebio that he killed Leo made it incumbent upon
appellant to convincingly prove that there was unlawful aggression on
the part of the victim which necessitated the use of deadly force by
Eusebio. Unfortunately, Eusebio miserably failed to prove the existence
of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Eusebio is guilty of
murder.  is found to have ceased, the one making the defense of a stranger would
Cano v. People 413 SCRA 92 (2003) FACTS: Conrado and his
deceased brother were rivals in the Rush ID Photo business and had
booths along the sidewalk of Rizal Avenue, Sta. Cruz, Manila. Condrado
borrowed the permit of the deceased and had it photocopied without the
latter’s permission. The deceased confonted Conrado and tried to stab
him with a fan knife. The latter locked himself in the dark room of his
booth to protect himself but was followed by the deceased and they
Orlando was able to grab fell from his hands. He then grabbed the knife
of the deceased who in turn picked the scissors. They again attacked
each other which resulted to the death of the other. 
HELD: Conrado’s act of killilng his brother was attended by a justifying
circumstance of self- defense. It was the deceased who purposely
sought and initially attacked Orlando with a knife. The act of a person
aggression because it signifies the pursuers intent to commit an assault
with his weapon. There was also lack of sufficient provocation on the
part of Condrado. His act of photocopying the permit of his brother
without the latter’s permission can hardly be considered as provocation
to merit so deadly an assault with a bladed weapon. 
Balunueco v. CA 401 SCRA 76 (2003) FACTS: Amelia was coddling
her youngest child in front of her house when she saw accused
Balunueco, and one Flores chasing her brother-in-law Servando. With
the 5 individuals in hot pursuit, Servando scampered into the safety of
Amelia's house. Meanwhile, Senando, who was then cooking supper,
went out of the house unaware of the commotion going on outside. Upon
Senando instinctively fled towards the fields but he was met by Armando
who hit him with a 
46 
stone, causing Senando to feel dizzy. Reynaldo, Ricardo, and Armando
cornered their quarry near a canal and ganged up on him. Armando
placed a can on top of Senando's head and Ricardo repeatedly struck
Senando with an ax on the head, shoulder, and hand. At one point,
Ricardo lost his hold on the ax, but somebody tossed him a bolo and
then he continued hacking the victim who fell on his knees. To shield him
from further violence, Amelia put her arms around her husband but it
was not enough to detract Ricardo from his murderous frenzy. Amelia
He now imputes errors to the CA in not taking into consideration the fact
that if indeed he participated, he had acted in defense of his relatives. 
HELD: Of the 3 requisites of defense of relatives, unlawful aggression is
a condition sine qua non, for without it any defense is not possible or
justified. In order to consider that an unlawful aggression was actually
committed, it is necessary that an attack or material aggression, an
offensive act positively determining the intent of the aggressor to cause
an injury shall have been made; a mere threatening or intimidating
attitude is not sufficient to justify the commission of an act which is
ground that it was committed in self-defense or defense of a relative. In
the case at bar, petitioner Ricardo utterly failed to adduce sufficient proof
of the existence of a positively strong act of real aggression on the part
of the deceased Senando. It was he and his kin who had initiated the
unlawful aggression and not Senando. Further, the natural impulse of
any person who has killed someone in defense of his person or relative
is to bring himself to the authorities and try to dispel any suspicion of
guilt that the authorities might have against him. Ricardo failed to do the
on record that would justify his killing of Senando. 
People v. Dijan 383 SCRA 15 (2002) FACTS: Silvestre and Hilario were
at a store to buy some cigarettes when they saw the group of Dijan,
Paglinawan and Lizardo, passing by the store. Paglinawan suddenly
confronted Hilario for purportedly giving him a "bad stare." Silvestre
apologized and explained that it was the natural way Hilario gazed at
people. Dijan, Paglinawan and Lizardo then left the place while Silvestre
and Hilario proceeded home. While Silvestre and Hilario were walking,
point, Hilario, who was walking slightly ahead of Silvestre, cried out and
told the latter to flee. Silvestre ran away until he was able to cling to a
passing passenger jeepney. Hilario was found to have sustained several
stab wounds, punctured and incised wounds, and abrasion in various
parts of the body which caused his death. 
Appealing his conviction in court, Dijan invoked the justifying
circumstance of “defense of a stranger.” 
HELD: In order to successfully put up this defense an accused must
show the existence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. The
unlawful aggression must be a continuing circumstance or must have
been existing at the time the defense is made. Once unlawful aggression
likewise cease to have any justification for killing, or even just wounding,
the former aggressor. From the defense account, it would appear that
Hilario was already disarmed and the unlawful aggression by Hilario (if
indeed he was the aggressor) to have by then been abated, when Dijan
still delivered the fatal thrusts on the victim. The number of wounds
sustained by the victim would itself likewise negate Dijan’s claim of
defense of a stranger. The autopsy conducted on the corpse would show
that the deceased sustained 14 injuries consisting of 9 stab wounds, 3
punctured wounds, an incised wound and an abrasion. Certainly, the
nature and number of wounds inflicted by an accused on the victim
should be significant indicia in determining the plausibility of the defense
plea. 
People v. Nestor Roxas G.R. No. 218396 (10 February 2016) FACTS:
In the evening of October 25, 1995, Severino Manalo (victim) and
Vicente were talking to each other in front of the house of Alfredo Asi
(Alfredo). Then, Vicente saw the accused-appellant approach Severino
from behind and suddenly stab the latter thrice with a white sharp bladed
weapon. The three successive stab blows landed on Severino's back, his
stomach and on his side. Vicente testified that Severino was caught off
guard when he was stabbed by the accused-appellant as the victim was
facing the former while they were talking. Immediately after Severino
was stabbed, the accused-appellant fled from the place of the incident.
For fear that he might also be attacked, Vicente scampered away to a
safer distance until he reached his place where he called for help.
Vicente, together with some people, returned to the crime scene where
they found Severino sprawled on the ground already dead. Accused
raised self-defense as an excuse. 
HELD: After taking into account the location and the number of stab
wounds sustained by the victim, the accused-appellant's claim of self-
defense further crumbles. To reiterate, the first stab blow hit Severino's
back jibing with Vicente's assertion that the former was stabbed from
behind. Then, when the victim was totally caught by surprise with the
initial attack, the second and third stab blows were delivered.
Additionally, the number of wounds suffered by Severino invalidates the
accused- appellant's allegation that he was only defending himself for
the number of wounds inflicted are rather demonstrative of deliberate
and criminal intent to end the life of the victim. Likewise weakening
accused appellant's contention that he acted in self-  circumstances because there is no crime. - EXCEPTION: There is
47 
defense was his behavior immediately after the incident. In the case at
bar, the accused-appellant himself admitted that upon seeing the victim
lying on the ground, he boarded a jeep to go to his sister's place in San
Pascual, Batangas before moving to Bicol where he hid from the
authorities for several years. The accused-appellant's flight negates his
plea of self-defense and indicates his guilt.  People v. Ricohermoso 56 SCRA 431 (1974) FACTS: The land
Espinosa v. People G.R. No. 181701 (15 March 2010)
FACTS: Merto has a grudge against Espinosa. One evening, Merto went
to the house of Espinosa shouting violent threats and challenging
Espinosa to a fight. When Espinosa went outside, Merto threw stones at
him. Espinosa retaliated by hitting Merto in the left leg with a bolo until
someone restrained him. As a result, Merto sustained 2 fractures. In his
defense, Espinosa claims that he only acted in self defense.  embraced Marianito (son of Geminiano), who had a gun slung on his
present. It would presuppose an actual, sudden and unexpected attack
or imminent danger on the life and limb of a person, not a mere
threatening or intimidating attitude, but most importantly, at the time the
defensive action was taken against the aggressor. x x x There is
aggression in contemplation of the law only when the one attacked faces
real and immediate threat to ones life. The peril sought to be avoided
must be imminent and actual, not just speculative. 
In this case, a police officer is trained to shoot quickly and accurately.
There is reasonable basis to presume that the appellant indeed felt his
life was actually threatened. It would have been fatal for the appellant to
have waited for SPO1 Espejo to point his gun before the appellant fires
back. Also, the lone gunshot was a reasonable means to repel the
attack. There was also lack of provocation as the accused gave a lawful
order and fired a warning shot before shooting the armed and drunk
victim. 
HELD: It is settled that reasonable necessity of the means employed
does not imply material commensurability between the means of attack
and defense. What the law requires is rational equivalence, in the
consideration of which will enter the principal factors the emergency, the
imminent danger to which the person attacked is exposed, and the
instinct, more than the reason, that moves or impels the defense, and
the proportionateness thereof does not depend upon the harm done, but
rests upon the imminent danger of such injury. After petitioner was
successful in taking down private complainant Merto 鈥攖 he former
continued to hack the latter, who was, by then, already neutralized by the
blow. The petitioner continuously hacked the private complainant with
the bolo scabbard, even as the latter lay almost motionless upon the
muddy ground. Clearly, this "continuous hacking" by the petitioner
constitutes force beyond what is reasonably required to repel the private
complainant’s attack 鈥攁 nd is therefore unjustified.  gun from him.
Nacnac v. People G.R. No. 191913 (21 March 2012)
FACTS: One evening, SPO1 Espejo tried to take the police station’s
tricycle saying that he needs to settle a disagreement with someone in
Laoag City. SPO2 Nacnac, the officer of the day, refused because
Espejo was drunk and they were on duty until the next morning. Their
argument led Espejo cursing Nacnac and he tried to draw his pistol.
Nacnac saw this and fired a warning shot and ordered Espejo to stop.
However, Espejo still drew his gun. SPO2 Nacnac shot SPO1 Espejo in
the head. The officer claims self defense as there was unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim. 
HELD: Unlawful aggression is an indispensable element of self-defense.
Without unlawful aggression, self-defense will not have a leg to stand on
and this justifying circumstance cannot and will not be appreciated, even
if the other elements are 
Aguilar v. DOJ G.R. No. 197522 (11 September 2013)
Jurisprudence holds that when the accused admits killing the victim, but
invokes a justifying circumstance, the constitutional presumption of
innocence is effectively waived and the burden of proving the existence
of such circumstance shifts to the accused. 
PAR. 4 : AVOIDANCE OF A GREATER EVIL 
- Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which
causes damage to another. - DAMAGE TO ANOTHER 鈥
REQUISITES: 1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists. - The
evil must actually exist and not merely expected or anticipated or may
happen in the future. 2. That the injury feared is greater than that done 
to avoid it. - NOTE: The instinct of self-preservation will always make
one feel that his own safety is of greater importance than that of
another. - The greater evil should not be brought about 
by the negligence or imprudence of the actor. - The evil which
brought about the greater evil must not result from a violation of law by
the actor. 3. That there be no other practical and less harmful 
means of preventing it. - GENERAL RULE: No liability in justifying 
CIVIL LIABILITY under this paragraph. It is borne by the persons
benefited by the act. They shall be liable in 
48 
proportion to the benefit which they may have received. 
Ricohermoso cultivated belonged to Geminiano. When the latter went to
the house of the former, as if by pre-arrangement, Ricohermoso
unsheathed his bolo and approached Geminiano from the left while
Severo (Rico’s father-in-law) got an axe and approached from the right.
Rico stabbed Geminiano first and while in a helpless position, the latter
was hacked on the back by Severo. At that same place and time while
the killing of Geminiano was taking place, Juan (son of Severo) suddenly
shoulder, from behind. They grappled and rolled downhill towards the
camote patch. Marianito passed out and when he regained
consciousness, his rifle was gone. He walked uphill and saw his father.
Geminiano died later. Juan invoked the justifying circumstance of greater
necessity in explaining his act of preventing Marianito from shooting Rico
and Severo. 
HELD: The act of Juan was designed to insure the killing of Geminiano
without any risk to his assailants. Juan was not avoiding any evil but his
malicious intention was to forestall any interference in the felonious
assault. He acted in conspiracy with Rico and Severo. 
uncontrollable fear of a greater injury” is not applicable. Ty could have
taken advantage of an available option to avoid committing a crime. By
her own admission, she had the choice to give jewelry or other forms of
security instead of postdated checks to secure her obligation. Moreover,
for the defense of state of necessity to be availing, the greater injury
feared should not have been brought about by the negligence or
imprudence, more so, the willful inaction of the actor. In this case, the
issuance of the bounced checks was brought about by Ty's own failure
to pay her mother's hospital bills. 
People v. Retubado 417 SCRA 393 (2003) FACTS: Before the killing,
someone played a joke on Jesse Retubado’s bbrother who was mentally
ill by placing a firecracker in his cigarette box. Emmanuel Jr. was the
suspect but the barangay investigation held that Emmanuel Jr. was not
the culprit. Days later, Jesse followed Emmanuel Senior who was a
pedicab driver. When Emmanuel Senior got home, he asked Jesse why
he was being followed. Jesse said that he wanted to talk to Emmanuel
Jr. Emmanuel Sr. said that Jr. was already asleep. Jesse pulled out a
gun and shot Emmanuel Sr. in the head. In his defense, Jesse claims he
acted under a state of necessity as Senior allegedly tried to wrestle the
 
Ty v. People 439 SCRA 220 (2004) 
FACTS: Ty's mother Chua Lao So Un was confined at the Manila
Doctors' Hospital from October 1990 until June 1992. Being the patient's
daughter, Ty signed the "Acknowledgment of Responsibility for Payment"
in the Contract of Admission. Ty's sister, Judy Chua, was also confined
at the same hospital. The total hospital bills of the 2 patients amounted
to P1,075,592.95. Ty executed a promissory note wherein she assumed
payment of the obligation in installments. To assure payment of the
obligation, she drew 7 postdated checks against Metrobank payable to
the hospital which were all dishonored by the drawee bank and returned
unpaid to the hospital due to insufficiency of funds. For her defense, Ty
claimed that she issued the checks because of “an uncontrollable fear of
a greater injury.” She averred that she was forced to issue the checks to
obtain release for her mother who was being inhumanely and harshly
treated by the hospital. She alleged that her mother has contemplated
suicide if she would not be discharged from the hospital. Ty was found
guilty by the lower courts of 7 counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22.  Subdivision where the victim was then running amuck. There were 2
HELD: The court sustained the findings of the lower courts. The evil
sought to be avoided is merely expected or anticipated. If the evil sought
to be avoided is merely expected or anticipated or may happen in the
future, the defense of an  or he would be shot. As a police officer, it is to be expected that
HELD: It is indispensable that the state of necessity must not be brought
about by the intentional provocation of the party invoking the same. The
defense of a state of necessity is a justifying circumstance under Article
12, paragraph 4 of the RPC. It is an affirmative defense that must be
proved by the accused with clear and convincing evidence. In this case,
the lower courts held that it was Jesse Retubado who was the attacker.
He is not entitled to the justifying circumstance of state of necessity. 
PAR. 5 : FULFILLMENT OF A DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF
RIGHT OR OFFICE 
Civil Code, Article 429. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has
the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof.
For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably
necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical
invasion or usurpation of his property.  occurred a few days earlier. The police officers were able to recover
REQUISITES: 1. That the accused acted in the performance of a  went to the area with Valino, one of the suspects on a pickup. Valino was
duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. - If in protecting his
possession of the property he injured (not seriously) the one trying to
get it from him, he is justified. - The actual invasion of property may
consist of a mere disturbance of possession or of a real
dispossession. 
49 
2. That the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary
consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of
such right or office. - Shooting an offender who refused to surrender is
justified but shooting a thief who refused to be arrested is not justified.  resorting to dangerous means when the arrest could be affected
People v. Delima 46 Phil 738 (1922) FACTS: Napilon escaped from the
jail where he was serving sentence. Some days afterwards the
policeman, Delima, who was looking for him found him in the house of
Alegria, armed with a pointed piece of bamboo in the shape of a lance.
Delima demanded the surrender of the weapon but Napilon refused.
Delima fired his revolver to impose his authority but the bullet did not hit
him. The criminal ran away and Delima went after him and fired again his
revolver this time hitting and killing him.  policemen had the duty not only to recapture Valino but also to recover
HELD: The killing was done in the performance of a duty. The deceased
was under the obligation to surrender and had no right, after evading
service of his sentence, to commit assault and disobedience with a
weapon in his hand, which compelled the policeman to resort to such
extreme means, which, although it proved to be fatal, was justified by the
circumstance. People v. Oanis (supra) Although an officer in making a lawful arrest is
justified in using such force as is reasonably necessary to secure and
detain the offender, overcome his resistance, prevent his escape,
recapture him if he escapes, and protect himself from bodily harm, yet he
is never justified in using unnecessary force or in treating him with
wanton violence or in resorting to dangerous means when the arrest
could be effected otherwise.  peace and order; that the acts performed by them preparatory to the
Pomoy v. People 439 SCRA 439 (2004) FACTS: Police sergeant
Pomoy, went near the door of the jail where Balboa was detained for
robbery and directed the latter to come out, purportedly for tactical
interrogation at the investigation room. At that time, petitioner had a gun,
a .45 caliber pistol, tucked in a holster which was hanging by the side of
his belt. The gun was fully embedded in its holster, with only the handle
of the gun protruding from the holster. Balboa tried to remove Pomoy’s
gun and the two grappled for possession of the gun. Thereafter, 2
gunshots were heard. When the source of the shots was verified,
petitioner was seen still holding a .45 caliber pistol, facing Balboa, who
was lying in a pool of blood. Pomoy invoked the defense of accident for
his defense.  HELD: Yes. Article 69 is applicable, for the requirement "that the majority
HELD: Pomoy is acquitted. At the time of the incident, petitioner was a
member 鈥
Force Company. Thus, he was in the lawful performance of his duties as
investigating officer that, under the instructions of his superior, he
fetched the victim from the latter's cell for a routine interrogation. The
participation of petitioner, if any, in the victim's death was limited only to
acts committed in the course of the lawful performance of his duties as
an enforcer of the law. The removal of the gun from its holster, the
release of the safety lock, and the firing of the 2 successive shots 鈥 People v.
Ulep 
340 SCRA 688 (2000) Accused-appellant and the
other police officers involved originally set out to perform a legal duty: to
render police assistance, and restore peace and order at Mundog
stages of the incident at Mundog Subdivision. During the first stage, the
victim threatened the safety of the police officers by menacingly
advancing towards them, notwithstanding accused-appellant's previous
warning shot and verbal admonition to the victim to lay down his weapon
accused-appellant would stand his ground. Up to that point, his decision
to respond with a barrage of gunfire to halt the victim's further advance
was justified under the circumstances. After all, a police officer is not
required to afford the victim the opportunity to fight back. Neither is he
expected 鈥
50 
Cabanlig v. Sandiganbayan 464 SCRA 324 (2005) FACTS: A robbery
most of the items except for a flower vase and a small radio. The officers
seated between officers Cabanlig and Mercado. When he saw an
opportunity, Valino grabbed officer Mercado’s M-16 and jumped out of
the jeep. Valino was shot to the head by Cabanlig. In his defense, the
officer claims that he was acting in fulfillment of duty. 
HELD: Policeman in the performance of duty is justified in using such
force as is reasonably necessary to secure and detain the offender,
overcome his resistance, prevent his escape, recapture him if he
escapes, and protect himself from bodily harm. In case injury or death
results from the policeman’s exercise of such force, the policeman could
be justified in inflicting the injury or causing the death of the offender if
the policeman had used necessary force. Since a policeman’s duty
requires him to overcome the offender, the force exerted by the
policeman may therefore differ from that which ordinarily may be offered
in self- defense. However, a policeman is never justified in using
unnecessary force or in treating the offender with wanton violence, or in
otherwise.Unlike in self-defense where unlawful aggression is an
element, in performance of duty, unlawful aggression from the victim is
not a requisite. In this case, Valino was committing an offense in the
presence of the policemen when Valino grabbed the M16 Armalite from
Mercado and jumped from the jeep to escape. The policemen would
have been justified in shooting Valino if the use of force was absolutely
necessary to prevent his escape. But Valino was not only an escaping
detainee. Valino had also stolen the M16 Armalite of a policeman. The
the loose firearm. By grabbing Mercados M16 Armalite, which is a
formidable firearm, Valino had placed the lives of the policemen in grave
danger. 
Yapyuco v. Sandiganbayan (supra) 
necessarily connote unnecessary force, petitioners in this case do not
seem to have been confronted with the rational necessity to open fire at
the moving jeepney occupied by the victims. 
The Sandiganbayan declared that the shootout which caused injuries to
Villanueva and which brought the eventual death of Licup has been
committed by petitioners herein willfully under the guise of maintaining
shooting, which ensured the execution of their evil plan without risk to
themselves, demonstrate a clear intent to kill the occupants of the
subject vehicle; that the fact they had by collective action deliberately
and consciously intended to inflict harm and injury and had voluntarily
performed those acts negates their defense of lawful performance of
official duty. 
Lacanilao v. CA 162 SCRA 563 (1988) ISSUE: When the decision finds
in favor of the accused the circumstance of incomplete fulfillment of duty
or lawful exercise of a right, would Article 69 of the RPC apply, thereby
resulting in the lowering of the penalty by one or two degrees? 
of such conditions be present" is immaterial since there are only two
conditions in order that the circumstance in No. 5 of Article 11 may be
taken into account. Basic is the rule that penal laws in favor of the
accused should be given liberal construction without, of course, going
beyond the obvious intention of the legislature. Article 69 is, obviously, in
favor of the accused as it provides for a penalty lower than that
prescribed by law when the crime committed is not wholly justifiable, the
intention of the legislature being to mitigate the penalty by reason of the
diminution of either freedom of action, intelligence, or intent, or of the
lesser perversity of the offender. 
Hildawa v. Enrile G.R. No. L-67766 (14 August 1985) FACTS:
Petitioner alleges that in response to the rising criminality in Metro
Manila, the police deployed secret marshals given the authority to kill
thieves, robbers, pickpockets and other criminal elements.  officers that the military subordinates, could not question, and obeyed in
FACTS: A jeepney containing several people who attended a fiesta was
fired at by 6 men who were PNP officers and barangay officials. One of
the passengers was killed and others were severely wounded. The
accused officers claim that the vehicle refused to stop at a checkpoint
and they only were acting in the fulfillment of duties.  some lawful purpose. Sandiganbayan claimed that are Marcos’ memo
HELD: Lawlessness is to be dealt with according to the law. Only
absolute necessity justifies the use of force, and it is incumbent on
herein petitioners to prove such necessity. We find, however, that
petitioners failed in that respect. Although the employment of powerful
firearms does not 
HELD: There is nothing wrong in the creation and deployment of special
operation teams to counter the resurgence of criminality, as there is
nothing wrong in the formation by the police of special teams/ squads to
prevent the proliferation of vices, prostitution, drug addiction,
pornography and the like. That is the basic job of the police. It is the
alleged use of violence in the implementation of the objectives of the
special squads that the court is concerned about. What is bad is if kill
these "criminals" because then they are not only law enforcers but also
the prosecutors. the judges and the executioners. Due  matter involuntarily or under the influence of uncontrollable fear. He
51  direct participation.
enemy, and abuse of authority against him. After trial, Borjal’s execution
took place. Later, Beronilla, together with a priest, executioner, grave
digger, etc. were indicted for murder. The prosecution claimed that Col.
Volkmann transmitted a radiogram message stating that the jury system
organized by the municipality is illegal and cannot order execution of
Borjal. 
HELD: There is no proof that Beronilla was able to receive the radiogram
message. The records are ample to sustain the claim of the accused that
the arrest, prosecution and trial were done pursuant to express orders of
the 15th Infantry HQ. Where the accused acted upon orders of superior
good faith, without being aware of their illegality, without any fault or
negligence on their part, the act is not accompanied by criminal intent. A 
HELD: The accused are acquitted. The accused is entitled to the
justifying circumstance of obedience to an order issued by a superior for
was unlawful because it orders disbursement of P55M when the Ongpin
memo reveals that the liability is only 34.5M. Granting this to be true, it
will not affect Tabuena’s good faith as to make him criminally liable.
Thus, even if the order is illegal if it is patently legal and the subordinate
is not aware of its illegality, the subordinate is not liable, for then there
would only be a mistake of fact committed in good faith. 
People v. Rogado G.R. No. L-13025 (29 December 1959) 
Where an accused, who was ordered by his superiors to kill a person,
had not only the means with which to protect himself from any retaliation
on the part of his superiors if they should threaten to punish him if he
disobeyed their order, but also the opportunity to escape with the
intended victim to avoid the ire of said superiors, yet did not do so, but
instead carried out the order, it cannot be said that he acted on the
acted on his own free will and with the desire to collaborate with the
criminal design of his superiors and was, therefore, a co- principal by
 

2. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES 
process of law requires that the accused must be heard in court of
鉁
competent jurisdiction, proceeded against under the orderly process of
law, and only punished after inquiry and investigation, upon notice to
him. with an opportunity to be heard, and a judgment awarded within the
authority of a constitutional law.  52 
Thus, when a person is killed by another the burden of proving self-
defense is on the assailant. It becomes his duty to establish this
justifying circumstance by evidence clear and convincing. He must rely
on the strength of his own evidence. It matters not that the People's voluntary or negligent. While the act is criminal, the actor is not liable.
evidence is weak. He must show that (1) he is not the unlawful There is, however, civil liability. 鉁
aggressor; (2) there was lack of sufficient provocation on his part; and,
(3) he employed reasonable means to prevent or repel the aggression.  Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. 鈥
- one who is deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom
PAR. 6 : OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED FOR of the will at the time of committing the crime. - exempt in all cases from
SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE  criminal liability. 

REQUISITES: 1. That an order has been issued by a superior. 2. That INSANE - there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing
such order must be for some lawful  the act but capable of having lucid intervals. During a lucid interval, the
purpose. 3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry  insane acts with intelligence and thus, not exempt from criminal liability. -
crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act be Cognition Test 鈥
innocent.  has acted during a lucid interval. 
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the
Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan 268 SCRA 332 (1997) FACTS: Pres. law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in
Marcos instructed Tabuena over the phone to pay directly to the Office of one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted,
the President in cash what MIAA owes the Phil National Construction which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the
Corporation (PNCC) which later was reiterated in writing. The Marcos’ permission of the same court. 2. A person under 9 years of age. 3. A
memo indicated the amount of P55m for partial payment of the obligation person over 9 years of age and under 15, unless he has acted with
to PNCC as mentioned in Ongpin’s memo. In obedience to Marcos’ discernment, in which case, such minor shall be proceeded against in
instruction, the accused withdrew the amount by means of 3 separate accordance with the provisions of Article 80 of this Code. 
issuances of manager’s check and encashment in 3 separate dates as
well. The money withdrawn were placed in peerless boxes and duffle When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in
bags and delivered to the private secretary of Marcos also in 3 separate conformably with the provisions of this and the preceding paragraph,
days. According to the accused, the disbursement was not in the normal shall commit him to the care and custody of his family who shall be
procedure since it is paid in cold cash, there were no vouchers charged with his surveillance and education otherwise, he shall be
supporting it and no receipt from PNCC. Tabuena and Peralta were committed to the care of some institution or person mentioned in said
convicted by the Sandiganbayan of malversation as defined in Article Article 80. 4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due
217, RPC for misappropriating funds of Manila International Airport care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of
Authority (MIAA) worth P55M.  causing it. 5. Any person who act under the compulsion of 
irresistible force. 6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an 
out said order is lawful. 
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
- When the order is not for a lawful purpose, the subordinate who obeyed insuperable cause. 
it is criminally liable. - The subordinate is not liable for carrying out an
illegal order of his superior, if he is not aware of the illegality of the order
and he is not negligent.  鉁

People v. Beronilla 96 Phil 566 (1955) FACTS: Borjal was the elected
mayor of La Paz, Abra at the outbreak of war and continued to serve as
Mayor during Japanese occupation. Beronilla was appointed later as
Military Mayor. Later, while the operations for the liberation of Abra was
in progress, Beronilla, pursuant to his instructions, placed Borjal in his
custody and asked the residents to file charges of espionage, aiding the
PAR. 1 : AN IMBECILE OR INSANE PERSON, UNLESS THE
LATTER HAS ACTED DURING A LUCID INTERVAL 
IMBECILE - one who, while advanced in age, has a mental development
comparable to that of children between 2 and 7 years of age. 
intelligence. - Volition Test 鈥
PROCEDURE WHEN AN IMBECILE OR INSANE COMMITTED A which, he wounded himself. 5 days later, his wife died because of the
FELONY - The court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals wound. He was charged of parricide. 
or asylums established for persons afflicted, which he shall not be
permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the court. The HELD: The accused acted while in a dream and his acts, with which he
court must obtain the opinion of the Director of Health before permitting is charged, were not voluntary in the sense of entailing criminal liability. 
his release. 
People v. Formigones 87 Phil 658 (1950) FACTS: One day, the
鉁 accused stabbed his wife from the back who was sitting at the top of the
a. Dementia praecox b.Kleptomania 鈥 stairs in their house. Accused admitted the killing and that he was
jealous and had suspicions that his wife and his brother were having a
psychiatrist as irresistible c. Epilepsy d. Somnambulism 鈥 relationship. Counsel for accused interposed the defense of insanity
system.  stating that in prison, the accused behaved like an insane person, would
go stark naked in the presence of his fellow inmates, remain indifferent
People v. Mejaro Roa G.R. No. 225599 (22 March 2017) to his surroundings and sang chorus with inmates or by himself. 
FACTS: Eliseo was approached from behind by accused who suddenly
stabbed him on the left lower back with a bolo. The accused surrendered HELD: At most, the accused is found to be feeble- minded but this does
voluntarily. Accused is known to have suffered mental disorder prior to not exempt him from liability but may serve as a mitigating circumstance.
his commission of the crime charged. The RTC found the accused guilty The accused admitted to his motive for the killing which is jealousy so he
of the offense of Murder. The CA affirmed the finding of conviction by the must know what he was doing at that time. His actions immediately after
trial court.  he struck his wife and his behavior in prison may only be due to remorse
at having killed his wife due to his feeblemindedness. 
HELD: Insanity as an exempting circumstance is not easily available to
the accused as a successful defense. It is an exception rather than the People v. Valledor (supra) FACTS: Roger was in his
rule on  house working on a lettering job inside his bedroom together with his first
cousin, Elsa and his friends, Simplicio and Antonio. All of a sudden,
Valledor entered the room uttered Roger's nickname ("Jer") and
immediately attacked him with a knife. Valledor then stabbed Elsa on the
53 
chest and said, "Ako akabales den, Elsa." (I had my revenge, Elsa).
Thereafter, Valledor fled, 

the human condition. Anyone who pleads insanity as an exempting

circumstance bears the burden of proving it with clear and convincing
evidence. The testimony or proof of an accused's insanity must relate to
the time immediately preceding or simultaneous with the commission of
the offense with which he is charged. Accused further argues that the
presumption of sanity must not be applied in his case, because of the
rule that a person who has been committed to a hospital or to an asylum
for the insane is presumed to continue to be insane. In this case,
however, it is noteworthy that while accused was confined in a mental
institution in 2001, he was properly discharged therefrom in 2002. This
proper discharge from his confinement clearly indicates an improvement
in his mental condition; otherwise, his doctors would not have allowed
his discharge from confinement. Absent any contrary evidence, then, the
presumption of sanity resumes and must prevail.  discernment to be exempted from criminal liability.
54 
leaving Simplicio and Antonio unharmed. Roger and Elsa were
immediately brought to the hospital. On their way out, Antonio noticed a
commotion and saw that Ricardo, a neighbor of the victim, who was
likewise stabbed by Valledor was wounded. Elsa was declared dead on
arrival. Roger on the other hand was treated for the 5-centimeter wound
sustained by him on his right forearm. Valledor invoked the defense of
insanity. 
- A minor over 15 and under 18 years of age must have acted without
 

People v. Tabugoca 285 SCRA 312 DISCERNMENT 鈥

(1998) 
FACTS: Jacqueline, together with her sisters, lived with their father after
their mother died. One night, she was roused by her father who asked
her to scratch his back but later she was forced to have intercourse with
him. Her sister Jinky also experienced the same with his father 2 years
after. When their grandmother found out about the incident, they filed
charges against the accused. The accused claim that he cannot
remember anything because he often drinks liquor at home.  he was doing as he in fact purposely chose to stab only the two victims.
HELD: The law presumes every man to be sane. The accused failed to
overthrow the presumption of sanity. Failure to remember is in itself no
proof of the mental condition of the accused when the crime was
performed. His charade of amnesia is a desperate gambit for
exculpation.  Court, "A man may act crazy but it does not necessarily and conclusively
People v. Madarang 332 SCRA 99 (2000) FACTS: Fernando and his
wife quarreled. In the heat of the fight, the accused stabbed his wife
causing her death. The accused declared that he had no recollection of
the stabbing incident. Further, he alleges that he did not know where he
was that day. Court ordered the accused’s confinement in a mental
institution where it was found that he was inflicted with schizophrenia. He
DISCERNMENT INTENT 
HELD: Valledor failed to discharge the burden of overcoming the
presumption of sanity at the time of the commission of the crime. 
Judging from his acts, Valledor was clearly aware and in control of what
Two other people were also inside the room, but Valledor went for the
victims. His obvious motive of revenge against the victims was
accentuated by calling out their names and uttering the words, "I had my
revenge" after stabbing them. Finally, his act of immediately fleeing from
the scene after the incident indicates that he was aware of the wrong he
has done and the consequence thereof. As consistently held by this
prove that he is legally so. Then, too, the medical findings showing that
Valledor was suffering from a mental disorder after the commission of
the crime, has no bearing on his liability. What is decisive is his mental
condition at the time of the perpetration of the offense. Failing to
discharge the burden of proving that he was legally insane when he
stabbed the victims, he should be held liable for his felonious acts. PAR. 2 : A
PERSON UNDER 9 YEARS OF AGE 

was submitted to treatment for 2 years, after which, he faced the charges
against him.  - FIFTEEN YEARS OR LESS 鈥
childhood, is only mitigating. 
HELD: The accused failed to prove that he was completely deprived of
intelligence in committing the act. He did not show any signs of insanity 4 PERIODS OF THE LIFE OF A HUMAN BEING a. 15 years and below
prior to and immediately after the act. He was only diagnosed of
鈥
schizophrenia months after the incident. Also, schizos have lucid
intervals.  IRRESPONSIBILITY. b. Between 15 & 18 years 鈥
People v. Bonoan 64 Phil 87 (1937) A person suffering from dementia RESPONSIBILITY. c. 18 and above to 70 years 鈥
praecox pleaded insanity as a defense for committing murder. In RESPONSIBILITY. d. Over 70 years 鈥
dementia praecox, the crime is usually preceded by much complaining
RESPONSIBILITY. 
and planning. In these people, homicide attacks are common because of
delusions that they are being interfered with sexually or that their
property is being taken. During period of excitement, such person has no PAR. 3 : A PERSON OVER 9 YEARS OF AGE AND UNDER 15
control whatever of his acts. An irresistible homicide impulse was UNLESS HE HAS ACTED WITH DISCERNMENT, IN WHICH CASE,
considered embraced in the term of “insanity”.  SUCH MINOR SHALL BE PROCEEDED AGAINST IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 80 OF THIS
CODE 
People v. Taneo 58 Phil 87 (1933) FACTS: A fiesta was being Moral significance that a person
celebrated in the barrio and visitors were being entertained at the house ascribes to the said act. 
of Taneo and his wife. That afternoon, Taneo went to sleep and while
sleeping, he suddenly got up, left the room with a bolo in his hand. He
wounded his wife who was pregnant at that time in the abdomen when - Discernment may be shown by 1) the manner the crime was committed
she tried to stop him. He attacked two of his visitors and his father, after or 2) the conduct of the offender after its commission. 
 R.A. No. 9344, Section 6 Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act
of 2006 A child 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. A child above 15 years but
below 18 years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and
be subjected to an intervention program, unless s/he has acted with
discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to appropriate
proceedings. The exemption from criminal liability does not include
exemption from civil liability. 
NOTE: A child 15 years of age or under at the time of the commission of
the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. A child is deemed to
be 15 years of age on the day of the 15th anniversary of his/her
birthdate (R.A. No. 10630, amending Section 6 of R.A. No. 9344).  authorization for the voluntary commitment of the child; and 3. if the child
Serious Crimes Committed by Children Who Are Exempt From
Criminal Responsibility (R.A. No. 10630, amending Section 20 of
R.A. No. 9344) 
A child who is above 12 years of age up to 15 years of age and who
commits parricide, murder, infanticide, kidnapping and serious illegal
detention where the victim is killed or raped, robbery, with homicide or
rape, destructive arson, rape, or carnapping where the driver or
occupant is killed or raped or offenses under R.A. No. 9165
(Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) punishable by more
than 12 years of imprisonment, shall be deemed a neglected child under
P.D. No. 603 (The Child and Youth Welfare Code), as amended, and
shall be mandatorily placed in a special facility within the youth care
faculty or ‘Bahay Pag-asa’ called the Intensive Juvenile Intervention and
Support Center (IJISC) (Section 20-A of R.A. No. 9344, as amended).  The discernment that constitutes an exception to the exemption from
Desired act of the person. 
Desired act of the person. 
55 
Repetition of Offenses (R.A. No. 10630, amending Section
20 of R.A. No. 9344) 
A child who is above 12 years of age up to 15 years of age and who
commits an offense for the second time or oftener shall be deemed a
neglected child under P.D. No. 603, as amended, and shall undergo an
intensive intervention program supervised by the local social welfare and
development officer, provided that: 
1. the child was previously subjected to a 
community-based intervention program; 2. if the best interest of the
child requires that s/he be placed in a youth care facility or ‘Bahay Pag-
asa’, the child’s parents or guardians shall execute a written
has no parents or guardians or if they refuse or fail to execute the written
authorization for voluntary commitment, the proper petition for
involuntary commitment shall be immediately filed by the DSWD or the
LSWDO pursuant to P.D. No. 603, as amended (Section 20-B of R.A.
No. 9344, as amended). 
NOTE: In the following cases the minor offenders are under 15 years of
age when they committed the crime. They are thus exempt from criminal
liabilities. 
People v. Doquena 68 Phil 580 (1939) A 13-year old student stabs the
school bully, and is convicted for having shown discernment through his
responsible demeanor and school performance. Doquena’s discernment
is gleaned from his academic records, leadership qualities and
demeanor while testifying in court. 
criminal liability of a minor under 15 years of age but over 9, is his mental
capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong, and such
capacity may be known by taking into consideration all the facts and
circumstances afforded by the records in each case, the very
appearance, the very attitude of said minor not only before and during
the commission of the act but also after and even during trial. 
discernment relative to the sale of shabu. Aside from bringing out and
handing over the plastic bag to Zarraga, Jose merely sat in the car and
had no other participation in the transaction between his cousin and the
poseur buyer. There is no evidence that Jose knew what was inside the
plastic and soft white paper before and at the time he handed the same
to Zarraga. 
Llave v. People 488 SCRA 376 (2006) FACTS: A 12 year old
honor student was charged with raping his 7 year old neighbor. When
caught, the accused ran away and hid for a few days at his
grandparent’s house. He claimed that he acted without discernment. 
HELD: Article 12, par. 3 of the RPC provides that a person over 9 years
of age and under 15 is exempt from criminal liability, unless he acted
with discernment. The basic reason behind the exempting circumstance
is complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action of the offender
which is an essential element of a felony either by dolo or by culpa.
Intelligence is the power necessary to determine the morality of human
acts to distinguish a licit from an illicit act. On the other hand,
discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between
right and wrong. The prosecution is burdened to prove that the accused
acted with discernment by evidence of physical appearance, attitude or
deportment not only before and during the commission of the act, but
also after and during the trial. The surrounding circumstances must
demonstrate that the minor knew what he was doing and that it was
wrong. Such circumstance includes the gruesome nature of the crime
and the minor’s cunning and shrewdness. In the present case, the
petitioner, with methodical fashion, dragged the resisting victim behind
the pile of hollow blocks near the vacant house to insure that passersby
would not be able to discover his dastardly acts. When he was
discovered by Teofisto Bucud who shouted at him, the petitioner hastily
fled from the scene to escape arrest. Upon the prodding of his father and
her mother, he hid in his grandmother’s house to avoid being arrested by
policemen and remained thereat until barangay tanods arrived and took
him into custody. 
Jose v. People 448 SCRA 116 (2005) FACTS: Jose, 13 years old was
in a car with his cousin Zarraga, when the latter inquired from the poseur
buyer SPO1 Guevarra if he could afford to buy shabu. Guevarra replied
in the affirmative afterwhich Zarraga called the petitioner to bring out and
hand over the shabu wrapped in plastic and white soft paper. Jose
handed over the plastic containing the shabu to Zarraga who handed the
same to Guevarra. The trial court rendered judgment convicting both
Jose and Zarraga. 
HELD: Jose is acquitted. The prosecution failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that he acted with 
- When the minor is adjudged criminally irresponsible 鈥 Guevarra v. Almodovar 169
SCRA 476 (1989) 
FACTS: John Philip Guevarra and Teodoro Almine, both 11 years of
age, were target shooting a bottle cap (tansan) using a pellet gun.
Teodoro was hit on his left collar bone which caused his death. The 
56 

minor was charged of Homicide through reckless imprudence.  HELD: The CA and the RTC erred in convicting the accused. Neither the
HELD: The discernment that constitutes an exception to the exemption
from criminal liability of a minor under 15 years of age but over 9, who
commits an act prohibited by law, is his mental capacity to understand
the difference between right and wrong. The terms "intent" and
"discernment" convey two distinct thoughts. While both are products of
the mental processes within a person, the former refers to the desired of
one's act while the latter relates to the moral significance that person
ascribes to the said act. The basic reason behind the enactment of the
exempting circumstances embodied in Article 12 of the RPC; the
complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or on the
absence of negligence on the part of the accused. In expounding on
intelligence as the second element of dolus, Albert has stated: 
The 2nd element of dolus is intelligence; without this power, necessary
to determine the morality of human acts to distinguish a licit from an illicit
act, no crime can exist, and because ... the infant (has) no intelligence,
the law exempts (him) from criminal liability. lt is for this reason,
therefore, why minors 9 years of age and below are not capable of
performing a criminal act. On the other hand, minors above 9 years of
appeal but below 15 are not absolutely exempt. However, they are
presumed to be without criminal capacity, but which presumption may be
rebutted if it could be proven that they were "capable of appreciating the
nature and criminality of the act, that is, that (they) acted with
discernment. In evaluating felonies committed by means of culpa, 3
elements are indispensable, namely, intelligence, freedom of action, and
negligence. Obviously, intent is wanting in such felonies. However,
intelligence remains as an essential element, hence, it is necessary that
a minor above 9 but below 15 years of age be possessed with
intelligence in committing a negligent act which results in a quasi-
offense. For him to be criminally liable, he must discern the rightness or
wrongness of the effects of his negligent act. Indeed, a minor over 9
years of age but below 15 may be held liable for a quasi-offense under
Article 365 of the RPC. The case was remanded for trial on the merits.
People v. Jacinto 
G.R. No. 182239 (16 March 2011) Section 68 of R.A. No. 9344
allows the retroactive application of the law to those who have been
convicted and are serving sentence at the time of the effectivity of said
law, and who were below the age of 18 years at the time of the
commission of the offense 鈥
that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period.
However, for purposes of determining the proper penalty because of the
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the penalty of death is still
the penalty to be reckoned with.  鈥
People v. Arpon G.R. No. 183563 (14 December 2011) FACTS: Arpon
was accused of 8 counts of rape committed against his niece. The first
incident happened when Henry was only 13 years old and the victim was
8 years old. The others were committed when Henry was already 17
years old. He even threatened the victim that he will kill the victim’s
mother if she tells anybody about the rape. 
HELD: Arpon is exempted from criminal liability for the 1st incident when
he was still 13 years old. For the subsequent acts committed when he
was already 17 years old, he already acted with discernment. R.A. No.
9344, Section 6 provides: 
A child 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. A child above 15 years but
below 18 years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability
and be subjected to an intervention program, unless s/ he has acted
with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the
appropriate proceedings x x x. The exemption from criminal liability
herein established does not include exemption from civil liability, which
shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws. 
People v. Monticalvo G.R. No. 193507 (30 January 2013) At
the time of the commission of the crime charged, appellant was only 17
years old, a minor. Thus, he is entitled to the privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority.  charges have been ordered dropped, all the records of the case shall be destroyed
Section 38 of R.A. No. 9344 warrants the suspension of sentence of a
child in conflict with the law notwithstanding that s/he has reached the
age of majority at the time the judgment of conviction is pronounced.  shall be destroyed immediately after such acquittal, dismissal or release, unless
CICL XXX v. People G.R. No. 237334 (14 August 2019)
FACTS: An Information was filed against accused CICL XXX, a 17-year
old minor, for frustrated homicide. The prosecution established that
complainant Glenn was at a store the accused suddenly poked his gun
at his face. The accused pulled the trigger several times but the gun did
not fire. The accused, with the help of his companions, hit the left temple
and top of the head of Glenn with the gun. Glenn was hit in the head with
a stone causing the latter to lose consciousness. Glenn was in a coma
for 7 days. RTC 
57  Article 203. Detention Homes. 鈥
convicted the accused of the crime of Frustrated Homicide, which was
affirmed by the CA. 
RTC nor the CA discussed whether the accused acted with discernment.
Both the RTC and the CA erred in convicting the accused, as they both
equated “intent to kill” with acting with discernment, which on the
contrary, was not proved by the prosecution. The prosecution, in fact,
never endeavored to prove that the accused acted with discernment. To
reiterate, the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution only
established the intent of the accused, instead of his having acted with
discernment. Furthermore, even if he is a co- conspirator, he would still
be exempt from criminal liability as the prosecution failed to rebut the
presumption of non-discernment on his part by virtue of his age. P.D. No. 603
(1974) 
THE CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE 
Article 189. Youthful Offender Defined. 鈥
Article 190. Physical and Mental Examination. 鈥
instead of pronouncing judgment of conviction, the court shall suspend all further
proceedings and shall commit such minor to the custody or care of the Department
of Social Welfare, or to any training institution operated by the government, or duly
licensed agencies or any other responsible person, until he shall have reached 21
years of age or, for a shorter period as the court may deem proper, after
considering the reports and recommendations of the Department of Social Welfare
or the agency or responsible individual under whose care he has been committed.
The youthful offender shall be subject to visitation and supervision by a
representative of the Department of Social Welfare or any duly licensed agency or
such other officer as the court may designate subject to such conditions as it may
prescribe. 
Article 193. Appeal. 鈥
Article 194. Care and Maintenance of Youthful Offender. 鈥
Article 195. Report on Conduct of Child. 鈥
Article 196. Dismissal of the Case. 鈥
Article 191. Care of Youthful Offender Held for Examination or Trial. 鈥
Provided, That in the absence of any such center or agency within a reasonable
distance from the venue of the trial, the provincial, city and municipal jail shall
provide quarters for youthful offenders separate from other detainees. The court
may, in its discretion, upon recommendation of the Department of Social Welfare or
other agency or agencies authorized by the court, release a youthful offender on
recognizance, to the custody of his parents or other suitable person who shall be
responsible for his appearance whenever required. 
Article 192. Suspension of Sentence and Commitment of Youthful Offender.
Article 197. Return of the Youth Offender to Court. 鈥
Article 198. Effect of Release of Child Based on Good Conduct. 鈥
Article 199. Living Quarters for Youthful Offenders Sentence. 鈥
58 
in accordance with the provisions of Article 197, and at the time of said
pronouncement the youthful offender is still under 21, he shall be committed to the
proper penal institution to serve the remaining period of his sentence: Provided,
That penal institutions shall provide youthful offenders with separate quarters and,
as far as practicable, group them according to appropriate age levels or other
criteria as will insure their speedy rehabilitation: Provided, further, That the Bureau
of Prisons shall maintain agricultural and forestry camps where youthful offenders
may serve their sentence in lieu of confinement in regular penitentiaries. 
welfare and enhance his opportunities for a useful and happy life. Toward this end,
this Rule seeks to protect the child from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty,
exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to his development. 
SECTION 2. Interpretation. 鈥
Article 200. Records of Proceedings. 鈥 Where a youthful offender has been
charged before any city or provincial fiscal or before any municipal judge and the
immediately thereafter. Where a youthful offender has been charged and the court
acquits him, or dismisses the case or commits him to an institution and
subsequently releases him pursuant to this Chapter, all the records of his case
civil liability has also been imposed in the criminal action, in which case such
records shall be destroyed after satisfaction of such civil liability. The youthful
offender concerned shall not be held under any provision of law, to be guilty of
perjury or of concealment or misrepresentation by reason of his failure to
acknowledge the case or recite any fact related thereto in response to any inquiry
made of him for any purpose. "Records" within the meaning of this article shall
include those which may be in the files of the National Bureau of Investigation and
with any police department, or any other government agency which may have been
involved in the case. 
Article 201. Civil Liability of Youthful Offenders. 鈥
Article 202. Rehabilitation Centers. 鈥
Article 204. Liability of Parents or Guardian or Any Person in the Commission
of Delinquent Acts by Their Children or Wards. - A person whether the parent or
guardian of the child or not, who knowingly or willfully, 1. Aids, causes, abets or
connives with the commission by  institution to whom the child was committed by judicial order and restoring parental
a child of a delinquency, or 2. Does any act producing, promoting, or
contributing to a child's being or becoming a juvenile delinquent, shall be punished
by a fine not exceeding P500 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 2
years, or both such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court.  鈥
鈥斺
RULE ON COMMITMENT OF CHILDREN A.M. No. 02-1-19-
SC (2002) 
SECTION 1. Objective. 鈥
SECTION 3. Definition of Terms. 鈥
and Development. (c) "Dependent child" is one who is without a parent,
guardian or custodian, or one whose parents, guardian or other custodian for good
cause desires to be relieved of his care and custody, and is dependent upon the
public for support. (d) "Abandoned child" is one who has no proper parental care or
guardianship, or whose parents or guardian has deserted him for a period of at
least 6 continuous months. (e) "Neglected child" is one whose basic needs have
been deliberately unattended to or inadequately attended to, physically or
emotionally, by his parents or guardian. (f) "Physical neglect" occurs when the child
is 
malnourished, ill-clad and without proper shelter. (g) "Emotional neglect"
occurs when a child is raped, seduced, maltreated, exploited, overworked or made
to work under conditions not conducive to good health; made to beg in the streets
or public places, or when placed in moral danger, or exposed to drugs, alcohol,
gambling, prostitution and other vices. (h) "Disabled child" includes mentally
retarded, physically handicapped, emotionally disturbed and mentally ill children,
children with cerebral palsy and those with similar afflictions. (i) "Mentally retarded
child" is one who is (1) socially incompetent, that is, socially inadequate,
occupationally incompetent and unable to manage his own affairs; (2) mentally
subnormal; (3) intellectually retarded from birth or early age; (4) retarded at
maturity; (5) mentally deficient as a result of constitutional origin through heredity or
diseases or (6) essentially incurable. (j) "Physically handicapped child" is one who
is crippled, deaf-mute, blind, or otherwise suffers from a defect which restricts his
means of action or communication with others. (k) "Emotionally disturbed child" is
one who, although not afflicted with insanity or mental defect, is unable to maintain
normal social relations with others and the community in general due to emotional
problems or complexes, (l) "Mentally ill child" is one with any behavioral disorder,
whether functional or organic, which is of such a degree of severity as to require
professional help or hospitalization. (m)"Commitment" or "surrender of a child" is
the legal act of entrusting a child to the care of the Department or any duly licensed
child-placement or child-caring agency or individual by the court, parent or guardian
or any interested party. (n) "Involuntarily committed child" is one whose parents
have been permanently and judicially deprived of parental authority due to
abandonment; substantial, continuous, or repeated neglect; abuse; or
incompetence to discharge parental responsibilities in accordance with Section 4
herein. (o) "Voluntarily committed child" is one whose parents knowingly and
willingly relinquished parental authority to the Department or any duly licensed
child-placement or child-caring agency or individual in accordance with Section 3
herein.  disabled child-placement or child-caring
59 
(p) "Child-placing or child-placement agency" refers to a private non-profit or
charitable institution or government agency duly licensed, and accredited by the
Department to provide comprehensive child welfare services, including but not
limited to, receiving applications for adoption or foster care, evaluating the
prospective adoptive or foster parents and preparing the home study report. (q)
"Child-caring agency" refers to a private non-profit or charitable institution or
government agency duly licensed and accredited by the Department that provides
24 hour residential care services for abandoned, orphaned, neglected, involuntarily
or voluntarily committed children. (r) “Guardian ad litem" is a person appointed by
the court where the case is pending for a child sought to be committed to protect
his best interests. (s) "Case Study Report" is a written report of the result of an
investigation conducted by a social worker as to the socio-cultural, economic and
legal status or condition of the child sought to be committed. It shall include among
others his developmental age, educational attainment, family and social
relationships, the quality of his peer group, his family's strengths and weaknesses
and parental control over him. The report is submitted to the Family Court to aid it in
its evaluation of whether the child ought to be committed to the care of the
Department or any duly licensed child-placement or child-caring agency or
individual.  Recognizance is an undertaking in lieu of a bond assumed by a parent or custodian
SECTION 4. Petition for Involuntary Commitment of a Child. 鈥
abandoned, or neglected; (3) The facts showing who has custody of the child
at  sentence and to supervision by the court and a probation officer who has the duty
the time of the filing of the petition; and (4) The name, address and written
consent of the Department or duly licensed child-placement or child-caring agency
or individual to whose care the commitment of the child is sought to be entrusted.
(d) Summons; Court to Set Time for Hearing. 鈥
(e) Social Worker. 鈥
60  discernment. (n) Discernment means the mental capacity to understand the
one month at a time upon motion of the duly licensed child-placement or child-
caring agency or individual to which the child has been committed. The court, motu
proprio, or upon request of the child assisted by his guardian ad litem, or at the
instance of the agency or person to whom the child was committed, after due notice
and hearing, shall discontinue the temporary custody of the child if it appears that
he is not being given proper care. After one month from the date temporary custody
of the child was given to another suitable person, the agency or individual shall
submit to the court a verified report on whether the temporary custody of the child
has promoted his best interests. (n) Change of Custody. 鈥
Commitment. 鈥 motu proprio. (iv) Resolution. 鈥
authority to the movant. (q) Jurisdiction for Prosecution of Punishable Acts. 鈥
SECTION 5. Voluntary Commitment of a Child to an Institution or Individual.
(i) Who may file; Ground. 鈥
state: (1) The name and address of the child-placement or child-caring
agency or individual to whose custody the child has been voluntarily
committed; (2) The facts showing that the child has been neglected by the
agency or in cases where the voluntary commitment was unjustified, that the
parents of the child are actually capable of taking care and custody of the
child; (3) The name, address and written consent of the duly licensed child-
placement or child- caring agency or individual to whose care the child may
be transferred. (4) The facts showing that petitioner has exhausted the
administrative remedies available to him. (iv) Notice of Hearing. 鈥
61 
has been committed and in appropriate cases, the parents of the child. (v)
Judgment. 鈥
SECTION 6. Petition for Commitment of a Disabled Child. 鈥(a) Who may file.
鈥
agency, as the case may be, has opposed the commitment of such child; (4)
The name and written conformity of the institution 
where the child is to be committed. (5) An estimate of the costs and other
expenses of 
maintaining the child in the institution. The verified petition shall be sufficient if
based upon the personal knowledge of the petitioner. (d) Order of Hearing; Notice.
鈥
community; (2) He has been sufficiently rehabilitated, from his physical
handicap or if of working age, is already fit to engage in gainful occupation; or
(3) He has been sufficiently relieved of his psychological, mental and
emotional problems and is ready to assume normal social relations. 
鈥斺
JUVENILES IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW A.M. No. 02-1-18-
SC (28 February 2002) 
commitment must state the following: (1) The facts showing that the child
appears to be mentally retarded, physically handicapped, emotionally
disturbed, mentally ill, with cerebral palsy or with similar afflictions and needs
institutional care; (2) The name of the parents and their residence, if known,
or if the child has no living parent, the name and residence of the guardian, if
any; and (3) The fact that the parents or guardian or any duly licensed
 
SECTION 1. Applicability of the Rule. 鈥
62 
apply without prejudice to the rights granted under Sections 36, 37, 38 and 39 of
this Rule. 
SECTION 2. Objective. 鈥
SECTION 3. Interpretation. 鈥 SECTION 4. Definitions. 鈥
attitude of his parents towards his responsibility for the offense. (f) Diversion refers
to an alternative child-appropriate process of determining the responsibility and
treatment of a juvenile in conflict with the law on the basis of his social, cultural,
economic, psychological or educational background without resorting to formal
court adjudication. (g) Diversion programs refer to programs that the juvenile in
conflict with the law is required to undergo in lieu of formal court proceedings, (h)
Disposition conference is a meeting held by the court with the social worker who
prepared the case study report together with the juvenile in conflict with the law and
his parents or guardian ad litem, for the purpose of determining the disposition
measures appropriate to the personal and peculiar circumstances of the juvenile. (i)
who shall be responsible for the appearance in court by the juvenile in conflict with
the law when required. (j) Probation is a disposition alternative under which a
juvenile in conflict with the law is released and permitted to remain in his home after
conviction and sentence. The juvenile is subject to conditions imposed in the
to return the juvenile to the court in case of violation of a condition of his probation.
(k) Suspended sentence is the holding in abeyance of the service of the sentence
imposed by the court upon a finding of guilt of the juvenile in conflict with the law
who will undergo rehabilitation. (l) Community continuum is a community-based
group therapy process that provides continuous guidance and support to the
juvenile in conflict with the law upon his release from rehabilitation and his
reintegration into society. (m) Age of criminal responsibility is the age when a
juvenile who is 9 years or over but under 15 years commits an offense with
difference between right and wrong and its consequences. (o) Restorative Justice
is a principle which requires a process of resolving conflicts with the maximum
involvement of the victim, the offender, and the community. It seeks to obtain
reparation for the victim, reconciliation of the offender, the offended and the
community and reassurance to the offender that he can be reintegrated into
society. It. also enhances public safety by activating the offender, the victim and the
community in prevention strategies. (p) Initial contact is the apprehension or taking
into custody of a juvenile in conflict with the law by law enforcement officers or
private citizens. It includes the time when the juvenile receives a subpoena under
Section 3 (b) of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure or summons
under Section 6 (a) or Section 9 (b) of the same Rule in cases that do not require
preliminary investigation or where there is no necessity to place the juvenile under 65 
immediate custody. (q) Corporal punishment is any kind of physical punishment
inflicted on the body as distinguished from pecuniary punishment or fine. 

SECTION 5. Exemption from Criminal Liability. 鈥

whether the undertaking has been fully and satisfactorily complied with. If the
juvenile has complied with his undertaking, the Family Court shall issue the
corresponding closure order terminating the diversion program. It may, however,
63  extend the period of diversion to give the juvenile a further chance to be
rehabilitated. In the event the court finds that the diversion program will no longer
serve its. purpose, it shall include the case of the juvenile in its calendar for formal
proceedings. 
in writing and signed by the juvenile, his parents or guardian and his counsel;
as the case may be, and subjected to a delinquency prevention program as otherwise, they cannot be used against him. Whenever possible and practicable,
determined by the court. Exemption from criminal liability does not include the Family Court shall explore all possibilities of settlement of the case, except its
exemption from civil liability which shall be enforced in accordance with the criminal aspect. Plea bargaining shall be resorted to only as a last measure when it
provisions of Article 221 of the Family Code in relation to Article 101 of the RPC will serve the best interests of the juvenile and the demands of restorative justice. 
and Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. In case the act or
omission of the juvenile involves a quasi- delict, Article 2180 of the Civil Code shall
apply.  SECTION 26. Duty of the Family Court to Protect the Rights of the Juvenile. 鈥
beyond reasonable doubt; b) To be informed promptly and directly of the
SECTION 6. Procedure in Taking a Juvenile into Custody. 鈥 nature and cause of the charge against him, and if appropriate, through his parents
juvenile; (b) Inform the juvenile of the reason for such custody and advise him or legal guardian; c) To be present at every stage of the proceedings, from
of his constitutional rights in a language or dialect understood by him; (c) Refrain arraignment to promulgation of judgment. The juvenile may, however, waive his
from using vulgar or profane words and from sexually harassing or abusing, or presence at the trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail, unless his
making sexual advances on the juvenile; (d) Avoid displaying or using any firearm, presence at the trial is specifically ordered by the court for purposes of
weapon, handcuffs or other instruments of force or restraint, unless absolutely identification. The absence of the juvenile without justifiable cause at the trial of
necessary and only after all other methods of control have been exhausted and which he had notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be present thereat.
have failed; (e) Refrain from subjecting the juvenile to greater restraint  When the juvenile under custody escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his
than is necessary for his apprehension; (f) Avoid violence or unnecessary right to be present in all subsequent hearings until custody over him is regained; d)
force; (g) Notify the parents of the juvenile or his nearest relative or guardian, if any, To have legal and other appropriate assistance in the 
and the local social welfare officer as soon as the apprehension is made; (h) Take preparation and presentation of his defense; e) To testify as a witness in his
the juvenile immediately to an available government medical or health officer for a own behalf and subject to cross-examination only on matters covered by direct
physical and mental examination. The examination results shall be kept confidential examination, provided that the Rule on the Examination of a Child Witness shall be
unless otherwise ordered by the Family Court. Whenever treatment for any physical observed whenever convenient and practicable. The juvenile shall not be
or mental defect is necessary, steps shall be immediately taken by the said officer compelled to be a witness against himself and his silence shall not in any manner
to provide the juvenile with the necessary and proper treatment; and (i) Hold the prejudice him; f) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against 
juvenile in secure quarters separate from that  him; g) To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of
of the opposite sex and adult offenders.  witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf; h) To have speedy and
impartial trial, with legal or other appropriate assistance and preferably in the
SECTION 7. Taking Custody of a Juvenile Without a Warrant. 鈥 presence of his parents or legal guardian, unless such presence is considered not
to be in the best interests of the juvenile taking into account his age or other
SECTION 8. Conduct of Initial Investigation by the Police. 鈥 peculiar circumstances; i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner 
(b) His fingerprints and photographs shall be removed from the files and destroyed: prescribed by law; j) To be accorded all the rights under the Rule on 
(1) if the case against him is not filed, or is dismissed; or (2) when the juvenile Examination of a Child Witness; and k) To have his privacy fully respected in
reaches 21 years of age and there is no record that he committed an offense after all stages of the 
reaching 9 years of age.  proceedings. 

SECTION 10. Intake Report by the Social Welfare Officer. 鈥 SECTION 27. Arraignment and Plea. 鈥

SECTION 11. Filing of Criminal Action. 鈥 SECTION 28. Pre-trial. 鈥

SECTION 29. Trial. 鈥
SECTION 12. Prosecution of Civil Action. 鈥
SECTION 30. Guiding Principles in Judging the Juvenile. 鈥
SECTION 13. Preliminary Investigation. 鈥
SECTION 31. Promulgation of Sentence. 鈥
SECTION 14. Venue. 鈥
SECTION 32. Automatic Suspension of Sentence and Disposition Orders. 鈥
SECTION 15. Recognizance. 鈥
SECTION 33. Discharge of Juvenile Subject of Disposition Measure. 鈥
SECTION 9. Fingerprinting and Photographing of the Juvenile. 鈥
SECTION 16. When Bail a Matter of Right. 鈥 motu proprio or upon motion and
recommendation of the DSWD, release the juvenile on recognizance to the custody 66 
of his parents or other responsible person. 

64  dismiss the case against the juvenile who has been issued disposition measures,
even before he has reached 9 years of age, and order a final discharge if it finds
that the juvenile has behaved properly and has shown the capability to be a useful
member of the community. If the Family Court, however, finds that the juvenile has
not behaved properly, has been incorrigible, has not shown the capability of
becoming a useful member of society, has willfully failed to comply with the
SECTION 17. When Bail Not A Matter of Right. 鈥 conditions of his disposition or rehabilitation program, or should his continued stay
Consent to diversion by the juvenile or payment by him of civil indemnity shall not in in the training institution where he has been assigned be not in his best interests,
any way be construed as admission of guilt and used as evidence against him in he shall be brought before the court for execution of his judgment. If the juvenile in
the event that his case is included in the court calendar for formal proceedings.  conflict with the law has reached the age of 9 years while in commitment, the
Family Court shall determine whether to dismiss the case in accordance with the
SECTION 18. Care of Juveniles in Conflict with the Law. 鈥 first paragraph of this Section or to execute the judgment of conviction. In the latter
case, unless the juvenile has already availed of probation under P.D. No. 603 or
SECTION 19. Case Study Report. 鈥 other similar laws, he may apply for probation if qualified under the provisions of the
Probation Law. The final release of the juvenile shall not extinguish his civil liability.
The parents and other persons exercising parental authority over the juvenile shall
SECTION 20. Diversion Proceedings Before Arraignment. 鈥
be civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of the
juvenile living in their company and under their parental authority subject to the
SECTION 21. Diversion Committee. 鈥 appropriate defenses provided by law. 
and/or the community; d) Whether the juvenile is unrepentant; e) Whether the
juvenile or his parents are indifferent or  SECTION 34. Probation as an Alternative to Imprisonment. 鈥
hostile; and f) Whether the juvenile's relationships with his peers 
increase the possibility of delinquent behavior. If the Committee recommends SECTION 35. Credit in Service of Sentence. 鈥
diversion, it shall submit the diversion program for the juvenile for the consideration under Section 25 of this Rule or if he may be granted probation under the Probation
and approval of the court. The Committee cannot recommend diversion should the Law, or to enforce the civil liability imposed in the criminal action. The Family Court
juvenile or the private complainant object thereto. If no diversion program is shall take other measures to protect this confidentiality of proceedings including
recommended, the court shall include the case in its calendar for formal non-disclosure of records to the media, the maintenance of a separate police
proceedings.  blotter for cases involving juveniles in conflict with the law and the adoption of a
SECTION 22. Diversion Programs. 鈥 system of coding to conceal material information, which will lead to the juvenile's
identity. Records of juveniles in conflict with the law shall not be used in
SECTION 23. Hearing of Diversion Program. 鈥 subsequent proceedings or cases involving the same offender as an adult. 

SECTION 24. Undertaking. 鈥 SECTION 37. Non-liability for perjury or concealment or misrepresentation. 鈥

SECTION 25. Closure Order. 鈥 SECTION 38. Sealing of Records. 鈥 motu proprio, or on application of a person
who has been adjudged a juvenile in conflict with the law, or if still a minor, on
motion of his parents or legal guardian, shall, upon notice to the prosecution and
after hearing, order the sealing of the records of the case if it finds that 2 years
have elapsed since the final discharge of the juvenile after suspension of sentence
or probation, or from the date of the closure order and he has no pending case of
an offense or a crime involving moral turpitude. Upon entry of the order, the case
shall be treated as if it never occurred. All index references shall be deleted and in
case of inquiry, the Family Court, prosecution, law enforcement officers and all
other offices and agencies that dealt with the case shall reply that no record exists
with respect to the juvenile concerned. Copies of the order shall be sent to these
officials and agencies named in the order. Inspection of the sealed records
thereafter may be permitted only by order of the Family Court upon petition. of the
juvenile who is the subject of the records or of other proper parties. This procedure
shall be without prejudice to the rule on destruction of video or audio tapes under
Section 31 of the Rule on the Examination of a Child Witness. 
previously twice or more times of any crime; or 2. When upon being summoned for
execution of sentence,  Nieva v. People G.R. No. 188751 (2016) Petitioner Nieva cannot invoke
he failed to surrender voluntarily. If the juvenile does not agree to abide by the
same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, he shall be credited in
the service of his sentence with 4 鈦 destierro, he shall be released after 30 days of
preventive imprisonment. Any form of physical restraint imposed on the juvenile in
conflict with the law, including community service and commitment to a
rehabilitation center, shall be considered preventive imprisonment.  absence of negligence and intent. The accused commits a crime but
SECTION 36. Confidentiality of Proceedings and Records. 鈥
SECTION 39. Prohibition Against Labeling. 鈥
SECTION 40. Contempt Powers. 鈥
PAR. 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.  causing the injury.
HELD: There was no accident. By Concepcion’s own testimony, the
victim was unarmed. In contrast, he had an armalite and a handgun. It is
highly inconceivable that an unarmed man could pose bodily harm to
another who is heavily armed. Concepcion’s gun discharged several
shots that hit 
HELD: The exemption from criminal liability under the circumstance
showing accident is based on the lack of criminal intent. In the case at
bar, accused got his shotgun and returned to the kitchen to shoot his son
who had intervened in the quarrel between the former and his wife.
There was clear intent to fire and not mere accident. 
the exempting circumstance of accident to free him from criminal liability.
Article 12 (4), Book I of the RPC states that “any person who, while
performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident
without fault or intention of causing it” shall be exempt from criminal
liability. The basis for exemption under said provision is the complete
there is no criminal liability. An accident is a fortuitous circumstance,
event or happening; an event happening wholly or partly through human
agency, an event which under the circumstances is unusual or
unexpected by the person to whom it happens. It is an affirmative
defense which the accused is burdened to prove by clear and convincing
evidence. 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
 

ELEMENTS: 1. A person performing a lawful act; 2. With due care; 3. People v. Bandian 63 Phil 530 (1936) FACTS: One morning, Josefina
He causes an injury to another by mere accident; 4. Without fault or went to a thicket to respond to a call of nature. Her neighbor saw
intention of causing it.  Josefina emerge from the thicket staggering and was struggling to
support herself and her clothes were stained with blood. Her neighbor
helped her get home as she was very dizzy. Later in the day, another
neighbor saw a newborn baby. It was Josefina’s. She was charged with
infanticide and abandonment of a minor. 
67 

68 

鉁 i.e., striking another with a gun in self-defense, even if it fired and

seriously injured the assailant is a lawful act. 
HELD: What happened was an accident. Prior to the incident, she was
suffering from fever causing her hemorrhage which made bearing the
ACCIDENT 鈥
child difficult. She abandoned the child because she was overcome by
strong dizziness and debility. There was no fault or intent to kill the
US v. Tanedo 15 Phil 196 (1910)  baby. 
FACTS: The accused, while hunting, saw wild chickens and fired a shot.
The slug, after hitting a wild chicken, recoiled and struck the tenant who People v. Armando Delector G.R. No. 200026 (4 October 2017)
was a relative of the accused. The man who was injured died.  Accident could not be appreciated herein as an exempting circumstance
vital parts of the victim's body. As observed by the trial court, recklessly simply because the accused did not establish that he had acted with due
appellant had put his finger on the trigger of his cocked and loaded rifle. care, and without fault or intention of causing the injuries to the victim.
In that state, with the slightest movement of his finger, the rifle would fire The gun was a revolver that would not fire unless there was considerable
readily. And it did not just once but several fires. Concepcion is guilty of pressure applied on its trigger, or its hammer was pulled back and
homicide.  released. The assertion of accident could have been accorded greater
credence had there been only a single shot fired, for such a
People v. Agliday 367 SCRA 273 (2001) FACTS: The wife of the happenstance could have been attributed to the unintentional pulling of
accused was washing dishes in the kitchen when her son was shot with the hammer during the forceful grappling for control of the gun. Yet, the
a shotgun by her husband. Conchita claimed that she and her husband revolver fired twice, which we think eliminated accident. Verily, the CA
quarreled before the incident and then her husband left the kitchen got itself pointedly debunked the story of the accused as to how the accident
his shotgun and went back to the kitchen to shoot his son. Accused had occurred by characterizing such story not only incomprehensible but
claimed that it was only an accident. He was merely cleaning his gun also contrary to human experience and behavior. 
and the gun accidentally went off and his son’s buttock was hit. 
PAR. 5 : ANY PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER THE COMPULSION
HELD: If life is taken by misfortune or accident while the actor is in the OF AN IRRESISTIBLE FORCE 
performance of a lawful act executed with due care and without intention
of doing harm, there is no criminal liability.  ELEMENTS: 1. That the compulsion is by means of physical 
force; 2. That the physical force must be irresistible; and 3. That the
People v. Bindoy 56 Phil 15 (1931) FACTS: The accused, while in a physical force must come from a third 
drinking session, offered some tuba to Pacas’ wife but she refused so leave the residence and followed them. Alighting from the car, the two
the accused threatened to injure her if she didn’t accept. Pacas stepped were accosted. The abduction of the 2 hit the front pages and two
in to defend his wife, attempting to take away from the accused the bolo guards told the police that their friends who were employees of Lising
he carried. In the course of the struggle, accused succeeded in informed them that Lising killed the 2 victims. Later, the bodies of the 2
disengaging himself from Pacas, wrenching the bolo from the latter’s were found. Lower court found that since there was an agreement
hand towards the left behind the accused, with such violence that the among Manalili, Garcia and Lising, they were all co- conspirators of the
point of the bolo reached Emigdio’s chest who was then behind the crime and therefore liable principally. Garcia claimed that he acted under
accused.  compulsion of irresistible force. 

HELD: The accused, in his effort to free himself hit Emigdio in the chest. HELD: To be exempt from criminal liability, a person invoking irresistible
There is no evidence that this was done deliberately. It is merely force must show that the force exerted was such that it reduced him to a
accidental.  mere instrument who acted not only without will but against his will.
Garcia’s participation and presence from the time the abduction was
People v. Concepcion 386 SCRA 74 (2002) FACTS: Galang got hatched up to the killing of the victims is undisputed. Conspiracy has
involved in a quarrel at the town plaza. He was brought to the barangay been established. People v. Elicanal 
hall for questioning by Brgy. Captain Capitli. Shortly after, Concepcion 35 Phil 209 (1916) 
arrived and fired his rifle twice or thrice past the ears of Galang, who was
then sitting, but without injuring him. After that, however, Concepcion FACTS: The accused was a member of the crew of a lorcha and
thrust the barrel of the gun against the abdomen of Galang. Then there Guiloresa was the chief mate. The latter mentioned that he was going to
was an explosion. Galang was shot in the thigh. At least 3 more shots kill the captain because he was very angry with him and asked him to
were fired, hitting him in the chest. Lorenzo died instantly. In his defense assist him. The accused took this statement as a joke and he was
Concepcion claimed that the shooting was only accidental.  smiling only when he made the statement. The following morning,
Guillermo assaulted the captain and with the help of the crew (except the
accused) seized the captain and tied him with a rope. Guillermo then REQUISITES: a) existence of an uncontrollable fear; b) the fear must be
struck the captain at the back of the neck with an iron bar and then, real and imminent; and c) the fear of an injury is greater than or at least 
delivering the weapon to the accused ordered him to come forward and equal to that committed. 
assist. The accused struck the captain on the head which caused the - Duress as a valid defense should be based on real, imminent or
latter’s death.  reasonable fear for one’s life or limb and should not be speculative,
fanciful or remote fear. - A threat of future injury is not enough. The
person.  compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to
the accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat. - Speculative,
鉁 fanciful and remote fear is not 
uncontrollable fear. - The case of US v. Exaltation is also an example 
were there is real, imminent or reasonable fear. 
People v. Lising 285 SCRA 595 (1998) FACTS: Manalili asked Garcia if
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE UNCONTROLLABLE 
he could find someone who could effect the arrest of Robert Herrera, the FEAR 
suspect on the killing of his brother. Garcia introduced Lising and they The offender uses violence or physical force to compel another person to
came up with an agreement. Lising’s surveillance group was at the commit the crime. 
Castanos’ residence in the hope of spotting Herrera. The group saw a The offender employs intimidation or threat in compelling another to commit
man and a woman (the victims)  a crime. 
HELD: Before one uses the defense of acting under uncontrollable fear, JUSTIFYING EXEMPTING 
it must appear that the threat which caused the fear was an evil greater There is neither a crime nor a criminal. 
than or at least equal to that which he required to commit and that it There is a crime but no criminal. The act is not justified but the actor is not
promised an evil of such gravity and imminence that it might be said that criminally liable. 
the ordinary man would have succumbed to it. Evidence fails to establish No civil liability except in no. 4 
that the threat directed to the accused by the chiefmate, if any, was of There is civil liability except in nos. 4 and 7. 
such character as to deprive him of all volition and to make him a mere 70 
instrument without will. The fear was not insuperable. 

US v. Caballeros 4 Phil 350 (1905) FACTS: The defendants have been

PAR. 7 : ANY PERSON WHO FAILS TO PERFORM AN ACT
sentenced as accessories in the crime of assassination of 4 American
REQUIRED BY LAW, WHEN PREVENTED BY SOME LAWFUL OR
school teachers. The defendants took part in the burial of the corpses of
INSUPERABLE CAUSE 
the victims. 
- Those mentioned in subsections 1 to 10 of 
Article 13. 
HELD: The defendant Baculi is exempt from criminal liability because he
only assisted in the burial because he was compelled to do so by the
murderers. As to defendant Caballeros, there is no proof that he took
part in any way in the execution of the crime. His confession cannot be ELEMENTS: 1. That an act is required by law to be done; 2. That a
accepted as proof on a trial because it was not done voluntarily.  person fails to perform such act; 3. That his failure to perform such act
was due to 
some lawful or insuperable cause. 
69 
CRIMINAL LAW 1 ESGUERRA NOTES  US v. Vicentillo 19 Phil 118 (1911) A policeman cannot be held liable
People v. Fronda 222 SCRA 71 (1993) FACTS: Balaan brothers were for illegal detention when after arresting his victims, it took him 3 days to
taken by 7 armed NPA members accompanied by accused Fronda and reach the nearest judge. The distance which required a journey for 3
Padua. The accused are both residents of the same place. The two days was considered to be an insuperable cause. 
were convicted of murder. Fronda appealed claiming he was merely
taken by the armed men as a “pointer”. 
HELD: Records show that appellant’s participation in the commission of People v. Bandian 63 Phil 530 (1936) A woman cannot be held liable
the crime consisted of: 1) leading the members of the armed group to for infanticide when she left her newborn child in the bushes without
the house where the victims were found, 2) tying the victims’ hands and being aware that she had given birth at all. Severe dizziness and
3) digging the grave where the victims were buried. He is not a principal extreme debility made it physically impossible for Bandian to take home
by indispensable cooperation but only an accomplice. The defense of the child plus the assertion that she didn’t know that she had given birth. 
uncontrollable fear cannot be accepted because the fact that the
accused was seen being handed by and receiving a hunting knife from People v. Ventura 433 SCRA 389 (2004) FACTS: Flores learned of
one of the armed men, as well as, his inexplicable failure to report the the alleged affair of his wife with Jaime Borinaga. Flores went to his
incident to the authorities for more than 3 years negates the existence of uncle Ventura to plan on how to confront Jaime about the issue. Flores
uncontrollable fear, such acts being indicative of his conscious and Ventura arrived outside the house of Jaime at 11:00 p.m. They
concurrence with the acts of the assailants.  waited until 2AM before entering the house. Flores woke up Jaime and
Ty v. People (supra) FACTS: Ty's mother Chua Lao So Un was pointed a gun at him. Jaime tried to wrestle the gun from Flores. Jaime’s
confined at the Manila Doctors' Hospital from October 1990 until June wife Aileen woke up and called for help. She was stabbed twice by
1992. Being the patient's daughter, Ty signed the "Acknowledgment of Ventura which led to her death. The accused were convicted of murder
Responsibility for Payment" in the Contract of Admission. Ty's sister, and attempted murder. 
Judy Chua, was also confined at the same hospital. The total hospital
bills of the two patients amounted to P1,075,592.95. Ty executed a HELD: The accused deliberately took advantage of nighttime. They
promissory note wherein she assumed payment of the obligation in waited until 2AM when the people in the house were already asleep
installments. To assure payment of the obligation, she drew 7 postdated before entering. Nocturnity was purposely sought by the accused to
checks against Metrobank payable to the hospital which were all facilitate the commission of the offense. 
dishonored by the drawee bank and returned unpaid to the hospital due
to insufficiency of funds. For her defense, Ty claimed that she issued the
checks because of “an uncontrollable fear of a greater injury” She 3. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES 
averred that she was forced to issue the checks to obtain release for her
mother who was being inhumanely and harshly treated by the hospital. 鉁
She alleged that her mother has contemplated suicide if she would not
be discharged from the hospital. Ty was found guilty by the lower courts CLASSES OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES 
of 7 counts of violation of BP22. 
HELD: The court sustained the findings of the lower courts. The evil
1. ORDINARY MITIGATING 
sought to be avoided is merely expected or anticipated. If the evil sought
2. PRIVILEG
to be avoided is merely expected or anticipated or may happen in the
future, the defense of an uncontrollable fear of a greater injury is not
applicable. Ty could have taken advantage of an available option to Article 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under 18 years of
avoid committing a crime. By her own admission, she had the choice to age. 鈥
give jewelry or other forms of security instead of postdated checks to
secure her obligation. 
Moreover, for the defense of state of necessity to be availing, the Article 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not
greater injury feared should not have  wholly excusable. 鈥
been brought about by the negligence or imprudence, more so, the
willful inaction of the actor. In this case, the issuance of the bounced Privileged mitigating circumstances which are applicable only to
checks was brought about by Ty's own failure to pay her mother's particular crimes: 1. Article 268, par. 3. Voluntary release of the person
hospital bills.  illegally detained within 3 days without the offender attaining his purpose
PAR. 6 : ANY PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER THE IMPULSE OF AN and before the institution of criminal action. The penalty is one degree
UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR OF AN EQUAL OR GREATER INJURY  lower. 2. Article 333, par. 3. Abandonment without justification of the
ELEMENTS: 1. That the threat which causes the fear is of an evil spouse who committed adultery. The penalty is one degree lower. 
greater than or at least equal to, that which he is required to commit; 2.
That it promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary
man would have succumbed to it.  ORDINARY MC PRIVILEDGED MC 
鉁
 Susceptible of being offset by any - Avoidance of greater evil or injury is a justifying circumstance if all the
aggravating circumstance.  three requisites mentioned in par. 4 of Article 11 are present. But if any
Cannot be offset by aggravating of the last two requisites are lacking, there is only a mitigating
circumstance.  circumstance. 
Cannot be offset by aggravating
circumstance.  3. Incomplete justifying circumstance of 
performance of duty. 
If not offset by aggravating
circumstance, produces the effect of REQUISITES UNDER PAR. 5, ARTICLE 11 a) That the accused acted
applying the penalty provided by law in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office;
for the crime in its min period in case and b) That the injury caused or offense committed be the necessary
of divisible penalty.  consequence of the due performance of such duty or the lawful exercise
The effect of imposing upon the of such right or office. 
offender the penalty lower by one or
two degrees than that provided by law
- In People v. Oanis, the SC considered one of the 2 requisites as
for the crime. 
constituting the majority. It seems that there is no ordinary mitigating
The effect of imposing upon the
circumstance under Article 13, par. 1 when the justifying or exempting
offender the penalty lower by one or
circumstance has 2 requisites only. 
two degrees than that provided by law
for the crime. 
The effect of imposing upon the People v. Ulep 340 SCRA 688 (2000) 
offender the penalty lower by one or FACTS: One early morning, Wapili was suffering from a high fever and
two degrees than that provided by law was heard talking to himself in his room. His brother in law was unable to
for the crime.  pacify Wapili so called Pastor Borial to pray over his suffering relative.
The effect of imposing upon the However, Wapili went amuck and 
offender the penalty lower by one or
two degrees than that provided by law
for the crime. 
72 

71  went outside the house and became wild and violent. When the police
responded, Wapili charged at the officers with a rattan stool. SPO1 Ulep
fired a warning shot but Wapili continued advancing. The police officer
shot Wapili who fell to the ground. SPO1 Ulep shot Wapili at the back of
NOTE: Mitigating circumstances only reduce the penalty but do not the head which led to the victim’s death. The trial court convicted SPO1
change the nature of the crime.  Ulep with murder. 
8. Causing injury by mere accident 9. Uncontrollable
fear  HELD: There was incomplete justifying circumstance as defined in
Article 69. While the officer was acting in the fulfillment of his duty, the
Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. 鈥 injury he caused was in excess of what as necessary to perform his task
grave a wrong as that committed. 4. That sufficient provocation or of pacifying the danger. In this case, Wapili was already down on the
threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act. 5. ground when he was shot to the head, the danger already ceased and
That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave the killing was unnecessary. 
offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse,
ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees. 6. That of INCOMPLETE EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE 
having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced
passion or obfuscation. 7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered 1. Incomplete exempting circumstance of 
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 minority over 15 and under 18 years of age. 
evidence for the prosecution; 8. That the offender is deaf and dumb,
blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his REQUISITES UNDER PAR. 3, ARTICLE 12 a) That the offender is over
means of action, defense, or communications with his fellow beings. 9. 9 and under 15 years 
Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will- old; and b) That he does not act with discernment. 
power of the offender without however depriving him of the
consciousness of his acts. 10.And, finally, any other circumstances of a
2. Incomplete exempting circumstance of 
similar 
accident. 
nature and analogous to those above mentioned. 

REQUISITES UNDER PAR. 4, ARTICLE 12 a) A person is performing a

PAR. 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 
lawful act; b) With due care; c) He causes an injury to another by mere
accident; 
and d) Without fault or intention of causing it. 

- If the 2nd requisite and 1st part of the 4th requisite are absent, the case will
鉁 justification or exemption which may give place to mitigation, because
fall under Article 365 which punishes reckless imprudence. - If the 1st
not all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from
requisite and 2nd part of the 4th requisite 
criminal liability in the respective cases are attendant, are the ff: (see
Article 69) 1. Self-defense 2. Defense of Relatives 3. Defense of are absent, it will be an intentional felony. 
Strangers 4. State of necessity 5. Performance of duty 6. Obedience to
order of superior 7. Minority over 15 and under 18 years of age  3. Incomplete exempting circumstance of 
INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE  uncontrollable fear. 

1. Incomplete self-defense, defense of  REQUISITES UNDER PAR. 6, ARTICLE 12 a) That the threat which
relatives, defense of stranger  caused the fear was of an evil greater than, or at least equal to, that
which he was required to commit; and b) That it promised an evil of such
鉁 Example: When the one making defense against unlawful aggression gravity and imminence that an ordinary person would have succumbed
used unreasonable means to prevent or repel it, he is entitled to a to it. 
privileged mitigating circumstance. 
- If only one of these requisites is present, there is 
2. Incomplete justifying circumstance of  only a mitigating circumstance. 
avoidance of greater evil or injury.  PAR. 2 : THAT THE OFFENDER IS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE OR
OVER 70 YEARS. IN THE CASE OF THE MINOR, HE SHALL BE
PROCEEDED AGAINST IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS
REQUISITES UNDER PAR. 4, ARTICLE 11 a) That the evil sought to be OF ARTICLE 80 
avoided actually exists; b) That the injury feared be greater than that
done 
to avoid it; and c) That there be no other practical and less harmful  Article 80. Suspension of sentence of minor delinquents. 鈥
means of preventing it. 
 73  force him to reveal where their money was. The robbers found the
this article, he shall be returned to the court in order that the same may
order his final release. In case the minor fails to behave properly or to
comply with the regulations of the institution to which he has been
committed or with the conditions imposed upon him when he was
committed to the care of a responsible person, or in case he should be
found incorrigible or his continued stay in such institution should be
inadvisable, he shall be returned to the court in order that the same may
render the judgment corresponding to the crime committed by him. The
expenses for the maintenance of a minor delinquent confined in the
institution to which he has been committed, shall be borne totally or
partially by his parents or relatives or those persons liable to support
him, if they are able to do so, in the discretion of the court; Provided,
That in case his parents or relatives or those persons liable to support
him have not been ordered to pay said expenses or are found indigent
and cannot pay said expenses, the municipality in which the offense was
committed shall pay 1 鈦 Provided, however, That whenever the
Secretary of Finance certifies that a municipality is not able to pay its
share in the expenses above mentioned, such share which is not paid by
said municipality shall be borne by the National Government. Chartered
cities shall pay 2 鈦
LEGAL EFFECTS OF VARIOUS AGES OF OFFENDER: 
1. Minor delinquent under 18 years of age, the sentence may be
suspended. (Article 192, P.D. No. 603, as amended by P.D. No. 1179)
2. Under 18 years of age, privileged mitigating  HELD: The lack of "intent" to commit a wrong so grave is an internal
circumstance (Article 68) 3. 18 years or over, full criminal
responsibility.  injured, the injury inflicted and the manner it is inflicted. The fact that the
of the mind when the accused attacked the deceased. 鉁
when the offender employed brute force. 鉁
People v. Ural 56 SCRA 138 (1974) FACTS: Witness Alberto saw
policeman Ural inside the jail boxing detention prisoner Napola. As
Napola collapsed on the floor, Ural went out to get a bottle. He poured
the contents to the dress of Napola and set it on fire. Napola got burned
and he asked mercy from Ural. Instead, Ural locked him up and
threatened the witness not to tell anyone or else he will be burned also.
When Napola was already suffering much from the burns, Ural became
frightened and he and Siton helped put out the fire. Napola died later
because of the burns.  employer P1,281.00. When Gau Guan refused to open the kaha de yero,
HELD: Offender is criminally liable although consequence of his
felonious act was not intended by him. This is covered by Article 4 of the
RPC. The TC failed to appreciate the mitigating circumstance that the
offender has no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
It is manifest from the facts that the accused had no intent to kill the
victim. His only design was only to maltreat him maybe because of his
drunken condition. When the accused realized the fearful consequences
of his act, he allowed the victim to secure medical treatment.  distinct and separate circumstances but should only be treated as one
money in a place different from where Victor revealed to them. Ramirez
got mad and called Victor a liar. Victor retorted, “you robbers!”. With this
remark, Ramirez shot Victor and the three rushed out of the house. 
HELD: The SC did not find merit in the contention that there was lack of
intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. Intention is a
mental process and is an internal state of mind. The intention must be
judged by the ACTION, CONDUCT and EXTERNAL ACTS of the
accused. What men do is the best index of their intention. In the case at
bar, the aforesaid mitigating circumstance cannot be appreciated
considering that the acts employed by the accused were reasonably
sufficient to produce the result that they actually made 鈥
People v. Callet 382 SCRA 43
(2002) 
FACTS: Alfredo, Lecpoy and Eduardo were beside each other as they
watched a cara y cruz game. Alfredo sat close to the ground, with his
buttocks resting on his right foot. Lecpoy and Eduardo sat on a piece of
wood and on a stone, respectively. Out of nowhere, the accused, Callet,
appeared behind Alfredo and stabbed the latter on the left shoulder near
the base of the neck with a 9-inch hunting knife. Instinctively, Alfredo
stood up and managed to walk a few meters. When he fell on the
ground, Lecpoy and Eduardo rushed to help him but to no avail. Alfredo
died shortly thereafter. Calleto voluntary surrendered. He claims that his
liability should be mitigated by the fact that he had no intention to commit
so grave a wrong. 
state. It is weighed based on the weapon used, the part of the body
accused used a 9-inch hunting knife in attacking the victim from behind,
without giving him an opportunity to defend himself, clearly shows that
he intended to do what he actually did, and he must be held responsible
therefor, without the benefit of this mitigating circumstance. 
REQUISITES a) That the provocation must be sufficient; b) That it must
originate from the offended party; 
and c) That the provocation must be immediate to the act, i.e., to the
commission of the crime by the person who is provoked. 
People v. Pagal 79 SCRA 570 (1977) FACTS: Pagal and Torcelino,
employees of Gau Guan, conspired together to take away from their
they stabbed him with an icepick and clubbed him with an iron pipe
which resulted to his death. The two accused were charged with the
crime of robbery with homicide. On appeal, they claimed that they are
entitled to 2 mitigating circumstances: sufficient provocation or threat on
the part of the offended party and having acted upon an impulse so
powerful as to produce passion and obfuscation. 
HELD: The 2 mitigating circumstances cannot be considered as 2
because they both arose from the same incident 鈥

PAR. 3 : THAT THE OFFENDER HAD NO INTENTION Romera v. People 434 SCRA 467 (2004) FACTS: While lying in bed,
TO COMMIT SO GRAVE WRONG AS THAT Romera heard the victim Roy call him and his wife, asking if they had
COMMITTED  beer and a fighter for sale. He did not answer Roy because he knew that
Roy was already drunk. Roy asked for Romera but when the latter's wife
told him that he was already asleep, Roy told her to wake her husband
鉁
People v. Amit 32 SCRA 95 (1970) FACTS: Amit pleads guilty to rape up. Romera went down the house and asked who was at the door. Just
with homicide and sentenced to death. Amit appeals claiming that there as he opened the door for Roy, Roy thrust his bolo at him. He
are 3 mitigating circumstances including lack of intention to commit so successfully parried the bolo and asked Roy what it was all about. Roy
grave a wrong.  answered he would kill Romera. Romera tried to prevent Roy from
entering, so he pushed the door shut. As Roy was hacking at the wall,
Romera’s wife held the door to allow Romera to exit in another door to
HELD: A great disproportion between means employed to accomplish face Roy. He hurled a stone at Roy, who dodged it. Roy rushed to him
the criminal act on the one hand, and its consequences on the other, and hacked 
must first be shown. Otherwise, the mitigating circumstance could not be
considered. Based on the narration given by the accused where he said
that he held victim’s neck down as he boxed her in the face, and 75 
considering moreover that the victim was 57 years old while the accused CRIMINAL LAW 1 ESGUERRA NOTES 
was only 32, the court held that the means employed by the  him, but he parried the blow. Petitioner grappled for the bolo and
stabbed Roy in the stomach. Wounded, Roy begged petitioner for
forgiveness. Romera ceased harming Roy for fear he might kill him. 
74  HELD: There was sufficient provocation and the circumstance of
passion or obfuscation attended the commission of the offense.
Thrusting his bolo at Romera, threatening to kill him, and hacking the
bamboo walls of his house are sufficient provocation to enrage any man,
accused was sufficient to have caused the death of the victim. Death or stir his rage and obfuscate his thinking, more so when the lives of his
penalty should be imposed. It is a single indivisible penalty applied wife and children are in danger. Romera stabbed the victim as a result
regardless of mitigating circumstance, especially when records of the of those provocations, and while Romera was still in a fit of rage. The
present case evince the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and court however stressed that provocation and passion or obfuscation are
abuse of superior strength.  not 2 separate mitigating circumstances. Well-settled is the rule that if
PAR. 4 : THAT SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION OR THREAT ON THE these 2 circumstances are based on the same facts, they should be
PART OF THE OFFENDED PARTY IMMEDIATELY PRECEDED treated together as one mitigating circumstance. From the facts
THE ACT  established in this case, it is clear that both circumstances arose from
the same set of facts aforementioned. Hence, they should not be treated
PROVOCATION - Any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended as two separate mitigating circumstances. 
party, capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating anyone.  PAR. 5 : THAT THE ACT WAS COMMITTED IN THE IMMEDIATE
VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE TO THE ONE COMMITTING THE
People v. Regato 127 SCRA 287 (1984) FACTS: Regato, Ramirez
FELONY (DELITO), HIS SPOUSE, ASCENDANTS, DESCENDANTS,
and Salceda robbed the store of Victor Flores. Victor was maltreated to
 LEGITIMATE, NATURAL OR ADOPTED BROTHERS OR SISTERS, OR PAR. 6 : THAT OF HAVING ACTED UPON AN IMPULSE SO
RELATIVES BY AFFINITY WITHIN THE SAME DEGREE  POWERFUL AS NATURALLY TO HAVE PRODUCED PASSION OR
REQUISITES a. That there be a grave offense done to the one OBFUSCATION 
committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, REQUISITES a) The accused acted upon an impulse. b) The impulse
natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the must be so powerful that it naturally 
same degree. b. That the felony is committed in vindication of such produce passion or obfuscation in him. 
grave offense. A lapse of time is allowed between the vindication and - Passion or obfuscation may constitute as a mitigating circumstance
the doing of the grave offense.  only when the same arose from LAWFUL SENTIMENTS. It is not
Basis to determine the gravity of offense in vindication - The applicable when: a. Act is committed in a spirit of LAWLESSNESS. b.
question whether or not a certain personal offense is grave must be Act is committed in a spirit of REVENGE. - The crime committed must
decided by the court, having in mind the social standing of the person, be the result of a sudden impulse of natural and uncontrollable fury. -
the place and the time when the insult was made. - Vindication of a The accused who raped a woman is not entitled to the mitigating
grave offense and passion or obfuscation cannot be counted separately circumstance of “having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally
and independently.  to have produced passion” just because he finds himself in a secluded
US v. Ampar 37 Phil 201 (1917) FACTS: A fiesta was in progress and place with that young ravishing woman, almost naked and therefore,
the accused Ampar went to the kitchen and asked from Patobo some of “liable to succumb to the uncontrollable passion of his bestial instinct.” -
the roast pig. Patobo replied, “There is no more. Come here and I will The mitigating circumstance of obfuscation arising from jealousy cannot
make roast pig of you.” Later, while Patobo was squatting down, Ampar be invoked in favor of the accused whose relationship with the woman
struck him on the head with an ax, causing his death the following day. was illegitimate. - Passion and obfuscation may lawfully arise from
The TC appreciated the mitigating circumstance of immediate causes existing only in the honest belief of the offender. 
vindication of a grave offense.  PASSION OR OBFUSCATION IRRESISTIBLE FORCE 
HELD: The offense which the defendant was endeavoring to vindicate Mitigating circumstance. Exempting circumstance. 
would be to the average person considered as a mere trifle. But to this Cannot give rise to an irresistible force because the latter requires physical
defendant, an old man, it evidently was a serious matter to be made the force. 
butt of a joke in the presence of so many guests. The TC was correct.  Passion or obfuscation is 
People v. Parana 64 Phil 331 (1937) FACTS: The preceding night, Irresistible force must in the offender himself. 
Parana and Lamay were at the house of the deceased’s brother playing come from a third person. 
cards when the two had an exchange of words so the deceased asked Must arise from lawful sentiments. 
them to leave. The accused refused so the deceased slapped him and People v. Muit 117 SCRA 696 (1982) FACTS: Rosario Muit was the
ordered him to leave. The morning after, Parana was about to surprise Brgy. Zone President and Torrero was the zone auditor. They used to
the deceased and stab him from behind when the chauffeur shouted to meet frequently because they were having an affair which eventually
warn the deceased. The deceased, defending himself retreated until he reached the husband of Rosario, Delfin. 
fell into a ditch. The appellant mounted astride of the deceased and The irresistible force is unlawful. 
PASSION PROVOCATION 
continued to stab him with the dagger. The deceased was first brought
Produced by an impulse which may be caused by provocation. 
to the hospital but expired 6 days after.  Comes form the injured party. 
PROVOCATION VINDICATION  Need not be immediate. It is only required that the influence thereof lasts
HELD: The mitigating circumstance that he had It is made directly  until the moment the crime is committed. 
acted in the immediate vindication of a grave offense only to the person  Must immediately precede the commission of the crime. 
committed against him a few hours before, when he committing the The effect is the loss of reason and self-control on the part of the offender. 
offense.  77 
was slapped by the deceased in the presence of many persons, must
likewise be taken into consideration. Although this offense (slapping)
was not so immediate, the court believes that the influence thereof, by
reason of its gravity and the circumstances under which it was inflicted, Delfin shot Torrero 3 times at the front yard of the Muits. Delfin
lasted until the moment the crime was committed.  surrendered himself and turned in the pistol he had used. 
People v. Diokno 63 Phil 601 (1936) FACTS: The deceased and the
daughter of accused Epifanio eloped. Epifanio and his son, Roman went
to look for them. When they were able to find the The grave offense may be HELD: Muit is guilty of murder with mitigating circumstances of voluntary
committed also against the offender’s relatives mentioned in the law.  surrender and passion and obfuscation. The accused was driven
The cause that brought about the provocation need not be a grave offense.  strongly by jealousy. The feeling of resentment resulting from the rivalry
The offended party must have done a grave offense to the offender or his relatives in amorous relations with a woman is a powerful stimulant to jealousy
mentioned in the law.  and prone to produce anger and obfuscation. US v. Hicks 
It is necessary that the provocation or threat immediately preceded the act. 
The vindication of the grave offense may be proximate, which admits of an interval 14 Phil 217 (1909) FACTS: For about 5 years, Hicks
of time between the grace offense done by the offended party and the commission and Sola lived together as husband and wife when they separated. A few
of the crime.  days later, Sola contracted new relations with another negro named
76  Wallace. Hicks went to Wallace’s house and asked the latter to go out.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 ESGUERRA NOTES  They talked for awhile and then Hicks shot Wallace 
deceased, they stabbed him several times until he died. 
HELD: The presence of the 5th mitigating circumstance must be taken HELD: Even if it is true that the accused acted with obfuscation because
into consideration. There was no interruption from the time the offense of jealousy, the mitigating circumstance cannot be considered in his
was committed to the vindication thereof. The herein accused belong to favor because the causes which mitigate criminal responsibility for the
a family of old customs to whom the elopement of a daughter with a loss of self-control are such which originate from legitimate feelings and
man constitutes a grave offense to their honor and causes disturbance not those which arise from vicious, unworthy and immoral passions. The
of the peace of the home. The fact that the accused saw the deceased cause of the passion of the accused was his vexation engendered by the
run upstairs when he became aware of their presence, as if he refused refusal of the woman to continue to live in illicit relations with him, which
to deal with them after having gravely offended them, was certainly a she had a perfect right to do. 
stimulus strong enough to produce in their mind a fit of passion which his control and reason while in treachery the means employed are
blinded them and led them to commit that crime.  consciously adopted. One who loses his reason and self-control could
People v. Torpio 431 SCRA 9 (2004) FACTS: While having a drinking not deliberately employ a particular method or form of attack in the
spree in a cottage, Anthony tried to let Dennis Torpio drink gin and as execution of the crime. Passion existed in this case because it clearly
the latter refused, Anthony bathed Dennis with gin and mauled him arose from lawful sentiments or legitimate feelings. The accused
several times. Dennis crawled beneath the table and Anthony tried to committed the crime due to the maltreatment inflicted by the victim on his
stab him with a 29 fan knife but did not hit him. Dennis got up and ran mentally retarded brother. 
towards their home. Upon reaching home, he got a knife. He went back
to the cottage by another route and upon arrival Anthony was still there.
People v. Gonzalez 359 SCRA 352 (2001) FACTS: Both of the
Upon seeing Dennis, Anthony avoided Dennis and ran by passing the
families of Andres and that of Gonzalez were on their way to the exit of
shore towards the creek but Dennis met him, blocked him and stabbed
the Loyola Memorial Park. Gonzales was with his grandson and 3
him. When he was hit, Anthony ran but got entangled with a fishing net
housemaids, while Andres was driving with his pregnant wife, Feliber, his
beside the creek and fell on his back. Dennis then mounted on him and
2yr old son, Kenneth, his nephew Kevin and his sister-in-law. At an
continued stabbing him resulting to the latters death. Thereafter, Dennis
intersection, their two vehicles almost collided. Gonzales continued
left and slept at a grassy meadow near a Camp. In the morning, he went
driving while Andres tailed Gonzales’ vehicle and cut him off when he
to Estrera, a police officer to whom he voluntarily surrendered. 
found the opportunity to do so, then got out of his vehicle and knocked
HELD: The mitigating circumstance of having acted in the immediate
on the appellant's car window. Heated exchange of remarks followed. On
vindication of a grave offense is properly appreciated. Dennis was
his way back to his vehicle, he met Gonzales son, Dino. Andres had a
humiliated, mauled and almost stabbed by Anthony. Although the
shouting match this time with Dino. Gonzales then alighted from his car
unlawful aggression had ceased when Dennis stabbed Anthony, it was
and fired a single shot at the last window on the left side of Andres'
nonetheless a grave offense for which Dennis may be given the benefit
vehicle at an angle away from Andres. The single bullet fired hit
of a mitigating circumstance. However, the mitigating circumstance of
Kenneth, Kevin and Feliber which caused the latter’s death. 
sufficient provocation cannot be considered apart from the circumstance
of vindication of a grave offense. These two circumstances arose from
one and the same incident, i.e., the attack on the appellant by Anthony,
so that they should be considered as only one mitigating circumstance.  US v. De la Cruz 22 Phil 429 (1912) FACTS: The evidence clearly
discloses that the convict, in the heat of passion, killed the deceased,
 who had theretofore been his lover upon discovering her in flagrante in that, he could have validly invoked the mitigating circumstance of
carnal communication with a mutual acquaintance.  passion and obfuscation. But when, upon seeing his brother Carlito
dead, Marcelo went back to Jose, who by then was already prostrate on
HELD: The accused was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of the ground and hardly moving, hacking Jose again was a clear case of
passion or obfuscation because the impulse was caused by the sudden someone acting out of anger in the spirit of revenge. PAR. 7 : THAT THE OFFENDER HAD 
revelation that she was untrue to him, and his discovery of her in VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED HIMSELF TO A PERSON IN
flagrante in the arms of another.  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 
NOTE: when the court used the word “illicit”, it doesn’t mean that it is an - Merely requesting a policeman to accompany the accused to the police
illegitimate or bigamous relationship. It means that it is cohabitation HQ is not equivalent to voluntary surrender. - Other examples: 
without a valid marriage. People v. Germina 
a. The warrant of arrest showed that the 
290 SCRA 146 (1998) FACTS: One night, the accused
went to the Angeles residence to look for Raymund. He went to verify the accused was in fact arrested. b. The accused surrendered only after
news that the latter mauled and stabbed the accused’s mentally retarded the 
brother, Rafael. Raymund was not yet at home and the moment he warrant of arrest was served. c. The accused went into hiding and
arrived, the accused spotted him and shot him.  surrendered only when they realized that the forces of the law were
closing in on them. - Surrender must be SPONTANEOUS. He
surrendered 1) because he acknowledges his guilty or 2) because he
HELD: There is no treachery. Passion cannot co-exist with treachery wishes to save them the trouble and expenses necessarily incurred in
because in passion, the offender loses  his search and capture. - The surrender must be by reason of the
HELD: The mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation is not commission of the crime for which he is prosecuted. 
obtaining. Andres' act of shouting at Gonzales’ son, who was then a
nurse and of legal age, is not sufficient to produce passion and
obfuscation. Dino was shouting back at Andres. It was not a case People v. Coronel 17 SCRA 509 (1966) FACTS: Coronel was among
wherein Gonzales son appeared helpless and oppressed that Gonzales those convicted for robbery with multiple homicide. Coronel and several
lost his reason and shot at the vehicle of Andres. The same holds true armed men entered the house of Judge Bautista and killed the family.
for Gonzales’ claim of provocation on the part of Andres. Provocation The commission of the crime was attended by the aggravating
must be sufficient to excite a person to commit the wrong committed and circumstances of evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength, use
that the provocation must be commensurate to the crime committed. The of motor vehicle, dwelling, nighttime, which was purposely sought and
sufficiency of provocation varies according to the circumstances of the taken advantage of to facilitate the commission of the crime, and by an
case. The aggressive behavior of Andres towards Gonzales and his son armed band. In the course of the trial, Coronel changed his plea from
may be demeaning or humiliating but it is not sufficient provocation to “not guilty” to “guilty”. He also presented proof that he voluntarily
shoot at Gonzales’ vehicle.  surrendered to a military camp. 

People v. Lab-eo 373 SCRA 461 (2002) FACTS: After being told to
go away by the victim. Lab-eo left and returned to where the victim was
selling clothes and then and there stabbed her at the back with a knife.
Thereafter, he surrendered to the Chief of Police. Lab-eo argues for the
appreciation of the mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation,
as well as of sufficient provocation, in his favor.  circumstance may not, under the law, be considered to mitigate the
HELD: For a person to be motivated by passion and obfuscation, there
must first exist an unlawful act that would naturally produce an impulse
sufficient to 
HELD: There is no question that the appellant enjoys in his favor the
lone mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, which, however, is
not sufficient to offset the aggravating circumstances found to be
attendant in the commission of the crime. While the accused entered a
plea of guilty, he did it only during the continuation of the trial so that this
liability of the accused. We feel, though, that such an admission of guilt
indicates his submission to the law and a moral disposition on his part to
reform. Sentence is modified from death penalty to life imprisonment. 
79 

78 

People v. Pinca 318 SCRA 270 (1999) FACTS: Pinca and Abenir,
after drinking at a bakeshop, hitched a ride with a tricycle driver on their
overcome reason and self-control. There is passional obfuscation when way home. After passing a man who was apparently drunk because he
the crime is committed due to an uncontrollable burst of passion was swaying while he walked, the accused asked the driver to drop them
provoked by prior unjust or improper acts, or due to a legitimate stimulus off already. Pinca told Abenir that that was the guy who spilled a drink on
so powerful as to overcome reason. In asking Lab-eo to leave, the victim him earlier that day. The accused picked up a long piece of wood and
did not do anything unlawful. There is an absolute lack of proof that the waited for the man to pass by. When the latter did, the accused hit him at
Lab-eo was utterly humiliated by the victim's utterance. Nor was it shown the back of his head which led to his death. When the police came, the
that the victim made that remark in an insulting and repugnant manner. accused readily went with them and proceeded to tell his story that he
The victim's utterance was not the stimulus required by jurisprudence to was innocent and that it was Abenir who killed the man. The accused
be so overwhelming as to overcome reason and self-restraint.  was convicted of the crime of murder. 
2 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH: 1.
Voluntary surrender to a person in authority or 
HELD: For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, 3 requisites should be
his agents; 2. Voluntary confession of guilt before the court prior to present: 1) the offender has not been actually arrested; 2) the offender
the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.  surrendered to a person of authority and 3) the surrender was voluntary.
The actions of the accused belied this claim. He actually DENIED having
REQUISITES OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER a. That the offender had committed the crime. He went on to try and “clear his name.” There is no
not been actually arrested. b. That the offender surrendered himself to a  voluntary surrender. 
person in authority or to the latter’s agent. c. That the
surrender was voluntary.  People v. Amaguin 229 SCRA 166 (1994) FACTS: Celso and Gildo,
People v. Bates 400 SCRA 95 together with others, attacked the Oros. During the fray, Gildo was
(2003)  armed with a knife and an “Indian target.” And just as they were about to
finish off the Oro brothers, Willie, the eldest of the Amaguins, appeared
FACTS: While Edgar, Simon, and Jose are along a trail leading to the with a revolver and delivered the coup de grace. 
house of Carlito Bates, the latter suddenly emerged from the thick
banana plantation surrounding the trail, aiming his firearm at Jose who
HELD: SC agrees with the accused-appellants’ view that voluntary
was then walking ahead of his companions. Jose grabbed Carlito's right
surrender should be appreciated in their favor. While it may have taken
hand and elbow and tried to wrest possession of the firearm. While the 2
both Willie and Gildo a week before turning themselves in, the fact is,
were grappling for possession, the gun fired, hitting Carlito who
they voluntarily surrendered to the police before arrest could be
immediately fell to the ground. At that instant, Marcelo Bates and his son
effected. 
Marcelo Bates, Jr., brother and nephew of Carlito, respectively, emerged
custody by the military authorities as he was free to roam around as he
from the banana plantation, each brandishing a bolo. They immediately
pleased. There is no voluntary surrender also where an accused merely
attacked Jose hacking him several times. Jose fell to the ground and
surrendered the gun he used in the killing, without surrendering his
rolled but Marcelo and his son kept on hacking him. 
person to the authorities. 

HELD: Passion and obfuscation may not be properly appreciated in

favor of the appellant. To be considered as a mitigating circumstance,
passion or obfuscation must arise from lawful sentiments and not from a
spirit of lawlessness or revenge or from anger and resentment. In the
present case, clearly, Marcelo was infuriated upon seeing his brother,
Carlito, shot by Jose. However, a distinction must be made between the
first time that Marcelo hacked Jose and the second time that the former
hacked the latter. When Marcelo hacked Jose right after seeing the latter
shoot at Carlito, and if appellant refrained from doing anything else after
Andrada v. People 452 SCRA 685 (2005) FACTS: On 24 September
1986, accused Andrada attacked, assaulted and hacked Arsenio Ugerio
on the head. Evidence of the prosecution showed that after attacking the
victim, he was apprehended by responding police officers. Accused,
however, alleged that he voluntarily surrendered to the police. 
HELD: For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the surrender must be
spontaneous, made in such a manner that it shows the interest of the
accused to surrender unconditionally to the authorities, either because
he acknowledges his guilt or wishes to save them the trouble and
expenses that would be necessarily incurred in his search and capture.
Accused’s surrender is not voluntary as he was apprehended by
responding police officers in the waiting shed at the corner of Cambas
Road and Magsaysay Avenue. Hence, the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender should not have been appreciated in his favor. 

People v. Lita and Malinis G.R. No. 227755 (14 August 2019)
FACTS: Lita and Malinis, together with four others who died pending
trial, were charged with Murder for killing Hipolito. Nonilon testified that
he saw his uncle, Hipolito, walking home. While he was following
Hipolito, he saw Consul shoot Hipolito twice. Then he saw Amada
emerge and shot Hipolito five times. Nonilon saw Lita and Malinis nearby
with their guns, seemingly acting as look outs. RTC convicted Lita and
Malinis with murder. The decision was affirmed by the CA in toto. 

People v. Dulos 237 SCRA 141 (1994) FACTS: The accused hired two
professional entertainers to entertain his guests. One of the entertainers,
Susan, accepted an offer to check in with the accused guests but later
on changed her mind and rejected the offer. When she went home with
her boyfriend, the accused chased them and asked for the amount paid
to Susan by one of his guests. Susan denied this. Susan’s boyfriend was
shot by the accused which resulted to his death. 

HELD: Voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated where there was no

conscious effort on the part of the accused to voluntarily surrender. Here,
there was no conscious effort on the part of the accused to voluntary
surrender to the military authorities when he went to Camp Siongco after
the fateful incidents. As he himself admitted, he was not placed under 
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the conviction of Lita
and Malinis for murder. 

HELD: No. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Lita and
Malinis for murder. While Nonilon’s testimony had inconsistencies with
the medical findings, they did not disprove that Hipolito was shot eight
times. The actual locations of Hipolito’s wounds, as found in the post-
mortem examination, do not detract from Nonilon’s eyewitness account
that the accused-appellants were present and aiding in the commission
of the crime. 
Further, there is no merit to the accused-appellant’s allegations that the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should apply to their
case. Here, after the accused-appellant Malinis had been informed that
the accused-appellant Lita was a suspect in Hipolito’s killing, both
appeared at the municipal hall and were later detained. Upon
arraignment, they both pleaded not guilty to the 

80